The European Commission’s proposed Omnibus Simplification Package aims to streamline the authorisation of pesticides and reduce regulatory burdens within the European Union. However, a new Policy Forum article published in Science argues that the proposal could significantly weaken environmental risk assessment procedures and increase risks to biodiversity and human health. According to the authors, the current EU pesticide framework already contains important gaps, including insufficient consideration of impacts on many non-target organisms, cumulative effects of multiple pesticides, and sublethal ecological impacts. Rather than addressing these shortcomings, the Omnibus proposal may exacerbate them.

Concerns Over Indefinite Approvals

A central criticism is the proposal’s introduction of indefinite approvals for most pesticide active substances. Under the current system, substances undergo periodic reassessment, creating opportunities to incorporate new scientific evidence and updated methodologies. The authors argue that removing mandatory renewals would reduce the likelihood that emerging environmental risks are identified and addressed. Since the introduction of the EU-wide evaluation system in 2011, dozens of active substances have either failed renewal or been voluntarily withdrawn from the market due to health or environmental concerns. Eliminating regular review cycles could therefore prolong the use of potentially harmful substances and reduce incentives to develop safer alternatives.

Reduced Scientific Scrutiny and Monitoring

The article also highlights concerns regarding the integration of independent scientific research into regulatory decision-making. The proposed changes would place greater emphasis on previous EU-level assessments and could limit the consideration of newly published studies during product evaluations. In addition, the Omnibus package would remove requirements for farmers to document the use of certain biocontrol products, potentially reducing the availability of monitoring data needed to evaluate environmental impacts. The authors warn that robust post-authorization monitoring is essential because real-world pesticide exposure scenarios are often more complex than those considered during pre-market assessments.

Alternative Pathways for More Effective Regulation

Rather than weakening safeguards, the authors propose reforms that could simultaneously improve environmental protection and regulatory efficiency. These include expanding assessments to vulnerable taxonomic groups such as amphibians, reptiles, bats, and fungi; improving statistical standards for safety evaluations; increasing transparency through open access to regulatory studies; and strengthening the integration of independent scientific evidence. The paper also recommends systematic monitoring of pesticide use, residues, and ecological impacts, combined with feedback mechanisms that allow monitoring results to trigger targeted reassessments when environmental protection goals are not being met.

Aligning Pesticide Policy with Biodiversity Commitments

The authors conclude that the Omnibus proposal risks undermining broader European and international commitments related to biodiversity conservation, ecosystem restoration, and sustainable agriculture. They argue that effective pesticide regulation should be based on clearly defined protection goals, robust scientific assessment, transparent decision-making, and adaptive monitoring systems. Such an approach could strengthen both environmental protection and public trust while maintaining an efficient regulatory process.