Monique Barbut, France's Minister for the Ecological Transition, resigned this week after the National Assembly approved a controversial agriculture bill that permits the conditional return of two pesticides previously banned for their harm to bees and potential risks to human health. In a statement posted on LinkedIn, Barbut said the government had blocked any debate on removing the measure, calling the reversal “one environmental setback too many.” Barbut, a former head of WWF France and executive secretary of the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification, had been in the role for less than a year.
The Two Pesticides at the Centre of the Row
The legislation gives France's health and safety agency, Anses, the authority to conditionally authorise the use of acetamiprid and flupyradifurone. Both are neonicotinoid-like insecticides that have been banned in France since 2018 and 2019 respectively, though they remain permitted elsewhere in the European Union. Proponents, including Agriculture Minister Annie Genevard, argue that French sugar beet, apple, and hazelnut farmers need these products to compete with counterparts in other member states.
Scientific evidence, however, paints a troubling picture. A 2024 study found that flupyradifurone can be lethal to some bee species, while acetamiprid has been shown to poison honeybees, impairing their foraging capacity and memory. Pesticide Action Network Europe has long campaigned for a full ban, citing research that acetamiprid may favour breast cancer due to its endocrine-disrupting properties, lead to infertility, and affect brain development. The group notes that the substance has been detected in umbilical cords, breast milk, and even children's cerebrospinal fluid, and that it crosses both the placental and brain barriers, putting unborn children at risk.
Flupyradifurone, approved in 2015 and marketed by Bayer as a safer alternative to older neonicotinoids, has been criticised as “new wine in an old bottle.” According to Pesticide Action Network Europe, it can be considered just another neonicotinoid, with similar toxic effects on bees.
How the Bill Passed
The vote came after France's Constitutional Council struck down a previous attempt to reintroduce acetamiprid last year, citing risks to human health. That earlier bill had drawn a petition signed by over two million people. This time, the measure passed with backing from the far right and many centrists, while most leftist deputies voted against it. The left has indicated it will refer the matter to the Constitutional Council again. Green MP Daniel Salmon condemned “a reckless and destructive headlong rush, with complacent measures that deny the scientific evidence.”
Centrist senator Franck Ménonville defended the text as a response to “the hypocrisy of producing less in France in order to import ever more products that do not comply with our standards.” Agriculture Minister Genevard stressed that Anses would only approve the pesticides for limited periods in specific areas, “on the condition there is no impact on human health or on the environment, there is an emergency situation, and there is no alternative.”
Environmental groups reacted with fury. Greenpeace said the government and its allies were “trampling on science, health, the environment, and the will of the people.” Henri Clement of the French Beekeeping Union described the measure as “absolutely catastrophic.”
The resignation of Barbut marks the second time in recent months that a French environment minister has stepped down over policy disagreements. In a related development, Barbut initially rescinded her resignation after an intervention by President Macron, but ultimately left the post. The episode underscores the tension between agricultural competitiveness and environmental protection in France, a tension that resonates across the EU as member states grapple with the emergency farm law that allowed the pesticides' return.
For now, the fate of acetamiprid and flupyradifurone in France remains uncertain, pending a potential Constitutional Council review. What is clear is that the debate over their use—and the broader question of how Europe balances farm productivity with ecological and public health—is far from over.
