HALLE (dpa-AFX) - The Leopoldina National Academy of Sciences has come out against the European Commission's proposed deregulation of plant protection product approvals. In a formal statement, the academy argued that the new regulations would weaken protections for human health and the environment. It called on the German federal government to advocate for the retention of current standards at the EU level.

The Commission's planned amendments include relaxing the approval periods for plant protection products, which encompass insecticides, fungicides, and herbicides such as glyphosate. Under the proposal, active substances would be granted indefinite approval. According to the German Environment Agency (UBA), authorizations currently last between 7 and 15 years and must be renewed based on the latest scientific findings. The Commission claims the overhaul aims to reduce the administrative burden on authorities, simplify and accelerate procedures, and bolster European competitiveness.

Vulnerable groups such as children and the chronically ill overlooked

'It is questionable whether the current level of protection can truly be maintained through the proposed indefinite approval of active substances,' the Leopoldina criticized. Since 2009, at least 165 previously authorized active substances have lost their approval, in part due to new scientific evidence and more stringent assessment criteria.

'This highlights that time-limited authorizations and regular re-evaluations are essential elements of an adaptive regulatory system that accounts for new data, changing exposure scenarios compared to model predictions, and advanced assessment methods,' the Leopoldina explained. All of these elements would be eliminated under the new rules.

The academy further noted that new insights into human health impacts would be neglected, pointing specifically to highly vulnerable populations such as children, pregnant women, and the chronically ill. 'Furthermore, new findings regarding environmental behavior and effects would no longer be systematically integrated into the assessment,' the academy wrote, concluding: 'Overall, the proposal ignores the fact that critical scientific evidence regarding non-target effects often only emerges after approval has been granted.'

'Existing deficits in human and environmental protection'

The Leopoldina also criticized the plan to allow pesticide products whose authorization has expired to be sold and used for three years, up from the current 1.5 years. This proposal is deemed problematic regarding health and environmental risks. 'It extends avoidable exposure to substances whose risks have already been classified as unacceptable,' the Leopoldina stated.

'Current plant protection product authorization already shows deficits in protecting humans and the environment,' the statement continued. These include insufficient consideration of interactions between different pesticides post-application, as well as additional stressors such as climatic conditions.

The case of glyphosate

A prominent example is the controversial pesticide glyphosate, which the EU Commission does not classify as hazardous. Glyphosate is a broad-spectrum herbicide that affects nearly all green plants. It has been used since the mid-1970s, primarily under the trade name 'Roundup', and is now found in numerous products from various manufacturers.

The EU recently extended the authorization for glyphosate until the end of 2033. In several member states, including Germany, its use is prohibited or strictly restricted in home gardens and public spaces.

Glyphosate serves as a telling example because a pivotal study from 2000, which played a central role in the safety debate, was formally retracted by the journal 'Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology' at the end of 2025. The paper was a cornerstone of the then-manufacturer Monsanto's argument that Roundup and its active ingredient glyphosate were non-carcinogenic. Elsevier, the publisher of the journal, stated it was unclear whether the conclusion—that glyphosate and the Roundup formulation are not carcinogenic—is actually correct.

Concerns were raised regarding the study's authorship, the validity of the results in connection with a misrepresentation of author contributions and the study sponsor, as well as potential conflicts of interest among the authors, explained Editor-in-Chief Martin van den Berg./waw/DP/zb