.
ER Editor: As this tweet reveals, proposals to reintroduce a carcinogenic pesticide during July without sufficient debate produced outrage, which mobilized strong reaction from the scientific community resulting in the second most heavily signed petition in French history —
Loi duplomb un scandale absolu !
Un de plus ! 😡⬇️ pic.twitter.com/FH9OPAHbdJ— 🅻🅴 🅲🅾🅻🅻🅴🅲🆃🅸🅵 (@tatiann69922625) July 11, 2025
The senator who proposed this law to readmit the banned pesticide into the system seems to come from an agricultural lobbying background —
Translation: LoiDuplomb, from Senator LR Laurent Duplomb, his name alone is toxic. The guy is a farmer from the FNSEA, and he carries the FNSEA’s law. It’s very much the style of @lesRepublicains to elect senators from lobbies. Never forget the face of this poisoner.
#LoiDuplomb , du sénateur LR Laurent Duplomb, rien que son nom est toxique.
Le type est agriculteur de la FNSEA, et porte la loi de la FNSEA.
C’est bien le style des @lesRepublicains d’élire des sénateurs issus de lobbies.
N’oubliez jamais la tête de cet empoisonneur . pic.twitter.com/yf6emDIyhA— KadoKero 🇫🇷🇵🇸🇳🇨🇱🇧🇨🇩🐺🐢 (@KadoKero) July 12, 2025
Local farmers are not happy, however —
Translation: The censorship of the Duplomb Law is indeed a political choice, which will have dramatic consequences in the agricultural and rural world. You won’t be able to say you didn’t know! The Rural Coordination remains mobilized, on the ground
🔴 La censure de la Loi Duplomb est bien un choix politique, qui aura des conséquences dramatiques dans le monde agricole et rurale. Vous ne pourrez pas dire que vous ne le saviez pas !
La Coordination Rurale reste mobilisée, sur le terrain 🟡⚫️#CoordinationRurale… pic.twitter.com/elhXaOCaiz— Coordination Rurale (@coordinationrur) August 8, 2025
To us this smells of a summer drama to discredit Macron and Bayrou. It was already banned, so why attempt to reintroduce it knowing you would get this reaction?
********
Plan to reintroduce banned pesticide in France overruled by constitutional council
‘Duplomb law’ provision to allow use of acetamiprid, toxic to pollinators, found not to abide by environmental charter
France’s top constitutional authority has ruled against the reintroduction of a pesticide that is harmful to ecosystems, saying it is unconstitutional.
The decision on Thursday night deals a blow to the government. It comes after weeks of opposition from the left, environmentalists and doctors, and a record-breaking 2m signatures on a petition against a bill that would have allowed a pesticide banned in France in 2020 to come back into use.
The “Duplomb law” – named after the conservative lawmaker Laurent Duplomb who proposed it – had been presented in parliament as a bid to free up French farmers, who have repeatedly expressed frustration over bureaucratic constraints on the agricultural sector, unfair foreign competition, and what they called stringent regulations, including on pesticides.
But in a rebuke of the government on Thursday night, the constitutional council found that the law’s provision to reintroduce acetamiprid – a chemical known to be toxic to pollinators such as bees – did not abide by France’s environmental charter, which guarantees the “right to live in a balanced and healthy environment”. The constitutional authority also raised questions over provisions for water reservoirs in the bill.
The president, Emmanuel Macron, had “taken good note of the decision”, his office said on Thursday night, and was expected to swiftly validate the bill without these contested sections.
The Green leader, Marine Tondelier, said she was “very relieved” by the verdict. The Socialist party said the verdict was a rebuke to the “irresponsibility of the prime minister, François Bayrou, and his government”.
The insecticide in question was particularly sought after by beet and hazelnut growers, who said they had no alternative against pests and faced unfair competition. Some growers also argued that acetamiprid, allowed in other EU countries, was vital to fight virus yellows, which cut yields by 30% in 2020 and slashed sugar output.
The petition on the website of France’s lower-house National Assembly called the measure a “frontal attack on public health”. Beekeepers have described the chemical as “a bee killer”, and its effects on humans are also a source of concern, though its risk remains unclear in the absence of large-scale studies.
The student-led petition against the bill garnered more than 2m signatures after lawmakers adopted its reintroduction on 8 July, when it was rushed through a deeply divided lower house of parliament without a proper debate.
Agence France-Presse contributed to this report
CONTINUE READING HERE
Featured image source, National Assembly: https://www.lemonde.fr/politique/article/2025/08/07/le-succes-historique-de-la-petition-contre-la-loi-duplomb-relance-l-interet-pour-cet-outil-politique_6627240_823448.html
Featured image source, protestors: https://www.laprovence.com/article/ecoplanete/1624902309385714/la-loi-duplomb-sera-de-toute-facon-promulguee-declare-la-ministre-de-lagriculture
************
••••
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
••••
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
••••
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
••••
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.
Leave a Reply