Brussels bureaucracy does not even remainder during the vacation season. As most of the society was preparing to spend time together in the household group, decisions were made in the privacy of EU cabinets that would specify for decades what would happen to our tables.
On 16 December 2025, the European Commission formally presented its Proposal to introduce unlimited authorisations for the usage of certain pesticides. This reflects the decision to make a number of legislative and authoritative simplifications in the agricultural sector. This may sound like another dry and boring information from the EU agenda, but in fact it represents a drastic weakening of EU government and the quality of food in Europe, at a time erstwhile we have been fighting for months to block or review the Mercosur agreement, including the quality of food from those regions.
At the same time, despite its tremendous importance, the subject is virtually not present in a broad public debate. But it's better than a period ago, due to the fact that
According to a leak revealed by Euractiv at the end of November, the first plan assumed a free-hand meal of up to 90 percent of the approved substances. This is not about mild plant protection products, but about powerful chemistry specified as possibly carcinogenic glyphosate [1].
What's the large deal?
The abrupt activity of EU officials during the vacation period is the consequence of the force exerted by social organisations and independent scientists just after the leak was published, which indicated the intention to completely deregulation the usage and monitoring of pesticides in the European Union. erstwhile the fact about Brussels' plans came out in November, the scandal broke out and the citizens of the Union were mobilised, which theoretically forced officials to make any concessions. Theoretically... because, unfortunately, even in its present form, the proposal is inactive just a powdering of reality and an effort to deviate from the principles that have been the foundation of wellness protection and European Union policy in general.
Although the request for re-evaluation has been confirmed for substances where there are clear shortcomings in the data on their possible impact on human health, this is definitely insufficient due to the fact that we do not know what circumstantial criteria are to specify these shortcomings in the data.
The European Commission so seems to propose that society should first accept possible harm and then search possible evidence. specified an approach is completely contrary to discipline and the precautionary principle, which has been the foundation of European policy over the years. The first victims of this deterioration of standards will undoubtedly be farmers themselves and agrarian residents who will be constantly exposed to toxic pesticides.
What is even more controversial, however, is that the fresh proposal limits associate States' ability to usage the latest technological investigation in assessing pesticides and blocking the usage of certain substances in their own country. It looks as if the Union wants to shut the mouth of the associate States so that these do not interfere with the implementation of the plans for chemical concerns. Thus, what is good for Poland and its citizens, and what is not, will now be decided by officials in Brussels.
Equally controversial, or possibly even more, is that the proposal besides involves extending the alleged derogation criteria, which will facilitate the marketing of pesticides that do not meet safety standards, explaining this with the needs of plant production in crisis situations.
The thought of allowing the usage of previously banned highly hazardous substances for another 3 years, if they come from existing stocks and at the same time there are no viable alternatives to replacing them, is equally interesting.
In addition, there are general derogations from the ban on aerial sprays in the case of drones, resulting in the hazard of drifting toxins into non-growing areas[2].
These are just a fewer examples of controversial and harmful proposals that show clearly that it is not just about reducing red tape in the agricultural sector, but about business, and it is about the interests of large corporations.
Death of the precautionary rule and "Bottom line is simply a king"*
It is hard not to see a parallel to the situation with fresh GMOs (NGT), erstwhile the European Parliament in April 2024 supported the proposal to soften regulation, and this year (the note bene besides just before the holidays) the ENVI Council, in colloquially speaking, approved the fresh law. It is the same mechanics and the same haste in seeking the release of large corporations specified as Bayer, Corteva or BASF, from liability for possible wellness and environmental damage. This vote, like the current proposal on pesticides, undermines the precautionary principle, which has so far set standards in Europe.
The fundamental question so arises as to whether the European Union is forever giving up its fundamental political rule – the precautionary principle, and does it give a clear signal that agrochemical corporations put their products on the marketplace without monitoring and responsibility? If so, we have authoritative confirmation that the European Union is moving towards economical gain at the expense of the rights and wellness of its own citizens.
In the case of pesticides, the top economical burden will undoubtedly fall on organic farmers whose crops can be contaminated without their responsibility and knowledge. specified a farmer will lose the chance to sale the crop as organic (let us remind that organic farming is subject to strict food rules and tests to be allowed on the marketplace as such) and the costs of investigation and failure will fall exclusively on its shoulders. What else would you call it, like not favoring large corporations?
Poland has so far been considered a defender of conventional agriculture and has frequently looked critically at proposals from Brussels. Today, however, it seems that Polish decision-makers are coming together with EU officials and supporting drastic changes in the European agricultural system. While Poland has always been skeptical about reducing pesticides, it has always stressed the simultaneous improvement of alternatives. Today, we don't hear this from the Polish government, and we hear more and more about the necessity to go with the “spirit of time”. This is confirmed by decisions in the context of the SUR Directive, which was intended to limit the usage of pesticides.
We have seen akin movements in fresh years in the context of fresh GMOs, which at the end of 2025, as Poland – we have supported for the first time in 25 years...
Does Poland inactive want to support native agriculture free from excessive chemistry and unexplored technologies? specified a question is all the more justified in a situation where
The European Commission is attempting to smuggle fresh definitions of ‘biological’ substances, which in fact are only synthetic substitutes created in laboratories. It is simply a simple way for citizens to be deprived of the basic right to information and not know what goes into their homes and yet on their plates.
Unfortunately, this information chaos besides facilitates the implementation of our European and Polish food “downward” strategy to the standards of 3rd countries. Paradoxically, this leads to a situation where a large proportion of agricultural communities are loudly protesting the import of food from Mercosur countries, pointing out, among another things, its mediocre quality, while at the same time pushing for deregulation and simplification, which in practice will mean allowing the usage of mass chemistry in our fields. Unfortunately, this attitude is undoubtedly in the hands of EU decision-makers, due to the fact that standards in Europe will be importantly loosened and it will be easier to push through trade agreements, arguing that production conditions are almost identical.
And if we look at it from the side, in fact, we, consumers, will lose the most in this arrangement, due to the fact that in reality we will be deprived of a real alternative.
Instead of the promised protection of domestic, healthy food, we will get a strategy in which local products will cease to disagree from inexpensive mass imports.
If standards are leveled, high-quality food simply disappears from the market. Standards of cultivation and food production will be importantly reduced, and what about prices? We can bet that these will stay on a akin level, which means we will pay the same amount but for poorer quality.
Learning in Censored
The precautionary rule should service as a safety brake for these proposals. It is crucial to look at the ruling hands and to request that specified far-reaching decisions be made with the participation of the public alternatively than the elected elite alone. Monitoring of the actions of European and Polish decision-makers should be continued and even intensified in order to guarantee an approach which prioritises the protection of our civilian rights.
The fight for what we eat and how we live is happening right now, and the deficiency of vigilance can cost far more than just losing control of the seeds or pesticides market. First of all, it is simply a fight for our wellness and our loved ones, as well as for a strong, independent Poland in which we will not only be pawns in the game of large corporations.
It is worth recalling that in February 2023 NGOs submitted a petition on maintaining strict regulation of the previously mentioned fresh GMOs, signed by over 420,000 citizens of the European Union, including many Polish citizens. However, nearly half a million votes did not make much impression on politicians who continued to work on deregulation. Similarly, it can happen in the issue of pesticides, where the voice of independent discipline and society tries to marginalise.
The systematic facilitation of the review of previously tested substances in order to reclassify them into low-risk products is, unfortunately, another proof of how much the law is bent to the needs of the marketplace alternatively than to the needs of safety and human health. In December 2025, a technological message was sent to the European Commission signed by health, toxicology and ecology experts calling for the waiver of plans to weaken regulation[3]. besides in December 2025, the independent Ramazzini Institute prepared an expert study for EFSA, in which it showed a number of irregularities in erstwhile hazard assessments of certain substances specified as glyphosate. However, it seems that those we choose to represent us are deaf to these warnings.
Citizens decide?
Such extremist changes in law in relation to possibly toxic chemistry will, among another things, deprive European citizens of the fundamental right to information, which was the foundation of rights in Europe. That way, we won't know what's on our plates anymore.
Since the European Commission boasts broad support and a letter against specified communicative is signed by hundreds of the most crucial organisations, it is worth asking who our European decision-makers are sitting with at the table. Regardless of the final decision, this situation will undoubtedly make considerable confusion in global policy and set standards for the following years. The final decision is coming soon.
Therefore, it is so crucial for the Polish government to return to the right track and to advocate the full application of safety rules, including the demonstration and labelling of all products created utilizing risky methods. Questions about whether consumers will inactive be able to choose food free from excessive chemistry stay unanswered.
In the course of the improvement of fresh techniques in Europe, there has been a discussion about the request to exclude them from control, which is the consequence of force from the biotechnology and chemical industries. However, it is not actual that on the side of supporters we have only experts, and on the another hand only people with no expertise. Skepticism has shown many scientists, including chemists, molecular biologists and doctors, who constructively criticize the free release of dangerous substances into the environment. We should consider that.
Polish vote on pesticides
We will undoubtedly have months and years of discussion on this issue, which can change Poland and the planet forever. We citizens, let us look at our ruling hands, so that change does not take place without our cognition and consent. due to the fact that it is not the elite, and full societies should decide on specified fundamental issues as food safety and wellness protection of future generations. Any further effort to weaken standards is to play with fate, which could have disastrous consequences for all of us.
Personally, I am very sorry erstwhile organic farmers put quite a few work, heart and don't fool themselves – their money to supply conventional products to our tables, and the strategy alternatively of supporting them, throws logs at their feet. possibly instead, it is worth investing in global advocacy and smart promotion of good, conventional Polish food?
Most of us most likely can't imagine that in a household group we would have a lively discussion about pesticides, but these things concern us directly. Of course, it is not about each of us becoming a tox screen now or any chemist, but if we do not ask and request answers, then the decision-makers agree that we do not head turning our fields into "Experimental Polygons" for chemical corporations. As they say – who asks does not err, and the silence of society in this substance is the worst of possible solutions. Time will show whether the Polish government will yet emergence to the challenge and defend the interests of its own citizens from corporate lobbying.
Text concerns European Commission proposal of 16 December 2025
Footnotes:
*‘Bottom line is simply a king’ – a rule that puts profit as an overriding nonsubjective and the only criterion for assessing actions; the ‘financial consequence is sacred’ or more clearly ‘money must agree’.
[1] Pesticide Action Network, ‘Food and feed safety omnibus’,
[2] Pesticide Action Network, EU Commission retrieves from Worst plan, but inactive opens the door to unlimited pesticide applications and weather protection,
[3] Sites.Google, Scientific message on Pesticides in the Omnibus.
