French left and greens challenge emergency farm law before Constitutional Council over pesticide and water provisions

La France insoumise (LFI) and Les Écologistes filed an appeal with the Constitutional Council on Friday, 24 July, against the emergency agricultural law definitively adopted by Parliament on 21 July. The move comes just three days after the law's final passage, setting up a high-stakes constitutional review. The challenge targets the conditional reintroduction of certain banned pesticides and new rules on water storage, which the parties argue violate the environmental charter and the Constitution.

Pesticide provisions under fire

The law, shaped by an initiative from LR senator Laurent Duplomb, permits the health security agency Anses to authorise, for limited periods and under specific conditions, the use of acetamiprid for hazelnut cultivation and flupyradifurone for sugar beet, apple, and cherry. These substances belong to the neonicotinoid family, whose return was censured by the Constitutional Council last summer due to insufficient safeguards. The new text attempts to address those criticisms by adding time limits and crop-specific conditions, but critics argue the framework remains too vague. Anses would grant authorisations only when seized by the agriculture minister, yet the appeal contends the measure creates an automaticity principle that sidelines public input.

Responding to the agribusiness lobby, this law allows the use again of pesticides dangerous to human health and living things. It privatises water for a minority of farmers and endangers the water cycle.

The Ecologist group labelled the legislation "loi Duplomb 2", referencing the earlier failed attempt. The appeal argues that the pesticide amendments have no link to the original bill and should be struck down as legislative riders. The amendments were initially ruled inadmissible in the National Assembly but later accepted in the Senate.

Water management and public participation

Beyond pesticides, the appeal contests multiple water-related provisions. The law facilitates the construction of storage works by scrapping the requirement for public meetings during environmental authorisation, replacing them with simple permanences. It also sets an objective of doubling agricultural water storage volumes by 2035. The applicants contend that these changes undermine the public's right to participate in environmental decisions, a principle embedded in the environmental charter. The removal of mandatory public meetings, they argue, directly violates that right.

Legal arguments and precedent

The challengers invoke several constitutional principles: the precautionary principle, the right to live in a balanced and health-respecting environment, the duty to prevent environmental harm, and the separation of powers. They also cite Article 45 of the Constitution on legislative riders. For flupyradifurone, they criticise that seed coating for beet is authorised "a priori of any observation of a threat", and that the measure creates an "automaticity principle" for Anses authorisation, sidelining public input. The environmental charter, part of the constitutional bloc since 2005, enshrines these protections.

Neonicotinoids have impacts on biodiversity, particularly for pollinating insects and birds, and induce risks for human health.

The Council had used that reasoning in its 2025 censure, stressing that any derogation must be limited in time and to a specific sector. The current appeal leans heavily on that precedent, arguing the new law still fails to provide adequate spatial and temporal limits.

What happens next

The Constitutional Council must deliver its ruling within 30 days, setting a deadline of 23 August 2026. If the Council follows its earlier line, the pesticide provisions could again be struck down, forcing the government to revisit its agricultural support package.