[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":90},["ShallowReactive",2],{"pages-686bc6f96e93fb434c967d7a":3},{"_id":4,"state":5,"name":6,"category":7,"theme":8,"components":9,"keywords":84},"686bc6f96e93fb434c967d7a","active","Bans and restrictions on hazardous pesticides","discover","european_food_system_dashboard",[10,22,31,38,45,52,59,66],{"type":11,"index":12,"variation":13,"imageURL":14,"title":15,"description":17,"button":19},"header",0,"image_left","https://planeateu.retool.com/api/file/8acbb2a1-7483-43c5-a3c4-5f587e5f3010",{"en_GB":16},"Pesticide ban/restriction",{"en_GB":18},"- Food system activity: Production\n- Governance level: European\n- Cluster: Stay within planetary boundaries\n- Origin: Greece\n- Type of policy intervention: Regulatory",{"label":20,"URL":21},{"en_GB":21},"",{"type":23,"index":24,"variation":25,"imageURL":26,"title":27,"description":29},"image_and_text",1,"image_right","https://planeateu.retool.com/api/file/1c0aace6-2325-4a53-96d6-5d50235b85c7",{"en_GB":28},"Intervention Details",{"en_GB":30},"This intervention originated in the Greek summit, and involves prohibiting or limiting the use of certain active substances in plant protection products due to health or environmental risks. These measures can target specific pesticides known to be harmful to biodiversity (e.g., pollinators, aquatic life), human health, or soil and water quality. A key feature of this intervention is the precautionary principle, whereby substances may be banned or restricted if they are suspected of posing serious harm, even without complete scientific certainty. This includes a growing movement toward replacing synthetic pesticides with low-risk or biological alternatives and adopting integrated pest management (IPM) practices as part of broader agroecological strategies (European Commission, 2020). Current EU regulatory systems are not sufficient to protect ecosystems from being damaged by pesticide use, meaning better pesticides policies are needed at the EU level (Finger et al., 2024).",{"type":23,"index":32,"variation":13,"imageURL":33,"title":34,"description":36},2,"https://planeateu.retool.com/api/file/c32b40e5-d2c2-44bb-a1ed-0e0d2ba39795",{"en_GB":35},"Examples of implementation",{"en_GB":37},"In the EU, pesticide regulation is currently governed by Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, which follows a hazard-based rather than purely risk-based approach. It provides that  member states \"shall adopt national action plans to set their quantitative targets, targets, measures and timetables with a view to reducing the risks and effects of the use of pesticides on human health and the environment and to encourage the development of pesticides”, leaving responsibility with member states’ national governments to develop their own policies (European Commission, 2009). Several EU countries have taken proactive steps to indeed restrict or ban specific pesticides, including Denmark and France. Denmark in particular is a pioneering country in terms of pesticide polices (Pedersen & Nielsen, 2017). Next to some other policies, it has had a pesticide tax since 1996, covering all types of pesticide use applied to the sales price of pesticides, and maintains a strong pesticide registration and monitoring system, resulting in one of the lowest pesticide use intensities in the EU (Pedersen & Nielsen, 2017). ",{"type":39,"index":40,"variation":41,"imageURL":21,"title":42,"description":43},"title_and_text",3,"title_description",{"en_GB":21},{"en_GB":44},"France has also introduced ambitious national strategies through its Ecophyto plans, aiming to reduce pesticide use by 50% in 2025 and to end the use of glyphosate altogether. Since 2017, France has also prohibited pesticide use in public spaces and private gardens (Ministère de l’Agriculture et de la Souveraineté alimentaire, 2022). ",{"type":23,"index":46,"variation":25,"imageURL":47,"title":48,"description":50},4,"https://planeateu.retool.com/api/file/afec88ea-040b-4549-a51c-f75cc9a63be5",{"en_GB":49},"Key implementation challenges",{"en_GB":51},"Despite growing momentum with the Farm to Fork strategy, the most important implementation challenge for a pesticide ban or restriction is the power of the strong agricultural lobby (Clapp, 2021). Farmers and industry groups often resist bans due to concerns over crop losses, economic impacts, and a lack of viable alternatives. At the EU level, the pesticide approval and renewal process has been criticized for delays, inconsistent application of scientific evidence, and political pressures. The proposed Sustainable Use of Pesticides Regulation (SUR), part of the Green Deal and Farm to Fork Strategy, aimed to reduce overall pesticide use and risk by 50% by 2030 initially received political support. However, it was rejected by the European Parliament’s ENVI Committee and subsequently withdrawn by the Commission in March 2024, under pressure from widespread farmer protests across member states (Finger et al., 2024). This illustrates how political and lobbying pressures have overridden earlier ambitions toward precautionary pesticide regulation and alignment with biodiversity objectives.",{"type":23,"index":53,"variation":13,"imageURL":54,"title":55,"description":57},5,"https://planeateu.retool.com/api/file/b466ae36-722e-4837-9540-cd11b3d71ab9",{"en_GB":56},"Expert Evaluation",{"en_GB":58},"Experts rated the effectiveness of this policy intervention at an average of 3.88/5.00 (SD = 0.95), reflecting a positive assessment and ranking it 2nd overall. The most frequently mentioned drivers of effectiveness included improved food quality and safety, reduced environmental impacts, reduced exposure to hazardous pesticides, and the promotion of upstream food system changes. However, survey respondents also identified risks such as shifting environmental burdens abroad and weak regulatory enforcement. The average feasibility score was 3.77/5.00 (SD = 0.99), indicating a positive assessment and ranking 6th out of 20 interventions. While experts highlighted the relative conceptual clarity of this intervention, they also noted that political resistance (e.g. SUR proposal) and expected economic impacts could make ambitious regulation challenging. Survey respondents also identified synergies with interventions such as “extended sustainability and nutrition standards for imported foods” and “healthy and sustainable criteria in public food procurement”, as well as trade-offs with “True Cost Accounting-based sustainability tax on food” and “subsidy for plant protein production”. ",{"type":39,"index":60,"variation":61,"imageURL":21,"title":62,"description":64},6,"title_image_description",{"en_GB":63},"List of References",{"en_GB":65},"•\tClapp, J. (2021). The problem with growing corporate concentration and power in the global food system. Nature food, 2(6), 404-408.\n\n•\tEuropean Commission (2009). Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council. (2009). Concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market. [https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32009R1107](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32009R1107)\n\n•\tFinger, R., Schneider, K., Candel, J., & Möhring, N. (2024). Europe needs better pesticide policies to reduce impacts on biodiversity. Food Policy, 125, 102632.\n\n•\tMinistère de l’Agriculture et de la Souveraineté alimentaire. (2022, 7 février). Le plan Écophyto, qu'est-ce que c'est ? Retrieved July 17, 2025, from [https://agriculture.gouv.fr/le-plan-ecophyto-quest-ce-que-cest](https://agriculture.gouv.fr/le-plan-ecophyto-quest-ce-que-cest)\n\n•\tPedersen, A.B. and Nielsen, H.Ø. (2017). Effectiveness of pesticide policies: Experiences from Danish pesticide regulation 1986–2015. In: Environmental Pest Management (eds. M. Coll and E. Wajnberg). doi:10.1002/9781119255574.ch13 ",{"type":67,"index":68,"variation":69,"title":70,"contact1":72,"contact2":78,"contact3":81},"contacts",7,"title_top",{"en_GB":71},"CONTACT",{"imageURL":73,"name":74,"description":76},"https://planeateu.retool.com/api/file/771281e8-fca5-4ec7-a45c-0addca312f67",{"en_GB":75}," Jeroen Candel",{"en_GB":77},"Associate professor of food and agricultural policy​",{"imageURL":21,"name":79,"description":80},{"en_GB":21},{"en_GB":21},{"imageURL":21,"name":82,"description":83},{"en_GB":21},{"en_GB":21},[85,86,87,88,89],"production","european","stay within planetary boundaries","greece","regulatory",1776157872425]