In this official 2025 portrait, monique barbut unccd fixes her gaze on the camera behind her glasses. The minister’s face fills the entire frame, like a very personal political crisis. Credits: Arnaud Bouissou / Terra, Open License 2.0 (Etalab).
Monique Barbut opposes the exemptions that could reopen the use of acetamiprid and flupyradifurone in France. On July 22, 2026, she submitted her resignation to Emmanuel Macron at the Élysée Palace. The day before, Parliament had definitively passed the emergency agricultural law. The head of state did not accept her departure, and the minister for Ecological Transition chose to stay on. Her disagreement with the government on both substance and method remains complete.
A Resignation Submitted, A Departure Rejected
On Wednesday morning, Monique Barbut had announced in a message posted on LinkedIn that she would hand her resignation to the president of the Republic. In it, she described keeping the insecticide provisions as “one environmental step backward too many.” She said she no longer had the political means needed to continue her action.
A few hours later, the announced departure did not happen. Her office told AFP that Emmanuel Macron had not accepted her resignation. After receiving assurance of his support, she decided to continue her mission. The minister maintained her opposition to the version of the law that was adopted.
The compromise announced after the Cabinet meeting does not concern the disputed provisions. It sets three priorities for Monique Barbut: forest adaptation, water preservation, and environmental health. The government’s official page still listed her as minister for Ecological Transition on Wednesday at midday.
This sequence distinguishes three moments that are often confused. First comes the announcement of an intention to leave, then the resignation is submitted to the head of state. Finally comes the actual end of duties. Only the first two happened. Monique Barbut therefore remains a member of Sébastien Lecornu’s government.
The Vote That Triggered The Break
The crisis centered on Article 2 quater of the emergency law for the protection and sovereignty of agriculture. During the night of July 20 to 21, the National Assembly adopted the compromise from the joint parliamentary committee. The vote ended with 296 in favor and 224 against. The Senate definitively approved it on July 21 by 214 votes to 111.
Monique Barbut says she received commitments against bringing back acetamiprid. According to her, the government blocked consideration of removing the measure. This accusation remains the minister’s version. The government itself had defended an amendment in the Senate to remove the article. It then chose not to challenge the parliamentary compromise during the final vote.
Supporters of the measure cite a distortion of competition. The two substances are approved in the European Union, while their agricultural uses are banned in France. They point to the technical dead ends faced by some sectors in dealing with pests. The text nevertheless requires that the absence or clear inadequacy of alternative solutions be established for each exemption.
The pesticide controversy does not sum up this law. The text also changes water governance and storage. It alters certain rules on livestock buildings, agricultural land, and wolf management. Monique Barbut’s political break focuses on insecticides and on the government’s method. But it comes within a much broader agricultural arbitration.
What The Law Actually Allows
The text adopted by Parliament does not immediately put the two molecules back into circulation. It opens three temporary, targeted avenues. Flupyradifurone concerns treated sugar beet seeds, as well as cherries and apples. Acetamiprid concerns hazelnuts.
In each case, the agriculture minister must refer the matter to Anses. This is the French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health & Safety. It has two months to issue a ruling. An exemption would last one year and could be renewed twice. The provisions would disappear three years after the law is enacted.
Anses must verify several conditions. A serious threat must weigh on production, with no sufficiently effective solution. A program to research alternatives must exist, and health and environmental risks must remain under control. For spray applications, the best available drift-reduction techniques are also required. A supervisory board must issue an opinion and track the economic and environmental consequences each year.
This framework does not replace product marketing authorization. Nor does it replace the emergency authorization provided, where applicable, by European law. It therefore does not amount to either a general authorization of the molecules or an automatic green light for their use. Before any application, the text still has to be enacted. It could also be subject to the Constitutional Council review announced by lawmakers on the left.
Acetamiprid And Flupyradifurone, Two Distinct Cases
Acetamiprid belongs to the neonicotinoid family. Flupyradifurone is a butenolide: its chemical family is different, even if its mode of action on insect nervous systems is similar. Presenting them indiscriminately as two neonicotinoids therefore erases a difference that is useful for scientific assessment.
For acetamiprid, knowledge has evolved since the first approvals. In an assessment published in 2024, the European Food Safety Authority noted uncertainties about possible developmental neurotoxicity. It proposed lowering the toxicological reference values. With the maximum residue limits then in force, several food products posed risks requiring revision.
Concerns are not limited to human health. In 2026, the French Parliamentary Office for Scientific and Technological Assessment published a summary on acetamiprid. It lists lethal or sublethal effects on several pollinators and other invertebrates. It also notes that sensitivity varies greatly by species and that wild bees may be more vulnerable than the honeybee.
For flupyradifurone, EFSA examined new data submitted by France and the Netherlands in 2022. It concluded that they did not call into question earlier European conclusions. The agency nonetheless noted uncertainties for honeybees. It also observed signs of disproportionate sensitivity in Megachile rotundata, a solitary bee. It therefore recommended a specific assessment for solitary bees for the intended uses.
These findings do not mean that an effect will occur with every use. Hazard describes a substance’s intrinsic ability to cause harm. Risk also depends on dose, exposure, the crop, and protective measures. The legislature entrusts this case-by-case assessment to Anses. Those conditions will themselves be the subject of constitutional and scientific debate.
A Minister Kept In Place, A Dispute Unresolved
Holding a DEA in economics, Monique Barbut chaired WWF France. She also led the Global Environment Facility. She then served as executive secretary of the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification. Appointed minister in October 2025, she joined the government as a civil society figure, without an elected career. Her staying on avoids an immediate departure, but does not change either the parliamentary vote or the exemption mechanism.
The significance of her exchange with Emmanuel Macron will therefore be measured by the next decisions. Several steps remain possible: constitutional review, enactment, referrals to Anses, and product authorizations. They will determine whether the possibilities written into the law become actual uses.
At this stage, acetamiprid and flupyradifurone remain banned for the agricultural uses targeted in France. Monique Barbut’s aborted resignation brought the conflict at the top of the executive branch into the open. It did not end either the regulatory arbitration or the scientific controversy that triggered it.