
The censorship of the Constitutional Council strikes at the heart of the Duplomb law. The Sages protect the environment against acetamiprid and other neonicotinoids. The agricultural world, the Senate, NGOs, and the Élysée enter a new battle.
A Major Legal Break
The Council bases its decision on the Environmental Charter. This constitutional text often remains theoretical. Here it becomes a tangible shield. The contentious article authorized a pesticide banned in France since 2018. It concerns acetamiprid, a neonicotinoid similar to clothianidin. The judges recall the precautionary principle. They believe the law did not limit either the duration or the scope of use. The legal gap seems wide open.
The Sages’ Arguments
The Council notes the absence of independent evaluation. It highlights a risk to pollinators, particularly bees. The mention "neonicotinoids bees" appears in the motivation. The Sages also fear soil and water contamination. They cite Article 1 of the Charter. Every citizen has the right to a healthy environment. Acetamiprid threatens this fundamental right.
A Senate Under Pressure
The law originated in the Senate. The debate was intense. The " senate pesticides" commission advocated for a controlled return. Senators invoked agricultural competitiveness. They feared less controlled imports. The Council gives them a reminder. The phrase "neonicotinoids senate" already appears in NGO statements. It symbolizes the divide between productivist interests and ecological imperatives.

Political Flaws
The government supported the text. It wanted to send a strong signal to the farming world. The Élysée must now manage a half-empty victory. The opposition denounces a majority under the influence of lobbies. They recall the presidential promise to phase out dangerous pesticides. The decision embarrasses the executive couple. It exposes an unstable political line.
Agricultural Tensions
Unions like the FNSEA speak of "injustice." They consider the beet industry sacrificed. They point to a risk of dependence on Brazilian or Ukrainian imports. Cooperatives warn of possible bankruptcies. They demand a targeted support plan.
Ecologists Galvanized
NGOs welcome a "halt." They see a chance to redirect practices. They call for an accelerated transition. They want more research on biological alternatives. They cite the ‘neonicotinoids list of products‘ still authorized in Europe. They demand their gradual withdrawal.
Europe as Arbiter
Paris now invokes Brussels. The government wants to harmonize phytosanitary rules. It wishes to avoid unfair competition. The Commission is already studying the revision of the PPP regulation. The battle will be long. Member states diverge. Some still defend clothianidin and other similar molecules.
What Legislative Outcomes?
Senators are preparing a new version. It would limit authorization to three years. It would target three specific crops. It would provide for annual scientific monitoring. This path remains uncertain. The Council will have to verify the proportionality of the measures.
The Role of Citizens
The petition against acetamiprid has gathered more than two million signatures. It shows a growing interest in environmental law. Legal experts speak of a "green constitutional moment." Citizens can refer to the Council via the QPC. This procedure becomes a democratic lever.

A Censorship That Is Partial
The partial censorship of the Duplomb law changes the situation. It establishes the Charter as an effective bulwark. It weakens the relaxation strategy desired by the Senate. It opens a European debate on the coherence of standards. The government must choose: support cleaner agriculture or risk another judicial setback. The coming months will tell if pesticide policy finally aligns with the demand for a healthy environment.