In France, a new bill proposal in the Senate aims to reopen the use of two neonicotinoids. This initiative has sparked a political storm. On February 4, 2026, on X, Member of the European Parliament Rima Hassa (LFI) insults Senator Laurent Duplomb (LR), who refers the matter to the presidency of the upper chamber. The right is outraged, while the SDJ of Le Parisien warns about harassment targeting a journalist. Demonstrations are announced on February 7 and 8 in several cities.
One Post On X, And The Pesticide File Becomes A Power Struggle Again
The text that triggered the anger was filed in the Senate in early February. It puts back on the table an explosive issue: the possible return of two agricultural insecticides, acetamiprid and flupyradifurone, pesticides banned in France but still authorized in several European countries.
In this context, Rima Hassan chose a frontal attack. On X, she called Laurent Duplomb ‘scum’ and wrote that, ‘in a healthy democracy’, ‘his place is in prison’. She also invoked the influence of ‘agro-industry lobbies’ and emphasized popular opposition.
The political backlash came immediately. Bruno Retailleau called her a ‘pathetic’ elected official who ‘indulges in hatred.’ Laurent Wauquiez replied that she can ‘keep’ her ‘lessons in democracy.’ Xavier Bertrand denounced an ‘anti-republican drift.’ Words responded to words; the substance, meanwhile, waits.
What The New Duplomb Bill On Neonicotinoids Contains
The new text promoted by Laurent Duplomb and Senator Franck Menonville seeks to reopen access to acetamiprid and flupyradifurone, two examples at the heart of the debate, for certain crops. Neonicotinoids are contested insecticides, because they belong to the category of pesticides. Indeed, they have harmful effects on insects. Moreover, their impact extends more broadly to biodiversity. In France, acetamiprid has been banned since 2020, while it remains authorized at the European level. Anses has warned about its high toxicity for certain organisms.
The text also fits into a legal tug-of-war. a previous measure was adopted on July 8, 2025. However, the Constitutional Council partially struck it down on August 7, 2025. That decision relied on the requirements of the Charter for the Environment. The promoters therefore claim to have narrowed the scope and limited exemptions.
Concretely, the proposal allows seed coating of sugar beet with flupyradifurone for 3 years, presented as a preventive method to protect the plant when it is most vulnerable to pests. It also opens the possibility of spraying for curative use for one year, then on certain perennial crops for 3 years. Supporters invoke technical ‘dead ends’ and a distortion of competition; opponents emphasize the danger of pesticides to health and the environment.
Institutional Reaction: From Clash To The Presidency Of The Senate
The affair did not remain confined to social networks. Laurent Duplomb says he referred the matter to the presidency of the Senate. In a statement, he accuses the MEP of turning ‘chaos’ into a political project. The president of the Senate, Gérard Larcher, condemns ‘excesses’ and announces that a complaint has been filed.
This turn through the institution recalls a simple fact: law is written, amended, and overseen. The tweet, however, hits and disappears. Between the two, the controversy risks becoming a screen: people stop talking about acetamiprid, agricultural practices, or alternatives, and focus on one word, then another.
When The Target Becomes A Journalist: The SDJ Of Le Parisien Sounds The Alarm
On the same February 4, 2026, Rima Hassan targeted a journalist from Le Parisien, Robin Korda, after an article related to the Jeffrey Epstein affair. On X, the MEP mentioned him by name and suggested his piece could be used to ‘distract’ from a lead. Indeed, that lead is linked to the Mossad, the Israeli intelligence service. She also invited her followers to explore his posts using keywords.
The Society of Journalists of Le Parisien (SDJ) reacted on February 5. It denounced an ‘intolerable attack,’ an ‘attempt at intimidation,’ and a ‘thinly veiled call for online lynching.’ The SDJ reports that the journalist received dozens of messages of extreme violence. Moreover, many had an antisemitic character. Some messages even included calls for murder.
The episode highlights a fragile boundary: contesting an article or an angle is legitimate. Naming a journalist and directing a crowd to their profile exposes a person to uncontrollable violence. Indeed, this situation leads to consequences one can no longer control.
Mobilizations On February 7 And 8: Civil Society Wants To Put Substance Back At The Center
More than 80 organizations, grouped around the Collectif Nourrir, announce national mobilizations on February 7 and 8, 2026. These aim to protest the new bill proposal. Their line is clear: do not reopen the door to pesticides deemed dangerous for health. Furthermore, they want to protect water and biodiversity. They also want to ban the highest-risk pesticides.
On February 11, the National Assembly is scheduled to hold a debate related to a citizens’ petition that exceeded 2 million signatures. For the collectives, this threshold indicates the scale of a concern that goes beyond the agricultural world: parents, residents, caregivers, consumers.
They also highlight the collective cost of technical choices. Drinking water networks must detect and treat substances, local authorities fund cleanup, and residents demand guarantees. On the other side, supply chains say they lack effective alternatives and fear crop losses. The conflict does not pit only ‘farmers’ against ‘environmentalists’: it crosses territories and professions.
Rima Hassan: Background, Method, And Her Bet On Radicalism
At 33, Rima Hassan has established herself as one of the most visible faces of LFI in the European Parliament. A lawyer, born in the Palestinian refugee camp of Neirab near Aleppo, she arrived in France as a child, founded in 2019 the Observatory of Refugee Camps, then joined La France insoumise. She was elected MEP on June 9, 2024.
Her preferred tool is X: a permanent platform, an arena, an echo chamber. On pesticides, she presents herself as the voice of health concerns. Her opponents accuse her of shifting the debate toward invective. They also say she blurs the line between denunciation and intimidation.
The question that goes beyond her person remains: does radicalism accelerate debate, or make it impossible? This week, the slur that landed has won. But the law, for its part, continues its course: review, amendments, arbitrations. Democracy holds in that gap.