On August 12, 2025, Emmanuel Macron officially promulgated the Duplomb Law. This agricultural law deeply divided public opinion and the political class. Initiated by Senator Laurent Duplomb and adopted in early July, it was partially censored by the Constitutional Council.
The Sages notably removed the article providing for the derogation-based reintroduction of acetamiprid. This neonicotinoid pesticide is deemed incompatible with the Environmental Charter. Despite this amputation, the core of the text remains unchanged, which continues to fuel the anger of environmental organizations, parts of the scientific community, and the many mobilized citizens.
Adoption in an explosive context
The promulgation of the Duplomb Law comes in a particularly tense social and environmental climate. For several weeks, NGOs, public health associations, and alternative agricultural unions have been denouncing what they consider a historic step backward in environmental protection. An online petition, launched a few days after the bill’s adoption in Parliament, has collected more than two million signatures. This is a record for this type of mobilization in France.
Conversely, supporters of the law—mainly the presidential majority, Les Républicains, and the National Rally—defend a “common sense” bill designed to restore the competitiveness of French farmers. According to them, France suffers from excessive administrative constraints, which weaken its sectors in the face of European and international competition.
The main measures of the Duplomb Law
While the reintroduction of acetamiprid has been censored, several major provisions of the Duplomb Act remain unchanged. They affect three strategic sectors: livestock farming, agricultural irrigation, and pesticide distribution.
First, the text raises the thresholds triggering classification as a Classified Installation for Environmental Protection (CIEP) for livestock farms. Specifically, some industrial farms will be able to expand or increase their livestock numbers without undergoing environmental control procedures. This measure, which would only affect a minority of farms (around 3%), will come into full effect at the end of 2026. This is already raising concerns among biodiversity advocates.
Second, the law facilitates the construction of mega-basins, vast water reservoirs intended for agricultural irrigation. It establishes a presumption of legality for these structures, limiting the possibilities for legal recourse. The Constitutional Council has regulated their use by prohibiting pumping from so-called “inertial” water tables. But opponents believe that this measure paves the way for the massive development of intensive irrigation.
Finally, the law removes the separation between agricultural advice and pesticide sales, which was supposed to prevent conflicts of interest. Distributors will now be able to sell plant protection products while directly advising farmers on their use. This, according to NGOs, risks encouraging pesticide consumption rather than reducing it.
A Step Back on the Ecological Transition
The Duplomb Law crystallizes a conflict of visions regarding the future of French agriculture. Its supporters emphasize the protection of farmers’ incomes and certain threatened sectors (beetroot, hazelnuts). According to them, France cannot afford to ban substances or practices still authorized elsewhere in Europe. This would risk seeing its producers lose market share.
For its opponents, this text marks a dangerous step backward. They see it as a victory for agro-industrial lobbies and a weakening of environmental controls. Scientists point out that the transition to more sustainable agriculture cannot be achieved by relaxing standards. Instead, they advocate a drastic reduction in pesticide use, better water management, and a limitation of factory farming.
The Duplomb law without neonicotinoids
Although acetamiprid was ultimately not included in the enacted version of the law, the debate made a lasting impression. This pesticide, belonging to the neonicotinoid family, is accused of devastating effects on biodiversity. Studies show that it can persist for long periods in soil, diffuse into water, and accumulate in the food chain.
At the European level, most neonicotinoids are banned for precisely these reasons. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) even warned of possible risks to the human nervous system, particularly in children and pregnant women. The attempt to reintroduce acetamiprid under a special exemption was therefore perceived as a provocation by NGOs, and the Constitutional Council’s censure was hailed as a major victory by environmental advocates.
Risks for the environment and health
Beyond the issue of neonicotinoids, several provisions of the Duplomb Law are worrying experts. The relaxation of ICPE thresholds for livestock farming could lead to an increase in nitrate and phosphate discharges into soils and waterways. This would exacerbate eutrophication and pollution.
The proliferation of mega-basins risks concentrating water resources in the hands of a few farms. This would be to the detriment of small farmers and aquatic ecosystems.
On the health front, the elimination of the separation between pesticide advice and sales could increase the use of chemicals already identified for their effects on human health. Medical organizations fear an increase in chronic exposure, associated with neurological, endocrine, and cancerous pathologies.
A symbol of the ecological divide
As it stands, the Duplomb Law is much more than an agricultural law. It has become a symbol of the widening gap between a production-based model, focused on competitiveness and increasing yields, and a vision of agriculture focused on sustainability, biodiversity, and public health.
The Constitutional Council’s partial censure prevented the return of a controversial pesticide, but it did not prevent the implementation of measures deemed equally worrying by many stakeholders.
