The deputies on the left were seized this Friday, July 11, the Constitutional Council against Agricultural Law Dupil, and its measure of reintroduction in dispute under the conditions of a pesticide, which parliamentarians consider incompatible with the preservation of the environment and the right to health.
The rebels, environmentalists and communists have presented a common appeal, and the socialists a second.
Adopted on July 8 in Parliament, it provides in particular the reintroduction in danger and in conditions of acetamipride, pesticide of the neonicotinoid family, prohibited in France but authorized in Europe.
The text provides a reintroduction without delay, however, a review clause of a supervision board, three years later, then annual.
But for the group of rebel, environmental and communist applicants, the repeal itself “does not supervise neither in space nor in time”, and “the use of neonicotinoids is not limited to the defined sectors of agricultural production.” They judge that the reintroduction even in the defeat contravenes the principles of precaution and not environmental regression.
“A serious threat”
They also believe that there is no “legal characterization of what a serious threat could constitute a compromised agricultural production”, which is supposed to base the exemption to use acetamipride.
“The scientific knowledge of the effects of acetamiprid on human health has highlighted even more worrying concerns than in 2016, when the law prohibits these products,” they argue, believing that the “law ignores the objective of the constitutional value of the protection of human health.”
The appeal also points to measures that facilitate the expansion or creation of intensive agricultural buildings. During public research, information meetings can be replaced by a permanence in the City Council. According to parliamentarians, this restricted provision “public capacity to learn and invest in local environmental democracy”.
They also point to the article that provides in particular a presumption of “great general interest” for certain water storage work, with the intention of facilitating the constructions. Applicants judge that this presumption “exempts the authorities to examine environmental risks.”
The conditions to examine the criticized text
Finally in the form, the authors of the appeal denounce the conditions to examine the text. In the Assembly, he had been subject to a previous rejection motion, presented by his own rappor Julien Dive (LR) but favorable to the law. Julien Dive had justified him by the “obstruction” of the left, which had deposited several thousand amendments.
It was used “to prevent the National Assembly from debating and the opposition to exercise its right of constitutional amendment.” Therefore, the authors of the appeal maintain “that all this text, adopted without debate, must be censored by default procedure.” An argument shared by socialist deputies.
“The adoption of this motion (…) must be analyzed as a deliberate undue appropriation of the parliamentary procedure, unlike its purpose, which follows an attack characterized by the sincerity of the legislative debate,” they write.
In the reintroduction of acetamipride, the socialist appeal also believes that “it constitutes a manifest break with the prevention requirement, since it allows a proven deterioration for the environment, without limiting its scope and without strictly framing the application methods.”
Source: BFM TV
