French Emergency agricultural law: how tahitian representatives voted

French Emergency agricultural law: 

how tahitian representatives voted

France’s emergency law on agricultural protection and sovereignty was definitively adopted by Parliament in July 2026. Among its most controversial provisions is the possibility of granting temporary exemptions from the ban on certain insecticides with a mode of action similar to neonicotinoids. The measure covers flupyradifurone for sugar beets, apples and cherries, and acetamiprid for hazelnuts.

The final bill was passed by the National Assembly on July 20, with 296 votes in favor, 224 against and 41 abstentions. French Polynesia’s three representatives each took a different position:

• Moerani Frébault voted in favor,

• Mereana Reid Arbelot voted against,

• Nicole Sanquer abstained.

The following day, the Senate gave the bill final approval, with 214 votes in favor, 111 against and 20 abstentions. French Polynesia’s two senators also voted differently: Lana Tetuanui supported the bill, while Teva Rohfritsch voted against it.

Supporters of the law argue that these exemptions are needed to help certain agricultural sectors facing serious threats to their crops remain competitive with European producers who are allowed to use these substances. The exemptions are not automatic, however. They must be granted by ANSES, the French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health & Safety, on an exceptional basis for one year, renewable twice. The exemption system itself is limited to a maximum of three years.

Concerns remain significant. France’s Constitutional Council itself acknowledges that the substances concerned can affect biodiversity, particularly pollinating insects and birds, as well as water and soil quality, and may also pose risks to human health. In the case of acetamiprid, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has also identified major uncertainties regarding its potential developmental neurotoxicity. As a precaution, in 2024 EFSA lowered the reference values for both daily and acute exposure from 0.025 to 0.005 mg per kilogram of body weight, while calling for additional data.

The debate therefore comes down to two competing priorities: protecting certain agricultural sectors and their competitiveness on the one hand, and applying the precautionary principle in the face of potential health and environmental risks on the other. The substances concerned have undergone toxicological assessments; the scientific debate focuses in particular on the uncertainties that remain, their potential long-term effects and actual conditions of exposure.

The Constitutional Council, which was asked to review the law on July 24, issued its decision on August 14. It found the law partially constitutional and upheld the principle of exemptions for flupyradifurone and acetamiprid, but imposed several safeguards. In particular, ANSES must be able to restrict an authorization to specific geographic areas when the level of threat is not the same everywhere. And if, within the two-month period set by law, the agency is unable to verify that all safety requirements have been met, the absence of a decision will be treated as a refusal to grant the exemption.

What about French Polynesia?

The new law does not reauthorize these pesticides in French Polynesia, which has its own regulations. Acetamiprid has been banned from import into French Polynesia since July 2024, while flupyradifurone has been prohibited since August 2021.

The Constitutional Council’s ruling on the national law therefore does not change their status locally. Any future reauthorization would require a separate decision by the authorities of French Polynesia.

File published in Tama’a magazine #40 - Sweet Potato Special - September 2026.