Simplification and the level of protection—primary law limits and legislative discretion in the Food and Feed Safety Omnibus

Abstract

Background

On 16 December 2025, under the label “Simplification Omnibus”, the European Commission tabled a legislative proposal (COM (2025) 1030 final) that simultaneously amends various legal acts in the area of food and pesticide law. As regards plant protection products, the proposal pursues four structural interventions. Three operate on the knowledge-input side of the risk-governance system: the conversion from time-limited to open-ended active substance approvals, the freezing of the state of knowledge underlying the active substance approval as the binding standard of review in the subsequent product authorisation procedure, and the introduction of deemed authorisation upon expiry of time limits. A fourth operates on the output side: the extension of grace periods, which allows substances whose approval has been withdrawn on health or environmental grounds to remain on the market for up to three further years. This contribution assesses these measures against primary law.

Results

Their cumulation structurally eliminates the dynamic updating of scientific knowledge required by the precautionary principle, without the proposal prescribing a functionally equivalent replacement system: the first three measures bar new risk knowledge from entering the assessment, while the extended grace periods prevent the system from acting on risk knowledge it has already confirmed. The proposal thus opens the regulatory loop at both ends. At the same time, the measures fail their own simplification objective: the reactive review system generates more administrative burden in any meaningful application than the application-driven renewal procedure, and deemed authorisation does not relieve administrations either, but compels them to maintain dedicated personnel capacities for keeping deadlines. The measures are therefore already questionable at the suitability stage of proportionality review. Deemed authorisation additionally constitutes a structural rupture with primary law, as it reverses the allocation of the burden of proof in risk authorisation law that the precautionary principle prescribes.

Conclusions

The contribution shows how the proposal could be developed in a manner compatible with primary law, and where the limits of reformability lie.