The Advocate General of the Court of Justice of the European Union has issued a strong legal opinion on the European Commission’s 2021 decision to re-approve the highly toxic insecticide cypermethrin.The Advocate General opposes the decisions of the European Commission and the General Court of the European Union and recommends that the Court’s previous decisions upholding the insecticide’s approval be overturned. She raises serious questions about the Commission’s risk assessment. While the opinion is not legally binding, it has far-reaching implications. So what exactly did the Advocate General say?
The Attorney General noted that the committee committed four serious risk management violations, leading to the reapproval of cypermethrin. Each of these violations reflects a failure to comply with the legal requirement to conduct thorough, impartial, and scientific assessments.
Cypermethrin is a mixture of isomers with the same molecular formula but different structures. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) identified a critical gap in toxicity data for these isomers. In fact, the industry involved failed to provide the required data. The European Commission allowed this data gap to remain unresolved during the reauthorization process, treating it as “supporting information” that could be submitted later. The Attorney General strongly opposes this approach. Basic toxicological data must be complete prior to approval. Supporting data may only be used to supplement, not fill, significant data gaps. The European Commission’s failure to require this data in advance violates relevant laws.
The European Commission has failed to provide an assessment of the potential long-term toxicity and carcinogenicity of typical dosage forms. Such assessments are mandatory under EU law, but the Commission consistently refuses to include the required data in the so-called “data requirements regulator.” Due to the lack of such data, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has not conducted this assessment. When asked why this practice is acceptable, the Commission only cited the confidential section in Member States’ resumed reporting. The Attorney General is unconvinced. If this “hidden” data were truly sufficient, the Commission and the General Court of the European Union should publicly examine it and explain why EFSA’s silence on this issue can be ignored.
The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has concluded that even with risk mitigation measures, cypermethrin still poses a high risk to non-target organisms. However, the European Commission argues that extreme risk mitigation measures, such as reducing pesticide drift by 95%, could solve the problem. EFSA previously stated that such measures are impractical. The Attorney General believes that the European Commission’s decision to overturn EFSA’s opinion lacks scientific justification.
Another key concern raised by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) regarding cypermethrin is the failure to exclude the genotoxicity of impurities listed in the product’s technical data. The European Commission accepted the assertion of the Member States that submitted the reports that the formulation was “equivalent” to the formulation used in toxicology studies, but the Attorney General stated that this assertion was untenable without an understanding of the specific differences between the technical data.
The Attorney General consistently emphasized a simple principle in his opinion: when the European Commission overrules a scientific opinion from the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), it must provide a reasonable explanation. If EFSA considers a risk to exist, the European Commission cannot simply say “we disagree” but must explain its reasons based on scientific data and facts. Crucially, the European Commission relies heavily on the opinion of the Member State (the rapporteur, Belgium), even if that opinion conflicts with EFSA’s views. The Attorney General considers this practice to be unfounded and legally incorrect.
The Prosecutor General also criticized the Committee for concealing important information from the assessment of the formulations under the pretext of confidentiality. He noted that data on environmental emissions must be made public. This is a key element of both EU law and the Aarhus Regulation.
Some arguments put forward by the Pan-European Union were not supported by the Attorney General. For example, she argued that, based on the necessary data, there was no convincing evidence that cypermethrin has endocrine-disrupting properties.
Some of these key arguments may change the approach to pesticide use decisions in the future, as they represent challenges that the European Commission often faces when approving pesticide authorisations.
The European Court of Justice is expected to issue a final decision by the end of 2025. If the Attorney General’s recommendation is accepted, the General Court’s decision will be overturned. Following this, the European Commission will have to reconsider its response to our request for an internal review and likely reconsider the approval of cypermethrin.
Cypermethrin is a synthetic pyrethroid insecticide that is highly toxic to bees and aquatic organisms and is a suspected endocrine disruptor in humans. Despite clear warning labels (“areas of critical concern”) and incomplete documentation, the European Commission and its Member States reauthorized the substance in 2021. PAN Europe filed a lawsuit, arguing that the European Commission ignored EU law, the scientific assessment of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), and the precautionary principle. In 2024, the General Court of the European Union dismissed the lawsuit against the reauthorization of cypermethrin[2], and PAN Europe subsequently appealed to the European Court of Justice[3][4]. In his opinion today, the Prosecutor General recommended that the European Court of Justice quash the General Court’s decision.
The Pesticide Action Network (PAN Europe) gratefully acknowledges the funding provided by the European Union, the European Commission, the Directorate-General for Environment, and the LIFE programme. The authors are solely responsible for this publication, and the funding organizations accept no liability for any use that may be made of the information contained therein.
Post time: Jun-04-2026
