EU pesticide omnibus 1107/2009 changes and where the file stands
The EU pesticide omnibus would change Regulation 1107/2009 approvals, biocontrol routes and grace periods. It remains a proposal as of October 2026.
EU pesticide omnibus: what would change in Regulation 1107/2009
The EU pesticide omnibus is a proposal to amend Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, and as of 26 October 2026 it is not law. The Commission wants most active substance approvals to run for an unlimited period, with faster biocontrol routes and longer grace periods in some cases. But the Council mandate would reserve unlimited approvals for low-risk substances, and the European Parliament has not adopted a position.
The proposal would not abolish every pesticide renewal. It keeps exceptions and review powers, and Parliament and Council must agree the final text (procedure record).
The proposal that would amend Regulation 1107/2009
The pesticide changes sit inside the Commission's food and feed safety simplification package, COM(2025) 1030 final, dated 16 December 2025. It is one regulation that amends several food and feed safety acts at once, and Regulation 1107/2009 on plant protection products is one of them. The legislative procedure is 2025/0410(COD): Parliament and Council both have to agree a text before anything changes. The points below are the proposed amendments to Regulation 1107/2009, not the rest of that package.
What the Commission proposed for active substance approvals
Under the Commission's draft of Articles 5 and 14, first approvals and renewals would be granted for an "unlimited period" (proposal, printed pp. 46-48). That is the open-ended approval change in the Commission text.
It does not cover every substance. The proposal keeps time-limited approvals for:
- candidates for substitution
- substances approved under the Article 4(7) derogation
- cases where the approval sets a limited period under Article 6(j), for example because of uncertainties in the assessment or data gaps
Unlimited duration also does not mean no further scrutiny. The Commission keeps the Article 21 power to review an approval. It also adds a selection step through amended Article 18 and a new Article 18a, under which substances would be picked for either a full renewal or a targeted reassessment (proposal). For substances qualifying for unlimited approval, a fixed expiry date would no longer trigger routine renewal. Review and reassessment powers would remain.
Existing approvals would not all convert overnight. Proposed Article 27a, printed p. 52, excludes several cases from automatic conversion. These include substances whose renewal application was missed and those with a renewal procedure already under way. If your dossier is mid-renewal, the proposal does not make it disappear.
Where the Council differs
The Council's negotiating mandate, document ST 13785/26, was agreed by Coreper on 30 September 2026. It is the Council's opening position for talks with Parliament. It is not an adopted act.
The key difference is scope. The Council text limits unlimited approvals to low-risk active substances and keeps time-limited approvals for other substances. Treat that as the Council's negotiating line, not as the text you have to apply.
That split matters if you are planning an active substance renewal. Under the Commission text, a substance outside the exceptions would no longer face a routine expiry date, though it could still be picked for a full renewal or a targeted reassessment. Under the Council text, only a low-risk active substance would be approved for an unlimited period. Other substances would stay time-limited. Neither text lets you drop a renewal that the rules in force still require.
Product authorisations are a separate layer
An EU active substance approval and a national plant protection product authorisation are two different decisions. The omnibus touches both, and the versions differ again.
In the Commission's draft Article 32, printed pp. 53-54, a product authorisation would be capped at 15 years where every active substance, safener and synergist in it has an unlimited approval. Otherwise the proposed limit is one year after the earliest expiry among those ingredient approvals.
The Council takes a different route here too. It proposes special treatment for qualifying low-risk product authorisations (Council mandate, p. 54). Neither version means that an unlimited substance approval would automatically give every product an unlimited authorisation.
Biocontrol and low-risk routes
Biocontrol and low-risk are separate categories in the Commission proposal. A biocontrol substance does not automatically have low-risk status, and the omnibus treats them through different measures. For biocontrol, the Commission proposes:
- priority assessment of applications
- EFSA acting as rapporteur
- provisional authorisations of up to five years, subject to conditions
- assessment across zones
These appear at printed pp. 47 and 53-56 of the proposal. Provisional authorisation is conditional, not automatic.
The Commission's draft Article 42(3) also proposes a mutual recognition rule. For products containing only biocontrol or low-risk active substances, it would treat recognition as granted where the concerned Member State has not decided within 120 days (proposal, printed pp. 55-56). That rule is not an enforceable deadline today.
Longer grace periods, and when they would not apply
The Commission's draft Articles 20(2) and 46 deal with grace periods after non-renewal or withdrawal (proposal, printed pp. 49-50 and 57). They keep an ordinary structure of six months for sale and distribution, plus one year for use and disposal of existing stocks.
There is also an exceptional maximum. Where no other available reasonable means exist, the grace period could stretch to one year for sale plus two years for use. That is a maximum of 36 months, and only in those conditions. For other withdrawal grounds, Article 46 keeps the ordinary six-month and one-year structure.
There would be no grace period at all where a withdrawal or non-renewal is due to immediate and serious concerns for human or animal health or the environment. The Council text keeps both the conditional one-year plus two-year route and that prohibition (Council mandate, pp. 46 and 62). So a three-year sell-off after every non-renewal is not on the table in either version.
Where the file stands now
| Institution | Stage |
|---|---|
| Commission | Proposal dated 16 December 2025 |
| Council | Negotiating mandate agreed by Coreper, 30 September 2026 |
| Parliament | Procedure record lists "Awaiting committee decision" |
The Parliament procedure file shows a draft report from June and amendments from July. As of 26 October 2026 it does not show an adopted Parliament position, a final deal or an application date. Any agreed text would still need formal adoption and publication. For planning, use the application provisions of the final amending act, not forecasts about when negotiations might finish.
What to do in the meantime
For active substance and product teams, the current rules still apply. The omnibus does not change Great Britain's pesticide regime, which runs separately from EU law. In practical terms:
- Keep renewal dossiers and deadlines on track. The proposal itself excludes ongoing renewals from automatic conversion.
- Don't assume a product authorisation will be extended because of the omnibus. Check the actual approval, renewal or non-renewal regulation for each substance.
- For grace periods, read the specific non-renewal or withdrawal decision. The proposed 36-month maximum is not law, and it would be conditional even if adopted.
- If you hold biocontrol or low-risk products, compare the proposed conditions in Articles 32 and 42 before planning an application. Those conditions are not in force.
- Track procedure 2025/0410(COD) on the Parliament procedure file for the committee vote and, later, the final amending act.
You can also ask RegAffairs AI follow-up questions about the pesticide omnibus, starting from this answer.