EU wants drones to spray pesticides — but it could backfire

The European Union has approved legislation under its “Omnibus X” package, which aims to simplify the use of spray drones in agriculture while also reforming the approval process for chemical pesticides. The law, passed in May, allows for aerial spraying using drones, a move intended to reduce pesticide use by enabling more targeted application. However, experts warn that the new rules could lead to increased pesticide usage rather than a reduction, due to the flexibility they offer farmers. Under current EU regulations, aerial spraying of pesticides has been largely prohibited since the 1980s, with exceptions allowed only for difficult-to-reach areas such as steep vineyard slopes. The new legislation seeks to change this by distinguishing drone-based spraying from traditional aircraft methods, allowing for more precise application. This distinction is meant to align with the EU’s goal of reducing chemical pesticide consumption by half by 2030. Yet, agricultural economists argue that the technology itself does not guarantee reduced pesticide use. Thomas Daum, an agrarian economist at the University of Gothenburg, explains that while drones can provide greater precision compared to planes or helicopters, the machines themselves do not inherently cut down on pesticide use. He notes that the ability to respond quickly to pest infestations, especially in challenging conditions like wet soil or inaccessible terrain, could make spraying more frequent. This, he warns, might result in a technical lock-in effect, where reliance on chemical pesticides becomes entrenched despite more efficient application methods. Daum further highlights the potential for increased spraying frequency, which could counteract the intended benefits of the legislation. He emphasizes that while drones offer opportunities for better targeting, their adoption might ultimately lead to higher overall pesticide use. This concern is echoed by environmental scientists who fear that the changes will weaken regulatory oversight over pesticide safety. The “Omnibus X” package also introduces reforms to the pesticide approval system. Currently, active ingredients used in pesticides are typically granted EU-wide authorization for ten years, after which manufacturers must submit new data to renew licenses. Since 2011, this process has led to the rejection of 59 substances deemed harmful to human health and the environment. Under the new rules, however, the transition period following expiration of a license would be extended from 18 months to three years. Additionally, indefinite renewal of approvals could become possible, raising concerns among researchers. Carsten Brühl, a biologist at the Rhineland-Palatinate Technical University in Kaiserslautern-Landau, calls the legislation a “deregulation package.” He argues that the changes could undermine efforts to protect public health and the environment by reducing the frequency of safety assessments for pesticide ingredients. Brühl and other researchers believe that the new framework may allow for the continued use of potentially harmful chemicals without regular review, thereby increasing long-term risks. Environmental groups have expressed alarm over these developments, fearing that the legislation will prioritize economic efficiency over ecological and health considerations. They point to the lack of transparency in the decision-making process and the absence of clear safeguards against the potential negative consequences of relaxed pesticide regulations. As the legislation moves forward, the debate over its impact on both farming practices and environmental protection continues to intensify.