French farm bill sparks record-breaking petition signatures
PARIS : A petition against a French farm bill loosening environmental rules for farming, including over the use of a pesticide accused of harming bees, has set a record for signatures, increasing pressure on the government to revisit the law.
Launched by a 23-year-old student this month, the petition poses a fresh challenge for president Emmanuel Macron, already under strain over his cost-cutting budget.
It had gathered 1.3 million signatures by Monday morning, becoming the first petition on the National Assembly website to surpass 500,000.
In France, petitions with over half a million signatures can prompt a parliamentary debate, but do not require a new vote. National Assembly chairwoman Yael Braun-Pivet and former prime minister Gabriel Attal are among those who have said they would back a debate.
The draft law, proposed by conservative Laurent Duplomb, would reauthorise the use of neonicotinoid pesticide acetamiprid, one of a group that European food safety agency EFSA has assessed as representing a risk to bees.
It also aims to simplify approvals for livestock breeding facilities, and to ease irrigation rules. The petition, however, calls it a 'scientific, ethical, environmental, and health aberration'.
French farmers protested in Paris in May against amendments filed by opposition lawmakers to the bill, which it said would help them compete with EU peers. France is the EU's top sugar beet grower and home to major producers such as Tereos and Cristal Union.
Growers argue that acetamiprid, allowed in other EU countries, is vital to fight yellows disease, which cut yields by 30% in 2020 and slashed sugar output.
'We need to maintain our means of production, and I believe there's a lot of exaggeration in the comments being made,' the head of France's largest farm union FNSEA Arnaud Rousseau told franceinfo radio.
The government defended the bill, but acknowledged the outcry.
'We must listen (to this petition),' government spokesman Sophie Primas said. 'Perhaps we haven't explained or reassured enough. The aim of this law is to put French farmers back on an equal footing with their European counterparts.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Free Malaysia Today
6 hours ago
- Free Malaysia Today
Poland's Tusk unveils new cabinet in bid to reverse decline
Donald Tusk's coalition has steadily declined in opinion polls since mid-2024. (AP pic) WARSAW : Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk announced a cabinet reshuffle today in a bid to regain momentum amid falling approval ratings and potential clashes with the new, opposition-backed nationalist president. Since Karol Nawrocki's victory over Tusk's liberal ally Rafal Trzaskowski in June's presidential election, dissension within the ruling pro-European coalition has grown, raising doubt about its future under a veto-wielding head of state. Under the reshuffle, foreign minister Radoslaw Sikorski was promoted to deputy prime minister while keeping his current post. 'We as a government need a very strong political figure in international relations,' Tusk told reporters. To consolidate oversight of economic affairs, Tusk announced a new super ministry combining finance and the economy to be headed by current finance minister Andrzej Domanski. 'The most important structural undertaking is building a viable financial and economic centre. There will be a single centre operating transparently and implementing a comprehensive economic policy,' Tusk said. Milosz Motyka from junior coalition party PSL will head a newly created energy ministry. A judge, Waldemar Zurek, was named to run the justice ministry as it seeks to shore up rule of law standards that critics say deteriorated under the previous nationalist government. Tusk's coalition has steadily declined in opinion polls since mid-2024. This month, the share of government opponents has risen to 48% while the government's support has held steady at 32%, the latest CBOS poll showed. Polls have traced the government's drop in popularity to public disenchantment with a lack of concrete achievements, with the opposition landing effective blows over a failure to stem undocumented migration into Poland. The reshuffle drew criticism from the main opposition Law and Justice party, which lost power in the 2023 election. 'Reconstruction means nothing other than the further destruction of Poland. Some incompetents were replaced by others,' the party's vice president, Mariusz Blaszczak, said in a post on X. Nawrocki, who will be sworn in as president on Aug 6, has questioned the coalition's pro-European, liberal agenda but said he is willing to accept moves to increase the tax-free pay threshold and deregulate parts of the economy. 'All laws that will be good for Poles will meet with my approval,' Nawrocki said in the televised interview on Monday. Tusk, in his remarks announcing the reshuffle, called on supporters not to despair after Nawrocki's presidential victory. 'No defeat, including the presidential election, justifies this mood or despair, this slackness, these thoughts of surrender… The time of post-election trauma definitely ends today,' the former European Council president said.
Free Malaysia Today
6 hours ago
- Free Malaysia Today
US quits Unesco, cites Palestine's membership as a factor
US President Donald Trump withdrew from several international bodies during his first term. (EPA Images pic) PARIS : President Donald Trump pulled the US out of the UN culture and education agency Unesco today, repeating a move he had already ordered during his first term, which had been reversed under Joe Biden. The withdrawal from the Paris-based agency, which was founded after World War II to promote peace through international cooperation in education, science, and culture, will take effect on Dec 31, 2026. 'President Trump has decided to withdraw the US from Unesco – which supports woke, divisive cultural and social causes that are totally out-of-step with the common sense policies that Americans voted for in November,' White House spokesman Anna Kelly said. The state department said remaining in Unesco was not in the national interest, accusing it of having 'a globalist, ideological agenda for international development at odds with our America First foreign policy'. Unesco chief Audrey Azoulay said she deeply regretted Trump's decision, but that it was 'expected, and Unesco has prepared for it'. The agency had diversified its sources of funding, receiving only about 8% of its budget from Washington, she said. Unesco was one of several international bodies Trump withdrew from during his first term, along with the World Health Organization, the Paris Agreement global climate change accord and the UN Human Rights Council. During his second term, he has largely reinstated those steps. Unesco officials said the US withdrawal would have some limited impact on programmes the US was financing. Tensions? Israel welcomed the US decision to quit Unesco. The US state department said one of the reasons for the withdrawal was Unesco's decision to admit Palestine as a member state, which was 'contrary to US policy and contributed to the proliferation of anti-Israel rhetoric within the organisation'. Unesco officials said all relevant agency statements had been agreed with both Israel and the Palestinians over the past eight years. 'The reasons put forward by the US to withdraw from the organisation are the same as seven years ago even though the situation has changed profoundly, political tensions have receded, and Unesco today constitutes a rare forum for consensus on concrete and action-oriented multilateralism,' Azoulay said. 'These claims also contradict the reality of Unesco's efforts, particularly in the field of Holocaust education and the fight against antisemitism.' Diplomats said it was felt at Unesco that the withdrawal was inevitable for political reasons, given that Biden had brought the US back and had promised to repay arrears from the first time Trump pulled out. Unesco, whose full name is the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, is best known for designating world heritage sites, including the Grand Canyon in the US and the ancient city of Palmyra in Syria. The US initially joined Unesco at its founding in 1945 but withdrew for the first time in 1984 in protest against alleged financial mismanagement and perceived anti-US bias, returning in 2003 under president George W Bush, who said the agency had undertaken needed reforms.
Malay Mail
7 hours ago
- Malay Mail
ICJ climate ruling: Five key questions on global duties and polluter accountability
THE HAGUE, July 23 — The International Court of Justice is preparing to hand down its first-ever opinion on climate change, seen by many as a historic moment in international law. Judges have waded through tens of thousands of pages of written submissions and heard two weeks of oral arguments during the ICJ's biggest-ever case. Its own 'advisory opinion' is expected to run to several hundred pages, as it clarifies nations' obligations to prevent climate change and the consequences for polluters that have failed to do so. Here are some of the key things to watch for when the ICJ delivers its ruling at 1300 GMT (9pm Malaysian time) today: What legal framework? This is the crux of the matter and speaks to the first question put to the court on countries' responsibilities to tackle climate change. ICJ judges will seek to pull together different strands of environmental law into one definitive international standard. Top polluters say this is unnecessary, and that the legal provisions under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) are sufficient. But opponents argue the ICJ should adopt a broader yardstick, including human rights law and the laws of the sea. Vanuatu urged judges to consider 'the entire corpus of international law' in its opinion, arguing the ICJ was uniquely placed to do so. The ICJ is 'the only international jurisdiction with a general competence over all areas of international law, which allows it to provide such an answer,' said Vanuatu. Tuvalu delegation arrives for the United Nations' top court International Court of Justice (ICJ)'s public hearings in an advisory opinion case, that may become a reference point in defining countries' legal obligations to fight climate change, in The Hague, Netherlands, December 2, 2024. — Reuters pic And the consequences? This is the more controversial second question the judges will consider: what are the legal repercussions — if any — for countries who significantly contribute to the climate crisis? The United States, the world's biggest historical emitter of greenhouse gases, and other top polluters referred the court to the landmark 2015 Paris Agreement, which does not explicitly provide for direct compensation for past damage. Issues around liability are highly sensitive in climate negotiations, but at UN talks in 2022 wealthy nations did agree to create a fund to help vulnerable countries deal with current impacts caused by past pollution. Many top polluters also say it is impossible to assign blame to individual countries for a global phenomenon with unequal effects. Those on the other side of the debate point to a basic principle of international law — 'ubi jus, ubi remedium' — roughly speaking, where there's blame, there's a claim. In legal jargon, this should result in cessation, non-repetition and reparation, argue the climate-vulnerable nations. They want the ICJ to propose a stop to fossil fuel subsidies, a drastic reduction in emissions, and a formal commitment and timeline for decarbonisation. They also demand monetary reparation, as well as increased support for adapting to the devastating future effects of climate change. This picture taken on March 23, 2025 shows a resident walking along the Vavau Beach in Samoa on an autumn morning. The world's top court is poised to tell governments what their legal obligations are to tackle global warming, and possibly outline consequences for polluters that cause climate harm to vulnerable countries. — AFP pic Harm or no harm? Another key point is the issue of 'transboundary' law, often known as the 'no-harm' rule. Put simply, this key tenet of international law means one state should not permit activities on its territory that could cause damage to another. The question ICJ judges will have to consider is: does this apply to greenhouse gas emissions that have contributed to climate change? Major polluters argue this law does not apply to climate change as there is no single, specific source that can be identified as damaging another state. Others say that climate change should not be an exception. Other major international judicial decisions in recent months have looked to increasing scientific precision in the link between human-caused climate change and severe impacts like extreme weather, nature loss and sea level rise. When did they know? A fundamental debating point in the oral hearings was: when did governments become aware greenhouse gas emissions were harming the planet? The late 1980s, according to the United States. Switzerland said no one could have linked emissions to rising temperatures before scientific studies in that decade. Rubbish, say climate-vulnerable countries, who point to research in developed nations as early as the 1960s. This could have an impact on when potential reparations kick in. 'Future generations' The concept of 'intergenerational equity' is another fundamental demand of the young climate justice campaigners who helped bring this case to the world's highest court. 'The impact of climate change is not bounded by time,' argued Namibia, with the worst effects hitting people decades or maybe centuries later. But developed countries counter that the rights of as-yet-unborn people have no force in international law. 'Human beings alive now cannot claim rights on behalf of future generations,' argued Germany. — AFP
