The Duplomb Law: How the failure of intersectional governance created a public health disaster
- Dr Audrey-Flore Ngomsik
- 4 days ago
- 10 min read
When Politics ignores Science
On July 8th, 2025, the French parliament passed a bill whiwh will be remembered by future generations as a disastrous example of poor governance. It embodies every flaw in the way we decide on matters pertaining to agricultural policy, environmental preservation, and public health. The health of millions of French people is being directly attacked by this infuriating regulation change, which is being framed as "supporting farmers".
Let us be clear: this law will kill people. Not immediately, not dramatically, but slowly and systematically, through cancer, neurological damage, and reproductive harm. And the tragedy is that it was entirely preventable.
The poison returns: What the Duplomb law actually does
At its core, the Duplomb Law does three devastating things: [1]
First, it brings back the "bee killers." The law reauthorizes neonicotinoids, including acetamiprid, a brain-toxic insecticide that has been banned in France since 2018. These aren't just harmful to bees; they're harmful to human brains, particularly developing ones.
Second, it fast-tracks industrial agriculture expansion by simplifying permitting for mega-livestock facilities and water reservoirs, prioritizing short-term production over long-term sustainability. This is climate madness disguised as progress.
A single industrial pig farm housing 40,000 animals produces more CO2 equivalent than 15,000 cars driven for a year.[2]
France is essentially building coal plants that happen to produce pork. Meanwhile, the science is crystal clear: we don't need more meat, we need better meat.
A grass-fed cow produces 40% less methane than a factory-farmed one, while providing superior nutrition and supporting biodiversity.[3,4,5]
But instead of helping farmers transition to regenerative practices that could make France a leader in sustainable protein, the Duplomb Law doubles down on the industrial model that's cooking our planet while producing inferior food.
Third, it eliminates the separation between pesticide sales and advice. The law ends the 2018 requirement that separated pesticide sales from agricultural advice, removing a crucial barrier against the agrochemical industry's influence.
Imagine if pharmaceutical companies could directly advise doctors on which drugs to prescribe while selling those same drugs. That's exactly what this law allows for pesticides.
We've seen this playbook before, it's the same scheme that fueled America's opioid epidemic.[6] Pharmaceutical companies like Purdue Pharma didn't just sell OxyContin; they directly advised doctors on prescribing it, downplaying addiction risks while maximizing sales.
The result?
Over 645,000 deaths and counting.[7]
Now France is handing the same power to agrochemical companies, allowing them to both sell pesticides and advise farmers on their use. The only difference is that instead of addiction, we're talking about cancer, brain damage, and environmental collapse.
The science is clear: these chemicals are killing us
A growing body of scientific research unequivocally demonstrates that neonicotinoid pesticides, including acetamiprid and imidacloprid, pose serious risks to human health. These compounds are recognized endocrine disruptors, with studies indicating their potential to promote hormone-related cancers such as breast cancer by interfering with estrogen receptor signaling pathways.[8]
Additionally, neonicotinoids have been linked to reproductive toxicity, including reduced fertility and adverse effects on reproductive organ development in animal models.[9]
Ironically, while these chemicals may be undermining fertility, society will still blame women for “not having enough children,” overlooking the very environmental factors that contribute to this decline.
Neonicotinoids readily cross critical biological barriers, including the placental barrier and the blood-brain barrier, raising concerns about prenatal exposure. Experimental evidence shows that acetamiprid and imidacloprid act as agonists at nicotinic acetylcholine receptors (nAChRs), mimicking nicotine’s neuroactive effects on the developing brain.[10]
This receptor activation during critical periods of neurodevelopment can disrupt neural circuit formation, potentially leading to cognitive and behavioral deficits.[8,9]
Beyond neurodevelopmental impacts, neonicotinoids have been associated with a range of systemic toxicities. Studies report liver damage, genotoxicity, and carcinogenic potential from chronic exposure in animal studies.[11]
Importantly, human biomonitoring studies have detected multiple neonicotinoids in children's cerebrospinal fluid, plasma, and urine samples, confirming that these pesticides penetrate the body and accumulate in critical tissues, including the central nervous system.[12]
The victims: Farmers first, everyone else second
The French League Against Cancer has specifically warned that the Duplomb Law will worsen pesticide exposure for both farmers and nearby residents. This is a cancer prevention group sounding the alarm, not an environmental scare tactic.
Consider this: the law marketed as helping farmers will harm them most.
Farmers are on the front lines of pesticide exposure. They're the ones breathing these chemicals, handling them daily, and living with the consequences. Rural communities, where agricultural workers and their families live, will bear the brunt of increased cancer rates, neurological disorders, and reproductive problems.
But the damage spreads beyond farmers.
Only about 5% of applied neonicotinoids are absorbed by crops, the remaining 95% passes into soil and water systems. This means every French citizen, including those far from agriculture sites, will be exposed through contaminated drinking water, food residues, and environmental drift.
Let’s get into details:
This low absorption rate leads to widespread contamination of agricultural soils and water bodies. Neonicotinoids are highly water-soluble and persistent, enabling them to leach into groundwater and surface water, as well as accumulate in soils over time. Studies have detected these chemicals in various environmental matrices, including soil, water, and even in wild plants near treated fields.[13]
Because of their environmental mobility and persistence, neonicotinoids can enter the human body through:
Drinking water: found in both public and private water sources, particularly in agricultural areas.[14]
Food residues: Found in a wide range of foods, including produce and honey, due to environmental contamination and direct application.
Environmental drift: Movement of contaminated dust and water can spread neonicotinoids far from application sites, increasing the risk of exposure for the general population.[15]
We've been here before: The chlordecone catastrophe
What makes the Duplomb Law particularly infuriating is that France has already lived through this exact nightmare.
In Martinique and Guadeloupe, the pesticide chlordecone was used extensively in banana plantations from 1972 to 1993, despite being banned in the United States in 1976. French authorities knew it was dangerous but prioritized agricultural profits over public health.
The result?
A catastrophe that continues today.
Ninety-five percent of adults in these islands have chlordecone in their blood.
Prostate cancer rates are among the highest in the world.
The soil remains contaminated for centuries, chlordecone has a half-life of 5,000 years.
Fishing is still restricted in vast areas because the chemical has saturated the marine ecosystem.
An entire generation of children has been exposed to a neurotoxin that affects cognitive development.
This isn't ancient history, it's happening right now, thirty years after the chemical was finally banned.
The French state has spent billions in compensation and cleanup efforts, and the crisis is far from over. How can the same government that is still paying for the chlordecone disaster now authorize another round of brain-toxic chemicals?
It's as if they learned nothing from poisoning their own citizens in the Caribbean.
The parallels are terrifying: a chemical banned elsewhere, authorities ignoring health warnings, rural communities bearing the brunt of exposure, and decades of irreversible damage. The only difference is that this time, it's happening on the mainland.[16]
The alternatives that were ignored
Here's what makes this tragedy even more infuriating: we have better solutions. The EU has been developing and implementing integrated pest management (IPM) strategies that reduce pesticide dependency while maintaining crop yields.
These include:
Biological controls using natural predators and beneficial insects to control pests. Countries like Denmark and the Netherlands have successfully reduced pesticide use by 40-60% while maintaining agricultural productivity.
Precision agriculture technologies that allow targeted application of treatments only where needed, reducing overall chemical use by up to 70%.
Crop rotation and polyculture systems that break pest cycles naturally, reducing the need for chemical interventions.
Pheromone traps and disruption techniques that prevent pest reproduction without toxic chemicals.
Beneficial habitat creation that encourages natural pest control by supporting biodiversity on and around farms.
These aren't theoretical solutions, they're working right now in other European countries. France could have invested in transitioning farmers to these methods instead of doubling down on chemical dependency.
The governance failure: How intersectionality could have saved us
The Duplomb Law represents a catastrophic failure of governance, one that perfectly illustrates why we need intersectional approaches to policy-making.
Here's how this disaster unfolded and how it could have been prevented:
Single-issue thinking: The law was framed purely as "agricultural support" without considering health, environmental, or social justice implications.
An intersectional approach would have asked: Who bears the costs of this policy? How do these chemicals affect vulnerable populations differently? What are the long-term consequences for rural communities, children, and pregnant women?
Exclusion of affected voices: The law passed "by force," through a highly contentious and accelerated process that limited debate and excluded many critical voices. This procedural violence excluded the voices of public health experts, environmental scientists, and affected communities. True intersectional governance would have required meaningful participation from all stakeholders, especially those most harmed by the decision.
Power imbalance: The agrochemical industry had disproportionate influence in shaping this law, while public health advocates, environmental groups, and rural communities were marginalized. As a matter of fact; the legislative process was described as unorthodox and accelerated, with thousands of amendments from public health and environmental advocates dismissed or not meaningfully debated. Moreover, environmental groups and scientists raised concerns about the reintroduction of banned pesticides and weakening of environmental protections, but their input was largely sidelined. These dynamics align with patterns seen elsewhere, where industry lobbying and economic interests have a strong impact on policy outcomes, often at the expense of broader public health and environmental considerations.
Intersectional governance would have recognized these power imbalances and actively corrected them by centering the voices and needs of those most affected.
Ignoring cumulative impacts: The law treats each issue in isolation, pesticide use, livestock expansion, water management, without considering how these interact to create compounding harms, particularly for vulnerable populations.
What intersectional innovation looks like
According to Kimberlé Crenshaw, intersectionality studies how overlapping oppressive systems, such as those based on race, gender, class, and other identities, create distinct experiences of discrimination that are impossible to comprehend by examining each system separately. |
Because farming communities, consumers, and workers are situated at the intersection of several vulnerabilities such as economic precarity, environmental exposure, geographic isolation, and health disparities that worsen depending on factors like age, income, pregnancy status, and rural residence, this framework is pertinent to agricultural policy.
Imagine if France had approached agricultural policy through an intersectional lens. Instead of the Duplomb Law, we might have seen:
Supporting farmers in transitioning to sustainable practices while protecting their economic security, developed in partnership with farming communities, public health experts, and environmental scientists.
Analysis of how agricultural policies affect different communities, with particular attention to children, pregnant women, low-income families, and rural residents; recognizing that those at the intersection of multiple categories (such as low-income pregnant women in rural areas) face compounded risks.
Bringing together agricultural, health, environmental, and social policy experts to develop holistic solutions that address multiple challenges simultaneously.
Ensuring that affected communities have real power in shaping policies that affect their health and environment, not just token consultation; with particular attention to amplifying voices from the most marginalized intersections.
"...Because, when you have a solution for the most invisibilised, you have a solution for everyone" - Dr Audrey-Flore Ngomsik
The competitive advantage of intersectional innovation
Critics might argue that this approach would hurt France's competitiveness in global markets. They're wrong. Here's why intersectional governance would actually create a massive competitive advantage:
Premium market positioning: European consumers increasingly pay premium prices for sustainably produced food. Denmark's pesticide-free agriculture exports command 20-40% higher prices than conventional products. France could dominate the growing €50 billion European organic and sustainable food market instead of competing in the race-to-the-bottom commodity market.
Innovation leadership: Countries that embrace intersectional approaches become innovation hubs. The Netherlands reduced pesticide use by 60% while becoming the world's second-largest agricultural exporter through precision agriculture and biotechnology. By integrating health, environmental, and social considerations, France could lead the €200 billion global agritech market.
Regulatory arbitrage: The EU is moving toward stricter pesticide regulations anyway. France could get ahead of the curve, giving its farmers a competitive advantage when other countries are forced to catch up. Early movers capture market shares while competitors scramble to adapt.
Healthcare cost savings: Intersectional governance would have calculated the hidden costs of pesticide use, estimated at €2.3 billion annually in France for healthcare, environmental cleanup, and productivity losses. Sustainable agriculture isn't more expensive; it's an investment that pays dividends in reduced environmental & social costs.
Brand Value: "Made in France" could become synonymous with health, sustainability, and quality. A brand positioning worth billions in export value. Instead, the Duplomb Law reinforces France's image as a country that prioritizes corporate profits over public health.
The real question isn't whether intersectional governance is competitive, it's whether France can afford to fall behind countries that are already reaping the economic benefits of sustainable, health-conscious agricultural policies.
There is still time to act
Although disastrous, the Duplomb Law is not irreversible.
This is what must occur:
Regarding politicians: You can choose. You can support the chemical industry or you can support the well-being of your voters. When it comes to chemicals that cause cancer in our food and water, there is no compromise.
Regarding farmers: You are not worthy of being sacrificed for the sake of corporate profits. Encourage the adoption of sustainable methods that safeguard both your land and your health. We can feed people without poisoning them; join the farmers in other EU nations who are demonstrating this.
For Citizens: This has a direct impact on the health of your family. Speak to your oarliamentary representative. Encourage groups battling for the reform of pesticides.
Conclusion
The Duplomb Law will be remembered as a moment when France chose short-term corporate interests over the health of its people. We can still change course, but only if we act now.
The question isn't whether these chemicals will cause harm, the science is clear that they will.
The question is whether we'll allow our government to poison us for profit, or whether we'll demand the intersectional, science-based governance that our health and our democracy deserve.
This article is based on peer-reviewed scientific research and reports from major health organizations. We encourage our readers to consult the original sources and engage with local policy-makers to advocate for evidence-based agricultural and health policies.
[3] Beauchemin, K.A., McGinn, S.M., 2006. "Methane emissions from beef cattle: effects of diet, feeding, and management." Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 112(3), 291-301.
[4] Daley, C.A., Abbott, A., Doyle, P.S., Nader, G.A., Larson, S., 2010. "A review of fatty acid profiles and antioxidant content in grass-fed and grain-fed beef." Nutrition Journal, 9, 10.
[5] Teague, W.R., Apfelbaum, S., Lal, R., et al., 2016. "The role of ruminants in reducing agriculture's carbon footprint in North America." Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 71(2), 156-164.
[10] Matsuda, K., Buckingham, S. D., Kleier, D., Rauh, J. J., Grauso, M., & Sattelle, D. B. (2001). "Neonicotinoids: insecticides acting on insect nicotinic acetylcholine receptors." Trends in Pharmacological Sciences, 22(11), 573-580.
[11] Kim, K. H., Kabir, E., & Jahan, S. A. (2020). Exposure to pesticides and the associated human health effects. Science of The Total Environment, 575, 525-535.