Summary
The Federal Office of Justice accuses the Federal Office for the Environment of placing too much weight on agricultural interests when setting limit values for pesticides – thereby violating the Water Protection Act. Several toxic active substances were removed from the regulatory list despite being considered problematic for aquatic life. The Federal Council followed the recommendation of the agricultural sector instead of the Justice Department's criticism.
Persons
- Albert Rösti (Federal Councillor, Environment Department)
- Markus Ritter (President of the Farmers' Union)
Topics
- Water protection
- Pesticides and limit values
- Conflicts of interest in federal administration
- Environmental law enforcement
Clarus Lead
The dispute reveals a fundamental conflict: The Federal Office of Justice internally criticizes that agricultural policy must not be decisive in setting limit values for pesticides – only the toxicity of substances should count. Nevertheless, the Federal Office for the Environment removed active substances from the regulatory list after the Swiss Farmers' Union was consulted. The Federal Council confirmed this course, even though the Justice Department classifies it as contrary to law. This approach is rare: The Federal Office of Justice documents that the Federal Council decides against its assessment in approximately five to six cases per year.
Detailed Summary
The Federal Office for the Environment originally intended to set new limit values in waterways for eleven active substances. After consultation with the farmers' union and cantonal plant protection services, the authority removed several substances from the list again – justifying this by claiming they were essential for agriculture.
The example of Deltamethrin illustrates the seriousness of the issue: The substance is considered particularly toxic to aquatic life and was recently measured in high concentrations in a Lucerne river. Nevertheless, it was removed from the regulatory list.
The Federal Office of Justice stated in written comments during the consultation that agricultural policy arguments are inadmissible when setting limit values. The Environment Office ignored this criticism. Interestingly, in autumn 2023 a meeting took place attended by Federal Councillor Albert Rösti, the BAFU director, and Farmers' Union President Markus Ritter – after which it was agreed to consult the farmers' union.
The Environment Department justifies its approach by stating that limit values could be introduced in stages and that they would prioritize areas where agriculture is not affected.
Key Statements
- The Federal Office of Justice classifies the Federal Office for the Environment's approach as contrary to law
- Several toxic active substances were removed from the regulatory list after agriculture was consulted
- The Federal Council ignored the clear criticism from the Justice Department – a rare case
- A meeting with the farmers' union in autumn 2023 appears to have initiated the political reversal
Critical Questions
Evidence/Data Quality: What scientific studies show that Deltamethrin and other removed active substances actually occur in critical concentrations in Swiss waterways – and how were these findings taken into account at the autumn 2023 meeting?
Conflicts of Interest: How is it appropriate that the farmers' union is consulted during limit value setting if the process should be based solely on toxicological criteria – does this not create structural dependencies?
Causality/Alternatives: Have the agricultural costs saved through delayed limit value implementation been quantified, and were alternative models examined (e.g., transitional aid instead of limit value waiver)?
Feasibility/Risks: How is the staged approach supposed to work in practice if the first stage already excludes the most environmentally relevant substances – is there not a risk that these will never be regulated?
Legal Consistency: Can the Federal Council simply ignore the Justice Department's criticism without publishing a legal counter-analysis, or does this create legal protection gaps for environmental organizations?
Transparency: What specific content was agreed upon in the autumn 2023 meeting, and were these arrangements documented and disclosed in the consultation process?
Source List
Primary Source: SRF Today Morning – 18.02.2026 | https://download-media.srf.ch/world/audio/HeuteMorgen_radio/2026/02/HeuteMorgen_radio_AUDI20260218_RS_0043_edbb5b49ff5b4fbb8ac257ccfe14262d.mp3
Verification Status: ✓ 18.02.2026
This text was created with the support of an AI model. Editorial Responsibility: clarus.news | Fact-Checking: 18.02.2026