Summary
The Federal Food Safety and Veterinary Office (BLV) has been responsible for pesticide approvals for five years and faces considerable pressure between competing demands: agriculture needs effective products, while environmental organizations and consumers demand water protection. With a new simplified procedure since December 2025, a backlog of over 500 applications is to be cleared. Switzerland will use European assessment reports in the future but retains national control and can impose stricter requirements.
Topics: Approval procedures, agriculture-environment conflict, water protection, emergency approvals, EU harmonization
Detailed Summary
The unresolved conflict of objectives
Michael Beer, Vice Director of the BLV, describes the central challenge facing his authority: pesticides are necessary for food production but must not burden soil, water, animals, and humans. This conflict cannot be resolved but only managed. Beer emphasizes that chemicals deliberately applied to fields inevitably become detectable in groundwater and drinking water at some point – an unavoidable consequence of their use.
The previous approval procedure
Until now, the BLV followed a time-consuming, multi-stage process in which applicants had to submit a comprehensive dossier. Five federal offices then reviewed in parallel: the BLV (human toxicology), the Federal Office for the Environment (BAFU), the Federal Office of Agriculture, Agroscope, and the State Secretariat for Economic Affairs (SECO) (worker protection). The procedure continuously becomes more demanding but also more time-consuming.
The massive approval backlog
Over 500 pending applications are currently awaiting processing. This backlog results from several factors:
- New, potentially better and more specific products continuously come to market
- Scientific requirements become more complex
- Resources remain stagnant
- Not only Switzerland, but also Germany and other countries struggle with delays
The consequence: Swiss farmers do not have the same products available as in neighboring countries. Particularly problematic are emergency approvals, which have increased explosively: from 5 ten years ago to almost 35 in 2024.
The new simplified procedure (from December 2025)
The BLV may now build on assessment reports from neighboring countries. Specifically:
- Applicants provide already existing assessment reports (e.g., from Germany)
- The BLV does not re-examine everything but adapts the assessment to Swiss specifics: water protection, worker protection, small-scale agriculture
- Target duration for decisions: 12 months instead of significantly longer
- It is not automatic adoption – each approval remains a national decision
Does Switzerland remain truly independent?
One criticism is that different EU countries have different standards (Poland, Germany, Italy, France). Beer emphasizes: Switzerland does not simply adopt. An EU-wide coordinated assessment report (not from a single country) serves as the basis. Example Denmark: The country has conditions that Germany does not have because water protection laws differ. Switzerland will proceed similarly – while maintaining its own standards.
The opportunity of EU integration (planned treaties)
If Switzerland were to accede to the new EU pesticide agreement, it could participate from the beginning rather than receiving reports at the end. Beer sees clear advantages:
- Direct influence on EU assessments
- Swiss specifics (e.g., heavy rainfall in the Valais) could be considered earlier
- Access to knowledge from approximately 2000 European experts
- Faster approvals without quality loss
However: Even in this scenario, Switzerland would have no say in EU approval of active substances. However, national approval of specific products remains in Swiss hands.
The Chlorothalonil example and learning processes
An example shows how approval procedures must be monitored: Chlorothalonil, a fungicide, was approved. Later, it was discovered that metabolites (breakdown products) in water bodies were problematic. A retired BLV expert recently criticized publicly that animal tests were too small in scale – only one rat strain showed kidney tumors, another did not. Beer accepts this criticism: procedures must continuously improve.
Emergency approvals: Necessary but problematic
Emergency approvals enable rapid response to new pests (e.g., Japanese beetles) or diseases. However: they can also approve riskier substances (e.g., neonicotinoids for sugar beets in Germany, already banned in Switzerland). Beer explains that these products remain spatially and temporally limited, so the risk is managed. Without them, farmers could lose their crops.
The societal and political debate
Beer sharpens the discussion: ultimately, it is a societal question, not just a regulatory one. If pesticides are deliberately used, one must expect residues in water bodies and drinking water. The central question is: do we accept residues or do we want to treat drinking water elaborately in the future? No office can decide this alone.
Key Points
- The BLV manages an intractable conflict of objectives between agriculture, environmental protection, and health – no one can be completely satisfied
- Over 500 pending applications document a massive approval backlog; emergency approvals have increased from 5 (10 years ago) to 35 (2024)
- The new simplified procedure (from December 2025) uses European preparatory work but remains nationally controlled and can impose stricter requirements
- Switzerland retains full decision-making freedom for specific products, even if an active substance is approved in the EU
- Approvals can and should be withdrawn later if new risks become known (example: Chlorothalonil)
- EU integration would bring a say but not co-determination
- Animal test methods must be continuously improved; "zero risk" will never exist
Stakeholders & Affected Parties
| Group | Interests |
|---|---|
| Agriculture | Access to effective products, fast approvals, yield security |
| Environmental organizations | Water protection, biodiversity, reduction of chemicals |
| Consumers | Clean drinking water, safe food, health |
| BLV / Federal Office | Science-based decisions, risk management, independence |
| Pharma/agrochemical industry | Fast approvals, cost efficiency |
| Swiss farmers (specifically) | Competitiveness vs. neighboring countries; limited product selection |
Opportunities & Risks
| Opportunities | Risks |
|---|---|
| Backlog cleared, faster approvals | Superficial national review despite adaptations |
| Access to European expert knowledge (2000 experts) | Harmonization pressure could lower standards |
| Switzerland retains national control and can impose stricter requirements | Residues in water bodies/drinking water unavoidable anyway |
| EU treaty enables participation from the start | Dependence on EU timeline and decisions |
| Emergency approvals can be reduced (with better standard procedures) | Emergency approvals could increase with climate change |
| Learning processes lead to better animal test methods | New risks are often recognized only years later (Chlorothalonil) |
Action Relevance
For Federal Council and Parliament:
- Accelerate EU treaty conclusion on pesticides; secure participation from the start
- Review resources for the BLV – procedural improvements without staff expansion have limits
- Lead societal debate: How much residue in water bodies is acceptable?
For agriculture:
- New products will become available faster, but selection remains smaller than in neighboring countries
- Emergency approvals should rather decrease
For environmental and consumer protection:
- National approval control remains in place
- Water protection is not automatically endangered but requires active political commitment
For the BLV:
- New procedure must be consistently monitored (quality assurance)
- Animal test methods must be continuously critically reviewed
- Maintain willingness for rapid market withdrawal of dangerous products
Quality Assurance & Fact-Checking
- [x] Central statements verified (approval backlog 500+, emergency approvals 5→35, simplified procedure from Dec. 2025)
- [x] No unconfirmed data; all figures mentioned by BLV representative
- [x] No web research required (primary source: SRF audio interview, 15.01.2026)
- [x] No apparent political bias; critical voices mentioned (retired expert on animal testing)
⚠️ Note: The exact number of pending applications and emergency approvals should be confirmed on the BLV website.
Supplementary Research
The following sources would complete the article:
- Official BLV statistics – approval backlog, emergency approvals, procedure duration (www.blv.admin.ch)
- EU assessment reports for pesticides – To validate the harmonized procedure (EFSA, European Food Safety Authority)
- Critical analysis from environmental organizations – E.g., from WWF Switzerland or Pro Natura on water protection issues
- Chlorothalonil case study – Documentation of the approval and withdrawal process (BLV archive)
- Parliamentary debates on EU treaties – For political contextualization of the planned agreement
Bibliography
Primary source:
SRF Tagesgespräch with Caroline Arn – "Pesticide Approval: Between Safety and Pressure" (Audio interview with Michael Beer, Vice Director BLV), January 15, 2026
https://download-media.srf.ch/world/audio/Tagesgespraech_radio/2026/01/Tagesgespraech_radio_AUDI20260115_NR_0071_aa7734898da642afaf5a5faf03dfa92e.mp3
Supplementary sources:
- Federal Food Safety and Veterinary Office (BLV): Approval procedures for pesticides
www.blv.admin.ch - European Food Safety Authority (EFSA): Peer Review Reports and EU assessments
www.efsa.europa.eu - Federal Department of Economic Affairs, Education and Research (WBF): National report on pesticides in Swiss water bodies
Verification status: ✓