French Ecology Minister Segolene Royal and Agriculture Minister Stephane Le Foll | Loic Venance/AFP via Getty Images French cabinet’s battle Royal upends EU food policy Duel in Paris turns political tide against agrichemicals across Europe.

PARIS — A duel in the highest ranks of French government is shaking up Europe's food and farming sector, turning the Continent's political tide against chemical herbicides and pesticides used by most farmers.

The protagonists are in President François Hollande's inner circle: Agriculture Minister Stéphane Le Foll, his best friend in government; and Energy and Environment Minister Ségolène Royal, who also happens to be the mother of his four children.

In early 2016 Le Foll, whose ministry normally carries enormous clout in France, had the upper hand in an argument about France's policy toward agrichemicals. While they were not to be used excessively, Le Foll argued, such products were a necessary part of the commercial farmer's toolkit and would guarantee food security.

But as words such as "neonicotinoid" and "glyphosate" entered the public lexicon — largely thanks to a popular TV show — the mood shifted against the products. In June, parliament ratified a ban on neonicotinoid pesticides, which are thought to harm bees, and Paris this week published the full text of its law banning neonicotinoids starting in 2018.

France then shocked farmers by becoming the only EU state, besides Malta, to vote against renewing an EU license for glyphosate. It was a vote that brought the entire EU startlingly close to a ban on a ubiquitous herbicide that farmers argue is vital to guarantee crop yields and the Continent's food security.

The decision, which came down to Hollande himself, upended France's pro-farmer tradition at a time when Germany and the Czech Republic are also tightening laws against chemicals used by farmers. By handing his former partner a major policy win, the Socialist leader turned his back on farmers — and made the risky bet that Green voters will back a possible reelection bid next year.

Asked about the argument, Le Foll told POLITICO that Royal had ultimately pulled rank on him, though he stuck to his original position.

"France's position is the one carried by Ségolène Royal," Le Foll told POLITICO this month. "But my position, which I have had since the beginning — I said it, I repeated it and I stand up for it — is that we still need glyphosate.... Farmers are worried. They are saying: what will we do now?"

He added: "There was no real contradiction. Since the environment minister holds a higher role in the government's hierarchy than the agriculture ministry, she makes policy."

After parliament approved a ban on the neonicotinoid pesticides, which have been blamed for damaging the global bee population but not for ill effects on people, Royal tweeted: "I am overjoyed at the vote against neonicotinoids, which are bad for human health through food ... and destructive for bees." Her office declined to comment.

The power of TV

Le Foll's problems started in February. While France was focused on other issues, a popular TV program suddenly moved the spotlight onto the subject of farm chemicals and their purported health risks.

In the February 2 episode of "Cash Investigation," which was broadcast in prime time on France 2, host Elise Lucet presented a frightening view of chemical products' impact on children and farm workers. One scene in particular — in which a laboratory test on a sample of a child's hair from the eastern Gironde region in France reveals traces of 44 pesticides — became etched in the minds of many viewers.

For Eric Thirouin, head of the environmental division of the FNSEA farm union, the show had a major impact on the public mood toward chemicals, regardless of the fact that its opening sequence contained a whopping factual error.

"Politically, there was a 'before' and an 'after' 'Cash Investigation,'" he said. "As a farmer, your neighbors looked at you differently. The show definitely influenced public opinion, which influenced the minister [Royal]."

In March, Le Foll wrote a letter to parliament arguing against a "brutal ban" of the neonicotinoid class of pesticides. Any such move would put French farmers at a competitive disadvantage with EU peers, who faced no such ban.

But Royal struck back. Three days after Le Foll's letter, she tweeted: "One in 10 women are affected by breast cancer and we are still doing nothing against pesticides of which France is the biggest consumer!"

A day later, parliament voted for Europe's first ban on neonicotinoids: Royal 1; Le Foll 0.

For the floppy-haired agriculture minister, there was still hope for glyphosate, however. Originally developed by the U.S. agrichemical giant Monsanto, the herbicide is now available in generic form and is used widely by French farmers on 53 percent of field crops.

But Royal, who had already obtained a ban on the use of glyphosate for gardening, began pushing hard for it to be banned on the European scale.

"The European Union and the Commission really need to rally behind the position that is most protective of the environment and of health," she said. "France will push for the most offensive position, which is that of the WHO (World Health Organization)," she said.

The World Health Organization published two studies on glyphosate: The first, on March 20, found that it was "probably carcinogenic to humans." The second, on May 16, found that it was "unlikely to pose a carcinogenic risk to humans from exposure through the diet."

Wary of starting a new losing argument, Le Foll avoided public advocacy of glyphosate. But he fought behind the scenes against Royal's position.

He had reason to be hopeful: French farmers were massively opposed to a European ban (81 percent opposed it, according to an IPSOS poll published in June). Decades of tradition dictated that the French state should stand behind its farming sector in Brussels.

By moving to deprive them of an essential tool, Hollande's government has turned his back on the farming sector in favor of other constituencies.

"I knew for certain that France was going to give a favorable opinion," said Eric Thirouin, head of the environment division of the FNSEA farm union. "That was the position throughout the talks."

In the final countdown, however, the wind suddenly shifted. With Le Foll and Royal camped on their respective positions, it was up to Hollande to pick a winner between his friend and his former partner. His choice went against Le Foll — and much of the French farming sector.

"It's simply mind-boggling," said Thirouin. "French farmers thought this was so idiotic they simply could not believe France would vote against them."

"They're in shock."

Hollande bets on Greens

In late June, France and Malta voted against granting an 18-month extension for the authorization of glyphosate in Europe. Nineteen EU countries voted in favor, while six including Germany abstained.

The vote left the European Commission short of a qualified majority to approve the extension. It opted to go ahead with an 18-month extension to take into account the results of yet another study on glyphosate's health effects, this time from the European Chemicals Agency.

Meanwhile, French farmers are at a loss. If glyphosates are banned, Thirouin and others argued, they will have to use multiple replacement products that will stay in the soil for longer and have a larger environmental impact.

And by moving to deprive them of an essential tool, Hollande's government has turned his back on the farming sector in favor of other constituencies.

The farmers may have a point.

With his approval ratings stuck at dismal levels ahead of a presidential election next May, Hollande's long-shot hope is that he will be able to rally enough support from traditional Socialist allies — Greens and far leftists, mainly — to carry him over the finish line in the vote's runoff round.

Rural and farmer votes, which make up 18 percent of the population, are less crucial to his chances.

In any case, it may be too late for Hollande to bring them back into the fold. According to an IFOP poll last year, 41 percent of rural voters embraced Marine Le Pen's National Front party.

While her popularity among farmers may seem surprising, given that they benefit hugely from European Union subsidies, it's not unheard of.

Farmers and rural inhabitants increasingly buy her argument that France would benefit from withdrawing from the EU because of all the money it supposedly sends to Brussels.

Authors: