Key takeaway
What This Development Means
PAN-NL has asked the Dutch Ctgb to withdraw more than 50 plant protection product authorisations that involve seven endocrine-disrupting or reprotoxic active substances. The requests follow the final Pitcher ruling. No general withdrawal decision has been issued, so current authorisations and labels remain operative pending product-specific decisions.
Have The Netherlands Withdrawn All Products Named By PAN-NL?
No. PAN-NL filed withdrawal requests, but the Ctgb has not published a general decision that removes the listed products. Current authorisations and labels continue to govern supply and use until the authority issues product-specific decisions.
Which Active Substances Are Covered By The Requests?
The filings cover fludioxonil, fenoxaprop-P-ethyl, buprofezin, cyprodinil, phenmedipham, thiabendazole and tebuconazole. PAN-NL links them to endocrine disruption, reproductive toxicity or other exclusion criteria, but the Ctgb must assess the legal and scientific basis for each product.
Source basis: Pesticide Action Network Netherlands, announcement of two withdrawal requests (3 September 2026)
The Dutch pesticide withdrawal requests announced by Pesticide Action Network Netherlands (PAN-NL) target authorisations for more than 50 plant protection products that contain seven active substances. PAN-NL announced the development on 3 September after sending two requests to the Dutch Board for the Authorisation of Plant Protection Products and Biocides (Ctgb) on 28 August 2026.
One filing lists 23 products that contain fludioxonil. The other lists 30 products that contain six further substances: fenoxaprop-P-ethyl, buprofezin, cyprodinil, phenmedipham, thiabendazole and tebuconazole.
Dutch Pesticide Withdrawal Requests Build On Pitcher Ruling
The requests follow the College of Appeal for Business judgment of 11 August 2026 concerning Pitcher, a fungicide that contains fludioxonil. The court concluded that Pitcher should not have been authorised because its use did not meet the negligible-exposure condition that applies to the endocrine-disrupting active substance. It directed the Ctgb to make a new decision that leads to the product's removal. The ruling was final.
PAN-NL argues that the same reasoning should apply to other products that contain fludioxonil and to products with substances that meet exclusion criteria. Its filings cite Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009. The cited points cover carcinogenicity, reproductive toxicity and endocrine-disrupting properties.
That argument has not become a regulatory determination for the listed products. The legislation contains condition-specific tests, including negligible exposure and some closed-system conditions. Product authorisations depend on approved uses, exposure assessment and other evidence. The Pitcher judgment does not itself cancel each national authorisation that contains one of the seven substances.
What Authorisation Holders And Users Should Do
Authorisation holders should confirm whether their products appear in either request. They should retrieve the exposure evidence that supports each authorised use. They should also keep European Union active-substance approval separate from national product authorisation. Current EU approval extensions and Dutch labels remain operative unless the Commission, Ctgb or a court changes them.
Distributors and growers should not remove products only because PAN-NL filed a request. They should monitor the Ctgb database for formal decisions, including grace periods for sale, storage, use or disposal. Procurement teams can identify alternatives where withdrawal could disrupt seasonal supply, but they should not claim that substitution is already mandatory.
The Pitcher judgment can shorten the distance between new hazard evidence and national product review. The practical question is no longer only whether an active substance remains approved at EU level. Each authorised use must also satisfy the applicable exposure conditions when the authority applies current scientific findings.
Businesses should map the seven active substances to Dutch products and authorised uses. They should prepare exposure evidence and substitution options while they wait for Ctgb decisions. Related Foresight coverage explains the separate Ctgb review of 46 products linked to TFA concerns.
Summary
The two requests raise a material review risk for Dutch pesticide portfolios, but they do not remove the products from the market. Authorisation holders and users should rely on current labels while they prepare product-specific evidence and monitor formal Ctgb decisions.
Related Articles
US EPA Approves PFAS-Linked Pesticide Trifludimoxazin For Food Crops
EPA approval of trifludimoxazin brings new weed-control options and renewed PFAS-linked pesticide scrutiny.
EU Lawmakers Challenge Pydiflumetofen Approval Over Pesticide Persistence And Safety Data Gaps
The pydiflumetofen debate highlights the EU’s wider struggle to balance pesticide risk management, agricultural resilience and chemical safety. While the Commission says no critical EFSA concern blocks approval, MEPs warn that persistence, groundwater uncertainty and unresolved data gaps could create long-term risks for regulators, farmers, water utilities and consumers.
PFAS Pesticides Face Rising Regulatory Scrutiny Over TFA Groundwater Risks
PFAS pesticides are facing increasing regulatory scrutiny rather than uniform global restrictions. EU non-renewals, Danish withdrawals and ongoing reviews and legal actions highlight growing concern over TFA and groundwater risks. Stakeholders should monitor developments, assess exposure and prepare for evolving compliance requirements.
