As global agriculture embraces the biological revolution, a critical challenge looms large: navigating a regulatory labyrinth that threatens to stall innovation and fragment global markets. Kevin Helash, CEO of Biotalys and a seasoned veteran in agtech, is one of the leading voices calling for clarity, consistency and realism in the regulatory frameworks that shape the future of crop protection.
“There are already innovation islands around the world,”Helash says. “And Idon’t see anything today whereby regulators are speaking to each other and saying, ‘Let’s harmonize the industry or the global view.’”
The rise of innovation islands From a regulatory standpoint,the world isn’t a level playing field. Countries like Brazil are emergingas fast-movers in biological registration, while others – most notably in Europe – remain bogged down in prolonged and complex approval processes.
“Europe has long been a lengthy process to get a product registered,” Helash explains. “On the other end of the spectrum, arguably Brazil is perhaps one of the easiest and quickest ways to get a biological registered and move into the marketplace.”
This patchwork approach not only slows global innovation but also deepens the divide between regions that can adopt cutting-edge technologies and those that can’t. Even neighbouring nations like the U.S. and Canada – sharing a border and agricultural markets – maintain separate, unaligned regulatory systems.
“Whatever is approved in the U.S. still has to be retested again in Canada under Canadian standards,” Helash says. “Unfortunately in ag, I don’t see that going away anytime soon.”
The new reality of U.S. regulation Once a model of predictability, the U.S. regulatory process has been shaken by post-COVID constraints and political instability.
“They used to be pretty good,” Helash notes. “But since COVID, they’ve really struggled. The EPA, in particular, is in an unpredictable state. They don’t have the people, they don’t have the budget, and now, new administration changes are making things worse.”
His legal counsel even remarked that “in the history of her firm, they’ve never seen such an unpredictable environment with the EPA.”
For startups,uncertainty is expensive At Biotalys, a company developing protein-based biological crop protection solutions, regulatory
uncertainty is more than a headache – it’s a financial headache.
“Trying to manage your cash flow while getting a product through registration is uncharted water,” Helash says. “You don’t know if you need to fund the company for two years, four years, or indefinitely. It’s the difference between needing $10 million or $100 million.”
While Biotalys is managing well, Helash is keenly aware of how this affects the broader landscape. “It creates another challenge for all the early-stage companies in the industry that need to raise money to develop their products. And with today’s capital markets, that’s a steep climb.”
Eight years to commercialization – if you’re lucky Developing a biological isn’t a weekend project. From ideation to market, the timeline averages eight years, a process that includes rigorous efficacy testing and multi-year field trials.
“Two to three years of field trials is standard,” Helash explains. “You can try to circumvent that, but you’ll pay for it later. I’m in favour of having a label that’s tight and well proven before launch.”
And if the product doesn't perform? The farmer picks up the phone and makes it very clear.
“It’s 1-800-rep, and you’d better come out and visit my farm and we’re going to have a little discussion about what we’re going to do about the problem,” Helash says.
The biological bottleneck: PredictabilityDespite a growing global appetite for sustainable inputs, biologicals still struggle to compete with synthetic chemistries – primarily due to inconsistent performance.
“One year they work absolutely fantastic, and the next year not so much,” Helash admits. “And when it comes to fungicides, insecticides, herbicides – where the risk of failure is massive – farmers just won’t accept unpredictability.”
That’s especially true for large-scale growers. “Keep it simple,” Helash says. “I’ve got a lot of acres to get in and a very short period of time, don’t complicate my life.”
Smaller and specialty crop growers may have a bit more wiggle room for experimentation. But at the end of the day, Helash says, it comes down to one thing: performance.
“Farmers don’t care if it’s biological. They care if it works and works consistently. If it’s sustainable, that’s great – but you better meet all their basic needs first.”
The cost equation Biologicals carry a critical advantage in cost of development. A new synthetic chemistry can run $200-$300 million. In contrast, a biological may cost just $30-$40 million to develop. Still, scaling depends on two things.
“First, does it work? And second, can you get your cost of goods to the point where you can compete with synthetic chemistry?” Helash asks. “If you can do that, demand will drive scalability.”
If you can’t, you’re left with a patchwork of niche products that make up small pieces of a fragmented puzzle.
The path to exit: No easy road With more than 30 years of experience in the agriculture industry, spanning companies of all sizes and categories, Helash has a deep understanding of what it takes to bring new technologies to market and attract partners and investors. As an industry veteran who led Marrone Bio Innovations to its acquisition by Bioceres Crop Solutions, he has first-hand insight into the commercialization journey.
“The paths to commercialization for an early-stage portfolio are varied, ranging from channel partnerships to royalty agreements, and from mergers to full acquisitions, depending on the size and scope of the company,” says Helash.
He notes that timing plays a significant role in shaping a company's path forward, and external factors can introduce considerable volatility into the decision-making process. “But if you have a proprietary technology that’s truly transformative, the opportunity is there for those who are patient and stay focused on building a unique value proposition. The bigger the potential, the more likely you are to capture the time and attention of key stakeholders.
“Even in the face of significant disruptions like the COVID pandemic and significant market turmoil, novel technologies are still attracting
investment and will continue to do so in the foreseeable future,” adds Helash.
A new chapter for biologicals With Biotalys pioneering protein and peptide-based products – technologies long used in pharma – Helash believes a new era is on the horizon.
“We are on the verge of bringing a suite of products to market. I think it will be very interesting to see where we go from here. This kind of technology truly has the potential to bridge the gap between traditional biologicals and synthetics.”
But even with innovation, the regulatory roadblocks remain.
“Both the EPA and EU told us, ‘We’ve never seen anything like this before,’” Helash shares. “It’s new territory for
them. But once they get through the first one, we believe it will unlock the path for the rest.”
Looking ahead As 2025 unfolds – with new political leadership, regulatory uncertainties and economic pressures – Helash remains both pragmatic and optimistic.
“Biologicals have a long way to go. But every year, we get closer. There’s horsepower behind it now. The transformation is coming.”
For now, the industry will have to navigate islands of innovation, uncertain exits and tight capital. But if companies like Biotalys can prove efficacy, reduce cost and scale performance, the biological revolution may finally get its breakthrough.
“You’ll hear me say it again and again: if the product doesn’t perform just as well as what the grower’s using today, it’s not going to work. But if it does? The sky’s the limit,” Helash concludes. ●
Kevin Helash, CEO of Biotalys
By María García-Catalán, Judith Pascual, Mayte Fernández from Bioregulatory Services, S.L. andFerrán Soldevilafrom Sun Chemicals services
(This article was translated and adapted by the Biocontrol Coalition from an article that originally appeared in Phytoma. Reprinted with permission.)
This article discusses the regulation of biopesticides in India, China, Africa (Nigeria, South Africa, and Kenya), Latin America (Brazil, Argentina, Mexico, Peru, Ecuador, Colombia, and Chile), and the United States. Our overview outlines registration times, required information, and the organisations involved, as well as highlighting market trends in each territory.
In terms of regulation, various countries have developed specific regulatory frameworks for these products, considering their properties and mode of action in the crop. However, differences in evaluation timelines and regulatory requirements can create barriers to the global commercialisation of biopesticides.
The annual growth in the biopesticide market reflects an awareness of the importance of sustainability in agriculture. Investment in research and development and the expansion of the supply of these products contribute to the consolidation of biopesticides in integrated pest management.
In conclusion, countries with specific regulations for biopesticides demand product studies that align with their nature and toxicological profile, managing shorter registration times. This encourages companies to invest in the development of biopesticides, thus promoting more sustainable agricultural practices.
Current agricultural production is oriented not only towards crop profitability but also towards environmental sustainability. In this context, biopesticides stand out as a clear option for promoting more sustainable agricultural practices to be considered in Integrated Pest Management programs. A biopesticide is a type of pesticide derived from natural materials such as animals, plants, bacteria, and/or certain minerals (EPA, United States Environmental Protection Agency, n.d.).
Although biopesticides have origins dating back to the 19th century, their market remains small compared to conventional pesticides. Recently, the biopesticide sector has expanded rapidly, driven by the quest to reduce the impact of agriculture on the environment and, at the same time, benefiting from advances in R&D in biology and agricultural production.
The prolonged use of conventional pesticides has generated problems, notably the serious resistance developed by pests. This resistance reduces the effectiveness of
conventional pesticides, increasing their application, and generating significant consequences for human health and the environment due to the residual toxicity of these.
According to Triton Market Research published in September 2023, the Global Biopesticides Market was valued at $5.826.46 million in 2022 and is expected to reach $17.941.26 million by 2030, with a growth rate of 15.13% during the period 2023-2030.
Globally, the European Union stands out for a lower number of biopesticide registrations compared to other countries such as Brazil, the United States, China, and India. This outcome is attributed to the complex European registration process (Damalas and Koutroubas, 2018). Below, we explain the main features of the process for bring biopesticde products to market in selected key markets outside Europe.
India The consumption of biopesticides in India constitutes approximately 9% of the total pesticide market, with projections suggesting it could reach 50% of the pesticide market by 2050, with an annual growth rate of 2.5% (Keswani, 2020). The 2007 National Agricultural Policy supports the use of biopesticides for sustainable agriculture, and records indicate an increase in their use in recent decades in India (Chakraborty et al., 2023). This trend in the use of biopesticides is reflected in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Consumption of biopesticidesin India from 2016 to 2021 (Chakraborty et al., 2023).
Regarding the current regulations on biopesticides in India, the Central Insecticides Board and the Registration Committee (CIBRC) are responsible for enforcing the Insecticides Act of 1968 and the Insecticides Rules of 1971, which regulate the use of biopesticides in the country. According to Article 9.3(b) of this law, a provisional period of two years from the registration application is established for new imported or manufactured biopesticides, with the possibility of a six-month extension if the Registration Committee does not issue a decision within the stipulated period. The current registration system in India facilitates the commercial development of microbial pesticides
by allowing producers to obtain a provisional registration while awaiting full approval.
China According to data from the Institute for the Control of Agrochemicals, Ministry of Agriculture (ICAMA), in 2022, nine new active substances and 574 formulated products were registered, making a total of 2,023 biological solutions (including, among others, biostimulants and low environmental impact products) approved in China.
The Chinese biopesticide market will experience a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 4.6% during the period 2020-2025. Additionally, according to ARIMA (Autoregressive Integrated Moving Average) model projections based on previous consumption data, it is anticipated that by 2050 zero consumption of conventional pesticides will be achieved (Figure 2). The grey areas in Figure 2 indicate the maximum predicted relationship, either positive or negative, observed between the consumption of chemical pesticides and the corresponding year (Wang et al., 2022).
Figure 2. Consumption of chemical pesticides in China from 2004 to 2050 (Wang et al., 2022).
The oversight and approval of registration lie with two key bodies: ICAMA (Institute for the Control of Agrochemical Products, Ministry of Agriculture) and MoARA (Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs). The latter only accepts data generated by previously accredited local laboratories or by foreign laboratories from countries or organisations with Mutual/Multilateral Data Acceptance (MAD) agreements with China (REACH24H Consulting Group, 2019). As of March 2022, no such agreement had been signed.
Biological pesticides (microbial, biochemical, and botanical) require significantly fewer tests than conventional products, as indicated in the pesticide registration requirements in China, publishedin 2017. This implies a reductionin registration costs and timefor companies.
Before initiating registration, it is essential to verify if the active substance is already registered in the country. For new biopesticides, the active substance and the formulated product must be registered together, but not necessarily by the same applicant. In other cases, it is allowed to register the active substance and the formulated product separately. The evaluation and approval time for registration varies from six months to one year.
The biopesticide product registration certificate is valid for five years, and between 180 and 90 days before its expiration, the renewal application must be submitted.
AFRICA The biopesticide market in Africa is developing, representing only 3% of the global market (Akutse, K.S., et al., 2020). The following details the registration and trade process of biopesticides in Nigeria, South Africa, and Kenya, the most important markets.
NigeriaDespite interest in promoting biopesticides in Nigeria, the number of registrations is limited compared to countries like South Africa and Kenya (Figure 3, Ashaolu C.A. et al., 2022).
Figure 3. Registered biopesticides in July 2021 in Nigeria, South Africa, and Kenya (Ashaolu, C.A et al., 2022).
The regulation of biopesticide registration in Nigeria is governed by the Biopesticide Registration Regulation, 2019. For information on the required studies and whether it is necessary to submit details on the active substance, it is necessary to contact the National Agency for Food and Drug Administration and Control (NAFDAC). This entity is responsible for carrying out technical and documentary reviews to ensure the safety and efficacy of the products before granting the corresponding authorisation (Ashaolu, C.A et al., 2022).
For biopesticide products, there is no specific evaluation time established. However, the Pesticide Registration Guide states that the estimated evaluation time is 120 working days for conventional pesticides. It is
important to note that once registration is obtained, it is renewed every five years (Ashaolu, C.A et al., 2022).
South Africa As of July 2021, South Africa had 144 registered biopesticides. The Department of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development is responsible for the registration of these products, regulated by the Act No. 36 of 1947 (Ashaolu C.A., et al., 2022), the most recent version of which was published in August 2023, updating data on the registration and use of “agricultural remedies” (biopesticides). Among the modifications made, the introduction of a category of low-risk active substances is included (Republic of South Africa, 2023).
The formulated product is registered, but data on the active substance are required. The evaluation lasts from six to twelve months, according to official information, and the registration certificate is valid for three years.
Additionally, as a clear indication of the country’s commitment to more sustainable agricultural practices, in November 2023, a protocol for the fast-track registration application was published. This protocol grants priority and speed to the registration of products that can replace agricultural pesticides identified as concerning substances due to their toxicological characteristics (Republic of South Africa, 2023).
Kenya Kenya is one of the countries with the most registered biopesticides in Africa. As shown in Figure 3, in July 2021, there were 154 registered biopesticides, ahead of South Africa and Nigeria. Over the past decade, the number of registration
applications for biopesticide products has increased due to concerns about maximum residue limits at the local level, in European markets, and other export markets (Ashaolu C.A., et al., 2022).
The legislation in Kenya, under Chapter 346 of the Laws of Kenya, regulates the registration of pesticides, including biopesticides, categorised into microbial, biochemical, macrobial, and conventional pesticides. The formulated product is registered, although information on the active ingredient is required depending on the category. The evaluation, conducted by the Pest Control Products Board (PCPB), has an estimated duration of six to eight months. The registration certificate is valid for three years.
LATIN AMERICA Latin America is solidifying its position as the global leader in the biocontrol products market. It is expected that by 2030, the region will account for 29% of the global market for these products (Biologicals Latam, 2023).
Brazil Brazil stands out in the consumption of biopesticides with remarkable growth in recent years. While the global expansion rate of these products was 16% between 2017 and 2020, Brazil experienced an increase of 42% during the same period.
In 2020, the biopesticides market revenue in Brazil reached 268 million dollars, representing a 35% increase compared to the previous year. The trend in Brazil is clear, going from 104 biopesticide registrations in 2013 to 433 in 2021.
According to Gottems, G. (2024), in 2023, out of the 365 approved pesticide products, 90 were classified as low risk, highlighting the growing importance of environmentally friendly approaches in agriculture.
In Brazil, a new law, Law No. 14,785 of December 27, 2023, has been approved, regulating the registration of pesticides, including biopesticides. This law establishes new timeframes for obtaining registration, ranging from 24 months for new products (formulated or technical) to 60 days for identical formulated products. For biological products, the evaluation period has been reduced to 12 to 18 months.
The registration process involves three agencies: the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock, and Supply (MAPA), the Ministry of Health (ANVISA), and the Ministry of the Environment (IBAMA). Registration requires federal approval followed by state approval to allow the commercialisation of products at the local level.
Argentina According to the Chamber of Agrochemical and Fertiliser Health (CASAFE), the bio-inputs market in Argentina is experiencing an annual growth of 15% to 17%, mobilising around 100 million USD. Although it is surpassed by agrochemicals and fertilisers, it shows a steady increase (AgriBio, 2023).
On October 18, 2023, the National Food Health and Quality Service (SENASA) of Argentina presented Resolution 1004/2023, which states that it is necessary to register the formulated product and provide information on the active substance to obtain registration. This measure reinforces the compliance with stringent safety and efficacy standards for such products. As part of this update, it is estimated that the evaluation of active substances will take a minimum of 18 months from submission, while for formulated products, the evaluation time is estimated to be around twelve months (SENASA, 2023).
Mexico According to Agtech America projections from November 2022, the biopesticides market in Mexico is expected to reach 11.3 billion USD by 2027, with a compound annual growth rate of 15.6%.
Microorganisms represent the predominant source of biopesticides, with a value of 3.537 billion USD in 2022.
The PLAFEST regulation, in effect in Mexico since 2014, addresses the requirements and procedures for the registration of pesticides, including chemical, biochemical, microbial, botanical, and other types.
Several agencies are involved in the pesticide registration process: COFEPRIS, which receives the complete dossier; SEMARNAT, which handles ecotoxicological information; and SENASICA, which collects data on the physical properties of the product, formulation, residue limits, and biological effectiveness. COFEPRIS must issue its resolution within 180 working days after receiving the registration application (OECD, 2021). However, this period can be extended up to 12 months.
PeruIn 2021, Peru’s imports of bio-inputs registered by the Integrated Agricultural Inputs Management System (SIGIA) reached 28 million USD, experiencing a notable growth of 23.6% (Ortiz, M., 2022).
Peruvian biopesticide legislation, established in 2015 by Supreme Decree No. 001-2015-MINAGRI, distinguishes between chemical and biological pesticides. The latter category includes microbial biological control agents, plant extracts, mineral preparations, and semiochemicals. The registration dossier for the formulated product includes information on the active substance. The authorities involved in this process are the National Agrarian Health Service (SENASA), acting as the National Competent Authority for product registration and post-registration, and the supporting entities, the Directorate General of Environmental Health (DIGESA) and the Directorate General of Agricultural Environmental Affairs (DGAAA), responsible for evaluating pesticides. According to the Decree, the evaluation opinion must be issued within ninety working days. If it is a product without prior registration, the evaluation period can be extended up to one year. The product registration certificate is valid indefinitely.
EcuadorAccording to data collected until October 2023 by the Directorate of Agricultural Inputs Registration of the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock of Ecuador, a total of 17 biopesticide products have been registered in the country, demonstrating the positive impact and sustained growth of the bio-inputs industry in the Ecuadorian agricultural sector.
The Agency for Phytosanitary and Zoosanitary Regulation and Control supervises and regulates the use, production, and transit of various agricultural and veterinary products. They have a Technical Manual for the Registration and Control of Biological Control Agents, Plant Extracts, Mineral Preparations, and Semiochemicals (Resolution 105), approved in May 2022. This process allows the evaluation of biological control agents’ registration within a year. Additionally, the national registration is valid indefinitely and is subject to periodic evaluations by the Agency.
Colombia The Colombian Agricultural Institute (ICA) is the regulatory body for bio-inputs in Colombia. In 2020, the production of bio-inputs reached 2,000 tons, with 230 registered companies offering 333 biological products.
The current regulations for the registration of biopesticides are outlined in Resolution No. 068370 of 2020. In this legislation, the category of “natural extract” includes ingredients or active substances extracted from natural sources such as plants, fruits, vegetables, cereals, animal meat or aquatic organisms, microorganisms, minerals, and microbiological fermentation. Natural extracts are classified as of low concern if they meet the conditions of numeral 7 of Title IV of the current regulations. For these, information is required for both the active substance and the formulated product.
If the natural extracts are not considered of low concern, the evaluation and authorisation follow the requirements of numeral 7 bis of Resolution No. 1.557 of 2014, which requires information on the active substance and the final product. In cases involving products formulated with fermentation extracts and microorganisms, the evaluation is conducted according to the provisions of Resolution No. 9.074 of 2018, and the registration dossier includes information on the microorganism and the formulated product. The evaluation for registration lasts approximately 18 months, and the registration is valid for ten years (renewable).
ChileThe Chilean market for biological products, such as biofungicides and bioinsecticides, generated approximately 4.56 and 4.92 million dollars annually in 2021, with projections to increase to 11.25 and 12.14 million by 2025.
The recent opening of the National Bioinputs Center (CeNBI) in Chile, under the supervision of the National Institute of Agricultural Research (INIA), is a significant step for the growth of the national agricultural sector. This center will coordinate the development of bioproducts, including biostimulants and biocontrollers (Observatory for Agro-Silvo-Fishery Innovation and Agri-Food Chain, 2023).
Resolution No. 6.152/2023 establishes conditions and requirements for the authorisation of natural pesticides based on chemical extracts from plant, microbial, animal, mineral, or biological fermentation origins. The Agricultural and Livestock Service (SAG) manages the registration.
The evaluation process takes approximately nine months. The initial registration is valid for ten years, and renewal must be requested six months before expiration.
United StatesIn the United States, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) oversees the registration of biopesticides. To do this, biopesticides are divided into biochemical pesticides, microbial pesticides, and plant-incorporated protectants (PIPs). The regulatory framework is detailed and is based on the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) (EPA, 2021).
According to the EPA, one of the main advantages of biopesticides is their inherently lower toxicity compared to conventional pesticides, making them a less risky option for the environment and human health. This characteristic, along with their generally specific action mode on the target pests, tends to make biopesticides a favored option for Integrated Pest Management (IPM) programs(EPA, 2021).
The process of registering a biopesticide in the United States includes a pre-submission consultation with the EPA, which typically lasts three months and is followed by the submission of the application. The evaluation period is up to 18 months, but priority can be given to products with reduced risk, shortening the process to approximately 12 months.
Conclusion More and more countries are implementing specific legislations for the registration of biopesticide products. These regulations streamline the evaluation process, reduce costs, and expedite the commercialisation of such products compared with conventional products.
The annual growth observed in the biopesticides market underscores a growing awareness of sustainability in agriculture. Investments in research and development, coupled with expanded product offerings, contribute to solidifying biopesticides within integrated pest management strategies.
Further development and research into these products, along with streamlined registration processes, will lead to solutions tailored to the current demands of the sector. These solutions are aimed at fostering a more sustainable agriculture that respects boththe environment and humanand animal health.
In conclusion, countries with dedicated biopesticide regulations prioritise tailored product studies that consider their natural attributes and toxicological profiles, with an aim to shorten registration times. This encourages continued investment in biopesticide development, promoting more sustainable agricultural practices. ●
The recent opening of the National Bioinputs Center (CeNBI) in Chile is a significant step for the growth of the national agricultural sector.
Southern African nations are grappling with a complex andcritical challenge: how to effectively regulate and promote the useof biopesticides. Indeed, their adoption across the region remains slow, hindered by fragmented regulatory frameworks andoutdated legislation.
A recent multi-country study has shed light on the legislative and regulatory frameworks governing biopesticides in six Southern African countries: Botswana, Mozambique, South Africa, Tanzania, Zambia, and Zimbabwe. Undertaken through an extensive desktop review of legal texts and first-hand interviews with regulators, the study underscores the urgent need for harmonized biopesticide guidelines in the region.
Agriculture underpins the economies of most Southern African Development Community (SADC) member states, with crop production estimated to account for 61 percent of agricultural activity. Yet, the overuse and misuse of synthetic pesticides often result in excessive chemical residues on exports, leading to costly rejections on international markets. This not only undermines trade but also threatens long-term food security and environmental health.
While biopesticides are emerging as a strategic solution, the path to their widespread use is fraught with legal bottlenecks and institutional inertia.
The state of biopesticide regulation Botswana, for instance, regulates biopesticides under the Agrochemicals Act 18 of 1999. The Act provides a solid legal structure but lacks explicit provisions or fast-track pathways for biopesticides, grouping them instead with synthetic agrochemicals. This creates challenges for innovators and regulators alike in managing less-toxic, biologically based solutions.
Mozambique also lacks a clear legal identity for biopesticides. Governed by Diploma No. 153/2002, the registration system does not define biopesticides independently from synthetic pesticides, resulting in regulatory ambiguity and delays in product approvals.
In contrast, South Africa leads the region with a robust and forward-looking framework. The Fertilizers, Farm Feeds, Agricultural Remedies and Stock Remedies Act 36 of 1947, along with the 2010 Pesticide Management Policy, actively promotes alternatives to chemical pesticides. With detailed registration guidelines and strong public-private partnerships, South Africa’s model is widely regarded as a blueprint for sustainable pest control across the continent.
Tanzania has recently modernized its legislation. Its Plant Health Act No. 4 of 2020 and the accompanying Plant Health Regulations of 2023 incorporate the
East African Community's harmonized guidelines for biopesticide registration. This proactive alignment sets the stage for regional consistency and opens doors for cross-border regulatory collaboration.
Zambia, however, falls into a regulatory grey area. While the Environmental Management Act No. 12 of 2011 covers pesticide use broadly, it does not explicitly define or differentiate biopesticides. Regulatory processes mirror those for chemical pesticides, leading to overly burdensome requirements for biological products.
Zimbabwe is in a similar bind. Its legal structure, defined by the Fertilizers, Farm Feeds, and Remedies Act and Pesticides Regulations, lacks a standalone category for biopesticides. While the National Biotechnology Authority plays a role, the absence of unified, detailed guidelines complicates the approval process and raises concerns about overlapping mandates.
Despite these country-specific differences, the study found a number of shared challenges:
Lack of dedicated registration guidelines tailored to biopesticides.
Overly burdensome data requirements that deter product developers.
Insufficient institutional capacity, especially in scientific expertise related to biopesticide risk assessment.
Fragmented roles across government agencies, leading to duplication and inefficiencies.
The overreliance on regulatory frameworks designed for synthetic
pesticides continues to stifle innovation in the biopesticide sector. The study found that many regulators lack the technical training or legal clarity to differentiate between microbial and chemical pest control agents.
Toward regional harmonization: SAPReF and the road ahead The Southern African Pesticide Regulators Forum (SAPReF), formed under the auspices of the SADC Plant Protection Technical Committee, is driving efforts to harmonize pesticide regulations across the region. By aligning with the Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) Annex of the SADC Protocol on Trade, SAPReF aims to simplify regulatory procedures and reduce trade barriers.
One of SAPReF's key mandates is to facilitate the creation and adoption of harmonized guidelines for biopesticide registration. These guidelines would set consistent data requirements, promote mutual recognition of product assessments, and fast-track approvals – particularly for products already registered in other SADC states.
The review recommends that countries:
Amend existing legislation to include definitions and criteria specific to biopesticides.
Establish stand-alone regulatory pathways for microbial and botanical pesticides.
Invest in capacity-building programs for regulators and scientists.
Promote public-private partnerships to support innovation and IPM adoption.
Enact policy reforms that allow expedited review of low-risk products.
Importantly, before harmonized regional guidelines can be effectively implemented, each country must assess and reform its national legal structures to allow for seamless integration.
Overall, the study posits that the path forward involves a two-pronged approach: national legal reform and regional harmonization. Countries must develop biopesticide-specific registration pathways, establish clear timelines and categories, and build regulatory capacity. Regionally, SAPReF and SADC bodies must coordinate efforts to streamline data requirements and facilitate cross-border trade in sustainable agricultural inputs.
Parallel and generic registration: Permitted in practice, omittedin law In most countries surveyed, the registration of generic or equivalent pesticides – those chemically and functionally similar to already registered products – is either informally allowed or vaguely referenced in registration forms. However, few legal frameworks explicitly mention "parallel registration" or define the procedures and criteria needed to regulate it.
Botswana, for instance, permits such registrations in practice, but its Agrochemicals Regulations make no express provision. Instead, Form 1 of the First Schedule asks applicants to state whether the pesticide has been previously registered in its country of origin – a subtle nod to parallel imports without codifying the process.
Mozambique similarly lacks formal guidelines but requires applicants to indicate whether the product is registered in other SADC states. Whether this influences final approval remains opaque, underscoring the need for clearer regulatory guidance.
In South Africa, while the Fertilizer, Farm Feeds, Agricultural Remedies, and Stock Remedies Act does not expressly support generic registration, the national guidelines allow applicants to use toxicological assessments from regulatory authorities in the U.S., EU, UK, Japan, or Australia to support provisional registrations. Still, each product undergoes a full local evaluation.
Tanzania’s law comes closest to recognizing parallel evaluation. The Plant Health Act allows the regulator to consider foreign data if the product is similar to one already registered locally. However, the Act stops short of formalizing parallel registration as a distinct process.
Zambia and Zimbabwe show the greatest need for reform. While both ask for information on prior registration in other jurisdictions, neither formally regulates generic or parallel imports. In Zimbabwe, survey findings suggest such applications are accepted, but this practice lacks legal foundation, increasing regulatory uncertainty.
Equally concerning is the inconsistent approach to managing confidential business information (CBI) tied to pesticide registration, especially biopesticides. As countries seek to encourage local innovation and international partnerships, safeguarding intellectual property becomes vital.
The study found that South Africa leads the region with its detailed guidelines defining CBI – ranging from product formulations to manufacturing processes – and outlining how it must be handled by regulatory authorities. The law prohibits disclosure except to the Minister or relevant regulatory bodies.
In Tanzania, the registration form includes a clause attesting to confidentiality, and all documentation is securely stored under the supervision of the Head of the Plant Protection Division. However, reproduction of documents requires ministerial consent – a bureaucratic layer flagged for potential revision.
Botswana and Mozambique lack formal disclosure declarations, despite requiring applicants to submit proprietary data. This omission risks legal ambiguity if the government shares sensitive information with third parties. In Zambia, little to no guidance exists on data ownership or confidentiality.
In Zimbabwe, protections fall under the Official Secrets Act, which is intended for national security, not commercial confidentiality, raising red flags about appropriateness and enforceability.
Post-registration oversight: A critical weakness in product stewardship Beyond the initial registration phase, ongoing monitoring – known as product stewardship – is essential for ensuring pesticides remain safe and effective once they reach farmers. The study found that post-registration controls remain inconsistent and, in some cases, largely undeveloped.
For example, while Botswana mandates record-keeping, safe disposal procedures, and proper labeling by licensees, its laws don’t require follow-up reports on product performance or environmental impact.
Mozambique’s Regulation on Pesticides Management is more progressive, obliging traders to submit quarterly stock and sales data and authorizing inspections of manufacturing, storage, and retail sites. However, many implementation details are delegated to the discretion of the Registrar, who may attach conditions to registrations.
In South Africa, the Registrar has sweeping powers to order product discontinuation, inspect premises, and seize products deemed harmful. These provisions offer a robust model for post-market surveillance.
Tanzania has some of the region’s most comprehensive controls, covering labeling, advertising, waste disposal, and mandatory training of distributors. Nevertheless, certain aspects – such as inspection protocols and revocation procedures
– require modernization to reflect evolving best practices.
Zambia’s Licensing Regulations mention product handling requirements, but inspection protocols are vaguely defined. Zimbabwe’s controls are similarly underdeveloped. While regulations allow the Registering Officer to attach conditions, there’s no clarity on what quarterly reports should include, nor is there a formal procedure for withdrawing registrations – voluntarily or by regulatory decision.
A shared vision, divergent realities Despite differing regulatory maturity levels, Botswana, Mozambique, South Africa, Tanzania, Zambia, and Zimbabwe all support the idea of harmonizing biopesticide registration guidelines. Yet each country presents a unique mix of readiness and roadblocks.
In Botswana, no major challenges currently prevent harmonization. Experts suggest a legislative review followed by new regulations or stand-alone laws tailored to biopesticides. The East African Community (EAC) model – already adopted in some countries – emphasizes biological specificity and calls for scientific input from specialists in microbial and environmental sciences.
In contrast, Mozambique faces multiple hurdles: a weak legal framework, limited biopesticide awareness, dominance of chemical pesticides, and low farmer demand. The study noted that farmers often perceive biopesticides as less effective, pointing to a need for education campaigns and government incentives to shift the agricultural mindset.
South Africa, with its advanced agricultural policy landscape, still grapples with industry struggles to supply scientific data for biopesticide registration. While the government has shown openness to new laws and harmonized standards, actual implementation is slowed by low commercial demand and gaps in technical documentation from applicants.
For many countries, the study found that outdated or unclear laws are among the biggest barriers. In Tanzania, biopesticide registration relies on older regulations that remain legally valid under newer
laws but are misaligned with current best practices. The country’s participation in drafting EAC harmonized guidelines is a promising sign, but full alignment will require redrafting laws, issuing codes of practice, and clarifying procedures like provisional registration and parallel approvals.
Zambia’s challenges are compounded by unclear application procedures, lack of transparency, and inconsistent timeframes for regulatory decisions. Though emergency registrations are reportedly permitted, there’s no legal provision to support them – highlighting the need for urgent regulatory reform.
Zimbabwe, too, lacks a dedicated biopesticide framework. While biopesticide regulation currently falls under the Fertilizers, Farm Feeds, and Remedies Act, there are no clear guidelines for provisional licenses, data confidentiality, or post-registration monitoring. The absence of relevant policy, experts say, is the most pressing constraint to integrating biopesticides into national agricultural practices.
Toward a harmonized future: Regional recommendations The study provided key recommendations to support harmonization and streamline biopesticide registration across SADC countries:
Defining biopesticides clearly within national laws to distinguish them from conventional chemical pesticides.
Drafting stand-alone regulations or integrating dedicated biopesticide chapters into existing agricultural acts.
Establishing clear registration categories, including provisional licenses for products undergoing further trials.
Setting transparent timeframes for administrative decisions to improve efficiency and accountability.
Safeguarding confidential business information with formal disclosure declarations.
Allowing for parallel or generic registrations, subject to rigorous scientific evaluation.
The development of codes of practice or administrative guides is also critical for technical capacity building – especially in countries like Zambia and Zimbabwe, where evaluation skills and regulatory infrastructure are underdeveloped.
Regional guidelines requirelocal legislative action The study noted that the six SADC project countries – Botswana, Mozambique, South Africa, Tanzania, Zambia, and Zimbabwe – have committed to adopting harmonized regional guidelines for biopesticide registration. However, the domestication of these regional norms – making them enforceable within national regulatory systems – requires statutory amendments or changes to subsidiary legislation in each country. The path to adoption varies based on each nation’s legal framework, public consultation requirements, and institutional capacity.
Botswana, widely recognized for its strong parliamentary democracy, will likely pursue regulatory integration through amendments to existing pesticide laws via its legislature.
Mozambique’s Parliament has broad authority and typically passes laws by a simple majority. However, institutional capacity and regulatory delays could slow down harmonization unless political will is firmly established.
South Africa’s Constitution defines a robust legislative process, requiring bills to undergo multiple levels of scrutiny before becoming law. Parliament must also consider regulatory impact assessments (RIAs) before implementing new pesticide controls.
In Tanzania, legislative authority rests with Parliament for mainland affairs. The country must review existing laws—many of which predate recent agricultural policy shifts—to ensure alignment with
harmonized biopesticide frameworks.
Zambia’s National Assembly must approve all legal changes, which are then assented to by the President. The Constitution mandates that any inconsistent law is void, necessitating careful legal drafting to avoid conflicts with existing statutes.
Zimbabwe vests legislative authority in both the President and Parliament, and any biopesticide reform must pass through the dual process of executive and legislative approval.
To ensure harmonized guidelines are successfully integrated, the study noted that each country must assess its legal landscape, identify regulatory gaps, and tailor reforms to its national context. This includes:
Reviewing principal legislation and regulations that affect biopesticide use.
Collecting input from farmers, researchers, and local officials on practical issues related to biopesticide management.
Conducting regulatory impact assessments to evaluate the social, environmental, and economic implications of legal reforms.
Addressing technical needs and regulatory failures, such as unclear data requirements, slow approval timelines, and insufficient expertise for efficacy evaluations.
A national team comprising legal drafters, technical experts, and policy officials should lead the legislative drafting process, said the study authors. Countries must also decide whether to revise existing laws or create new stand-alone legislation tailored to biopesticide regulation.
In addition, the survey highlights the importance of stakeholder engagement in legislative reforms. Involving the agricultural sector, environmental regulators, extension workers, and farmer groups ensures that proposed laws are realistic, enforceable, and widely accepted.
Coordinated regional action recommended To accelerate progress, several recommendations have beenmade at both the regional and national levels:
Regional recommendations
Form a Technical Working Group with representatives from each country to oversee guideline drafting and domestication timelines.
Coordinate efforts with SADC’s ongoing revision of its pesticide guidelines to avoid duplication.
Secure financial and technical support for consultations, capacity building, and public awareness initiatives.
National-level recommendations
Update legislation to align with regional guidelines and reflect national policy priorities.
Develop explicit registration pathways for both conventional and biopesticides.
Create codes of practice and administrative guides to support implementation.
Link reforms to broader policy frameworks, including environmental sustainability and food safety.
Even with the right legal tools in place, harmonization efforts may falter without technical know-how and grassroots awareness. To bridge this gap, the study’s experts recommend:
Implementing regional training programs for evaluators handling biopesticide efficacy data.
Supporting the development of communication materials and awareness strategies to build public and farmer confidence in biopesticides.
A region on the brink of reform The integration of harmonized biopesticide guidelines into national regulatory systems represents a critical step toward safer, more sustainable agriculture across Southern Africa. But achieving this goal demands a coordinated legal and technical effort, tailored to each country’s realities and built on inclusive, transparent processes.
A harmonized biopesticide framework is not only a scientific necessity – it is a policy imperative. The region’s ability to balance national autonomy with shared standards will determine whether biopesticides become a niche product or a cornerstone of sustainable agriculture in Southern Africa.
Editor’s Note: This feature draws on the findings of a comprehensive biopesticide regulatory review* conducted with support from the International Centre for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology (ICGEB) and the Standards and Trade Development Facility (STDF) under the STDF/PG/694 project.
*This review of biopesticide regulatory systems in six Southern African countries was conducted by: Kahsay Tadesse Mawcha, Biopesticides Group, International Centre for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnoloty (ICGEB), Cape Town, South Africa, and Department of Plant Sciences, Aksum University, Aksum, Ethiopia; Dorothy Kyampaire, High Court of Uganda, Kampala, Uganda; Chrian Marciale, Tanzania Plant Health and Pesticides Authority (TPHPA, Arusha, Tansania; Stella Simiyu-Wafukho, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy, and CropLife Africa Middle East, Kenya; Chifundo Chinyama, Environmental Affairs Department, Lilongwe, Malawi; Olubukola Oluranti Babalola, Food Security and Safety Focus Area, Faculty of Natural and Agricultural Sciences, North-West University, Mmabatho, South Africa; Grace Kinyanjui, ICGEB, and Department of Biological Sciences, University of Embu, Embu, Kenya; Dennis Ndolo, ICGEB. (2025) An overview of biopesticide regulatory frameworks in selected countries in Southern Africa. ●
Field of sorghum grown under dryland agriculture in northern Botswana.
The study posits that the path forward involvesa two-pronged approach: national legal reformand regional harmonization.
Commercial farm,Mozambique.
Banana plantation, Tanzania.
For many countries, the study found that outdated or unclear laws are among the biggest barriers.
Peanut field, Zambia.
To ensure harmonized guidelines are successfully integrated, the study noted that each country must assess its legal landscape, identify regulatory gaps, and tailor reforms to its national context.
Maize crop in Zimbabwe.
Cape Winelands region in South Africa
The UK Government’s revised National Action Plan (NAP) for the Sustainable Use of Pesticides (2025) was published to reduce pesticide risk and promote more sustainable crop protection practices. However, for the World BioProtection Forum (WBF) this plan represents a critical missed opportunity. While the NAP recognises integrated pest management (IPM) as a key element of the UK’s sustainable agriculture vision, it fails to address the fundamental enabler of IPM’s success: the availability and adoption of biological crop protection products.
Minshad Ansari
Without biologicals, IPM cannot succeed Biological solutions, including biopesticides, microbial products and natural repellents, are cornerstones of modern IPM strategies. However, outdated, slow, costly regulatory systems hinder their integration into UK agriculture.
The NAP promotes IPM but does not provide a pathway to ensure farmers can access the tools necessary for its implementation. This oversight makes the plan aspirational rather than actionable. WBF warns that IPM cannot function effectively without a strong pipeline of registered biologicals to replace withdrawn chemical pesticides.
Biologicals still trapped in a chemical framework Despite widespread scientific agreement that biopesticides are
safer, break down more quickly, and pose significantly less risk to human health and the environment, they are still evaluated under a regulatory system designed for synthetic chemicals.
The UK continues to operate under EU Regulation 1107/2009, a framework that subjects all pesticide products – regardless of their risk profile – to the same level of scrutiny. Consequently, biologicals may take four to five years to register in the UK. In the EU, this process can extend even longer – six to seven years – without prioritising low-risk solutions.
In stark contrast, Brazil and other Latin American countries have embraced progressive regulatory models that permit the assessment and approval of biologicals in as little as 12 months. These frameworks
are based on risk proportionality, facilitating swift adoption without sacrificing safety or efficacy.
DEFRA must act now The WBF has engaged with DEFRA and the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) for several years to highlight this area's lack of regulatory innovation. In March 2024, the Forum hosted a Westminster conference in 2023 with policymakers, researchers and industry leaders to present clear evidence and offer practical solutions. The message was consistent and unified: “Biologicals must be prioritised, and the UK should establish a dedicated, fast-track registration pathway that acknowledges their low-risk status and crucial role in sustainable farming.”
The WBF has also published a White Paper outlining how the UK can reform its regulatory approach post-Brexit. Unfortunately, the NAP fails to reflect any of these proposals, nor does it reference the need for timelines, provisional authorisations, or support for innovation in the biological space.
Farmers face a dangerous gap Chemical pesticides are being phased out due to environmental and health concerns, but there is no rapid system to fill the gap with biological alternatives. This widening void makes farmers vulnerable – unable to access new solutions yet restricted from using conventional ones.
We are heading toward a future where UK farmers will be left without effective tools to manage pests and diseases. If the government continues to delay biopesticide reform, it will threaten food security, environmental targets, and international business.
The vall for a five-pointreform plan To unlock the potential of biological crop protection, the World BioProtection Forum is urging the UK Government to implement the following reforms without delay:
1. A Dedicated Biologicals Strategy: Introduce a national policy and funding framework that prioritises developing, commercialising, and adopting biological crop protection products.
2. A Fast-Track Registration Pathway: Develop a risk-based, proportionate regulatory process for biopesticides, aiming for a timeline of 12–18 months, modelled on international best practices.
3. Post-Brexit Regulatory Independence: Depart from EU Regulation 1107/2009 and create a
UK-specific framework designed for the unique characteristics of biological products, utilising science-based risk assessment.
4. Support for SMEs and Innovation: To accelerate innovation, offer technical and financial support to small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), including grants and reductions in registration fees.
5. Demonstration and Adoption Programmes: Initiate government-supported on-farm trials, public procurement programs, and demonstration projects to assess the effectiveness of biologicals and promote farmer adoption.
The time for consultation is over The biological sector does not seek shortcuts or diminished safety standards. It demands fairness, clarity, and urgency – a system that aligns regulation with risk and innovation with opportunity.
The UK has the chance to become a global leader in sustainable crop protection and post-Brexit regulatory reform. But this cannot happen if we continue to delay the registration of solutions already proven safe, effective, and aligned with our climate and biodiversity goals.
WBF remains committed The World BioProtection Forum will continue to advocate for a more progressive and science-aligned regulatory framework. We remain committed to working with DEFRA, HSE, and UK policymakers to develop a modern system that
empowers innovation, protects public health, and ensures farmers can deliver secure and sustainable food production.
Until then, the message is clear: Without biologicals, the goals of the NAP – and the future of IPM – cannot be achieved. ●
In-field cameras have uncovered unexpected predators of two major oilseed rape pests, potentially aiding control strategies.
The camera study, conducted over two years in two UK locations, found that larval stages of predatory carabid beetles play a crucial role in tackling the pollen beetle (Brassicogethes aeneus) and the brassica pod midge (Dasineura brassicae), two significant threats to oilseed rape crops.
The research was conducted by Gaetan Semani-Corda as part of his PhD studies at Rothamsted Research under the supervision of Dr. Sam Cook. The main driver for these investigations is the continuing problem of pest control for oilseed rape (OSR).
“Some effective pesticides that UK and European farmers used to use to control pests such as cabbage stem flea beetle, pollen beetle and the brassica pod midge have been banned and farmers are struggling to protect their crops,” James Clarke with Rothamsted Research told New AG International. He added that in some areas of England, OSR cultivation is now down by as much as 29 percent as farmers abandon the crop.
Ecologists have long used camera traps to study wildlife, but their application in monitoring invertebrates is relatively new. Traditionally, pitfall traps have been
the go-to method for studying predatory arthropods. However, the latest findings reveal that pitfall traps fail to capture large numbers of predatory beetle larvae, underestimating their impact as natural pest controllers.
“A key part of this approach is surveillance – can we tell farmers in real time when pests arrive in their fields so they can act quickly,” said Clarke.
The important finding from the research is that predatory carabid beetle larvae are much more voracious predators than was previously known – so encouraging these beetles in crop fields could help with control of pests.
“Recognizing the importance of predatory beetle larvae in natural pest control, farmers could adopt conservation biocontrol strategies that enhance the presence of these beneficial arthropods,” said Cook, who led the research team. “Adjusting farming practices to support these natural predators may reduce the need for synthetic chemical pesticides, improving sustainability and biodiversity in agricultural landscapes.”
The study also showed differing activity patterns depending on the time of day. Predators of the pollen beetle larvae were significantly more active at night compared to morning or afternoon, with notable activity
also recorded at dusk and dawn. This pattern was consistent across data collected in both years, indicating a preference for nocturnal activity among most predators, while some exhibited a diurnal rhythm. The highest numbers of pollen beetle larvae dropped at dusk, while the brassica pod midge larvae dropped significantly more at dawn than at other times of the day.
With European oilseed rape yields under constant threat from pests, this research provides fresh hope for more environmentally friendly farming. Encouraging predatory beetle larvae populations could be a cost-effective and ecologically sound method to keep crops safe while preserving essentialpredator species.
“These findings highlight the potential of cameras as powerful tools for ecological research,” said Cook. “As farming continues to seek greener solutions, this innovative approach could contribute to improved pest management rooted in nature’s own defences.” ●
Researcher Gaetan Seimani-Cordasetting up a camera trap. Photo: Rothamsted Research
In-field cameras haveuncovered unexpected predators of two major oilseed rape pests, potentially aiding control strategies.
Changes to a pest’s diet could slow the evolution of resistance to biopesticides, according to research from University of Stirling (UK) scientists.
It is hoped the findings could allow the development of biopesticides that are effective for longer, potentially increasing food security, reducing damage to the natural environment and boosting agro-ecological biodiversity.
Researchers discovered that cotton bollworm pests – a species of moth that can cause considerable agricultural damage – show a great deal of genetic variation in how well they survive after being exposed to biopesticide fungi which are often considered safer alternatives to chemical pesticides.
The study showed that exposure to biopesticide fungi might lead to the evolution of resistance, just as with synthetic pesticides, and builds on previous findings that indicated new approaches are required in managing resistance risks to greener pesticides.
However, alterations to the pest’s diet, the crop it eats, had a greater impact on evolution of resistance than switching the type of pesticide used – meaning that the variety of crop grown could impact how quickly pests adapt to biopesticides.
Scientists from Stirling’s Faculty of Natural Sciences, working with colleagues at the São Paulo State University (Brazil), and the University of Gothenburg (Sweden) raised thousands of cotton bollworm larvae in the lab from different family lines.
The team tested how well the larvae survived after being exposed to two
different fungal pathogens, while feeding on tomato, maize or soybean plants.
Research took place in controlled lab conditions at the University of Stirling using fungi sourced from Brazil with the support of international partners, and combined breeding experiments with advanced statistical modelling to uncover genetic patterns.
It builds on a study published in 2023 that showed insect pests which attack crops already carry
many genes that improve their ability to combat infection, which could lead to resistance to greener pesticides.
“This is a major insight because we have shown the potential for substantial evolutionary changes in surviving exposure to biopesticides – but also that farmers might slow this down by using more diverse cropping systems,” said Dr. Rosie Mangan, post-doctoral researcher at the University of Stirling. “Understanding how diet influences fungal biopesticides resistance helps inform smarter pest management strategies that are sustainable and less reliant on chemicals.
“Farmers and policymakers could use these findings to design pest control systems that keep biopesticides effective for longer, reducing environmental damage, helping promote agro-ecological biodiversity and improving global food security,” she added. “These insights are especially relevant to agricultural policy in the UK, EU, and other regions where biopesticide use is growing.”
The new paper, Crop diversity induces trade-offs in microbial biopesticide susceptibility that could delay pest resistance evolution, is published in PLOS Pathogens.
Mangan worked on the study with Professor Matthew Tinsley and Ester Ferrari, of the Faculty of Natural Sciences at the University of Stirling, Dr. Luc Bussière of the University of Gothenburg, and Dr. Ricardo Polanczyk of São Paulo State University.
The study formed part of a larger international initiative focused on making crop protection more sustainable, funded by the UK’s Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) and the São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP) through a Newton Fund international partnership. Additional support came from Sweden’s Vetenskapsrådet and the Carl Trygger Foundation. ●
The research team tested how well cotton bollworm larvae survived after being exposed to two different fungal pathogens, while feeding on tomato, maize or soybean plants (pictured).
A European moth is being used in parts of Western Canada as a biological control agent against oxeye daisy, an invasive plant that threatens forage crops and pastures.
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC) Lethbridge (Alta.) Research and Development Centre researcher Dr. Rosemarie De Clerck-Floate is leading the Canadian research team that includes collaborators from the Summerland (B.C.) and the Saskatoon (Sask.) Research and Development Centres, and expert input from researchers at the Centre for Agriculture and Bioscience International in Switzerland (CABI).
Since 2008, seven insect species were studied as potential candidates for biocontrol of oxeye daisy. Currently, the Canadian research team is focusing their efforts on one particularly promising insect – a small moth from Europe called Dichrorampha aeratana. Feeding by the moth’s larvae, mainly within the stems of oxeye daisy, helps control the weed by weakening it and reducing its ability to reproduce and spread. The larvae also overwinter in the base of the plant’s stems before becoming adults in the spring to repeat the cycle of feeding damage within oxeye daisy patches.
Before introducing the moth to Canada, CABI researchers, with support from AAFC, conducted 10 years of testing (from 2011 to 2021). They studied how the moth interacted with 75 different plant species, including 33 native to North America. The results showed that the moth strongly prefers and survives best on oxeye daisy, without harming any other species.
Based on this research, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) approved the release of the moth, and in June 2023, De Clerck-Floate and her team released 850 moths – mostly larvae and a few adults – in three pasture fields: two in southern British Columbia and one in southwestern Alberta. These releases have shown the moth is able to survive – even in Alberta’s extreme winter temperatures, which can drop as low as -40C.
While the results are promising, the scientists say it will take more research for this moth to reach its full potential. The research team is now working on ways to mass-rear the moths more efficiently, so they can be more available to producers and land managers. ●
Close-up of oxeyedaisy blossom. Photo: AAFC
Dichrorampha aeratana larvain plant stem, displaying damage.
Photo: AAFC
The International Biocontrol Manufacturers Association (IBMA) and Copa Cogeca, the united voice of farmers and agri-cooperatives in the EU, have renewed their five-year roadmap outlining key priorities and actions that will enable biocontrol plant protection products (PPPs) to be better integrated into integrated pest management (IPM) in all agricultural systems.
The joint roadmap identifies key priorities and actions to make this happen: establish a clear and harmonized definition of biocontrol PPPs at EU level; ensure efficient and transparent approval of low-risk and biocontrol PPPs; enhance EU-wide mutual recognition and prioritization of biocontrol solutions; strengthen resources and expertise for biocontrol; and support the uptake of biocontrol tools by farmers through financial incentives
According to Jennifer Lewis, IBMA executive director, since 2017, farmers have lost access to roughly one-third of their conventional plant protection tools.
“There is an urgent need to accelerate biocontrol,” said Lewis. “We are hopeful that the EU’s upcoming proposal to do so, expected at the end of the year, will empower us to act on the priorities outlined in our roadmap withCopa Cogeca.”
Elli Tsiforou, secretary general of Copa and Cogeca, said the EU’s agricultural sector is facing “significant challenges” due to the phase-out of essential PPPs and the slow authorisation of alternatives.
“The loss of key PPPs threatens crop yields, quality, farm profitability, and the EU’s global competitiveness,” noted Tsiforou. “Biocontrol and other alternative methods show promise, but they still need to become a full reality in the EU market. To achieve this, The EU must adapt its legislative frameworks by fostering innovation, streamlining regulations, supporting farmers, and ensuring cooperation among stakeholders to maintain productivity, sustainability, and competitiveness." ●
Jennifer Lewis,IBMA executive director
Elli Tsiforou, Copa and Cogeca, secretary general
Futureco Bioscience and Sumitomo Corporation have signed global agreement to advance new, high-performance biological crop protection technology.
The global evaluation with licensing option agreement concerns a proprietary biological crop protection technology, developed and patented by Futureco Bioscience, which is currently undergoing registration in both Europe and the United States.
At the core of this agreement is a novel biocontrol product, based on the proprietary strain B2017 of Pseudomonas alloputida. Futureco says this biological solution has demonstrated consistent and robust efficacy in both internal studies and independently conducted field trials. It provides broad-spectrum control against key fungal and bacterial pathogens, including powdery mildew, downy mildew, Botrytis spp., Pseudomonas syringae, and Xanthomonas spp. The product is protected under international patents and is advancing through regulatory processes in key agricultural markets. ●
Amoéba has received authorization for large-scale trials of its biocontrol product AXPERA in the Netherlands.
The permit was granted by the Board for the Authorisation of Plant Protection Products and Biocides (CTBG), an independent administrative body established by the Dutch government responsible for assessing biocides and plant protection products.
CTGB has authorized the use of AXPERA against powdery and downy mildews on several major greenhouse crops: tomatoes, cucumbers, strawberries, roses and gerbera. The Dutch authorities have authorized the consumption of fruit and vegetables harvested as part of these trials.
This large-scale trial program will enable Amoéba to validate the effectiveness of the product under commercial conditions; integrate AXPERA into various greenhouse techniques used in the Netherlands; and strengthen its visibility and credibility with Dutch growers. The company says this permit could also benefit Amoéba's potential future partner, Koppert, which will be able to continue trials under market conditions and speed up commercial roll-out.
In mid-April, Amoéba received an emergency plant protection marketing authorization for its biocontrol product AXPERA for use against downy mildew on grapevines in France. The authorization allows winegrowers to use AXPERA over a 120-day period before a permanent market authorization is granted, expected by the end of 2025 or early 2026. The emergency authorization is valid during the anti-mildew treatment period from mid-April to mid-August 2025 and covers up to 250 hectares. ●
