Key Takeaways
- Biological crop protection adoption is being driven primarily by consumers demands for products with less synthetic chemistry inputs which drives regulatory pressure, rather than farmer-led demand.
- Europe does not have a specific legislation yet for biological crop protection, which results in longer timelines than in some other regions.
- Variability in efficacy and sensitivity to environmental conditions remain major challenges for many plant protection products including biological products.
- Farmer technical knowledge has increased, but clearer, non-scientific communication is still required to support adoption.
- SynTech Research Group positions itself across the full biological crop protection development chain, from early research to registration and marketing demonstrations.
Biological Crop Protection Gains Attention Amid Regulatory Pressure
Biological crop protection has become a central topic in agricultural input development as policymakers and regulators increasingly restrict the use of conventional chemical products. While interest in biological alternatives has grown globally, their adoption has not followed a uniform path across regions.
According to Esther Debón, Biosolutions Global Lead at SynTech Research Group, regulatory dynamics are more regional than country-specific. “Regulation is a general regional constraint,” she said, pointing to Europe as an example where regulatory requirements are harmonized under a common regulation, which takes into account different bioclimatic regions but not fully agronomic differences across member states.
Outside Europe, regulatory pressure varies more widely. Debón highlighted that within North America, individual states such as California operate under more requirements than others, shaping how biological crop protection products are developed and deployed.
Regulatory Timelines and Market Entry for Biological Crop Protection
A common perception among startups and early-stage developers is that biological crop protection products face longer regulatory timelines than conventional chemicals.
Debón clarified that in Europe, biologicals fall under the same regulatory framework as chemical products and therefore do not take longer to obtain certification.”
Amalia Martín, Communications Manager at SynTech Research Group, added regulatory context, referencing Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 for plant protection products. “The current timeline is lengthy,” she said, noting that “if the EU’s omnibus draft regulation is approved it could eventually shorten timelines” by providing a definition for biocontrol products and other measures to shorten time to market. However, these changes remain under discussion and a lengthy legislative procedure and are not yet implemented.
From Early Screening to Market Placement in Biological Crop Protection
SynTech Research Group operates as a contract research organization supporting clients across the full biological crop protection development chain. This includes early-stage in vitro screening, greenhouse trials, field evaluations, ecotoxicology studies, and regulatory support including preliminary risk assessment.
Debón emphasized the importance of integrating regulatory considerations from the outset. Research activities should ideally be carried out within a well‑defined regulatory framework, which SynTech Research Group is able to do for multiple geographies. There are many cases in which companies develop advanced innovations that later turn out not to be fully compliant — whether due to ingredients, formulations, or other aspects that should have been considered from the outset. Integrating regulatory requirements from the beginning not only accelerates market readiness but also prevents costly re‑work and delays.
Martín summarized SynTech’s approach as structured around three pillars: laboratory research, field trials, and regulatory strategy. “Registration is taken into account from the very beginning,” she said, adding that this reduces the need to repeat trials or adjust development plans at later stages.
Crop Focus Areas Driving Biological Crop Protection Demand
While biological crop protection is often discussed in the context of large-scale arable farming, SynTech sees the strongest demand coming from horticulture, which has a thorough scrutiny for residues. “The highest demand, at least in Europe, is for horticultural crops,” Debón said.
Vegetable production offers higher added value, allowing growers to justify higher treatment costs. In contrast, innovation in extensive crops such as cereals is more limited and often concentrated on seed treatments, where margins are tighter and adoption thresholds higher.
Efficacy and Variability Remain Core Challenges
One of the most persistent challenges facing biological crop protection is variability in performance. Unlike conventional chemicals, many biological products are based on living microorganisms or biologically derived compounds that are sensitive to environmental conditions.
“We are talking about live microorganisms or products that could be very sensitive to environmental conditions,” Debón said. She contrasted this with some conventional products that could remain stable for years, noting that some biologicals have shorter shelf lives and narrower application windows.
This variability can affect farmer confidence, particularly at larger scales. Debón acknowledged that some biological products may perform well in some conditions but can show inconsistent results across different fields or seasons. As a result, she emphasized the importance of correct application and integration into broader integrated pest management programs.
Farmer Knowledge and Communication Gaps in Biological Crop Protection
Farmer understanding plays a critical role in adoption. Debón described two broad profiles among growers. “There are very traditional farmers that probably need more time and more resources to subscribe to new solutions,” she said, but she also noted a growing group of highly technical farmers who actively engage with new solutions.
“They are not just farmers, they are technical professionals,” Debón added, explaining that their feedback can be valuable even for product developers.
Despite this progress, Martín stressed that clearer communication remains essential. “Informative content is still very much needed,” she said, particularly for farmers who rely on long-standing practices or external sales advice. Better explanations of how and when to use biological crop protection products can help manage expectations and improve outcomes.
The Outlook for Biological Crop Protection Over the Next Decade
Looking ahead, Debón expects biological crop protection use to continue increasing, driven largely by consumers sustainability and less chemical residue demands shaping regulatory policies rather than changes in farmer preferences. “I expect an increase of biological products, driven mainly by regulation policies and consumer demands” she said.
She also pointed to technological advances as a key enabler. Computational tools and artificial intelligence are increasingly used to identify and develop more selective and targeted biological solutions. “New technologies will help us to accelerate the launch of new active substances,” Debón said, adding that future products are expected to be more focused on specific pests or diseases.
For SynTech Research Group, future priorities include digital technologies, seed-focused biotechnology, and biosolutions more broadly. “We already rely very much on digital technologies in our daily tests to provide accurate data” Debón said, positioning these tools as central to the company’s long-term strategy.
Together, these trends suggest that while biological crop protection is advancing steadily, its growth will remain shaped by regulation, technical limitations, and the pace at which scientific knowledge is translated into practical, farm-level use.
