How do we build regulatory confidence in biocontrol agents across EU zones and Member States, ensuring that innovation is assessed consistently and predictably?

The science may be clear, but interpretation often isn’t.

Across Europe, different authorities apply guidance differently, and what passes smoothly in one zone can stall in another. For innovators working on microbial, peptide, or RNA-based biocontrols, this inconsistency can turn a well-designed dossier into a regulatory obstacle course.

Consistency remains one of the biggest challenges to getting safe, sustainable biologicals to market.

True progress depends on communication as much as data, on transparent reasoning, clear narratives, and alignment with precedent. Confidence grows when evidence makes sense, scientifically, logically, and politically.

There are encouraging signs of change. The European Commission’s exploration of a legal definition of biocontrol, the Council’s studies on microbial and invertebrate biological control agents, and EFSA’s focus on fit-for-purpose risk assessment all point in the right direction. But even within zones, interpretations still diverge. What one Member State calls “proportionate,” another may consider incomplete.

Science alone doesn’t build confidence; understanding does.

At Blue Frog Scientific we help clients bridge those differences, translating innovation into regulatory language that connects evidence, logic, and trust.

How close are we to genuine harmonisation for biocontrols in Europe – and what will it take to get there?