How do we frame biocontrol agents clearly enough to fit within today’s regulatory framework, yet flexibly enough to ensure they’re assessed on their own biological terms, not by chemical-era rules?

Biocontrols are continuously reshaping our understanding of crop protection, but are our regulations keeping pace?

Some biocontrols behave like chemicals. Others act like living organisms. And many, like peptides, plant extracts, and RNA-based products, fall somewhere in between. Despite this diversity, most are still assessed using data requirements designed for synthetic small molecule chemistry.

The EU has made progress by introducing tailored pathways for microbial biocontrol agents that better reflect their biology. It’s a step in the right direction, though some applicants feel it still falls short of a fully integrated, biology-first process.

But for non-microbial biocontrols, the framework remains rigid. Plant extracts, peptides, and nucleic acid-based technologies are still judged by chemical-era standards, often requiring data that’s irrelevant or even impossible to generate. The result? A gap, not between safety and regulation, but between biology and bureaucracy.

To close that gap, we need to rethink how we apply the rules. Not necessarily rewrite them, but interpret them intelligently. That means applying proportionality and scientific relevance, so the legislation works as intended: fairly, and grounded in evidence.

At Blue Frog Scientific, we help innovators bridge this space, translating biology into regulatory language that stands up to scrutiny.

What’s your take? Is the framework evolving fast enough, or are we still trying to fit nature into chemical-shaped boxes?