Even in the United States, where regulation has traditionally been risk-based, manufacturers are increasingly hitting limits. A report on Agropages vividly describes how even large companies such as Syngenta or Certis Biologicals are struggling with the hurdles created by today’s approval procedures.

Yet this would be the very time to make new active substances available more quickly and efficiently. Climate change is altering pest pressure and disease patterns at record speed, including in Switzerland. Resistance to existing active substances is increasing. At the same time, demands for sustainability and environmental compatibility are rising—rightly so. But to meet these demands, progress is needed—and progress requires innovation. If this innovation is systematically slowed down by regulatory processes, it jeopardizes not only agricultural productivity but also food security, as well as environmental and soil protection.

Growing global challenges—and shrinking room for action

At the heart of the problem are the worldwide increases in requirements for active substance approval. In recent years, demands for data, studies, testing procedures, and documentation have risen massively. Today, the time until approval of a new crop protection product can take ten years or more—even when it involves a biological product that is hardly toxic and should in fact be made available quickly.

Compounding this are staffing shortages at the relevant authorities, a steep rise in the number of applications filed, and new requirements—such as for species and biodiversity protection—that are suddenly integrated into procedures and cause years of delays.

One example from the Agropages article: a company submitted a product to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and received an assurance of approval within 90 days. Shortly before the deadline, however, an additional risk assessment for the protection of endangered species was suddenly required—the procedure ultimately took more than two years. Situations like these not only create massive additional costs but also generate planning uncertainty, which is hardly bearable for small and medium-sized enterprises in particular.

New technologies—welcomed on paper, blocked in practice

It is precisely the new technologies that would be urgently needed: active substances with new modes of action that can circumvent existing resistance; formulations that act more precisely and minimize side effects on the environment and beneficial organisms; digital applications and AI-based development approaches that could improve efficiency and sustainability. But as long as the regulatory framework remains aligned with outdated structures, these innovations will not reach the market. Companies then prefer to invest in reformulating existing active substances or withdraw from research altogether. What falls by the wayside is progress—and with it the ability of agriculture to adapt to changing conditions.

A new balance between safety and innovation is needed

Of course, protective mechanisms are necessary—for the environment, health, and biodiversity. No one is calling for the weakening of safety in approval procedures. But a rethinking of regulation is required: processes must become more efficient, transparent, and predictable. Digital tools and artificial intelligence should not be treated as an additional object of scrutiny but as instruments for acceleration. And above all, the focus must once again be placed on actual risk rather than solely on hypothetical worst-case scenarios. In addition, the assessment of the benefits of the technology to be approved, and the risks of not applying it, must become a fixed part of the approval process. Because refusing approval out of fear cannot secure the status quo but instead means regression. The world does not stand still.

If we want to continue protecting our crops effectively and in an environmentally sound way in the future, these regulatory hurdles must be brought back to a manageable level. Only then will research into new active substances remain economically attractive and feasible. Otherwise, no one will be willing to invest in development any longer—to the detriment of agriculture, consumers, and ultimately also the environment.