Many hurdles to climb for microbial bioprotectant management

Mycotal is a bio-insecticide from Koppert. Its active ingredient Lecanicillium muscarium helps control whitefly, thrips, and aphids.(Photo credit: Koppert.)

The book ‘Microbial bioprotectants for plant disease management’ was published nearly two years ago (in November 2021), and the issues raised in its final chapter continue to frustrate those who work in the bioprotectants industry.

The 700-page ‘Microbial bioprotectants for plant disease management’ was edited by Dr Willem Ravensberg and Dr Jürgen Köhl – both of whom are renowned for their work in biological control.

Ravensberg, is an entomologist and former president of the International Biocontrol Manufacturers Association (IBMA), who worked for Koppert for more than 40 years. During the past decade, he was the company’s governmental and regulatory affairs manager, although he retired this summer.

Köhl is a senior scientist in plant pathology at Wageningen University & Research and has worked in this field for more than 30 years. Given their combined extensive experience, the pair clearly had a lot of knowledge to share when they compiled the book.

‘It was time for such a book’

Ravensberg says: “There are quite a few books on the biological control of insects, but not so many on plant diseases. And that’s why we focussed on plant diseases. Because we thought it was, indeed, time for such a book.”

As its name suggests, the book summarises and reviews the current biological methods for controlling plant diseases. But Ravensberg explains that it’s a little different from the norm.

“What we added in was information on the products’ markets, regulations, uses, production methods, and formulations – the kind of information that’s not traditionally available in scientific publications.”
And, importantly, the book’s final chapter is dedicated to the future of microbial bioprotectants.

Ravensberg says: “I summarised major factors that will influence their future, and regulation is a very important one in there, especially in Europe because it takes more time, and probably more money, to get a product on the market compared to areas like the United States, Brazil, and China. And that’s due to our complicated registration system.”

Companies risk-avoiding Europe

Currently, it can take between five and eight years to get a new bioprotectant product on the market under the EU’s current Regulation (EC) 1107/2009.

“It’s partly a technical issue, but it’s also a political issue. It’s [the registration process] almost duplicated. One country does a risk assessment, then EFSA (European Food Safety Authority) does a risk assessment, and then 26 other countries can bring in their comments. It just takes too long. It takes between one and a half to two years in the US and Brazil. So, there’s a concern that companies are avoiding Europe,” says Ravensberg.

He opines that this situation in Europe is particularly peculiar given that we live in a society that “wants to have alternatives to chemicals.” “Because we continually find that these chemicals have all these drawbacks – on nature, on the environment, and on human health.”

The EU is making things so complicated

Köhl adds that an International Organisation for Biological and Integrated Control (IOBC) working group meeting, hosted by Wageningen University & Research this summer, held a session on the EU crop protection regulations.

He says: “We heard a lot of success stories during that meeting, but this particular session was depressing – at least for us Europeans. The EU is making things so complicated.”

Köhl’s main task as a researcher is carrying out research and development for new BCAs [biological control agents]. He continues, “And I usually do that together with industry in public-private partnerships. But we’re hearing more and more comments such as: ‘Why should we fund such a development? It [the registration process] is a big hurdle for those who have the product ready and would like to implement it on the market.”

Köhl also highlights that the regulation process is expensive as well as lengthy. And Ravensberg claims that, when he was president of the IBMA, he quite regularly heard that companies were deciding to go to other continents first. “And then maybe later on, they would develop their product in Europe. It’s too slow in Europe to get a return on investment on all the things you’ve developed and spent money on. So, they’d go elsewhere – to the United States or South America, for instance.”

Is the tide turning?

Last year (2022), the European Commission (EC) took on a proposal for a new Regulation on the Sustainable Use of Plant Protection Products (SUR). The proposal is under heavy discussion and is expected to be voted on by the European Parliament later this year. The EC notes that this could be ‘the first step towards an effective and coherent pesticide reduction policy in the EU’.
Importantly, an additional impact study of the SUR proposal, published this summer, acknowledged ‘the potential of alternatives, including biocontrol, as a key contribution to achieving pesticide reduction targets.

Moreover, the study cited data provided by 26 company members of the IBMA that highlighted that there are applications for 79 new biocontrol active substances in the pipeline and 54 extensions of uses of existing substances expected before 2028.

Arguably, these applications are part of a newfound awareness of the need for a more sensitive approach to crop protection.
This includes, for example, an emphasis on the importance of soil health, the need to use fewer chemicals (including artificial fertilisers), and (more recently) an increasing understanding of the role that a plant’s microbiome (the microbial ecosystem in and near the plant) plays in its general health.

Furthermore, the World BioProtection Forum (WBF), based in the UK, is working to secure a regulatory framework that supports sustainable agriculture. “We have some hope that Britain will change its system and make it faster,” says Ravensberg.

The big word is communication

Köhl adds that, on another positive note, he and his fellow scientists in the field are confident that they can continue to find new candidates (namely the “good” microorganisms) for new targets (the “bad” microorganisms such as powdery mildew) when needed. “For scientists, it’s fascinating to find the good ones. And we know that it’s possible to find them.”

He continues: “With all the new techniques available to us, we’re getting more and more insights into the plants’ microbiomes – their composition, their functions. And we know that we shouldn’t disturb them with chemicals, for example.”

So, what’s needed to achieve progress in biological control? Kӧhl reveals that this burning question was put to the delegates at the aforementioned IOBC working group meeting that took place earlier this summer.
“We expected them to come up with all kinds of scientific terms – because mainly they were scientists – but the big word occurring on the screen was communication.”
Certainly, Kӧhl and Ravensberg have, throughout their careers and in their recent book, done their utmost to communicate the needs of the bioprotectants sector to legislators and the like. But perhaps more people need to start doing the same.

The 700-page book provides arguably the most comprehensive overview of plant diseases, the current biological methods for controlling them, the products’ markets, regulations, uses, production methods, and formulations, plus a final chapter dedicated to the future of microbial bioprotectants.

The book ‘Microbial Bioprotectants for plant disease management’ summarises and reviews the wealth of recent research on the development of more environmentally friendly biological methods to control plant diseases. The book (ISBN 978-1-78676-813-1) can be ordered via Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing | Agricultural Science in Print and Online (bdspublishing.com).

This article was first published in the September 2023 edition of FloraCulture International.