应对日益缩减的工具箱：全球专家展望2026年监管缺口——以及生物制剂的潜在优势
2026 年 1 月 14 日 As crop protection tools disappear faster than replacements can reach growers, manufacturers and formulators face mounting pressure to adapt. That challenge was at the heart of the AgriBusiness Global Live! webinar, “调整2026年的监管策略。”
Experts from Southeast Asia, the U.S. and EU, Latin America, and Africa outlined a global landscape in flux, where tighter regulations, resistance issues, shifting import rules, and rising costs are rapidly reshaping product availability. Across continents, one theme was clear: Regulatory gaps are growing, and biologicals, hybrid programs, and innovative solutions may offer the fastest path to fill them.
Southeast Asia: Fast Bans, Slow Alternatives
Piyatida Pukclai 博士, Regional Sales and Regulatory Policy Manager (Asia-Pacific) at knoell, opened with one of the session’s starkest warnings: Southeast Asia is banning hazardous pesticides faster than countries can register alternatives.
“The phasing out is very fast — sometimes much faster than finding replacements,” Pukclai said. Even when alternatives exist, the regional registration process remains slow and fragmented. “Registering a new active substance can take several years, and for biologicals, the fast track isn’t fast in practice.”
She highlighted a mismatch between regulatory expectations and biological realities. “Efficacy trials are still based on guidelines designed for conventional pesticides,” Pukclai said.
The result is rising costs and shrinking options for farmers, especially smallholders who need training and support to use biologicals effectively.
To succeed, Pukclai said companies must think beyond single-country strategies, “You cannot rely only on local regulations. You need to watch for regional changes — Association of Southeast Asian Nations-wide protocols are under discussion and likely to emerge, and early movers should design products and data packages that fit them.”
U.S. and EU: PFAS Restrictions Define the Next Compliance Battle
From the U.S. and EU perspective, PFAS restrictions are the biggest regulatory disruptor, said George Fountas, Global Director of Regulatory Affairs at AgriThority.
“EPA isn’t banning many products outright,” Fountas said. “But you end up with de facto bans when tolerances are pulled or new test methods are validated.”
In the U.S., however, the individual states are moving faster and more aggressively. “Minnesota’s new rule will require disclosure of PFAS next year, followed by bans unless you can prove they’re unavoidable,” said Fountas. “That’s going to create major gaps.”
In the EU, the trend is similar. Fountas pointed to Denmark’s recent action as a signal for what regulators across the bloc may follow. “Denmark just banned 23 PFAS-linked pesticides, with 10 more under review. If you’re using PFAS anywhere in your supply chain, now is the time to start removing them.”
For biologicals, Fountas said, there is a clear opportunity, “We’re always looking for bioherbicides — new modes of action with good safety profiles. That’s a major gap manufacturers can fill.”
Latin America: Bureaucracy Bottlenecks Innovation
Latin America is experiencing the same phasedown of hazardous products — but with a local twist, said SmartTox Founder and CEO Alexandre Quesada.
“It’s happening everywhere — highly hazardous products are being reevaluated and removed,” Quesada said. “The problem in Latin America is excessive bureaucracy and the lack of predictability in getting new products approved.”
In Brazil, delays affect more than just new molecules. “We lose opportunities to introduce better products because mixtures and reformulations are stuck in the same long queue,” Quesada said.
Mexico’s shifting policies, particularly around glyphosate, are also creating pressure. “The postponements created urgency for alternatives — biologicals especially — to move faster, Quesada said.
Uneven regulations across countries add another hurdle. “You need someone who understands the different approaches across the region,” said Quesada. “Otherwise, you can bring a good product but fail because of older evaluation systems or rigid equivalence rules.”
Africa: When Old Chemistry Disappears, So Do Protections
For Africa, the biggest threat isn’t just losing older chemistry — it’s losing it before biological or low-toxicity alternatives are available, said Garth Drury, Principal Consultant at Staphyt.
European decisions, he warned, have downstream consequences. “You have crops grown in Africa that Europe doesn’t grow. If Europe closes maximum residue limits for an active ingredient, African growers lose a product they depend on,” said Drury.
Pests like fall armyworm highlight the challenge. “Some invasive pests can only be controlled by older chemistry,” said Drury. “If those are restricted, countries struggle to protect crops.”
Africa’s biological market is growing, but unevenly. “Biopesticides are available, but they’re segmented, costly, or not suited to African conditions. Broad-spectrum alternatives aren’t always there,” Drury said.
Export markets add another layer of pressure. “Retailers like Carrefour or Walmart may demand zero residues,” said Drury. “Those requirements flow down to African producers, who then have fewer tools to stay compliant.”
Still, Drury sees room for innovation — but it requires nuance, “There’s real opportunity for biologicals, but only with localized strategies for countries like Morocco, South Africa, Nigeria, and Kenya.”
The Global Takeaway: Biologicals Are Rising — But Not Fast Enough
Across four continents, the message was clear: Regulatory gaps are widening, and biologicals are well positioned to fill them — if companies can navigate slow systems, uneven rules, and regional complexity.
Biologicals, smarter formulations, and hybrid IPM programs are not just opportunities — they are necessities. Bringing them to market will require global awareness, local nuance, and regulatory strategies designed for the evolving landscape.
- 观看 ABG 直播网络研讨会： 调整2026年的监管策略
立即获取时事通讯！
