New Analysis Identifies 86 Crop-protection Substances Facing Increased Renewal Risk Under Proposed EU Data Rules
Proposed changes to EU data protection rules could weaken incentives to invest in the scientific studies needed to keep essential crop protection solutions available to farmers.
17 October 2026, Brussels: Efforts to simplify EU rules could have an unintended consequence for Europe’s farmers: making it harder to justify the investment needed to keep existing crop protection solutions on the market and potentially reducing the options available to farmers in the future.
A new study conducted by Acumen Regulatory Consultants, commissioned by CropLife Europe, examined 180 active substances facing renewal from 2030 onward and identified 86 that could be particularly affected by proposed changes in EU data protection rules.
Many of these substances serve specialist markets, applications and minor crops, including fruit and vegetables, where the costs of renewal can be substantial, but the commercial returns are often more limited. For farmers operating in these markets, losing access to even a limited number of solutions could further narrow their crop-protection options.
The stakes are significant. Renewing an active substance can require €5–20 million in scientific studies, with a further €1–2 million for associated product renewals. Yet the analysis finds that these costs are often shouldered by just one or two companies, even when others may benefit from the resulting renewal.
The European Commission’s Food and Feed Safety Omnibus would introduce a single EU-wide clock for all test and study reports, rather than separate starting points in individual Member States. Although simpler on paper, this change could shorten the effective protection available in certain markets, reducing opportunities for companies financing renewal studies to recover their investment. In some cases, these opportunities could disappear entirely.
“You cannot renew a substance without the science and someone has to pay for that science,” said Olivier de Matos, Director General of CropLife Europe. “We are talking about millions of euros in investment, often carried by just one or two companies. If the rules make that investment harder to recover, who will fund the next renewal? And what does that ultimately mean for the farmers who depend on these solutions?”
The findings raise broader questions about the long-term consequences for Europe’s crop-protection toolbox. With the 180 substances examined facing renewal from 2030 onwards, decisions taken today could shape future investment in the scientific studies needed to support their continued availability. The concern is particularly relevant for smaller markets and specialised crops, where the economic case for renewal may already be challenging.
CropLife Europe supports the European Commission’s ambition to simplify the regulatory framework and reduce unnecessary administrative burdens. But simplification must not come at the expense of the investment incentives needed to maintain farmers’ access to crop-protection solutions.
“Simplification should make it easier to keep safe and effective solutions available to farmers, not harder to invest in their future,” added de Matos. “We support the Commission’s ambition, but simplification must work in practice. As the Omnibus moves forward, policymakers should ensure that the final rules protect the incentives needed to finance scientific studies and maintain farmers’ access to crop-protection solutions..”
Also Read: USDA Reports Record Soybean Yield, Bigger Corn Crop in October Forecast
Global Agriculture is an independent international media platform covering agri-business, policy, technology, and sustainability. For editorial collaborations, thought leadership, and strategic communications, write to pr@global-agriculture.com
