New Crop Protection Molecule Now Costs $307 Million to Reach Market

19 October 2026, Brussels: It now costs an average of $307 million (€276 million) and about 11.4 years to take one new crop protection active ingredient from its first laboratory synthesis to sale in the major US and European markets. That is the finding of an industry survey carried out by AgbioInvestor on behalf of CropLife International. The report describes the path from molecule to market as “complex, costly and time consuming.” Its figures show the bill has roughly doubled since 1995, when the same exercise put the cost at $152 million.

The study was conducted during 2025. Five research-based companies took part: BASF Agricultural Solutions, Bayer Crop Science, Corteva, FMC and Syngenta. Each was asked for the full cost of discovering, developing and registering one new active ingredient introduced in the 2020-23 period.

Research costs had to cover every molecule synthesised and screened to produce a single launch, not just the one that succeeded. Responses were anonymised, averaged and compared with earlier editions going back to 1995. Together, the participants account for more than 78% of R&D spending among the top 30 global agrochemical companies.

Where the $307 million goes

Development takes the largest share of the total at $138 million (45.1%). Research follows at $133 million (43.4%), and registration accounts for $35 million (11.5%). The overall increase from the previous survey, which covered 2014-19, was 1.9%. That is the smallest rise across the study’s six editions, but the spending mix underneath it has shifted noticeably.

Research-phase chemistry, mainly the synthesis of candidate molecules, is now the single biggest cost at $75 million, up about 17%. Synthesis alone rose 17.9% to $72.3 million. Development field trials come next at $59 million, almost unchanged. Biological screening fell 9.9% to $46 million, or about 15% of total spending, mostly because glasshouse efficacy testing dropped 15.4%. As recently as 2010-14, biological screening was the costliest item in the entire process.

Development costs rose 4.0%, with increases in every line:

• chemistry (manufacturing scale-up and formulation) rose 6.9% to $32 million;
• environmental chemistry rose 8.0% to $24 million;
• toxicology rose 5.1% to $23 million.

Some safety testing is also moving earlier in the process. In the research phase, spending on mammalian subchronic toxicology rose 32.6% and environmental toxicology rose 75.5%. This suggests companies want to screen out weak candidates before committing development money. That decision is a big one: the report notes that moving a candidate from research into development commits a further $174 million.

Registration was the only major category to fall, declining 15.4%.

• EU registration dropped 12.1% to $21.4 million, because spending on EU-only additional studies fell 18.8%. Statutory fees and internal costs edged up.
• US registration fell 20.0% to $14.0 million, as both fees and US-only studies declined. Internal US registration costs, however, rose 60.5% to $1.6 million.

Companies also reported costs that sit outside the main survey template. Registering in markets beyond the EU and US averaged $14.7 million, and additional human health toxicology studies averaged $21.0 million.

Inflection points and what has changed

Three turning points stand out across three decades of data.

The first came between 2000 and 2005-08. Total costs jumped 39.1% to $256 million, and development overtook research as the largest block of spending, reaching 57% of the total on the back of heavy field trial costs.

The second was a short-lived productivity gain. Combinatorial chemistry and high-throughput screening briefly pulled research costs down to $85 million in 2005-08. Combinatorial chemistry has since lost popularity, and research spending has climbed back to $133 million.

The third is registration’s growing weight. Its share of total cost rose from 8.6% in 1995 to close to 14% in 2014-19, before easing in the latest survey.

Time to Market

Time to market follows a similar pattern. The lead time from first synthesis to first sale rose from 8.3 years in 1995 to 12.3 years in 2014-19, then eased to 11.4 years. The report links the long-term rise to heavier regulatory data demands. It also points to two Europe-specific factors:

• Brexit. Work the UK had handled for 45 active substances, plus residue-limit procedures for 56 substances, was redistributed among the remaining EU member states.
• Commission Regulation (EU) 2018/605. This set the criteria for identifying endocrine disruptors and triggered re-evaluations of several active substances.

Keeping a product on the market carries its own costs. Re-registering an existing active ingredient in 2020-23 cost an average of $15.3 million in the EU. That is roughly 10 times the US figure of $1.5 million and about 17 times the $0.9 million reported for other jurisdictions. Companies attributed the EU premium to jurisdiction-specific data requirements, including submissions through the IUCLID system. Some said they track only EU re-registration costs, because the European dossier is usually enough to support filings elsewhere.

Codex maximum residue limits (MRLs), the international food-safety ceilings for pesticide residues, add smaller but recurring costs:

• $183,000 on average to obtain an MRL for a new active ingredient;
• $36,000 for each additional use;
• $132,000 for each periodic review.

The survey also looked at overall R&D budgets. Participants spent $2,729 million on agrochemical R&D in 2023, equal to 5.5% of their agrochemical sales. Average spending per company fell 9.7% from 2019 to $444 million. Within that total, research into new active ingredients rose 9.8% to $139 million. Development of new active ingredients fell 16.8%, and product monitoring and stewardship fell 24.4%.

Biological crop protection R&D rose 43.4% to $37 million, taking 10% of the combined chemical and biological budget. Chemical R&D fell 9.3% to $336 million.

Spending on developing off-patent products rose to around $11 million. The report reads this as a defensive move. Fewer novel actives are clearing regulators, so a growing share of the market is shifting toward generics.

Regionally, Europe still leads at $105 million, but its share of targeted spending fell from 39% to 34%. North America followed at $92 million. Central and South America was the only region to grow, rising by roughly a fifth to $56 million, which lifted its share from 13% to 19%.

For South-Asia and other generic-focused agri-input manufacturers, the message is mixed. Rising costs and fewer launches mean fewer future patent expiries to build on. At the same time, the originator companies are now investing in off-patent products themselves, which brings them into direct competition with generic makers. 

Exporters filing dossiers in Europe should also note that EU re-registration costs far exceed those in other markets. Meanwhile, the steady rise in R&D aimed at Central and South America confirms Brazil and its neighbours as the industry’s fastest-growing development focus.

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