5 - 7 October 2026
Novotel Barcelona City
Barcelona, Spain
Main Conference Day 2
How pesticide impacts cascade through trophic levels to affect entire ecosystems.
EFSA's mandate on indirect effects
Current assessment frameworks inadequately capture how pesticides affect plants and arthropods that support higher organisms.
The two-step assessment approach examining severe impacts and broad taxonomic spectrum effects
Balancing crop protection with ecosystem health
The efficacy-safety trade-off: When agronomic needs conflict with precautionary safety margins.
Emerging health concerns around endocrine disruption, neurodevelopmental effects, and mixture toxicity
Innovation in safer chemistry and precision application technologies offers pathways to maintain agricultural productivity whilst reducing human exposure
Climate-driven pest dynamics: Shifting pest ranges, extended growing seasons, and extreme weather events create pest control challenges for existing regulatory frameworks.
The diminishing toolbox crisis intensifies as active substance losses and resistance development leave farmers with fewer effective control options precisely when pest pressure increases.
Emergency authorisations for novel pest threats; precautionary regulation and the need for rapid response to agricultural emergencies.
Multi-layered compliance burden: Navigating active substance approvals alongside product authorisations across Member States creates complexity disproportionately affecting SMEs
Approval process bottlenecks that extended deadlines don't resolve
Case studies from ethanol to anticoagulant rodenticides to cosmetic preservatives; how classification changes trigger cascading compliance challenges.
The SBP procedure offers reduced data requirements and faster timelines.
Dependency on reference product validity creates strategic vulnerabilities.
Demonstrating equivalence in formulation, efficacy, and risk profile requires documentation that may reveal more about proprietary formulations than companies prefer.
Benefits of reduced time-to-market and lower costs must be weighed against limitations in formulation flexibility and risks of reference product withdrawal.
The resistance development link: connecting biocide use to AMR development may reshape how regulators assess biocidal product safety.
Regulatory scrutiny signals that AMR considerations will increasingly influence biocidal product authorisations.
Innovation opportunities for AMR-conscious formulations create competitive advantages for companies that proactively address resistance concerns.
Machine-readable labels enable regulatory oversight and supply chain transparency.
Electronic record-keeping requirements transform IPM documentation and audit trails.
Implementation & interoperability; harmonised labelling format across EU Member States for simplicity in compliance
Integration with application equipment and farm management software.
- Anne Alix - Co - Chair (+ EU Regulatory Policy/Risk Assessment Leader, CORTEVA), Corteva Agriscience & EU Precision Application Task Force (EUPAF)
The persistent metabolite problem: TFA formation from PFAS in plant protection products creates contamination that conventional drinking water treatment cannot remove
Classification intent as a reproductive toxicant combined with PMT/vPvM characteristics threatens to disqualify fluorine-containing active substances from approval.
The joint ECHA-EFSA assessment ongoing through 2026 will determine whether TFA concerns trigger widespread non-renewal decisions.
Should alternative chemistry development and substitution planning begin now for companies with PFAS-containing products facing potential regulatory action?
Alternative rodent control methods from non-anticoagulant rodenticides to non-chemical approaches challenge the assumption that conventional products represent the only effective solutions
Broader biocidal product alternatives across preservatives, disinfectants, and wood preservatives demonstrate that substitution opportunities exist where innovation receives regulatory support.
The renewal challenge; how substances approved decades ago under different scientific understanding face re-evaluation against contemporary environmental protection standards.
Substitution challenges: Reformulating products to replace CMR, PBT, and ED substances whilst maintaining efficacy and market viability
Manufacturing realities: Production line adaptations, supply chain constraints, and quality control hurdles when implementing new requirements
Data generation bottlenecks: Practical challenges SMEs and manufacturers face meeting toxicological and ecotoxicological testing demands
Timeline misalignment: Examining whether regulatory deadlines reflect the technical realities of product development and validation cycles
Bridging the gap: Digital tools, industry-regulator dialogue, and collaborative solutions to align compliance obligations with operational feasibility
- Michael Werner - Head of Regulatory Affairs, Stockmeier Chemie GmbH & Co. KG
Ethical and scientific imperative: The Commission roadmap to phase out animal testing reflects both animal welfare concerns and recognises that in vitro methods and predictive modelling may provide better human-relevant data
OECD guideline developments and validation studies demonstrate technical feasibility.
Opportunities exist for companies that develop and validate New Approach Methodologies ahead of regulatory requirements.
- Tess Renahan - Advisor, PETA Science Consortium International e.V.
How "general alignment" translates into practice remains ambiguous—will UK automatically adopt EU additions or conduct independent assessments that could reach different conclusions?
HSE's retained Article 59 powers signal that UK-specific SVHCs could emerge where domestic risk assessments diverge from European opinions.
The retrospective review of post-Brexit EU additions creates uncertainty for substances added between 2021-2026—facing potential dual timelines.
OSOA implementation offers to eliminate duplicative data submissions across regulations,
Realising efficiency gains; adapting legacy compliance systems to new digital architectures.
AI-driven compliance management tools promise to navigate regulatory complexity automatically, yet reliance on algorithmic decision-making raises questions about accountability.
The digital transformation paradox: whilst platforms promise simplification, the transition period creates dual burdens.