How the sausage gets made: A look inside the arduous and expensive process of pesticide regulatory approval

Credit: Maasaak via CC-BY-SA-4.0
Credit: Maasaak via CC-BY-SA-4.0

To get a new active ingredient product approved, there are a significant number of studies a company must complete first. These scientific studies are extremely expensive, many of them costing over $150,000 — and some of them even costing millions of dollars! It is extremely important these studies are conducted to affirm the safety and efficacy of any product seeking approval.

Follow the latest news and policy debates on sustainable agriculture, biomedicine, and other ‘disruptive’ innovations. Subscribe to our newsletter.

The EPA will review the ingredients of the pesticide, the particular site or crop where it is to be used, the amount, frequency, and timing of its use, along with storage and disposal practices.

The application from the company will give the EPA details on the data collected from the research studies conducted, this data is then subject to an extensive scientific peer review to ensure it is correct. The EPA is especially concerned with potential harm to humans, wildlife, fish, and plants, or the contamination of surface/ground water. These risks include short-term toxicity issues, long-term effects like cancer or reproductive disorders, and of course the risk of death.

Development, research, and approval of a pesticide can take years, and in some cases, even more than a decade.

This is an excerpt. Read the original post here

{{ reviewsTotal }}{{ options.labels.singularReviewCountLabel }}
{{ reviewsTotal }}{{ options.labels.pluralReviewCountLabel }}
{{ options.labels.newReviewButton }}
{{ userData.canReview.message }}

Related Articles

Infographic: Global regulatory and health research agencies on whether glyphosate causes cancer

Infographic: Global regulatory and health research agencies on whether glyphosate causes cancer

Does glyphosate—the world's most heavily-used herbicide—pose serious harm to humans? Is it carcinogenic? Those issues are of both legal and ...

Most Popular

Screenshot 2025-07-30 at 10.48
Can gene editing eliminate Down syndrome? Scientists have done it in lab-grown cells
ChatGPT Image May 26, 2026, 08_42_17 AM (1)
Viewpoint: Greenpeace and poison: How environmental advocacy groups rely on compliant (and often ignorant) journalists to spread disinformation and spark litigation
ChatGPT Image May 26, 2026, 08_21_36 AM
Limiting gender affirming interventions: Trump administration targets Texas even though it already bans youth access
Screenshot-2026-05-28-at-1.36.28-PM
Viewpoint: Can mRNA research survive the Trump administration?
Screenshot-2026-06-03-at-1.24.46-PM
Challenging anti-GMO disinformation: Why genetically-tweaked crops offer bushels of benefits
ChatGPT-Image-Jun-2-2026-03_04_17-PM
Viewpoint: Why the hyper-promoted doping ‘enhanced games’ pseudo Olympics flopped
ChatGPT-Image-May-26-2026-07_51_21-AM-2
Viewpoint: There are more than 1,000 chemicals in a cup of coffee—including many substances that can cause cancer. Why isn’t it banned?
ChatGPT-Image-Jun-3-2026-12_33_40-PM-2-1
Viewpoint—The end of ‘ivory tower science’: What does that even mean, and what comes next
tick-DNA
GLP podcast: Spread meat allergy with gene-edited ticks? Bioethicists pose vile ‘thought experiment’
Picture1
Sounds we can’t hear — the hidden planetary signals behind science, fear, and misinformation
ChatGPT-Image-Jun-2-2026-11_39_58-AM
Viewpoint: Who is RFK, Jr.’s newly-appointed CDC senior counselor, Sara Brenner — Vaccine skeptic and self-proclaimed “MAHA mom”
ChatGPT-Image-Mar-10-2026-01_39_01-PM
Viewpoint—“Miracle molecule” debunked: Why acemannan supplements don’t work
glp menu logo outlined

Get news on human & agricultural genetics and biotechnology delivered to your inbox.