Biological control, or biocontrol, is the exploitation of living agents (incl. viruses) to combat pestilential organisms (incl. pathogens, pests, and weeds) for diverse purposes to provide human benefits. Thus, during the last century the practices and concepts involved have evolved in separate streams associated with distinct scientific and taxonomic disciplines. In parallel developments, there have been increasing references to biological control in industrial contexts and legislation, resulting in conceptual and terminological disintegration. The aim of this paper is to provide a global conceptual and terminological platform that facilitates future development of the field. We review use of previously suggested terms in key fields (e.g., phytopathology, entomology, and weed science), eliminate redundant terminology, identify three principles that should underpin the concept, and then present a new framework for biological control, rooted in seminal publications. The three principles establish that (1) only living agents can mediate biological control, (2) biological control always targets a pest, directly or indirectly, and (3) all biocontrol methods can be classified in four main categories depending on whether resident agents are utilized, with or without targeted human intervention (conservation biological control and natural biological control, respectively) or agents are added for permanent or temporary establishment (classical biological control and augmentative biological control, respectively). Correct identification of what is, and is not, biological control can help efforts to understand and optimize biological pest control for human and environmental benefits. The new conceptual framework may contribute to more uniform and appropriate regulatory approaches to biological control, and more efficient authorization and application of biocontrol products.

The aim of this study was to identify reasons why the authorization of microbial pest control agents is lengthier under regulatory frameworks of the European Union (EU) than in comparable jurisdictions. A main conclusion is that although the EUʼs regulatory processes have strong scientific foundations, the most appropriate scientific concepts, knowledge and expertise have not been applied in the safety assessment of microorganisms and biological control. Tradition and conceptual legacies from assessments of conventional chemical pesticides have likely contributed to this by steering the evaluations of microorganisms in less appropriate directions. According to our investigation, the current framework for microbial plant protection products complies poorly with the principles that legislation should have legal predictability, proportionality, and that it should be non‐discriminative, for instance in comparison to corresponding regulations in comparable jurisdictions. We also found that existing possibilities to take non‐safety and ethical considerations into account can probably be used more. To rationalize the EUʼs authorization of microbial control products, both the basic legislation and the evaluations of agents and products need stronger rooting in fundamental microbiological science. © 2020 The Authors. Pest Management Science published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Society of Chemical Industry.

Within food plant cropping systems, microorganisms provide vital functions and ecosystem services, such as biological pest and disease control, promotion of plant growth and crop quality, and biodegradation of organic matter and pollutants. The beneficial effects of microorganisms can be achieved and/or enhanced by agricultural management measures that target the resident microbial biodiversity or by augmentation with domesticated and propagated microbial strains. This study presents a critical review of the current legislation and regulatory policies pertaining to the utilization of plant-beneficial microorganisms in the European Union (EU). For augmentative approaches, the nature of the intended effect and the product claim determine how a microbiological product is categorized and regulated, and pre-market authorization may be mandatory. Typically, microbial products have been incorporated into frameworks that were designed for evaluating non-living substances, and are therefore not well suited to the specific properties of live microorganisms. We suggest that regulatory harmonization across the sector could stimulate technical development and facilitate implementation of crop management methods employing microorganisms. Possible scenarios for regulatory reform in the longer term are discussed, but more investigation into their feasibility is needed. The findings of this study should serve as a catalyst for more efficient future use of plant-beneficial microorganisms, to the benefit of agriculture as well as the environment.

Pseudomonas fluorescens SBW25 was tagged with a triple marker gene cassette containing gfp, encoding green fluorescent protein; luxAB, encoding lucif