The biggest misconception about biotechnology in agriculture

What is the biggest misconception about biotechnology in agriculture that you encounter — from farmers, investors or policymakers?

The biggest misconception is that biotechnology in agriculture is something distant, artificial or too complex for the field. Many people immediately imagine a laboratory, genetic modification or very expensive technology. But biotechnology can also mean something very practical: using natural biological processes in a controlled and useful way.

In our case, we are not trying to replace or change nature. We strive to understand natural processes and use them for the production of agricultural inputs.

From farmers, the concern is usually very practical: “Will this really work in my field, with my crop, under my conditions?” And this is a fair question. For many years, farmers have relied mainly on synthetic products because their effect is fast, familiar and predictable. Many of them have also tried biological products that didn‘t deliver strong or consistent results, so they are naturally cautious.

That is why we believe farmers should not be convinced with promises. They should be convinced with field results, clear application protocols, visible benefits and manageable risk. Farmers do not adopt innovation because it sounds good. They adopt it when it works in their reality.

From investors, the misconception is sometimes that agri-biotech should scale like software. But biology has a different rhythm. It needs seasons, crops, field trials, regulation, farmer trust and repeated evidence. You cannot compress a growing season into a spreadsheet.

From policymakers, the challenge is that biological solutions are often placed into broad categories, without enough understanding of how different they can be — biostimulants, soil improvers, microbial products, biological control solutions, circular bio-inputs. Clearer categories and clearer regulatory pathways would help innovation move faster.

To be honest, at this stage we often find it easier to communicate with farmers than with investors or regulatory structures. Farmers understand very quickly when something makes practical sense. Investors and institutions sometimes need more time to tune into the biological logic behind the technology.

So I would say the biggest misconception is to see biotechnology as either too scientific or too uncertain. In reality, it can be one of the most practical tools we have to make agriculture more resilient — but it has to be proven in the field, not only explained in theory.

You have moved from academic research into building a startup. What does the valley of death between those two worlds actually look like from the inside?

From the inside, the valley of death is the space where the science is promising, the need is real, but the system is not yet ready to support the long road between the two.

In research, the main question is: “Is this scientifically interesting and does it show an effect?” In a startup, the questions multiply very quickly. Can we reproduce the effect? Can we produce the product consistently? Can we test it across crops and seasons? Can farmers adopt it? What is the regulatory pathway? How do we finance validation before we have large revenues? How do we explain the technology clearly enough to investors, institutions and the market?

This is especially difficult in agriculture because validation takes time. You cannot speed up a growing season. You cannot prove field performance only with a presentation. You need real crops, real farmers, real climate pressure and repeated results.

For MealProt, the hardest part has not been only developing the product. It has been building the bridge: from biological potential to field validation, from field validation to regulatory readiness, from regulatory readiness to commercial scale.

This is why early-stage agri-biotech needs more patient support mechanisms. The risk is not only technological. It is also regulatory, agronomic, financial and market-related.

But this valley is also where the most important learning happens. It forces you to become much clearer: what problem you solve, for whom, under what conditions and with what evidence.

What would most accelerate biotech adoption in agriculture — farmer education, clearer regulatory pathways, cost reduction, or something else entirely?

All of these factors are important, but if I had to choose one, I would choose “something else entirely”: showing farmers, regulators and investors the real potential of biotechnology in practice.

Biotechnology will be adopted faster when people understand that nature doesn’t have to be treated as an enemy that we constantly fight in order to produce more. Nature can also be our strongest ally — if we learn how to work with it intelligently.

For many years, agriculture has often followed the logic of control: control the pest, control the disease, control the soil, control the plant. But biological innovation offers a different logic. Instead of fighting every problem from the outside, we can use natural processes to restore balance in the system and reduce the pressure on the farmer.

When a farmer sees that a biological solution can make the plant stronger, improve the soil and reduce the need for constant intervention, the resistance to innovation becomes much lower. Especially if the solution is practical, affordable and compatible with existing farming practices.

But for this to happen, collaboration is essential. Scientists need to help explain and validate the mechanisms. Farmers need to test these solutions in real field conditions and give honest feedback. Regulators need to create clear and safe frameworks for this new way of thinking in agriculture. And investors need to understand that biological innovation may take time, but it can create very strong and scalable value.

I believe that once each of these groups sees the benefits clearly — not only in theory, but in practice — biotechnology will be accepted much faster as a future ally of successful and sustainable agriculture.

For me, the key is not only education, regulation or cost reduction. The key is shared proof: real examples, real farms, real data and collaboration between the people who develop the technology, the people who regulate it, the people who finance it and, most importantly, the farmers who use it.

The role of Agriventures in supporting agrifood innovation

As the agritech startup ecosystem grows across Europe, initiatives such as Agriventures are helping connect entrepreneurs, researchers, investors, and policymakers working in agriculture and food innovation.

Agriventures focuses on supporting agrifood startups, biotechnology innovation, and access to European funding for agriculture, while also helping entrepreneurs navigate the complex landscape of startup financing, venture capital, and research commercialization.

By strengthening connections between startups, research institutions, investors, and farmers, Agriventures contributes to building a stronger agricultural innovation ecosystem that can accelerate the transition toward sustainable agriculture and resilient food systems.

Through knowledge sharing, events, and ecosystem building, Agriventures helps ensure that promising agritech innovations can scale and reach farmers, food producers, and global markets.