Every entrepreneur in the food chain knows: without good hygiene, no food safety. But hygiene has come to mean something different over the years. Whereas SMEs used to clean with household products and hot water, since the emergence of HACCP - from the mid-1990s onwards - the credo has been: 'germ-free'. The consequence? The rise of disinfectants. Today, biocides have become a natural part of every production area, cleaning procedure and audit checklist.
Not because entrepreneurs want it so much - but because they have to. Food safety standards, export requirements, certifications and customer protocols require it. Most entrepreneurs do not welcome the use of chemicals, but have little choice. And that makes the syrupiness of European rules around biocides all the more frustrating.
The European Commission will launch a review of the Biocidal Products Regulation (BPR). This law, in force since 2013, determines which biocides (disinfectants, rodenticides, insecticides, etc.) are allowed in the EU, under which conditions, and based on which risk assessments. On paper, a solid system. In practice, a patchwork of delays, ambiguity and costs.
At a so-called Implementation Dialogue on 15 July 2025, it became clear: companies, NGOs and governments are all deadlocked. Authorisation of new or modified biocides often takes years. Small entrepreneurs barely get through the paper mill. Member states differ in pace and interpretation. And if as a company you invest neatly in new products or sustainable alternatives, you run the risk that your data are protected, but your product does not reach the market in time.
For entrepreneurs in the food industry, this is not a paper problem. This is about the availability of the right agents to meet HACCP, food safety plans and export requirements. If a favourite disinfectant suddenly becomes unavailable, or an alternative legally 'hangs', it can affect your entire business.
Many entrepreneurs think this is about Brussels inertia or civil service overload, and that is partly true. But the real reason lies deeper: the scientific understanding of chemicals has changed. Previously, a substance was assessed as 'safe' on the basis of acute toxicity. Now we also look at:
These new insights lead to stricter review, more data requirements, and a greater role for environmental effects. Some substances that were commonplace for years (such as certain QACs or phenols) turn out to be more problematic than thought with hindsight. And so companies have to submit additional studies, while member states often lack the capacity to assess them in time.
So the delay is not only in the system, but also in the fact that we now know better what the risks are. And that in itself is positive. But it causes problems if it prevents entrepreneurs from switching in time, even if they do want to invest in safe, workable or more sustainable alternatives.
The revision of the BPR is also an opportunity to link sustainability and innovation. There are already initiatives in the field of 'green biocides' (botanicals, enzymes, probiotics) but the route to application in practice is bumpy. Because even natural substances can have risks, and regulations still make little distinction in terms of authorisation burdens.
If Europe is serious about greening, it must also adjust the system: lower thresholds for safe, low-risk substances, shorter procedures for sustainable alternatives, and incentives for innovation from SMEs. Otherwise, 'green disinfection' will remain something for fairs and pilots, but not for the production floor.
Without practical alternatives, food entrepreneurs remain caught between obligation and hesitation: obliged to disinfect, but wary of the chemical impact. It would be good if the revision of the BPR also dares to redraw the future of biocides as part of sustainable food production.
The Commission now promises a thorough review of the rules, with an eye on simplification. That sounds good, but it is not a given. Because behind the scenes, tricky political trade-offs are at play:
For operators in the food chain, at least one clear signal is needed: ensure clarity, speed and proportionality in authorisation procedures.
Current biocides legislation is stuck between good intentions and poor implementation. And that while entrepreneurs who come into daily contact with these agents often prefer to clean as minimally, purposefully and responsibly as possible. Chemistry is a means, not an end.
It is time for Europe to see biocides again for what they are: tools in the protection of people, food and the environment. Give entrepreneurs the means, give governments the capacity, and give regulation the simplicity and direction needed to enable safety, innovation and greening together.
