Bio-inputs: an opportunity awaiting regulation.

What potential is blocked by the slow pace of regulation of the Bioinputs Law? The answer to the question I pose in this article is: the potential is enormous. Replacing pesticides and chemical fertilizers with bioinputs, where possible, can be considered the main theme of current Brazilian agricultural policy. Expanding the use of bioinputs in Brazilian crops will have positive impacts in various aspects and in the long term.

The first benefit is reducing dependence on imported chemical inputs. We have a historical and progressive dependence on importing approximately 90% of the chemical fertilizers and pesticides used in our crops. Unlike chemical inputs, which cause acidification, salinization, and loss of beneficial living organisms, bio-inputs do not degrade the soil over time. They restore soil health, preserve and increase biodiversity, improve fertility over time, water retention, and resilience to climate change. 

Furthermore, bio-inputs are more targeted with regard to the pest, preserving pollinators, natural predators and soil biology, and exhibit lower toxicity for farmers, farm workers, consumers and the environment.

From an economic standpoint, the production of bio-inputs for self-use is a powerful tool for managing and reducing production costs for farmers, in addition to creating specialized jobs throughout Brazil. Furthermore, its use fosters the emergence of small and medium-sized industries, including those with a regional focus, since production near or at the point of use reduces transportation costs, promotes bioprospecting, and enhances the value of our biodiversity.

However, all these benefits are partially blocked by the fact that our current regulatory landscape for bio-inputs is one of "incomplete normative structure." We have an excellent Bio-inputs Law that was published in 2024, but we still lack a regulatory decree and the ordinances that will detail and guarantee the faithful application of the current law.

The deadline stipulated by law for the publication of the regulatory decree expired in December 2025, and to date, the Ministry of Agriculture has not sent a draft decree to the Civil House of the Presidency of the Republic for evaluation of the text and subsequent signature by the President of the Republic.

Having an incomplete regulatory framework is worse than a scenario with no regulation at all, as it raises doubts about how the issue will be regulated, and this discourages investment. The question that has arisen in Brazil is whether we will have objective and functional regulations or whether we will receive a bureaucratic tangle designed to create market reserves for one segment or another.

While regulations are lacking, the potential for increased adoption of bio-inputs remains partially blocked, as many are waiting to see what happens. This uncertainty also harms the agricultural sector on a deeper level, as insecurity hinders intellectual openness to abandoning old ways of thinking about and practicing agriculture.

The use of bio-inputs requires different management than that practiced with chemical inputs, and legal uncertainty can be a great justification for farmers to remain in their comfort zone, cultivating a total attachment to pesticides and chemical fertilizers. This is terrible, as it can distance Brazil from 21st-century agriculture, which already indicates a strong movement towards regenerative agriculture, where bio-inputs are fundamental.

We at the Brazilian Bioinputs Association work with the premise that regenerative agriculture will be the conventional agriculture of tomorrow.

*Per Reginald Minare, lawyer, holds a master's degree in Law and is the executive director of the Brazilian Association of Bioinputs