The Freeze Deepens: What EFSA's Latest CBD Decision Means for the European Hemp Industry

By Erik Janus | Janus Agricultural Solutions | May 28, 2026

Earlier this year, I published a piece on Medium titled The Freeze Is On, arguing that regulators on both sides of the Atlantic had — through deliberate action and studied inaction — effectively frozen the CBD product market at a moment of peak uncertainty. In Europe, I argued, the novel food pathway had become less a route to market authorization and more an instrument of indefinite deferral: a mechanism that allowed the European Commission to avoid a politically uncomfortable decision while hundreds of companies poured resources into applications that went nowhere.

On May 4, 2026, the European Food Safety Authority confirmed that analysis in striking detail.

A Decision Five Years in the Making

EFSA's Panel on Nutrition, Novel Foods and Food Allergens issued its scientific opinion on a CBD isolate application submitted by CBD Industries LLC — a dossier that entered the system in March 2021. After five years, multiple rounds of supplementary information requests, and what amounts to a systematic unraveling of the applicant's data package under scientific scrutiny, EFSA reached the same conclusion it has reached every time it has assessed CBD: the safety of this novel food cannot be established. See EFSA-Journal-2026-Safety-of-cannabidiol-isolate-from-Cannabis-sativa-L-as-a-novel-food-pursuant-.pdf.

This is not a verdict on CBD's safety in any absolute scientific sense. It is a verdict on a process that has now consumed five years and produced nothing that moves the market forward. Over 200 applications have been submitted to the European Commission for CBD as a novel food. Not one has received EU-wide authorization. Not one has been added to the Union List of authorized novel foods. The European CBD market — estimated at roughly €2.6 billion in 2026 — operates commercially at significant scale while existing entirely outside the legal framework that is supposed to govern it.

That is the freeze, in numbers.

What EFSA's Opinion Actually Says

The May 2026 opinion is the most detailed and specific document EFSA has ever produced on what CBD novel food applicants are doing wrong — and what they would need to do right.

The headline failure in the CBD Industries dossier was not a dramatic scientific controversy. It was a formulation characterization problem. EFSA required the applicant to demonstrate whether the final commercial products — powders, liquids, gummies, soft-gel capsules — contained small particles or nanoparticles, because nanoparticulate CBD behaves differently in the body than bulk crystalline CBD, and the toxicological studies were conducted on a 30% CBD-in-oil formulation that may or may not represent what consumers will actually purchase. The applicant submitted particle size data using a methodology EFSA explicitly rejected as scientifically invalid. Then, when EFSA asked for the correct data, the applicant went silent.

That silence cascaded through the entire dossier. Because the formulation question was unresolved, the ADME studies became non-evaluable. Because the ADME studies were non-evaluable, the toxicological database couldn't be assessed. Because the toxicological database couldn't be assessed, the safety of the novel food couldn't be established.

The failure was procedural and logistical. The underlying science on CBD is complex, but it is not intractable. EFSA has told the industry precisely what data it needs. The industry has not, in the aggregate, produced it.

The 2 mg/Day Problem — and the UK Divergence

What makes the current moment particularly consequential is that EFSA, in its February 2026 updated statement, issued a provisional safe dose of approximately 2 mg per day for CBD isolate. That number represents the outer boundary of what EFSA is willing to sanction without the additional human safety data it has been requesting for years.

Two milligrams per day is a dose at which there is very little market. The consumer supplement market is built around products in the 10–25 mg/day range. Meanwhile, the UK Food Standards Agency — operating independently since Brexit — has set its own provisional acceptable daily intake at 10 mg per day, five times higher than EFSA's limit, and is targeting ministerial authorization of the first UK CBD supplements as early as autumn 2026. The regulatory divergence between London and Brussels is now measurable in milligrams, and it creates real commercial complications for any company trying to operate across both markets.

What New Science Is Saying

The data gaps EFSA has identified since 2022 are real — but recent research is beginning to address them in ways that create both opportunity and new complexity for the industry.

The most significant development is a rigorous randomized controlled trial by FDA investigators, published in a leading peer-reviewed journal in 2025, that provided the first well-controlled human safety data on CBD at consumer-representative doses. The findings are nuanced: they document a meaningful liver enzyme signal in a subset of healthy adult participants while also showing that the effect is reversible upon discontinuation. This study is exactly what EFSA has been asking for. It doesn't resolve the hepatotoxicity question cleanly — but it defines it with the kind of precision that a properly constructed novel food dossier can now address.

There is also new literature on how CBD interacts with liver metabolism enzymes, on formulation-dependent differences in absorption and bioavailability, and on neurodevelopmental effects — the last of which remains the most scientifically unresolved gap in the entire CBD safety database. We have mapped the terrain of what is known and what is missing in considerable detail. If you want the full picture, that is a conversation worth having.

The Freeze Is On — But Now We Know Its Temperature

When I wrote The Freeze Is On earlier this year, the argument was structural: the regulatory architecture had created a stalemate that no individual company could resolve on its own, and the industry was not responding with the collective, coordinated investment the situation demands.

The May 2026 EFSA opinion confirms that analysis and adds precision to it. We now know, with unusual specificity, what the freeze requires to thaw. None of the remaining requirements are scientifically impossible. Several are now supported by recent peer-reviewed research that provides methodological templates. All of them require capital, coordination, and scientific expertise that most companies in the European hemp industry do not currently have on their own.

That is the strategic gap. And it is a gap with a map.

A Call to Action for the Industry

For European hemp producers, the message is direct: the collective approach — pooling resources across the industry for a shared, adequately funded novel food dossier — is the only realistic path to authorizations at commercially meaningful dose levels. Individual applications at 10 to 21 mg/day cannot succeed without the human study data EFSA demands, and those studies require investment that no single company in this sector should bear alone.

For CBD isolate companies evaluating European market entry, the calculus has shifted. The UK is the near-term commercial opportunity. A 2 mg/day EU authorization is technically achievable today with the right dossier, and it establishes the regulatory foothold from which higher-dose authorization can follow. B2B positioning as a compliant GMP supplier to the applications already under EFSA review may be a more efficient path to the European market than submitting a new application and joining a queue measured in years.

Most importantly: do not replicate the CBD Industries failure pattern. Every specific failure mode documented in the May opinion was avoidable. A thorough pre-submission consultation, a properly resourced data generation program, and a regulatory team with the scientific depth to engage EFSA's iterative requests are the difference between authorization and a decade-long freeze.

The blueprint now exists. What the industry does with it is the question.

Janus Agricultural Solutions provides regulatory strategy, toxicological analysis, and science-policy advisory services at the intersection of agricultural innovation and human health. If you are navigating the CBD novel food process in the EU or UK — or evaluating entry into these markets — we would welcome a conversation.

Book a consultation now!

SynComs and the Regulatory Bardo

May 12, 2026

Why the First Engineered Microbial Communities Will Author Their Own Pathway

The Doorway in the Document Stack

Earlier this month, the team at Janus Ag Solutions ran a deep semantic search across more than eleven thousand information sources — EPA pre-submission records, PMRA evaluation summaries, Federal Register notices, public comment dockets, and agency white papers. We were looking for any clear federal guidance on the classification, evaluation, or registration of engineered Synthetic Microbial Communities (SynComs): the multi-strain, AI-designed microbial consortia that constitute the most consequential frontier in agricultural biotechnology since transgenic Bt corn. The inspiration came from a recent piece in the 2026 Journal of Integrative Agriculture and proposes SynCom-mediated delivery of dsRNA (“living RNAi factories”!).

We found zero matches.

In conventional regulatory consulting, that would be the moment to apologize, soften the finding, and recommend more research. We are not conventional. The absence is the artifact. The vacuum is the signal. And in this regulatory bardo (a Tibetan Buddhist term for a liminal or transitional state), as in the contemplative traditions that inform our work, an unwritten doorway is precisely where the next architecture gets drawn.

What SynComs Are — and Why They Break Every Existing Box

A Synthetic Microbial Community is not a microbial pesticide in the legacy sense. It is an artificial ecosystem — typically five to seven precisely characterized strains assembled through a Design-Build-Test-Learn computational cycle, increasingly guided by genome-scale metabolic modeling and machine learning. The strains operate through functional modularization: producer strains generate the active compound (frequently double-stranded RNA targeting pest genes), stabilizer strains maintain consortium architecture, helper strains coordinate quorum-sensing, and CRISPR-based biocontainment switches keep the community from escaping its intended ecological niche.

The mechanism of action is multi-trophic and emergent: RNAi delivery, native microbiome modulation, and plant defense priming converge into a single, dynamic intervention. The "active ingredient," classically understood, is not a molecule. It is a metabolite profile that arises from inter-species handoffs and shifts with soil chemistry, crop type, and seasonal moisture.

This does not fit the existing FIFRA framework for conventional microbial pesticides — because the microbe is not the agent killing the pest directly. It does not fit the biochemical pathway — because the active is produced in situ rather than applied as a formulated substance. It does not fit the Plant-Incorporated Protectant category — because no plant transformation has occurred. It does not fit the biostimulant framing — because pesticidal intent is explicit.

For the first time since the Coordinated Framework for Regulation of Biotechnology was drafted in 1986, North American regulators are facing a commercial product class with no statutory home.

Why This Matters Now

The timing of this regulatory collision is not coincidental. In early May 2026, Mosaic Corporation — one of North America's largest phosphate fertilizer producers — announced production cuts citing unsustainable sulfuric acid input costs. Sulfuric acid is the essential reagent for converting phosphate rock into water-soluble fertilizer; when it spikes, the entire synthetic nutrient supply chain contracts.

That same week, the Biological Products Industry Alliance (BPIA) held its annual meeting. Multiple member companies presented on AI-designed microbial consortia for biological nitrogen fixation and phosphate solubilization. The market is pricing synthetic fertilizer brittleness as a permanent structural condition. SynComs are no longer a sustainability story. They are an input security story.

And the regulatory system is unprepared for the velocity at which capital is now moving into this space.

The Pivot Bio Confession: Regulatory Arbitrage in the Docket

The most consequential public comment of 2024 in agricultural biotechnology received almost no industry press. In September of that year, Pivot Bio — the dominant commercial developer of microbial nitrogen-fixing inoculants — filed formal comments with EPA and USDA in response to a federal Request for Information on commercialization pathways for modified microbes.

The substance of those comments was insightful. Pivot Bio explicitly documented that a single engineered microorganism could trigger entirely different regulatory regimes depending on how it was marketed: TSCA jurisdiction if labeled as a soil inoculant or bio-fertilizer, FIFRA jurisdiction if labeled as a biocontrol agent. The company stated, in writing and on the federal record, that this duality is forcing developers to "strategically engineer not just their microbes, but their entire marketing and claims architecture" to land within the least burdensome regulatory framework.
That is not regulatory uncertainty. That is regulatory arbitrage — published, on the record, in plain federal text.

The strategic implication is significant: the largest and most regulatorily sophisticated companies in the microbial space are already adapting their commercial strategies to exploit jurisdictional ambiguity. Smaller and earlier-stage developers, often without comparable counsel, are walking into the same ambiguity without the architecture to navigate it. The gap will only widen as the SynCom class arrives.

The Metabolite Problem Nobody Is Modeling

Here is the regulatory iceberg beneath the surface, and it is the most under-discussed risk in the entire bioeconomy conversation.

A SynCom does not produce a single, characterizable active substance. It produces an emergent metabolite profile — often fifty or more secondary metabolites — generated through inter-species metabolic exchange and modulated by environmental context. The metabolite profile of a SynCom in calcareous Pennsylvania bottomland is materially different from the metabolite profile of the same consortium in acidic Pacific Northwest forest soil.

To make this concrete: a recently published SynCom designed for Spodoptera frugiperda (fall armyworm) control produces dsRNA as its primary active, but also triggers selective overgrowth of Serratia marcescens in the insect gut, which secretes prodigiosin — a secondary metabolite that suppresses the pest's immune response. The consortium doesn't just deliver one molecule. It orchestrates a cascade. [See Gao et al 2025 in Nature Communications]

Under current FIFRA toxicology requirements, the developer would need to isolate prodigiosin, test it independently across mammalian and non-target arthropod species, then repeat for every other microbial metabolite of concern. For a five-strain consortium, that's not a registration dossier. It's a PhD thesis factory. New Approach Methodologies (NAMs) aren't optional — they're the only economically rational path.

The companies that will succeed in the SynCom space are not the ones with the cleverest microbial designs. They are the ones who will build the in silico toxicology case in parallel with the biology — and who will arrive at the agency door with a defensible computational hazard package the day they request a pre-submission meeting.

The US–Canada Philosophical Divergence

If the metabolite problem is the technical iceberg, the policy iceberg is the quiet philosophical split now opening between Washington and Ottawa.

The current EPA trajectory is permitting reform. Pesticide Registration Notice 2026-NEW, presently progressing through final comment, is designed to supersede the long-standing PR Notice 98-10 and streamline minor amendments, inert ingredient updates, and procedural corrections. The animating logic is reduction of pre-market administrative friction — get out of the developer's way at the front end, then rely on monitoring and post-market action if problems emerge. AI approaches are also actively being explored here.

The Canadian trajectory is the precise opposite. Effective April 1, 2026, Health Canada's Pest Management Regulatory Agency was officially renamed the Pesticides Regulatory Directorate, the institutional capstone of a multi-year Transformation Agenda. The substantive shift accompanying the rebrand is the move to a Continuous Oversight model: cost-reflective tiered annual fees, perpetual surveillance, and — most consequentially — mandatory Chemistry Information Verification on a decadal cycle for every registered technical grade active ingredient. Compliance is no longer a milestone achieved at registration. Compliance is a permanent operational condition.

For SynCom developers, the implications could be profound. In the United States, the regulatory cost curve front-loads at submission and then declines. In Canada, the regulatory cost curve never declines; it integrates over the product lifecycle. A SynCom developer with a five-strain consortium will need to define what "batch-to-batch consistency" means for a dynamic metabolite profile produced by interacting living organisms — a question the Directorate has not yet answered, because it probably has not yet had to.

Two countries. Two philosophies. One technology. Sound familiar? (*cough cough* nanotechnology) The companies that will commercialize successfully across both jurisdictions will need to maintain bifurcated compliance architectures from day one.

The CCL 6 Trap

On April 2, 2026, EPA announced the draft Sixth Contaminant Candidate List under the Safe Drinking Water Act. For the first time in the history of the program, the list includes microplastics, pharmaceuticals — and nine specific microbes.

Inclusion on the CCL is not, by itself, enforceable regulation. It is, however, the foundational signal that EPA is building the infrastructure to monitor public water systems for biological contamination at a scale and resolution that has never previously existed in American environmental governance.

The third-order risk for SynCom developers is straightforward and easy to underestimate: even if a product successfully clears FIFRA pre-market review and is deployed across millions of acres, subsequent detection of an engineered strain in municipal drinking water aquifers — via the very CCL surveillance machinery now being constructed — could trigger retroactive public health concern, consumer backlash, and regulatory intervention severe enough to threaten product viability and corporate valuation. Modern qPCR and metagenomic sequencing can now detect microbial DNA at concentrations below 10 copies per milliliter. That means a SynCom deployed at agronomic scale across a watershed could be identified in a municipal water supply even if it represents 0.0001% of the total microbial load — far below any threshold of biological significance, but well within the detection limit that triggers public alarm.

This is not theoretical. The investment thesis behind multi-strain microbial inoculants increasingly involves wide-scale environmental deployment. The monitoring thesis behind CCL 6 increasingly involves wide-scale environmental surveillance. These two curves are on a collision course, and no SynCom developer we have encountered is currently modeling for the intersection.

What Companies Should Be Doing Now

The action set is short, structurally clear, and uncomfortable for any developer accustomed to waiting for guidance before moving.

First, integrate New Approach Methodologies into your R&D pipeline from day one. In silico metabolic pathway modeling, QSAR toxicity prediction, and AI-driven read-across are not regulatory nice-to-haves for multi-strain consortia. They are the foundational economic requirement. The companies that build this computational toxicology capacity in parallel with their microbial design work will set the methodological precedent that defines the category. The companies that treat NAMs as a late-stage 'regulatory add-on' will spend 2028 trying to retrofit a framework their competitors installed in 2026.

Second, design biocontainment into the consortium architecture itself, not as a regulatory afterthought. CRISPR-dCas9 kill switches, toxin-antitoxin systems, auxotrophic dependencies, and xenonucleic acid (XNA) substitutions now constitute the minimum viable safety architecture for any engineered microorganism intended for open environmental release. Health Canada's Continuous Oversight model will demand evidence of long-term containment performance; the United States will demand it implicitly through post-market surveillance.

Third, initiate pre-submission consultation with EPA's Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division and Health Canada's Microbial and Biochemical Evaluation Section now — not in 2027, when commercial submission is imminent, but in 2026, while the classification question is still being actively formed inside the agencies. The goal is not approval. The goal is to be in the rom while the framework is being drawn.

Fourth, document multi-season, multi-geography environmental fate from the earliest field trials. The Pesticides Regulatory Directorate's decadal verification cycle will eventually demand this; the prudent course is to generate it on the front end rather than reconstructing it under audit.

Fifth, model proactively for post-market aquifer detection. Build the monitoring case before CCL 6 finalization rather than after. Companies that can demonstrate, with prospective field data, that their engineered strains do not migrate beyond the cropping zone will hold a defensible position in a public health controversy that has not yet erupted but is structurally inevitable.

The Threshold

At Janus Ag Solutions, we do not wait for the regulatory map to be drawn. The classical Janus Geminus figure — the two-faced threshold deity from whom our company takes its name — stood at every doorway in the Roman world precisely because the moment of passage is the moment where meaningful change becomes possible. SynComs are not a refinement of microbial pesticides. They are a doorway into a fundamentally different regulatory ontology, one in which agencies will be asked to evaluate ecosystems rather than substances, dynamic profiles rather than static molecules, and computational predictions rather than synthesized standards.

The pathway through that doorway does not yet exist. It will be authored, line by line, by the small number of companies that arrive prepared — with biocontainment-robust designs, NAMs-validated hazard packages, multi-season environmental fate records, and the institutional patience to engage agency staff while the framework is still wet ink.

The question for developers in this space is no longer whether to invest in regulatory intelligence. The question is whether you can afford to be the second company in the room — entering a category whose rules have already been written by someone else.

We help our clients be the first.

(c) 2026 by Janus Agricultural Solutions, LLC

Learn More

The New Regulatory Frontier: Why NAMs Are the Most Important Competitive Advantage in Cannabis & Hemp Right Now

May 5, 2026

By Erik Janus, CEO, Janus Ag Solutions | Regulatory Toxicology | Scientific Affairs | Cannabis Compliance Strategy

The ground is shifting beneath every cannabinoid business in America — and most companies don't yet realize what's coming, or how fast.

On April 23, 2026, the Department of Justice issued a final order reclassifying FDA-approved products and state-licensed medical cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act. A new, expedited DEA administrative hearing begins June 29, 2026, to consider broader rescheduling of cannabis. Meanwhile, the House Farm Bill advanced in late April with significant hemp provisions, navigating a dramatically changed regulatory landscape shaped by the November 2025 Continuing Resolution, which redefined hemp by restricting total THC (including THCA) to ≤0.3% on a dry-weight basis and capping final hemp-derived products at 0.4 mg total THC per container. And the FDA, simultaneously, issued landmark draft guidance in March 2026 establishing a formal validation framework for New Approach Methodologies (NAMs, or "non-animal methods") in drug development — the most consequential regulatory science document in a generation.

The intersection of these forces creates both an existential threat and a historic opportunity. The companies that act now — building NAMs-informed regulatory dossiers and scientific narratives for their cannabinoid products — will define the next decade of this industry. Those who don't will find themselves without the data infrastructure required to survive FDA scrutiny at any level of the scheduling framework.

This article is for the founders, CSOs, regulatory affairs directors, and investors who want to understand exactly what NAMs are, why they matter specifically for cannabinoids, and how partnering with deep regulatory science expertise delivers measurable ROI right now.

What Are NAMs, and Why Does the FDA Care So Much?

New Approach Methodologies are innovative testing methods and strategies — including AI-powered predictive models, human organ-on-chip (OOC) systems, microphysiological systems (MPS), high-throughput transcriptomics, and PBPK modeling — used to assess the safety, efficacy, and quality of drugs and regulated substances without sole reliance on traditional animal studies.

The FDA's philosophical and scientific case for NAMs is strikingly direct: over 90% of drugs deemed safe in animal studies ultimately fail in humans, yet some demonstrably human-safe compounds like aspirin might never have passed legacy animal testing protocols. Animal models are, in a fundamental sense, broken as predictors of human outcomes — and the FDA has decided to say so, loudly, in official guidance. In fact, EPA has analyzed animal vs NAMs outcomes and had similar findings.

The FDA Modernization Act 2.0 (2022) opened the statutory door. The April 2025 "Reducing Animal Testing in Nonclinical Studies: Year One Progress and the Path Forward" roadmap provided strategic architecture. And the March 2026 draft guidance — General Considerations for the Use of New Approach Methodologies in Drug Development — for the first time translated intent into explicit, actionable regulatory criteria. The FDA now evaluates NAMs through four structured pillars: context of use, human biological relevance, technical performance, and fit-for-purpose. Critically, formal universal validation is no longer required upfront — acceptability is tied to context of use, giving sponsors significant flexibility if they can provide rigorous scientific justification.

For companies operating in the cannabinoid space, this is not abstract regulatory philosophy. It is an immediate, practical gateway.

The Scheduling Moment: Why FDA Pathways Are Now Unavoidable

The April 23, 2026 DOJ rescheduling order is not a finish line. It is a starting gun.

Schedule III status for FDA-approved cannabis products and state-licensed medical operators brings immediate Section 280E tax relief — a genuine lifeline for companies that have been effectively taxed at rates of 60–80% of gross revenue. But the more profound implication is regulatory: Schedule III placement brings cannabis products fully into the FDA's drug approval framework. Companies seeking to make structure/function claims, pursue IND filings, or position cannabinoid products for physician-directed use in a post-rescheduling market will face FDA's standard nonclinical data requirements — with NAMs now explicitly on the table as valid, and in many cases superior, alternatives to legacy animal testing.

The expedited DEA hearing beginning June 29, 2026 will almost certainly expand Schedule III applicability beyond the current limited scope. Every company in the pipeline needs to be building its scientific dossier now, not after the hearing concludes. The regulatory window between "proposed" and "finalized" is exactly when first-movers establish durable competitive advantage.

For hemp and CBD businesses specifically, the House Farm Bill's passage with its hemp provisions — and the November 2025 CR's tighter THC definitions — signals that the "regulatory gray zone" era is ending. FDA will be required to promulgate new guidance under the CR's provisions. Products that cannot demonstrate a rigorous, human-relevant safety profile will be swept out of the market. The FDA drug exclusion clause governing CBD (the Epidiolex precedent) remains a central challenge — and NAMs provide a scientifically credible path to navigating it.

The Science Has Arrived: CBD PBPK Is Now Possible, and It's a Game-Changer

The most exciting development in cannabinoid regulatory science is one that most industry players have missed entirely: physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) modeling for CBD and THC is now validated and regulatory-grade. (And there's an app for that.)

Published in early 2025 in Clinical and Translational Science, comprehensive PBPK models for CBD, THC, and their key metabolites — including 7-OH-CBD, 11-OH-THC, and 11-COOH-THC — were developed, verified, and shown to accurately predict plasma concentration profiles across multiple formulations and routes of administration. These models successfully integrated CYP enzyme contributions to cannabinoid metabolism, clarifying longstanding conflicts in the literature about the relative roles of CYP450 versus UDP-glucuronosyltransferases in CBD clearance. A separate 2025 analysis extended these models to predict exposure across diverse special populations — pediatrics, geriatrics, CYP2C19 poor metabolizers, obese patients, and individuals with hepatic impairment — with predictions falling within the 0.5-to-2-fold acceptance range required for regulatory submission.

Why does this matter for your business? PBPK models are regulatorily actionable. They allow sponsors to:

Predict drug-drug interactions (DDIs) — critical for CBD, which inhibits CYP3A4, CYP2C19, and CYP1A2, creating interaction risks with co-medications
Extrapolate across populations without conducting separate clinical studies in each subgroup
Support label claims about dosing, routes of administration, and population-specific guidance
Respond to FDA information requests with quantitative, mechanistic data that traditional animal studies cannot provide
Justify formulation differences between delivery systems (oral, sublingual, topical, inhaled) using in silico evidence rather than expensive repeat studies

In parallel, a 2025 PMC review covering 17 cannabinoids demonstrated that PBPK modeling can now predict plasma AND tissue concentrations across the cannabinoid class — opening doors for minor cannabinoids (CBN, CBC, CBG) that have virtually no traditional regulatory data infrastructure.

Organ-on-Chip and MPS: Human Liver, Human Answer

The second pillar of cannabinoid NAMs is microphysiological systems (MPS) — and here too, the science has delivered.

Emulate Bio's Quad-Culture Liver-Chip study, presented at the MPS World Summit 2024, directly evaluated the hepatotoxicity of CBD, CBN, CBC, and CBG using primary human hepatocytes in an in vivo-like arrangement with pressure-driven flow, assessing morphological effects, hepatocyte function, mitochondrial dysfunction, reactive oxygen species, and inflammatory cytokines over 7 days of continuous dosing. This is exactly the kind of human-relevant mechanistic data that FDA's new NAMs framework is designed to accept — context of use (hepatotoxicity characterization), human biological relevance (primary human cells, physiological architecture), technical performance (validated platform, IQ MPS consortia guidelines), and fit-for-purpose (informing CBD safety assessment).

CBD hepatotoxicity has been one of the most contentious issues in cannabinoid regulatory science, particularly given the liver enzyme elevation signals observed in the Epidiolex clinical program. Human liver chip data can resolve mechanistic questions that no rodent study can answer with human relevance — and in so doing, either support expanded use claims or define safety boundaries that are defensible before FDA reviewers.

A 2025 comprehensive review in a peer-reviewed journal confirmed that MPS platforms are increasingly integrated into regulatory paradigms, with organ-specific systems now evaluated for their ability to inform ADME processes and toxicological endpoints across the full NAMs landscape. The National Academies of Sciences has an active workshop program advancing MPS for efficacy and safety studies.

Transcriptomics and High-Throughput Risk Assessment: The Data-Poor Chemical Problem, Solved

The cannabis plant produces over 100 cannabinoids. Almost all of them are, from a regulatory standpoint, data-poor chemicals. Traditional toxicology requires years and millions of dollars to generate even basic safety characterization for a single compound. The market cannot wait, and most companies cannot afford it.

This is precisely where transcriptomic NAMs deliver transformative ROI. The American Society for Cellular & Computational Toxicology (ASCCT) highlighted in early 2026 that transcriptomic points of departure (tPODs) derived from benchmark concentration (BMC) modeling of high-throughput gene expression data offer a pragmatic, efficient approach for quantitative risk assessment of data-poor chemicals — directly applicable to the minor cannabinoid landscape. A tPOD analysis can be completed in weeks rather than years, provides mechanistic pathway information that supports mode-of-action arguments, and generates the kind of human-relevant genomic data that integrates seamlessly with PBPK models in a full NAMs package.

For a hemp or CBD business seeking to position a minor cannabinoid product for structure/function claims or a dietary supplement framework, a tPOD-backed safety assessment is not just useful — under the emerging FDA guidance framework, it may be the fastest credible path to a defensible regulatory dossier.

The ROI Map: Where NAMs Pay Off for Cannabinoid Businesses

Let me be direct about where the return on investment is concentrated for companies that invest in NAMs-informed regulatory strategy right now:

1. IND Filing Readiness Companies seeking FDA Investigational New Drug status for cannabinoid therapeutics can now structure their nonclinical programs around NAMs packages — replacing or substantially reducing expensive, time-consuming rodent and non-rodent toxicology studies. The FDA CDER has explicitly stated that NAMs, combined with pathway knowledge and pharmacology data, may support this goal more effectively than traditional animal testing. First-mover IND filers with credible NAMs dossiers will shape the regulatory precedents that govern the entire category.

2. CBD Drug-Drug Interaction (DDI) Label Support CBD is a potent inhibitor of multiple CYP450 enzymes. PBPK-based DDI prediction is now FDA-validated for CBD and can support prescribing information, risk mitigation strategies, and post-market safety commitments without requiring exhaustive clinical DDI studies — saving potentially $2–5M per interaction pair.

3. Hemp Product Safety Substantiation With the 2025 CR and House Farm Bill tightening the regulatory frame around hemp-derived products, companies marketing CBD dietary supplements or functional foods need defensible safety dossiers. NAMs-based assessments — combining PBPK, MPS hepatotoxicity data, and tPOD transcriptomics — provide exactly the layered, human-relevant evidence that distinguishes a market-ready safety argument from a liability.

4. Pediatric and Special Population Claims Cannabinoid use in pediatric epilepsy (Epidiolex), geriatric pain, and patients with hepatic or renal impairment is a high-value market. PBPK models validated for these populations allow companies to support dosing recommendations and label claims without conducting large, expensive dedicated clinical studies.

5. Formulation Innovation Support Novel delivery systems — nanoemulsions, transdermal patches, inhaled formulations, water-soluble CBD — require demonstration that their pharmacokinetic profiles are understood and safe. PBPK modeling provides the in silico comparative bioavailability and exposure data that supports both development decisions and regulatory submissions.

6. Minor Cannabinoid Expansion CBN, CBC, CBG, CBDV, and a dozen other minor cannabinoids represent the next frontier of product innovation. PBPK modeling across 17 cannabinoids is now achievable, and transcriptomic NAMs provide rapid safety characterization. Companies that build NAMs dossiers for minor cannabinoids now will own intellectual and regulatory space that competitors will spend years trying to catch up to.

Why NAMs Expertise Is Not Commodity Skills

Understanding that NAMs exist is table stakes. Knowing how to deploy them strategically within FDA's evolving framework — and specifically for the unique challenges of cannabinoids — requires something far rarer.

The FDA's March 2026 draft guidance is explicit: acceptability of a NAM is not automatic. It requires scientific justification of context of use, demonstration of human biological relevance, technical performance data, and a fit-for-purpose argument anchored in the specific regulatory decision being supported. This is not a checkbox exercise. It is a scientific argument that must anticipate FDA reviewer concerns, integrate multiple data streams coherently, and hold up under the scrutiny of the world's most sophisticated drug regulatory agency.

Cannabis and hemp exist at the intersection of drug law, agricultural law, food law, and dietary supplement law — a regulatory Venn diagram with almost no other analogs in the global regulatory system. The biochemical complexity of cannabinoids — lipophilicity, extensive first-pass metabolism, CYP450 polypharmacology, endocannabinoid system interactions, tissue accumulation — makes PBPK modeling technically demanding in ways that standard small molecule models are not. The hepatotoxicity questions are live, contested, and mechanistically unresolved in the published literature. And the regulatory landscape is changing in real time, with scheduling, Farm Bill provisions, and FDA guidance evolving simultaneously.

This is not a domain where general regulatory consultants or contract research organizations with passing familiarity in cannabinoid science can deliver. It requires career-deep integration of regulatory toxicology, mechanistic pharmacology, NAMs science, and cannabis-specific regulatory history — the rare combination of knowing what FDA wants, understanding what the science can deliver, and recognizing the strategic windows that only open briefly. It requires understanding FDA's deployment of AI and mirroring that back at them.

The Janus Ag Solutions Difference: We Open Doorways Others Don't Even See

At Janus Ag Solutions, we bring over 30 years of regulatory toxicology and scientific affairs expertise from the frontlines of crop protection — a field where NAMs, PBPK, and in vitro-to-in vivo extrapolation have been standard regulatory tools for over a decade, developed under EPA frameworks that in many respects led the FDA in mechanistic safety assessment. We understand how regulatory agencies think, what they need, and how to build scientific arguments that stand.

We are applying that deep expertise directly to the cannabinoid sector's most pressing regulatory challenges:

Strategic NAMs program design — matching the right combination of PBPK, MPS, and transcriptomic tools to your specific regulatory objectives and timeline
FDA pre-submission strategy — framing your NAMs data package for maximum persuasiveness in Type B and Type C meetings
IND-enabling nonclinical strategy — designing efficient, NAMs-forward programs that reduce costs and accelerate timelines
Safety substantiation for hemp/CBD products — building defensible dossiers that survive the regulatory tightening already underway
Minor cannabinoid regulatory pathway development — creating the regulatory infrastructure for the next generation of cannabinoid products
Due diligence and investor-facing scientific narrative — translating NAMs data assets into language that informs valuation and de-risks investment

The window between now and the June 29 DEA hearing, and between the House Farm Bill draft and final passage, is precisely the strategic moment to build. The companies that arrive at the next phase of this market with validated, human-relevant safety data and coherent FDA narratives will have competitive advantages that are genuinely difficult to replicate.

The Time to Act Is Now — Not After the Rules Are Final

Regulatory history in every sector teaches the same lesson: companies that engage during the rulemaking process — not after — shape outcomes and build first-mover advantages that compound over time. The cannabis and hemp industry has spent a decade waiting for regulatory clarity. That clarity is arriving, imperfectly and rapidly, right now.

NAMs are not a future technology. They are present science with present regulatory acceptance and present ROI. The FDA has published the framework. The PBPK models are validated. (Did I mention there's an app for that?) The liver chip data exists. The transcriptomic tools are operational. The scheduling order is signed. The Farm Bill is moving.

What's missing in most cannabinoid companies is the expertise to integrate all of this into a coherent regulatory strategy — the rare synthesis of scientific depth, regulatory fluency, and strategic vision that turns emerging frameworks into competitive weapons.

That is exactly what Janus Ag Solutions delivers.

If your company is navigating cannabinoid regulatory strategy — whether you're an operator, a brand, an investor, or a research organization — let's talk. The doorways are open.

Let's walk through them together.

📩 Connect with Janus Ag Solutions | http://janusagriculturalsolutions.com

#NAMs #RegulatoryToxicology #CannabisRegulation #Hemp #CBD #PBPK #DrugDevelopment #FDA #JanusAgSolutions #RegulatoryScience #Cannabinoids #FarmBill #Schedule3 #ASCCT

Learn More

The First Sprayable dsRNA Biopesticides Are Here. The Regulatory Framework Still Isn't Ready.

April 27, 2026

And a new wave of science just made the gap wider.

The first sprayable dsRNA biopesticide in the world is not a concept paper or a field trial. It is a registered product sitting on shelves in more than 30 U.S. states right now.

Calantha — containing the active ingredient Ledprona — was developed by GreenLight Biosciences after more than 250 field trials between 2018 and 2023 across the U.S., Canada, and Europe. EPA registered it under FIFRA as the world's first topically applied dsRNA-based product, targeting Colorado potato beetle in potato. A second product, Norroa (active ingredient Vadescana), was registered in September 2025 for Varroa mite control in honey bee hives. And behind those two products sit three more that moved through EPA as transgenic plant-incorporated protectants: MON87411 and MON95275 (Bayer) and DP23211 (Corteva), all targeting Western corn rootworm.

Five EPA decisions. Real regulatory precedent. An emerging commercial category with documented safety data.

So what's the problem?

The problem is that the science underlying these products — the actual biology of how dsRNA works in the field — just moved significantly beyond the assumptions baked into those registrations. And the regulatory frameworks in most of the world, including Canada, have not caught up with either the approvals or the science. Although it is noted that ICAMA in China recently registered its first foliar RNA product for tobacco mosaic virus.

That gap is where companies are currently flying blind. And it is where the next major regulatory controversy in this category is going to originate.

What the History of Biocontrol Registration Tells Us

To understand where dsRNA regulation is headed, it helps to understand where it came from.

Biocontrol regulation has never mapped cleanly onto its predecessor frameworks. Microbial and macrobial agents required different evidentiary logics — different risk hypotheses, different NTO testing approaches, different environmental fate assumptions. Each time a genuinely novel mode of action arrived, the regulatory system spent a decade retrofitting existing tools before building something purpose-built.

dsRNA is repeating that pattern — but at speed. Because the technology develops faster than the policy (thanks in part to AI-assisted discovery), regulators are making category-defining decisions in real time. The five EPA decisions listed above were not made against a mature, harmonized, purpose-built framework. They were made on a case-by-case basis, under biochemical pesticide requirements (40 CFR Part 158, Subpart U), with additional data requirements scoped product by product through pre-submission consultation.

That is not a criticism of EPA. It is an accurate description of where regulatory science stands. And a paper published in Nature Plants in April 2025 says exactly the same thing at a global level.

Gunasekara et al. (2025) — a policy analysis from the University of Queensland's Centre for Policy Futures — documents that regulatory frameworks across jurisdictions vary fundamentally in how they approach dsRNA-based biopesticides. The EU regulates them as chemical pesticides through EFSA under Regulation EC 1107/2009. Australia classifies them as agricultural chemical products.

Malaysia and India apply broad pesticide frameworks. EPA determines data requirements case-by-case but uses biochemical pesticide guidelines as the baseline. The paper identifies this inconsistency as one of three root causes of the global regulatory divergence that is currently slowing dsRNA commercialization — alongside what the authors call the "pacing problem," where product development simply outruns existing policy.

The pacing problem is not abstract. It is happening right now.

Canada: A Study in the Regulatory Gap

The U.S.-Canada contrast on dsRNA is one of the clearest illustrations of regulatory divergence in North American agriculture — and it deserves more attention than it currently receives.

EPA has five dsRNA product decisions. Canada has zero.

PMRA issued an information note on dsRNA-based pesticides in January 2024 stating the agency's position clearly: the use of dsRNA-based pesticides is not permitted under the Pest Control Products Act, except for research approved under a PMRA research authorization. The note confirmed that PMRA had not received any applications with data to support the registration of dsRNA-based pest control products. Data requirements were being determined on a case-by-case basis. The regulatory category was still being defined.

To be fair, Canada has done real work. PMRA has issued regulatory guidance specifically for RNA interference-based pesticides. It has granted research authorizations for experimental trials since 2016. It explicitly evaluated dsRNA against the full scope of the Pest Control Products Act and concluded that it qualifies as a novel class requiring dedicated assessment. The scientific engagement is genuine.
But the commercial outcome is the same: no registered dsRNA biopesticide exists in Canada as of the time of writing, while the U.S. has five EPA decisions and a growing body of post-market experience.

For any company thinking about North American market access for a dsRNA product, this is not a footnote. It is a fundamental business variable. Regulatory strategy for this category must be built for two jurisdictions, two evidentiary standards, and two timelines — and the timelines are currently measured in years, not months. California notwithstanding.
Gunasekara et al. (2025) table this explicitly: Canada's PMRA, under the Pest Control Products Act 2002, regulates dsRNA biopesticides as chemical pesticides — meaning the evidentiary bar is not lightweight, and the framework was not designed for sequence-specific nucleic acid technologies.

Why the Science Just Made the Regulatory Gap Larger

Here is where this article moves beyond the regulatory landscape and into something that should concern every developer, regulator, and regulatory advisor in this space right now.

In January 2026, Brosnan et al. published a study in Nucleic Acids Research titled "Foliar-applied double-stranded RNA is mobile, transfers to plant pathogens, and triggers RNAi." It is the most consequential dsRNA science paper published since Calantha's registration, and it changes the biological assumptions that underpin how dsRNA biopesticides are currently assessed.

The finding: when you spray dsRNA onto a plant's leaves, it does not stay where you put it.

The Brosnan team demonstrated conclusively — in Arabidopsis, canola, tomato, and Nicotiana benthamiana — that foliar-applied dsRNA enters the leaf vasculature and moves systemically to stems, flowers, roots, siliques, and new growth. The movement occurs via the apoplast — the space between cells — not through the plasmodesmata (symplastic channels) that move plant-native siRNAs. This is a mechanistically distinct transport pathway. Blocking symplastic transport with callose deposition had no effect on dsRNA movement; the dsRNA kept moving.

More striking: mobile dsRNA was detected in newly forming siliques that were still flowers at the time of application. And dsRNA was maintained in new apoplastic tissue 14 days post-application — meaning it persists and travels into plant tissues formed after the spray event, not just at the application site.

Then comes the most consequential finding for regulatory science. When root-infecting fungal pathogens (Fusarium oxysporum and Verticillium dahliae) infected the roots of dsRNA-treated plants, the mobile dsRNA — which had traveled from the sprayed leaves down into the root apoplast — transferred from the plant to the fungus. Once inside the fungus, it was processed into functional siRNAs by the fungal RNAi machinery, not the plant's. The silencing was real, reproducible, and effective.

Let that settle for a moment.

A topical leaf spray generates a mobile pool of intact dsRNA that persists in the plant apoplast for weeks, travels into tissues that did not exist at the time of application, and can transfer to organisms — specifically fungi — that were not present in the field at the time of spraying.

This is not a failure of dsRNA biopesticides. The Brosnan paper is genuinely exciting science that expands the potential of this technology enormously. Systemic mobility means dsRNA sprays could protect roots, seeds, and reproductive tissues from pathogens — applications that no one had conclusively proven until now.
But it is a significant complication for the NTO risk assessment logic that EPA, PMRA, and OECD have built for dsRNA registration to date.

What the NTO Framework Assumed — and What It Now Has to Answer

The bioinformatic ecological risk assessment framework published by De Neef et al. in Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management in January 2026 — authored by GreenLight Biosciences staff, the developer of Calantha and Norroa — is the most rigorous published attempt to standardize the NTO risk assessment process for dsRNA.

The framework is excellent and important. It proposes a three-pronged bioinformatic approach: phylogenetic analysis of gene orthologs to define taxonomic scope of sequence similarity; broad database searches (BLAST via the NCBI database - fun fact: a system I helped my very first boss develop in the 90s in conjunction with the Human Genome Project!) to catch unexpected hits in distantly related species; and full transcriptome analysis for NTO species of particular concern. It recommends standardizing searches for 21-nucleotide stretches of perfect identity and 80% overall identity between the dsRNA and off-target transcripts as the threshold for NTO risk characterization.

The framework also provides a worked case study on a GreenLight dsRNA fungicide targeting grape powdery mildew (Erysiphe necator). The bioinformatic results are reassuring: sequence similarity dropped sharply outside the Erysiphe genus, no 21-mer matches were found in honey bees, bumble bees, parasitic wasps, predatory mites, or the grape host plant.

This is the right methodological direction. The 21-mer / 80% identity standard gives regulators and applicants a principled, reproducible basis for defining the scope of NTO concern.

But the framework operates on an assumption about exposure that the Brosnan paper has now complicated: that the relevant exposure pathway for NTOs is contact with or ingestion of dsRNA at the point of application.
If dsRNA moves through the plant apoplast, persists in new growth for two weeks or more, and transfers to organisms that infect distal plant tissues — including root pathogens not present at the spray event — then the exposure pathway for NTOs is not limited to the spray site. It extends through the plant's vascular architecture and into the root zone. And the relevant NTO list for ecological risk assessment may need to include fungal species that interact with plant apoplastic fluid, root-zone organisms, and pathogens whose first contact with dsRNA may occur weeks after application in tissues the applicant never directly targeted.

De Neef et al. note, appropriately, that "bioinformatics analysis can result in many false positives and will typically be an overestimation of potential off-target effects, as not all dsRNAs with sequence matches will result in an actual impact on an NTO." That is true. But the Brosnan data suggests that the exposure model driving NTO selection — the spatial and temporal scope of who actually encounters the active ingredient — may have been systematically underestimated.
This is not a fatal problem for the category. Calantha's registration data and field experience show that dsRNA-based biopesticides are genuinely safe and specific. (Reminder: most of us eat plant RNA every day.) But it does mean the next generation of applicants — particularly those developing dsRNA fungicides and dsRNA products with broad foliar application profiles — may need to build their dossiers against a more complex exposure model than the one EPA evaluated for Ledprona in 2023. (An ideal problem to tackle at the pre-submission level, if you ask me!)

The Regulatory Architecture Developers Need Right Now

Here is what the synthesis of these three papers tells us about what companies need to do in 2026:

1. Do not treat your dsRNA product like a standard biochemical pesticide dossier.
The biochemical pesticide framework (Subpart U) is the baseline. But every dsRNA product also requires a bioinformatic ERA, a human health risk assessment addressing sequence-specific off-target effects, and — in light of Brosnan et al. — an environmental fate narrative that accounts for systemic mobility, apoplastic persistence, and non-target exposure through the plant matrix, not just at the spray site. The De Neef framework gives you the bioinformatic methodology. The Brosnan data requires you to expand the exposure scenarios that framework operates against.

2. The 21-mer / 80% identity standard is now the floor, not the ceiling.
De Neef et al. propose this as the principled threshold for identifying NTOs at risk of sequence-specific off-target effects. EPA acknowledged bioinformatic analyses in each of its five dsRNA registration decisions. This standard is becoming the de facto industry norm. Any company that cannot demonstrate a clean bioinformatic analysis against this threshold — across a defensible NTO list that accounts for actual exposure pathways — is not ready for a pre-submission meeting.

3. The fungicide pathway is the most consequential frontier — and the most exposed.
Calantha targets an insect. Norroa targets a mite in a closed hive environment. The Brosnan paper's case study and GreenLight's pipeline point directly at dsRNA fungicides for crop diseases. But dsRNA fungicides raise the exposure scenario complexity dramatically: fungal NTOs include beneficial soil fungi, mycorrhizal species, and pathogen complexes that exist in the same apoplastic environment that Brosnan has now shown mobile dsRNA occupies. The bioinformatic analyses in De Neef's grape powdery mildew case study found no 21-mer matches to beneficial arthropods or grape tissue — but no fungal NTOs were explicitly tested in that transcriptome analysis. That gap will need to be addressed for any dsRNA fungicide registration.

4. Canada is not a later problem. It is a parallel problem.
No company serious about North American market access can treat PMRA as a follow-on jurisdiction to EPA. Given that PMRA is determining dsRNA data requirements case-by-case and has not yet approved a complete registration application, the first Canadian applicant will have significant influence over how the framework is defined. That is an opportunity — but only for companies that show up to pre-submission consultations with a complete, proactively framed data package built to EPA standards and translated explicitly for Pest Control Products Act language. The Gunasekara et al. paper makes clear that Canada's framework is a chemical pesticide framework applied to a biochemical technology. The framing work required to bridge that gap is non-trivial.

5. Global regulatory divergence is a strategic risk, not a background condition.
The Gunasekara paper maps eight jurisdictions with fundamentally different approaches. Companies developing dsRNA products for international markets — and the economics of dsRNA biopesticide development almost require international reach — need regulatory strategies that anticipate divergence, not assume convergence. The OECD has published Series on Pesticides Nos. 104 (2020) and 110 (2023) on dsRNA risk assessment. Those documents are the closest thing to a harmonization anchor that exists globally. Any dossier built against OECD guidelines has the best chance of generating transportable data across EPA, PMRA, EFSA, and APVMA.

What Comes Next

The dsRNA biopesticide category is at exactly the inflection point that every transformational agricultural technology reaches when the science and the regulatory framework are both in motion simultaneously.

History — from Bt crops to microbial biocontrol agents to first-generation synthetic biology — tells us what happens next. The companies that invest in regulatory science ahead of controversy, that build dossiers against the most rigorous available standard rather than the minimum required, and that engage with regulators as co-architects of the framework, are the ones that survive the first safety signal or enforcement action thateventually touches this category.

The ones that treat regulatory compliance as a paperwork exercise — and particularly the ones that treat dsRNA like a normal biopesticide without engaging seriously with the bioinformatic ERA and the environmental fate complexities the Brosnan data introduces — will be the ones that hand opponents the narrative.

The first sprayable dsRNA biopesticides are here. The science is moving fast. The regulatory frameworks are still being written. Some of them need to be updated from DOS.

The companies that understand all three of those things at once are the ones worth betting on.

Erik Janus is the founder and CEO of Janus Ag Solutions, a regulatory consulting and intelligence firm specializing in biopesticide and agricultural biotechnology regulatory strategy in North America. Janus Ag Solutions advises biotech companies navigating EPA, PMRA, and international regulatory pathways for novel active ingredients including dsRNA, peptides, microbials, and biocontrol agents.

References (cited inline):
De Neef, E. et al. (2026). A bioinformatic ecological risk assessment framework for externally applied double-stranded RNA-based biopesticides. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 22(1), 116–131. https://doi.org/10.1093/inteam/vjaf116

Brosnan, C.A. et al. (2026). Foliar-applied double-stranded RNA is mobile, transfers to plant pathogens, and triggers RNAi. Nucleic Acids Research, 54(1), gkaf1452

How Washington County can become the "Silicon Valley of Orchards"

April 10, 2026

The "guesswork" era of #AgTech is officially over.

On April 8, 2026, the USDA dropped a game-changer: the National Proving Grounds for Agriculture (NPG-Ag). For my neighbors and compadres in Washington County Maryland Department of Business and Economic Development, this isn’t just another federal acronym—it’s your new de-risking engine.

Here is why Smithsburg, Boonsboro, and the entire Western #Maryland fruit belt should be paying attention:

1. The End of "Tech-Vibes" Farming

We’ve all heard the pitches for autonomous weeders and #AI sprayers. But does it work in Maryland's Zone 7 silt loam? The NPG-Ag is designed to answer that. They are currently testing Phase 1 technologies—like the Carbon Robotics LaserWeeder—to give us real-world ROI data before you spend a dime.

Innovative local leaders like Family Farm Direct LLC are deploying this tech NOW. Heck, even one of my neighbors has a "Roomba" for his lawn—why should our orchards be any different?

2. The ROI is Massive

Traditional manual weeding for a 500-acre operation can cost north of $500k/year.

The Cut: Validated tech can slash those costs by 50-70%.

The Funding: Because these tools are now "federally validated," they are prime candidates for USDA REAP Grants (covering up to 50% of costs) and local Washington County Ag Innovation Grants.

3. Healthier Soil = Higher Yields

We’re moving toward a "Biological Intelligence" model. By using lasers or precision-vision sprayers:

🌱 Zero Soil Disturbance: Keep the moisture and microbes where they belong.

🍎 Zero Systemic Shock: No more young apple and peach trees stunted by blanket herbicide applications.

Why guess your ROI when you can model it?

At Janus Ag Solutions, we developed JanusWatch to solve the #1 problem in AgTech: the "Risk Gap." The USDA provides the signal, but JanusWatch provides the resolution. Our platform takes those new federal benchmarks and overlays them with your farm’s historical data. We predict the exact "payback period" of a machine before you sign the lease.

JanusWatch is the first regulatory platform purpose-built for the AI-discovered biopesticide pipeline and the data-driven farm.

Launching later in 2026, we help you:

🍒 Match-make: Aligning your crop needs (like 'Black Gold' cherries) with NPG-validated tech.

💰 Secure the Capital: Using Proving Ground data to build bulletproof grant applications for REAP and MARBIDCO.

🧑🌾 Field Integration: Getting you on the list for satellite demo sites with UMD Extension.

Farmers have always been data scientists—we’re just finally getting sensors that are more accurate than "checking the vibes" in the north field.
Washington County Growers: Are you ready to stop being a "test case" and start being a "success case"?

Let’s talk. 🍎🤖

#AgTech #WashingtonCounty #MarylandAgriculture #USDA #SustainableFarming #FutureOfAg #Smithsburg #Boonsboro #JanusAgSolutions #JanusWatch

Building for the Agtech Funder “50% Scenario”

Five Strategic Actions That Make AgTech Companies Worth Backing

March 25, 2026

A response to PJ Amini’s investor framework, AgFunderNews, March 10, 2026 — https://agfundernews.com/leaps-by-bayers-pj-amini-on-exits-epigenetics-ai-driven-discovery-and-his-50-rule

By Erik Janus, CEO, Janus Agricultural Solutions

PJ Amini, VP of Agriculture Venture Investments at Leaps by Bayer, ended his recent AgFunderNews interview with a most honest sentence in agtech investing. “Whatever a company shows in its projections,” he said, “Leaps asks whether it would still be interested if that company is doing 50% of what it hopes to do over the long run.”

That is not a valuation discount. It is an architectural stress test. And in a sector where bringing a novel crop technology or crop protection product to market typically takes 10 to 13 years — immediately asynchronous with the standard 10-year VC fund cycle — the 50% scenario isn’t a tail risk. It is the median outcome for companies that haven’t built structural resilience into their development architecture from the beginning. Biopesticides have some advantages here over synthetics given shorter approval times in many cases.

Amini frames the two defining challenges for any AgBiotech startup as: (1) Can a company develop its product on the right timeline for the right cost and get it to market?; and (2) Can it can actually sell once it arrives? What the framework leaves open — productively — is the operational question: what does a company actually do to survive the 50% scenario?

The answer, from the highly-regulated biopesticide universe, runs almost entirely through one function that early-stage companies consistently underinvest in: regulatory infrastructure. While AI can compress discovery from years to months, what remains continuously evolving — and what AI has not yet materially shortened — is the regulatory ecosystem globally, and the physical requirement of field testing under variable conditions. Discovery is becoming a “software problem” while registration and regulatory affairs remains a people problem, a data problem, and a relationship problem.

Here are five actions that help build a young company to be capable of passing the 50% rule — not by performing better than projected, but by being durable enough to survive performing worse.

1. Build your registration timeline into your financial model before you build anything else.
For each pesticide ingredient, the entire US FIFRA and ESA process (and Canada and California) typically takes no less than four years, and sometimes over twelve. That eight-year variance is not uncertainty — it is the interval your financial model must bracket at Series A. Many models use the optimistic end as a base case and treat the pessimistic end (i.e. 12 years in some cases) as a disclosure footnote. In a 50% scenario, you are operating in the pessimistic case. We believe that if a model hasn’t been stress-tested against a six-year registration timeline, it is an incomplete financial model — one that operates more as a revenue projection heavily reliant on regulatory optimism.

The Ag Playbook 2.0 from Leaps by Bayer estimates “biomolecule development timelines” at seven to fourteen years at costs between $30 and $62 million. Those numbers are only meaningful to an investor if the regulatory timeline inside them is real. Commission a registration-specific feasibility assessment — not a market access report, but a document that maps your data requirements, your PRIA review timeline, and your ESA exposure profile by target geography — before your Series A closes.

2. Use the pre-submission process as a product development tool, not a paperwork step.

EPA’s Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division offers pre-submission meetings specifically to discuss and confirm data and labeling requirements before an application is assembled. This is not a niche procedural step most companies know to take and can be optimized by working with consultants who have credibility and familiarity. BPPD explicitly recommends a preregistration meeting before extensive testing begins, and new biopesticide active ingredients that navigate this process have historically been registered in substantially less time than conventional pesticides.

In a 50% scenario, the companies that survive are the ones that didn’t spend three years generating data only to receive a deficiency letter describing what EPA actually needed or having their consideration as a biochemical denied. A pre-submission meeting compresses that gap and starts the registrant-agency relationship that leads to your “freedom to operate.” It can identify which data requirements are waivable, which formulation choices trigger additional non-target organism testing, and — critically for novel modes of action like peptides and dsRNA — how EPA is currently framing your technology category. This is perhaps of greatest importance for those products and innovations that don’t have clear and specific data requirements (i.e. like sprayable or externally applied dsRNA-based pesticides) in the Code of Federal Regulations, etc. (There is a similar process in Canada that is less interactive than EPA’s approach but there is a “two year guarantee” for the written results you receive, so logic to assembling these can be different.)

3. Map your Endangered Species Assessment (ESA) exposure before you build your Serviceable Addressable Market (SAM).

Amini flags two immediate red flags in a pitch: inconsistency in strategy without clear explanation of why a pivot occurred, and lack of experience — no one on the team who has navigated this journey before. Both are potential regulatory tells. In past experience, a company that quietly abandons its original registration strategy has likely encountered a regulatory hurdle — perhaps an ESA exposure it didn’t anticipate.

EPA is legally obligated under the Endangered Species Act to ensure that pesticide registrations do not jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or adversely modify critical habitat, with over 1,600 listed species in the United States — each with potential range overlap with your target crops and markets. For any product targeting Western U.S. specialty crops, the Pacific Northwest, or the Southeast, ESA exposure is a baseline planning condition. The combined FIFRA and ESA process can take no less than four years and sometimes over twelve — and ESA consultation is the most significant variable driving that range.

All of this still legally applies to biopesticides and new agtech products and innovations regulated under FIFRA, despite current lack of clear and specific guidance on how ESA risk will be evaluated in a transparent and predictable manner.

4. Hire regulatory expertise into the company, not into a retainer.

When evaluating biologicals, Amini asks whether companies have benchmarked their product against best practice rather than against no comparator at all — and flags that unit economics and COGS must be understood even at the early field-testing stage, having seen companies discover production costs exceed what a product could ever sell for.

The regulatory analog is direct: companies that discover their data package costs exceed their registration runway, too late to pivot. Both failures often share a common root — a lack of internal personnel with direct experience helping management understand these specific regulatory costs. A senior regulatory toxicologist engaged fractionally at Series A economics, with equity alignment and standing in product development decisions, is not overhead. In fact, it can be the function that determines whether a 50% scenario is survivable.

The U.S. tiered approach to biopesticide toxicology means higher-tier studies only need to be performed if lower-tier results mandate them — but sequencing that tier structure strategically, before the study budget is committed, requires someone who has done it. That person doesn’t need to be full-time at seed stage but they should be present, empowered, and invested in the outcome.

5. Design your North American strategy as one parallel journey, not three sequential ones.

Most early-stage Agtech companies think of North American registration as a two-step (or three-step) sequence: the U.S. first, California second, then maybe Canada. The reality is more complex — and more expensive — than that.

Begin with the U.S. federal registration. Then consider California. The California Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR) operates independently of EPA and requires its own registration under the California Food and Agriculture Code, a separate environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and its own label review process. California represents the largest single state market for biopesticides in the country — accounting for a disproportionate share of specialty crop acreage, including grapes, almonds, strawberries, and processing tomatoes.

For many biopesticide companies, California alone can represent 30 to 40 percent of projected U.S. revenue. CDPR timelines for new active ingredients routinely run 12 to 18 months beyond federal EPA registration, and CEQA review — triggered for novel modes of action — can extend that further. California is not an afterthought on the U.S. label. It is a separate registration jurisdiction that can be planned for in parallel with the EPA, but generally not with PMRA.

Then there is Canada. Health Canada’s PMRA carries review timelines for new active ingredients (Category A) ranging from 285 to 655 days under its Management of Submissions Policy. Based on available data from 2023–2024, 72% of Category A submissions were completed within established service standards — meaning that even in a high-performance year, roughly 28% of submissions still face delays. (It is thought that, currently, the situation may slightly worse than this.) PMRA attributes this persistent miss rate to high workload, complex science issues, poor submission quality, and a doubling in the time required to finalize decisions following public consultations. Even a 28% historical miss rate against the agency’s own standards represents a critical planning variable, not a mere disclosure footnote.

The good news: PMRA and EPA have established a formal joint review process for microbial pest control products with common proposed use patterns, designed specifically to increase efficiency and facilitate simultaneous registration across North America. Many early-stage companies might not know this mechanism exists. The ones that invoke it — engineering their data package for simultaneous submission and engaging both agencies in pre-submission consultation during the same development phase — compress their continental commercial timeline by years, not months.

The Rule Is a Design Brief

Amini told this publication’s readers that Agtech is moving from a reckoning era into a renaissance. We would add that this renaissance is accompanied by the era of Deep Compliance, where precise packages and strong relationships win the day. The companies Amini expects to lead that renaissance are the ones that survived the hard period by focusing on unit economics and having the right experts in place for scale-up.

The 50% rule is how he identifies them before the renaissance arrives. For founders, the rule is equally a design brief: build the company that deserves investment at half speed and build a financial model built on realistic registration timelines. The doorway into the 50% scenario is almost always regulatory surprise. The companies that pass the rule are the ones who mapped the woods before they had to navigate it.

Erik Janus is CEO of Janus Agricultural Solutions, a consultancy specializing in biopesticide registration strategy, regenerative agriculture systems, and FIFRA/ESA compliance. He has thirty years of experience in regulatory toxicology, risk assessment, and crop protection science.

Learn More

What is the Deep Compliance Era?

March 3, 2026

I talk a lot about something I refer to as the Deep Compliance Era.

What on Earth am I talking about? Why is it important?

As global submissions surge while regulatory FTEs dwindle and institutional knowledge retires (or join the private sector en masse as seen in the US), we are all stuck in a state of having to do more with less and precisely wringing every last iota of utility out of each data point in a way that is not only acceptable but helps tell a story to a overworked regulator.

Well, here's how we view the Deep Compliance Era at Janus Ag and here's what we intend to do about it.

The Deep Compliance Era represents the shift from “check the boxes, get a registration” to continuously proving, with auditable data, that a product remains lawful, safe, and defensible across its full lifecycle. It is driven by regulators hardening their expectations for data quality and traceability, and by the reality that modern compliance is no longer a static federal label exercise. For novel biologicals and bio-enabled products, the compliance burden increasingly falls on the registrant and this means AI-enabled dossier assembly and gap detection, tighter study-to-submission provenance, and a precision mindset that treats every label claim, tox endpoint, and exposure pathway as something that could be re-litigated years later.

Deep Compliance is also defined by heightened legal and stakeholder scrutiny, especially in a post-Chevron environment (i.e. “Loper Bright”) where agencies may face more aggressive challenges to the interpretive glue that has historically bonded the complex regulatory frameworks of FIFRA and FQPA. The current scrutiny is amplified by organized public-interest litigation dynamics: groups like the Center for Biological Diversity bringing ESA-based challenges, and politically energized consumer coalitions (including MAHA-aligned parent networks) that frame ag innovations through risk, transparency, and “what unpronounceable chemical is in my food?” narratives. The outcome is a compliance landscape where the technical record must be built not just to satisfy reviewers, but to survive future adversarial reviews, public records pressures (including those through states like California, which also now has a new fast FOIA system), and courtroom-grade cross-examination where there is no longer immediate deference to Agency science and decisions.

Finally, Deep Compliance means winning by designing defensible pathways (opening doorways…) before they exist, especially where there is no settled EPA–ESA “playbook” for emerging biological modalities, or established regulatory definitions, guidance, and policies for “just off the presses” ag innovations in crop protection and plant health, etc. It elevates the value of (1) durable relationships and credibility inside agencies, (2) early alignment on data standards and decision criteria, and (3) a proactive litigation-aware posture that anticipates ESA friction, record completeness demands, and uncertainty around classification and precedent. The consulting edge is not merely knowing requirements. It is building a compliance architecture that is precise, reproducible, and resilient enough to carry a client through iterative regulatory expectations, shifting legal doctrines, and increasingly sophisticated external challenges.

Erik R. Janus
CEO & Founder, Janus Agricultural Solutions, LLC
March 3, 2026

We open doorways other don't even see ...