East meets west: regional impact on agrochemical discovery and innovation

Abstract

The efficient production of the food needed to nourish an expanding global population continues to fuel the demand for new crop protection compounds. This task is made all the more difficult by the need to meet increasingly demanding grower, consumer and regulatory constraints. The discovery and development of new synthetic organic crop protection compounds has been largely the responsibility of the agrochemical industry in Europe, Japan and the USA, with government‐funded academic research often playing a crucial role in the early stages of the invention and testing of novel activity. The way in which this process takes place has undergone a dramatic evolution over the past 75 years. Drastic consolidation and globalization among the research and development (R&D)‐based companies in these regions have characterized these changes. This evolution in the agrochemical industry has, in turn, shaped the rate of introduction and geographic origin of new crop protection compounds. In spite of these changes, the rate of invention of new classes of crop protection compounds has remained relatively constant. During the past 30 years, the forefront of new compound introductions has moved towards Asia, and Japan in particular. Although there are now more agrochemical companies in Japan involved in the discovery and development of new crop protection compounds than in Europe and the USA combined, on a compound‐per‐company basis, US companies currently generate the highest output. However, it is expected that there will continue to be changes in the numbers and origins of new crop protection compounds, with contributions continuing from Europe, Japan and the USA, and increasingly from China. © 2021 Society of Chemical Industry.

Impact of natural products on discovery of, and innovation in, crop protection compounds

“…Third, if synthetic compounds for which there is a NP model that hypothetically could have given rise to the compound (NPSE) are included, then NPs in total could potentially account for nearly half of the 800 historic and current crop protection compounds examined in this study. Fourth, innovation in crop protection compounds continues, as exhibited by the ongoing discovery of new FIC compounds for the past 70 years 5,26 (Fig. 9).…”

“…This latter aspect, FIC, is one measure of innovation 5,26,[30][31][32] and is used herein as a means to examine the impact of NPs on innovation. As with the prior studies, 5,26 fumigants and biologics were excluded as were chemistries that do not yet have an approved or accepted common name.…”

Molecular Targets of Neurotoxic Insecticides in Apis mellifera

“…[21] Pyrethroids are among the most used insecticides, accounting for about 16 % of the worldwide insecticide market. [22] Pyrethroids are classified into two categories (Type I and Type II) based on their distinct poisoning symptoms and chemical structures. Type II pyrethroids (deltamethrin, fenvalerate, …) have a cyano group at the α benzylic position and are highly toxic, whereas Type I pyrethroids (allethrin, permethrin…) do not contain a cyano group and are less toxic (Figure 1).…”

Success, despite another plague year

“…Two front matter papers by Sparks and Bryant dealt with the pesticide industry in general 6,7 . The first of these covered trends in crop protection compounds.…”

“…It is a good, up‐to‐date source of information on the consolidation of pesticide companies and the impact on pesticide introductions, as well as a breakdown of each of thee major pesticide types by economics, chemistry and patent activity 6 . Their other paper compares pesticide discovery and innovation in Asia with that of Europe and the USA, with a prediction of the future greater role of China in introducing new pesticides 7 . There were several papers that dealt only with insecticide discovery.…”