agriculture

Review
Biopesticide Consumption in India: Insights into the
Current Trends
Nilanjan Chakraborty 1, * , Rusha Mitra 1 , Somrhita Pal 1 , Retwika Ganguly 1 , Krishnendu Acharya 2 ,
Tatiana Minkina 3 , Anik Sarkar 2 and Chetan Keswani 3, *

1 Department of Botany, Scottish Church College, Kolkata 700006, India

2 Molecular and Applied Mycology and Plant Pathology Laboratory, Department of Botany,
University of Calcutta, Kolkata 700019, India
3 Academy of Biology and Biotechnology, Southern Federal University, Rostov-on-Don 344090, Russia
* Correspondence: [email protected] (N.C.); [email protected] (C.K.); Tel.: +7-9889919786 (C.K.)

Abstract: Biopesticides are formulations derived from naturally occurring compounds that man-
age pests through non-toxic and environmentally favorable means. Being living organisms (natu-
ral enemies) or products, biopesticides represent less of a risk to the environment and to human
health. Biopesticides, classified into three broad classes, are increasingly used in pest control, and
include semiochemicals, plant-incorporated protectants (PIPs), and compounds derived from plants
and microorganisms. Because of their advantages for the environment, target-specificity, efficacy,
biodegradability, and applicability in integrated pest management (IPM) programs, biopesticides are
gaining interest. Although biopesticides have seen significant advances in market penetration, they
still make up a relatively small fraction of pest management solutions. Over 3000 tons are produced
globally per annum, and this number is rising rapidly. In India, biopesticides account for just 4.2% of
the country’s total pesticide market. Although the government has promoted the use of biopesticides
by including them in several agricultural programs, biopesticides face numerous difficulties at a local
level, but are predicted to expand at an astonishing 10% yearly pace. Under the Insecticides Act 1968,
the Ministry of Agriculture in India controls the use of pesticides. Among the major biopesticides
produced and used in India are Trichoderma, Bacillus thuringiensis, nuclear polyhedrosis virus, and
neem-based pesticides.
Citation: Chakraborty, N.; Mitra, R.;
Pal, S.; Ganguly, R.; Acharya, K.;
Minkina, T.; Sarkar, A.; Keswani, C.
Keywords: Bacillus thuringiensis; microbial biopesticides; sustainable agriculture; plant protection;
Biopesticide Consumption in India: South-Asian agriculture
Insights into the Current Trends.
Agriculture 2023, 13, 557. https://
doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13030557
1. Introduction
Academic Editors: Nguyen V. Hue
and Nikoletta G. Ntalli Pesticides are the natural or manmade substances that are primarily used to eliminate
weeds, pests, insects, and disease-causing pathogens in plants in the agricultural fields.
Received: 20 December 2022 Some examples include insecticides, herbicides, fungicides, nematicides, and rodenticides.
Revised: 17 February 2023
The rates of pest-caused loss of crops have been noticed to be quite high in both developing
Accepted: 19 February 2023
as well as developed countries [1]. The key elements of biopesticide management are a
Published: 24 February 2023
reduced crop loss and strong management of weeds and diseases. The random use of
chemical pesticides has affected human health in a destructive manner over the years.
According to the recent estimation by the World Health Organization (WHO), each year,
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
around 25 million people suffer from acute occupational pesticide poisoning in developing
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. countries, and, moreover, almost 20,000 people die worldwide. Among all of the other
This article is an open access article group of pests, insect pests cause major damages in agriculture. Therefore, it is very
distributed under the terms and important to control such insect pests in order to enhance agricultural production.
conditions of the Creative Commons In a broader perspective, approximately 70,000 pest species, including 9000 sporadic
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// insect species, spoil agricultural crops around the world. One thousand insect pests are
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ known to be major pests around the globe, and, among them, 200 insect species are
4.0/). considered as serious pests along with their economic importance in India [2,3]. In the

Agriculture 2023, 13, 557. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13030557 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/agriculture

Agriculture 2023, 13, 557 2 of 22

entire process of agricultural development, the role of biopesticides has played an essential
role in providing plant protection and improving the quality and productivity of crops [4].
A biopesticide is a constitution of natural substances used to regulate non-toxic mechanisms
of pests in an ecological way. The sources of biopesticides can be plants, animals, and even
microorganisms that are specifically used for the management of harmful organisms [5].
However, sometimes biopesticides may cause a small risk to the environment and human
health. Generally, they are less hazardous compared to chemical pesticides and best
suited for organic farming. In microbial pesticides, each active microbial component is
comparatively specific to its target pest mostly, but, in some cases, microbial pesticides can
manipulate many different types of pests. For instance, Bacillus thuringiensis, commonly
abbreviated as Bt, is a bacterium that manufactures crystalline proteins and destroys one or
some relatable insect species specifically [6]. The target insect species is dependent on the
binding of Bt crystal protein to the intestinal insect receptor. Unlike the chemical pesticides,
the biopesticides are made of natural substances that are able to control the pests with
the help of their non-toxic mechanisms. A few such examples are the sex pheromones of
insects, some vegetable oils, and several aromatic extracts used to trap the insect pests [7].
Biopesticides are biodegradable, action-specific, and can respond to chemical-pesticide-
mediated pest resistance issues [8]. Sustainable agriculture driven by biopesticides en-
hances social adequacy and economic productivity and provokes environmental protection.
All three dimensions together constitute the tripartite concept of sustainable development.
Biopesticides have great authority in sustainable agricultural management due to their
satisfying characteristics of controlling both the green chemistry principles (GC principles)
and the tripartite concept of sustainable development [9]. In recent years, biopesticides
have grown in popularity and are thought to be more safe than conventional pesticides.
Biopesticides are more focused on the target pests and, by their very nature, are less harm-
ful than traditional pesticides. Biopesticides can also be used sparingly and are rapid to
disintegrate without leaving any unfavorable residues, which could lessen the need for
conventional pesticides in integrated pest management (IPM programs) [10].
Since it is a topical issue of interest in the domains of agriculture and sustainable
development, there is a plethora of information available for this review. Google Scholar
was used to acquire a preliminary sample of the types of various available articles. With
regard to Google Scholar, wide search phrases were first utilized to compile a list of primary
source and peer-reviewed papers. This was accomplished based on a variety of essential
keywords, including biopesticide categories, the global market, biopesticide production
and consumption, and legislative framework. The papers and research materials from
Google Scholar were used as the foundation for the authors’ use of a better list of more
exact words for gaining access from other databases. The databases Scopus, ScienceDirect,
and PubMed have also been used by authors. Second, to find further articles, the references
part of each article was browsed through. A large percentage of the cited references were
published during the last six years. A few studies from earlier decades were nevertheless
included to lay the groundwork for notions that are still relevant today. The sources were
analyzed using a variety of criteria, most of which were based on the following factors: the
study’s year, the reliability of the data collection, the study’s area of focus, and the effects
of the use of biopesticides. Nonetheless, the source had to be consistent with the objectives
of the literature review based on the article’s queries. For the quantitative portions, the
authors searched for data gathered over a longer period of time and production and
consumption patterns with some degree of variation in terms of category and application
both globally and in India. In the case of qualitative data, the authors also assessed if the
material has been used in other studies and whether it is based on earlier studies that
have been undertaken. In this review, we focused on the global market, categories, and
regulation of biopesticides, their production, consumption, and usage pattern in India,
technological advancements in enhancing biopesticide efficacy, the usage of biopesticide as
a contributor to agriculture and sustainable development, their limitations, and, lastly, the
future prospects.
 and usage pattern in India, technological advancements in enhancing biopesticide effi‐
cacy, the usage of biopesticide as a contributor to agriculture and sustainable develop‐
ment, their limitations, and, lastly, the future prospects.
Agriculture 2023, 13, 557 3 of 22
2. Global Market of Biopesticides
Currently, the USD 56 billion worldwide pesticide market is anticipated to have a
biopesticide marketof
2. Global Market ofBiopesticides
between USD 3 and 4 billion [11]. With compound annual growth
rates of Currently,
14.1% [12],the it USD
is estimated
56 billionthat the development
worldwide of biopesticides
pesticide market willtooutpace
is anticipated have a that
of chemical pesticides
biopesticide market of [11].
between USD 3 and 4 billion [11]. With compound annual growth
TheofUS
rates biopesticides
14.1% marketthat
[12], it is estimated is now estimated atofroughly
the development USDwill
biopesticides 205outpace
million, with a
that
predicted increase
of chemical to nearly
pesticides [11]. USD 300 million by the end of the decade. North America
consumes Theapproximately
US biopesticides 40%market
of theis world’s
now estimated at roughly
biopesticide USD 205 million,
production. The marketwith for
a Eu‐
predicted increase to nearly USD 300 million by the end of the decade.
ropean biopesticides was predicted to be worth over USD 135 million in 2005 and reached North America
consumes approximately 40% of the world’s biopesticide production. The market for
approximately USD 270 million by 2010, with Oceanic and European countries accounting
European biopesticides was predicted to be worth over USD 135 million in 2005 and
for reached
20% of global sales, respectively [13], as depicted in Figure 1. Sales of chemical pesti‐
approximately USD 270 million by 2010, with Oceanic and European countries
cides are anticipated
accounting for 20% to of decrease, whereas
global sales, sales [13],
respectively of biopesticides
as depicted in areFigure
predicted to expand
1. Sales of
moderately
chemical pesticides are anticipated to decrease, whereas sales of biopesticides are predictedglobal
in South and Latin America, which, together, account for 10% of the
biopesticide
to expand market.
moderately As inthe mega‐economies
South and Latin America,of China
which,and India increase
together, account for their
10%usage
of of
the global biopesticide market. As the mega-economies of China and
biopesticides, the Asian market—while still relatively small—presents a significant op‐ India increase their
usage offor
portunity biopesticides, the Asian
biopesticides. market—while
According stillagricultural
to India’s relatively small—presents a significant cur‐
ministry, biopesticides
opportunity
rently account forfor only
biopesticides.
2.89% of According
the 100,000 tometric
India’stons
agricultural ministry,
of pesticides biopesticides
sold worldwide, but
currently account for only 2.89% of the 100,000 metric tons of pesticides sold worldwide,
are expected to grow by an estimated 2.3% annually [13].
but are expected to grow by an estimated 2.3% annually [13].

Figure 1. Global
Figure market
1. Global marketand
anduse
useof
of biopesticides.
biopesticides.

There
There aremore
are more than
than 200
200items
itemsaccessible on the
accessible onUSthe(United States) market
US (United States)and 60 com-
market and 60
parable products on the EU (European Union) market. Fewer biopesticides have been
comparable products on the EU (European Union) market. Fewer biopesticides have been
registered in the European Union than in Brazil, the United States, China, and India due to
registered in the European
their extremely drawn-out and Union than inregistration
challenging Brazil, theprocedures
United States, China,
[14]. Only fiveand India due
microbial
products were reported to be sold in the UK compared to ten in Germany and fifteenfive
to their extremely drawn‐out and challenging registration procedures [14]. Only in mi‐
crobial
each products were
of France and the reported
Netherlands to [15].
be sold in thethe
In Nigeria, UK compared
minimal to ten
utilization in Germany and
of biopesticides
fifteen
is a in each of France
consequence of poor and the Netherlands
infrastructure, [15].costs,
expensive In Nigeria, the minimal
and governmental utilization
policies. A of
total of 327 biopesticides were registered in China. A total of 11 species
biopesticides is a consequence of poor infrastructure, expensive costs, and governmentalof microorganisms
were used
policies. to create
A total of 327270 bacterial biopesticides,
biopesticides of which,inB.China.
were registered thuringiensis wasofused
A total to createof mi‐
11 species
181 biopesticides [16]. In Kenya, out of 868 registered products, 20 microbial pesticides
croorganisms were used to create 270 bacterial biopesticides, of which, B. thuringiensis was
are authorized for use. The list includes one baculovirus, nine entomopathogenic-fungi-
used to create 181 biopesticides [16]. In Kenya, out of 868 registered products, 20 microbial
based products, nine products based on Bacillus thuringiensis, and one product based on an
entomopathogenic nematode [17].
Agriculture 2023, 13, 557 4 of 22

Bacterial products, particularly those from Bt, are increasingly commonly employed.
The biopesticide sector has traditionally placed a high priority on the production of Bt,
which is currently the primary bacterium used to control agricultural pests. Its strong
position in the biopesticide sector is demonstrated by the fact that, according to the Centre
for Agriculture and Bioscience International (CABI 2010), 200 Bt-based products occupy
more than 53% of the global biopesticide market, with the USA and Canada consuming
approximately 50% of this total [15]. Bacillus thuringiensis, which accounts for over 70%
of all bacterial biopesticide use, is followed by B. subtilis and B. fluorescens. In addition to
bacterial insecticides, fungi are now being employed as pesticides. Approximately 60% of
the market for fungal biopesticides is made up of Beauveria species, and 60% of the market
for viral biopesticides is made up of nucleopolyhedrosis virus. In general, smaller farms
are more likely to use predator and virus biopesticides. Nematodes hold the largest market
share (approximately 60%) among the “other” class of biopesticides [18].
By 2023, biopesticides were estimated to expand at an average annual rate of 8.64%
and make up more than 7% (USD 4.5 billion) of the global crop protection industry [19]. In
terms of market size, biopesticides are anticipated to catch up to synthetics between the late
2040s and the early 2050s, but there are significant uncertainties surrounding the uptake
rates, particularly in regions such as Africa and Southeast Asia, which account for a large
portion of the projections’ flexibility [12].
Although the usage of biopesticides is rising by approximately 10% annually on a
global basis, it appears that the industry will need to expand even more in the future if these
pesticides are to play a significant part in replacing chemical pesticides and eliminating
the existing over-reliance on them [20]. Future market growth for biopesticides is closely
correlated with biological control agent research. In order to improve the cooperation of
businesses and research institutes on this problem, several scientists from various research
institutes have conducted some studies. The agriculture industry can and should profit
from the coexistence of biopesticides and chemical pesticides as it appears that biopesticides
cannot yet totally replace chemical pesticides. In this context, it is envisioned that large-
scale industrial development will be facilitated by speeding up the practical application of
research findings [10].

3. Categories of Biopesticides
The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has identified three main categories
for biopesticides as summarized in Figure 2.
(1) Microbial biopesticides—Microorganisms (bacteria, fungi, viruses, protozoans, or
nematodes) are the main component of microbial pesticides. Although each individual
active ingredient in microbial pesticides is quite specialized for its intended pest(s), they
can control a wide variety of pests [21]. These biopesticide classes have been effective
in reducing weeds, plant diseases, and insect pests [22]. Microbial biopesticides can
be applied to crops in a variety of ways, including as live organisms, dead organisms,
and spores [8]. Microbial pesticides work to reduce disease by producing a toxin that is
particular to the pest that is being controlled. The effect of microbial infections is brought
about by the pathogen’s infiltration through the skin or stomach of the insect, which leads
to pathogen proliferation and the host’s, i.e., insect’s, death. The microbial pathogens
generate insecticidal toxins that are crucial in their pathogenesis. Although their structure
and toxicity might vary greatly, the majority of toxins generated by microbial infections
are known to be peptides [21]; for example, Verticillium leconi, Metarhizium anisopliae,
Bacillus thuringiensis, etc. Baculoviruses have a good prospect for the management of pests
belonging to the orders Lepidoptera (butterflies and moths), Hymenoptera (sawflies), and
Coleopteran (beetles). Chemical insecticides can be replaced with microbial pesticides
since they are more effective. The insect pathogenic bacterium B. thuringiensis is the most
commonly used microbial biopesticide (Bt). When bacterial spores develop, a protein crystal
known as the Bt-endotoxin is produced. When ingested by insects that are vulnerable, this
substance can lead to the lysis of gut cells [22]. The target insect species is determined by
Agriculture 2023, 13, 557 5 of 23

they are more effective. The insect pathogenic bacterium B. thuringiensis is the most com‐
Agriculture 2023, 13, 557 monly used microbial biopesticide (Bt). When bacterial spores develop, a protein5crystal of 22
known as the Bt‐endotoxin is produced. When ingested by insects that are vulnerable, this
substance can lead to the lysis of gut cells [22]. The target insect species is determined by
the
the Bt
Bt crystalline protein’sbinding
crystalline protein’s binding
toto
thethe insect
insect gutgut receptor
receptor [23].[23]. Depending
Depending onspecies,
on the the spe‐
cies,
theythey are more
are more orpathogenic
or less less pathogenic
to theto the target
target pest [24].
pest [24].

Figure 2. The three categories of biopesticides with examples.

Figure 2. The three categories of biopesticides with examples.

(2)
(2) Biochemical pesticides—Biochemicalpesticides
Biochemical pesticides—Biochemical pesticidesare areorganic
organiccompounds
compounds that
that useuse
non‐toxic
non-toxic methods
methods to tocontrol
controlpests.
pests.These
Theseare areemployed
employedtotomodifymodifyananinsect’s
insect’sphysiology,
physiol-
behavior,
ogy, behavior, and even control [24]. Semiochemicals are also included in this groupofofbi‐
and even control [24]. Semiochemicals are also included in this group
opesticides
biopesticides [25].
[25].They
Theymight
mightcome
comefromfrom insects, animals,
animals,or orplants.
plants.These
Thesecategories
categories of of
biopesticides include
biopesticides compounds such
include compounds suchas asplant
plantgrowth
growthregulators
regulatorsthat
that prevent
prevent breeding
breeding
and
andpopulation
population expansion,
expansion, as as well
wellas ascompounds
compoundssuch suchasaspheromones
pheromones that
that either
either repel
repel or or
attract pests.
attract pests. When
When signals intended
intendedto tocause
causeaabehavioral
behavioralresponse
responseare instead
are instead delivered
delivered
toanother
to another organism,
organism, control
control becomes
becomesapparent
apparent[26].
[26].The
Thefast-acting
fast‐actinginsecticidal
insecticidal chemicals
chemicals
pyrethrins, which are generated by Chrysanthemum cinerariaefolium, are
pyrethrins, which are generated by Chrysanthemum cinerariaefolium, are a common exam‐ a common example
of secondary
ple metabolites
of secondary that that
metabolites plants makemake
plants to prevent herbivores
to prevent from feeding
herbivores on them
from feeding on[27].
them
Neem
[27]. (Azadirachta
Neem indica)
(Azadirachta oil, an
indica) oil,insecticide derived
an insecticide fromfrom
derived the seeds of the
the seeds ofneem
the neemtree, tree,
is
the most popular botanical substance. At least two insect-killing chemical
is the most popular botanical substance. At least two insect‐killing chemical substances, substances,
azadirachtin and
azadirachtin and salannin,
salannin, are
are produced
producedby bythetheneem
neemtree.
tree.Azadirachtin
Azadirachtin inhibits
inhibits insect
insect
feeding and controls growth [22].
feeding and controls growth [22].
(3) Plant-incorporated protectants (PIPs)—PIPs are biopesticidal compounds that are
made by plants from genetic material that has been incorporated into the plant. For instance,
researchers may insert the gene for the Bt pesticide protein into the genetic material of the
plant. The pest-killing substance is then produced by the plant rather than the Bt bacterium.
EPA regulates the protein and its genetic makeup but not the plant itself [28]. This is
Agriculture 2023, 13, 557 6 of 22

also referred to as the non-conventional pest control product [22]. PIPs are biopesticides
that are directly expressed in the tissue of genetically modified (GM) crops in order to
defend them against pests such as viruses and insects. When eating on the transgenic
crop tissue, insect pests ingest PIPs. Cry protein and double-stranded ribonucleic acid are
examples of PIPs (dsRNA). There are various Cry protein types, each having a distinctive
structure and toxicity that is exclusive to particular insect groups. Cry1 proteins poison
Lepidoptera (such as the corn borer), whereas Cry3 proteins poison Coleoptera (such as
the corn rootworm). The first-generation insecticidal PIPs were cry proteins. Recently, the
next-generation dsRNA PIPs received approval. The first dsRNA PIP authorized by the
FDA interferes with the synthesis of the Snf7 protein, a crucial vacuolar sorting protein, in
order to kill the maize rootworm (Diabrotica virgifera virgifera) [29].

4. Production and Consumption of Biopesticide in India

As of right now, in India, there are 410 production units of biopesticides, 130 of which
are private and 280 that are owned by the government. A total of 26 Central Integrated
Pest Management Centre units, 31 ICAR/SAU (Indian Council of Agricultural Research
institutions/State Agricultural Universities) units, 22 Department of Biotechnology-funded
units, and various state sector units, including biocontrol laboratories, are among the
units held by the government [30]. Additionally, since 2010, the Ministry of Agriculture
and Farmers Welfare has helped roughly 32 IPM centers and 35 commercial enterprises
manufacture biopesticides [31]. The state departments of agriculture and horticulture in
Gujarat, Uttar Pradesh, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, and Kerala have created
several advanced biocontrol facilities to speed up the development of a small number of
screened prospective biocontrol agents. Microbial pesticide manufacturing is also being
carried out by Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) institutions and a few state
agricultural universities (SAUs) [32]. Only a limited fraction of biopesticide manufacturing
facilities, including those for botanicals, microorganisms, biocontrol insects, and pheromone
lures and traps, have lately migrated to northern India as most were mainly occupied in
southern India [30].
Major government organizations engaged in the commercial manufacturing of vari-
ous biopesticides include central and state agricultural institutions, as well as a number
of ICAR institutes. The Central Research Institute for Dryland Agriculture, Hyderabad,
Directorate of Oilseed Research (ICAR), Hyderabad, Kerala Agricultural University (KAU),
Kerala, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University (TNAU), Coimbatore, Central Plantation Crops
Research Institute (CPCRI), Indian Institute of Horticultural Research, Bangalore, Central
Research Institute for Dryland Agriculture, Hyderabad, and Kerala Agricultural University
(KAU), Kerala are known for having specialized biopesticide production units. Univer-
sities that produce biopesticides against invading pests in the northeast include Assam
Agriculture University and Central Agricultural University, Manipur. The manufacturing
of biopesticides is carried out in the north by the Indian Agricultural Research Institute
(IARI), New Delhi, the Punjab Agricultural University (PAU), Punjab, and the G.B. Pant
University of Agriculture & Technology (GBPUA & T), Uttarakhand. The Indian Institute
of Sugarcane Research (IISR), the Central Institute for Subtropical Horticulture, and Luc-
know’s Directorate of Plant Protection Quarantine & Storage—all of which are part of the
Central Integrated Pest Management Centre—are the principal government organizations
engaged in the production of biopesticides. In addition to these, a number of Krishi Vigyan
Kendras (KVK) and state biocontrol labs have been established with government assistance,
manufacturing biopesticides to meet local demand. NAFED, the National Agricultural
Cooperative Marketing Federation of India, has also begun to advocate for the use of
biopesticides [8].
Nearly 70% of the biopesticides are produced, according to estimates, by the public
sector. Several significant companies include Biotech International Ltd. (New Delhi, India),
International Panaacea Ltd. (New Delhi, India), Ajay Biotech Ltd. (Pune, MH, India), Deep
Farm Inputs (P) Ltd., Pune Indore Biotech Inputs & Research Pvt. Ltd., Ganesh Biocontrol
 Agriculture 2023, 13, 557 7 of 22

System, Rajkot, GJ, India, Bharat Biocon Pvt. Ltd. (Chhattisgarh, India), Microplex Biotech
& Agrochem Pvt. (Mumbai, MH, India), Excel Crop Care Ltd. (Mumbai, MH, India),
Govinda Agro Tech Ltd. (Nagpur, MH, India), Kan Biosys Pvt. Ltd.,Chaitra Agri Organics,
Mysore, KA, India, Jai Biotech Industries (Satpur, Nasik, MH, India), Gujarat Chemicals
and Fertilizers Trading Company, Baroda, GJ, India, Gujarat Eco Microbial Technologies
Pvt. Ltd., Vadodara, Indore, MP, India, Romvijay Biotech Pvt. Ltd., Harit Bio Control Lab.,
Pondichery Neyattinkara, KL, India, Devi Biotech (P) Ltd., Madurai, TN, Yavatmal, MH,
India, T. Stanes & Company Ltd., Coimbatore, TN, India and Hindustan Bioenergy Ltd.,
Lucknow, UP, India. While few foreign businesses have entered the biopesticides industry,
the majority of them collaborate with Indian businesses [8].
In India, the consumption of biopesticides makes up approximately 9% of total pes-
ticide consumption [33] and, by 2050, is anticipated to represent up to 50% of the entire
pesticide market [11]. The expected yearly growth rate is 2.5 percent [33]. However, as
of now, the biopesticide market has still not developed as anticipated, and it is still rela-
tively small in comparison to the market for synthetic pesticides [11]. The production is
comparatively lower as a result of certain challenges at the industrial and policy levels.
Nonetheless, the use of biopesticides for sustainable farming has been supported by the
National Farmer Policy of 2007 [34]. Moreover, records show that India has increased its
use of biopesticides over the past few decades. Neem, one of the most frequently used
biopesticides in India, saw its consumption rise from 83 metric tons (MT) in 1994–1995
to 686 MT in 1999–2000, while Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) use went from 40 to 71 MT over
the same time period. The biopesticide use increased dramatically, above expectations,
from 123 metric tons (MT) in 1994–1995 to 8110 MT in 2011–2012 [35]. The entire usage
of biopesticides in India increased by 40% between 2014–2015 and 2018–2019 based on
PPQS statistics [36], and, over time, reached 8847 and 8645 metric tons in 2019–2020 and
2020–2021, respectively [33], summarized in Figure 3. Meanwhile during the same time
Agriculture 2023, 13, 557 period, the consumption of chemical pesticides significantly decreased from 56,114 MT 8 of
to 23
43,584 MT [37].

Consumption of Biopesticides in India during last 5

years
10
Thousands
Consumption (in MT Tech Grade)

9
8
7
6
5
8847 8645
4
7190 7174 7209
3
2
1
0
2016‐2017 2017‐2018 2018‐2019 2019‐2020 2020‐2021

YEARS

Figure 3. As of 22 July 2022, consumption of biopesticide throughout the previous five years in
Figure 3. As of 22 July 2022, consumption of biopesticide throughout the previous five years in India.
India.

The Insecticides Act of 1968 registers and regulates biopesticides. According to the
Insecticide Act of 1968, only 12 different types of biopesticides have been registered in
India [33]. They are:
1. Bacillus thuringiensis var. israelensis;
Agriculture 2023, 13, 557 8 of 22

The Insecticides Act of 1968 registers and regulates biopesticides. According to the
Insecticide Act of 1968, only 12 different types of biopesticides have been registered in
India [33]. They are:
1. Bacillus thuringiensis var. israelensis;
2. Bacillus thuringiensis var. kurstaki;
3. Bacillus thuringiensis var. galleriae;
4. Bacillus sphaericus;
5. Trichoderma viride;
6. Trichoderma harzianum;
7. Pseudomonas fluorescens;
8. NPV of Helicoverpa armigera;
9. Beauveria bassiana;
10. NPV of Spodoptera litura;
11. Neem-based pesticides;
12. Cymbopogon.
Except for a few biopesticides that are utilized in agriculture, the majority of biopesti-
cides are used in public health [1].

5. Biopesticide Usage Pattern in India

In India, the Central Insecticides Board and Registration Committee (CIBRC), the pri-
mary regulatory body for all types of biopesticide usage currently has 970 biopesticide prod-
ucts registered with it [1]. Bacterial, fungal, viral, and other (plant-based, pheromone-based)
Agriculture 2023, 13, 557
biopesticides produce 29, 66, 4, and 1%, respectively, of the total amount of biopesticides [8] 9 of 2

(Figure 4).

Figure 4. Pattern of overall biopesticide usage in India (2020).

Figure 4. Pattern of overall biopesticide usage in India (2020).
Fungal products have the biggest percentage share of all biopesticides in India. Ad
Fungal products have the biggest percentage share of all biopesticides in India. Ad-
ditionally, strains of Trichoderma are mostly used in the area of fungal biopesticides, an
ditionally, strains of Trichoderma are mostly used in the area of fungal biopesticides, and
there are currently 355 products available on the Indian market for usage in the field. Eve
there are currently 355 products available on the Indian market for usage in the field. Even
though there are many Trichoderma‐based biopesticides on the market, only two specie
though there arehave
many Trichoderma-based
been linked to recordedbiopesticides on the
biocontrol activity [8].market,
Bt makesonly two species
up around 15% of all bacte
have been linkedrialtobiopesticides
recorded biocontrol activity [8]. Bt makes up around 15%
used, and is increasing at a rate of approximately 10% of per
all year
bac- [18]. Vira
terial biopesticides used, andbased
biopesticides is increasing at a rate of approximately
only on nucleopolyhedrosis 10% per
viruses (NPVs) year in
are used [18].
India to bio
Viral biopesticides based
control only on nucleopolyhedrosis
Helicoverpa viruses (NPVs)
armigera, and their percentage usage isare used in
relatively India
low [8]. to
biocontrol HelicoverpaThearmigera, and theirsector
microbiological percentage usage
dominated theisIndian
relatively low [8]. industry in 2021 an
biopesticides
is anticipated to continue to do so during the projected period, per a study of the biopest
cides market. A compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 13.8% is predicted for the micro
bial market. Since broad use of various microbial biopesticides has improved crop qualit
and protected against external attack by bacteria, fungi, and other pollutants, microbia
biopesticides have seen a significant surge in popularity in recent years [38]. According t
Agriculture 2023, 13, 557 9 of 22

The microbiological sector dominated the Indian biopesticides industry in 2021 and is
anticipated to continue to do so during the projected period, per a study of the biopesticides
market. A compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 13.8% is predicted for the microbial
market. Since broad use of various microbial biopesticides has improved crop quality
and protected against external attack by bacteria, fungi, and other pollutants, microbial
biopesticides have seen a significant surge in popularity in recent years [38]. According to
Table 1, the all-India figures moreover show a significant increase in the use of bio-pesticides
in the areas under cultivation from the year of 2019.
Table 1. All-India statistics of area under cultivation and area under the use of bio-pesticide during
2017–2021 [39].

AREA UNDER CULTIVATION AREA UNDER USE OF

YEAR
Unit: ‘000’ Hectare BIOPESTICIDES Unit: ‘000’ Hectare
2017–2018 132,011 7738
2018–2019 141,555 7119
2019–2020 198,552 14,636
2020–2021 188,595 14,014

Statistics show that Maharashtra has utilized the maximum amount of biopesticides
Agriculture 2023, 13, 557 whereas Goa has utilized the minimum. The overall consumption of biopesticides 10 of 23has
sharply increased in Rajasthan and Andhra Pradesh and steeply decreased in Orissa.
Maharashtra, West Bengal, and Karnataka have consumed the most biopesticides, at
5549,
4416,4416, and 3478
and 3478 MT each,
MT each, whereas
whereas Himachal
Himachal Pradesh
Pradesh and Goa and Goa
have have
used theused the
least, at least,
36
atand
36 and
38 MT38 each
MT each (Figure
(Figure 5) (https://ppqs.gov.in/statistical-database,
5) (https://ppqs.gov.in/statistical‐database, accessed onaccessed
22 No‐on
22vember
November 2022).
2022 ). TheseThese dataexplain
data also also explain why biocontrol
why biocontrol initiatives
initiatives in northern
in northern states states
of the of
the nation
nation havehave a lower
a lower impact
impact thanthan those
those in southern
in southern areasareas
[8]. [8].

1400

1200
Consumption (in MT Tech Grade)

1000

800

600

400

200

STATES
2017‐18 2018‐19 2019‐20 2020‐21

Figure 5. Consumption of states‐wise biopesticide formulations from 2017–2021 [39].

Figure 5. Consumption of states-wise biopesticide formulations from 2017–2021 [39].
6. Regulation of Biopesticide
Various regulations are being developed globally to register, monitor, and control
the quality of these biopesticides [16]. To manage the regulatory activities, countries pro‐
moting them establish a variety of regulatory bodies, including committees, boards, and
special organizations. These regulatory authorities create the dossier specifications for bi‐
Agriculture 2023, 13, 557 10 of 22

6. Regulation of Biopesticide
Various regulations are being developed globally to register, monitor, and control the
quality of these biopesticides [16]. To manage the regulatory activities, countries promoting
them establish a variety of regulatory bodies, including committees, boards, and special
organizations. These regulatory authorities create the dossier specifications for biopesticides
and periodically update the dossier in light of regional and global demands [40].
In the United States, the biopesticides are largely regulated by three federal agencies.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
(USDAAPHIS), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are the organizations. The
USDAAPHIS is in charge of ensuring that these biopesticides are available for field and
laboratory tests. If the studies demonstrate no obvious harmful effects on the environment
or human health, the EPA encourages their usage on such grounds. Additionally, it permits
the sale of pesticides under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA
Act) and assures safety against pesticide residue in food and feed under the FFDCA Act
(Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic). Furthermore, these biopesticides are evaluated by the
FDA to see if they pose a risk to food, feed, or animals [40].
In China, the Institute for the Control of Agrochemicals of the Ministry of Agriculture
is in charge of registering and regulating biopesticides. They are broadly categorized
into six categories: botanical, microbial, biochemical, biological, genetically modified
organisms (GMOs), and agro-antibiotics based on Chinese data requirements for pesticide
registration. For the use of biotechnology products such as plant-incorporated pesticides,
Canada, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, and Argentina have also developed science-
based regulatory review systems that employ a proportionate-risk assessment approach.
These systems depend on a trade-off between risks and benefits when making regulatory
decisions [40]. Furthermore, a number of African nations use a variety of guidelines to
create systems for the registration and control of biopesticides in the management of pests
and diseases. A regional inventory of the regulatory environments was conducted by six
country representatives from the West African region’s Kenya, Uganda, Ethiopia, Tanzania,
Nigeria, and Ghana as part of the Commercial Products (COMPRO II) project, which is
overseen by the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) [41]. Whereas the
registration of biopesticides in EU (European Union) nations appears to be more challenging
than in the rest of the world because the dossier is provided along with toxicological and
environmental testing, it also requires efficacy evaluation. The Directive 91/414/EEC
(EU 1991), which was created for chemical pesticides initially, also governed microbes,
botanicals, and pheromones in the EU. The particular regulations for microorganisms
were introduced to the Directive 91/414 by the amendments 2001/36/EC (EC 2001) and
2005/25/EC (EC 2005), while a new plant protection law was added to the EU in 2009 [41].
The Central Insecticides Board and Registration Committee (CIBRC) in India is the
agency responsible for enforcing the Insecticides Act of 1968 and the Insecticides Rules
of 1971, which govern the use of biopesticides [42]. As the highest-ranking advisory
organization, CIB maintains a robust network of prominent researchers from all relevant
areas. The RC is responsible for issuing registrations and licenses to aspiring biopesticide
producers. This entire process adheres to a prescribed method. The novel biopesticide
formulation is thoroughly examined using a number of quality control techniques, and any
possible risks to human health or the environment are adequately assessed [32].
To guarantee the safety of people and animals, this board provides technical advice
to the federal and state governments on issues pertaining to the production, marketing,
distribution, and use of all insecticides, including biopesticides. After carefully inspecting
their formulations and confirming the efficacy, toxicity, and packaging data provided by the
importer or manufacturer, the registration committee of the CIBRC issues licenses to public
and private businesses for the large-scale production, distribution, and sale of biopesticides
to stakeholders. The Insecticides Act’s sections 9(3B) (provisional registration for a novel
active ingredient used in India) and 9(3) (regular registration) allow manufacturers to
register new products [42]. This system lowers commercial barriers to product development
Agriculture 2023, 13, 557 11 of 22

by enabling commercial producers of those microbial pesticides assessed as generally safe

to receive provisional registration and carry on market development while the product is
pending full registration. Less information is required for registration under 9(3)B than
under 9(3). For example, 9(3) B requires efficacy data on specific crops from two places over
two seasons, whereas 9(3) requires the same from three locations. In terms of the content,
virulence of the organism as measured by LC50, moisture content, shelf life, and secondary
non-pathogenic microbial load, the CIB’s set quality requirements must be met. Protocols
have been established for evaluating these quality attributes [43].
The other regulatory bodies in India are the Central Integrated Pest Management
Centre (CIPMC), Faridabad, the National Centre for IPM (NCPM) under the Indian Agri-
cultural Research Council, and the Directorate of Biological Control, and the marketing of
biopesticides to farmers is the responsibility of the Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers
Welfare and the Department of Biotechnology (DBT). In addition to the aforementioned
regulatory agencies, the Department of Biotechnology (DBT) funds research towards the
creation of biopesticides. The National Agricultural Research System (NARS) and the
National Accreditation Board (NBA) similarly carry out biopesticide quality control tests
and instruct state agricultural departments in quality control procedures. In this regulatory
chain, the latter is crucial in ensuring that biopesticides are distributed to farmers at a
sustainable rate [43].
However, the legislative frameworks that were initially created for chemical pesticides
and insecticides still play a significant role in the regulation of biopesticides and biocontrol
agents. The intent of the legislation is the fundamental of the problem. The Act and the
Rules’ guiding principles treat biologicals such as chemicals because they were created
to handle chemical pesticides [44]. Therefore, the evaluation of risks of biopesticides
ought to be based on relevant scientific data rather than regulations that apply to synthetic
compounds. As a consequence, it is necessary to alter the standards so that they reflect the
nature of the various categories pertaining to the biopesticide active ingredients [14].
On the other hand, the major impediment to the commercialization of biopesticides
is their regulatory approval [45]. The research and commercialization of pest control
solutions involves a number of stakeholders, including scientists, regulators, marketers,
and end users. Although some members of this chain are frequently involved from the very
beginning of the development process, there are still many problems to be solved: marketers
frequently disagree with the regulators and scientists, leaving end users perplexed by
perceived flaws in the finished product [20]. The fact that these items typically contain
live organisms or products generated from them, there are issues with the regulatory
processes as well as barriers to importing and exporting them. Additionally, it has been
noted that registration fees are often exceedingly expensive [41]. The commercialization
of biopesticides thus clearly depends on regulation, which is frequently viewed as a
development barrier. Despite the fact that regulations differ from nation to nation, the key
concerns are that (i) regulations do not distinguish between living organisms and synthetic
molecules, (ii) expensive testing is necessary irrespective of the size of the potential market,
making niche biopesticide markets unprofitable, and (iii) the registration process can be
extremely drawn out [46].
Thus, the governments can set policies at the international level by holding confer-
ences, workshops, and meetings to raise the status of biopesticides and bioformulations.
Governments should establish regulatory standards that would be globally accepted. Cur-
rently, problems with registration, use, import, and export occur since different countries
have distinct rules and regulations. Therefore, there is a need for a common policy sur-
rounding the use of biopesticides, and the regulation can draw up uniform actions or
regulations that might be approved globally [47–49].
Agriculture 2023, 13, 557 12 of 22

7. Role of Biocontrol agent in Biopesticide Development

The classical microbial control approach includes the use of various entomopathogens,
where exotic microorganisms are imported and released for managing invasive pests
for long-term control [50]. Various bacterial species and subspecies, such as Bacillus,
Pseudomonas, etc., have been recognized as microbial pesticides (Table 2). The function of Bt
δ-endotoxin has been well characterized [51] and has been shown to be safe with vertebrates
and also for the environment [52]. Nowadays, the insecticidal properties of Bt toxin and
bacteriocin are taken together for pest control. Bacteriocin is produced by plant growth-
promoting rhizobacteria [53]. When the seed of cluster bean (Cyamopsis tetragonoloba) is
associated with Pseudomonas maltophilia, root rot could be controlled by up to 40.8% when co-
inoculated with Rhizoctonia solani, R.bataticola, Sclerotinia sclerotiorum, and Fusarium oxysporum
under greenhouse conditions [54]. Another bacteria, P. maltophilia, along with a biocontrol
agent, served as plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria in chickpeas when tested in combi-
nation with bioinoculants or alone. Under yield conditions, it reduced the crop mortality,
thereby increasing the seed yield [55,56]. Entomopathogenic fungi form another important
class of promising microbial biopesticides. They may be facultative or obligate, commen-
sals, or symbionts of insects. Some fungi, such as Streptomycetes, produce toxins that act
against insects [57]. Viral products for codling moth, Heliothis zea, and beet armyworm
nuclear polyhedrosis virus have been registered to control pest Lepidoptera, such as the
cotton bollworm and cotton budworm [58,59]. Protozoa have not yet proved to be an
up-and-coming agent for biopesticide development. Nosema and Vairimorpha are the two
genera, which, so far, have been found to attack lepidopteran and orthopteran insects [60].
Vertical transmission has been observed in Nosema while both vertical transmission and
horizontal transmission are observed in N. pyrausta.
Table 2. Various entomopathogenic microorganisms and their target pests.

Entomopathogenic Bacteria Target Mode of Action Reference

Bacillus thuringiensis sp. Aizawai Lepidoptera [61]
Bacillus thuringiensis sp. Kurstaki Lepidoptera [61]
Bacillus thuringiensis japonensis
Coleoptera Production of Bt δ-endotoxin [61]
strain Buibui
Bacillus thuringiensis tenebrionis Coleoptera [61]
Bacillus thuringiensis israelensis Diptera [61]
Entomopathogenic Fungi
Beauveria bassiana [62]
Cause muscardine insect disease
Metarhizium anisopliae [62]
Paecilomyces lilacinus One or more pest of Acarina, [62]
Metarhizium brunneum Coleoptera, Diptera, Hemiptera, [62]
Hymenoptera, Lepidoptera,
Hirsutella thompsonii Orthoptera, Thysanoptera, Attack the host by inserting their [62]
Isaria fumosorosea and others. conidia in integuments and joints [62]
Lecanicillium lecanii [62]
Lecanicillium longisporum [62]
Entomopathogenic Virus
Agriculture 2023, 13, 557 13 of 22

Table 2. Cont.

Entomopathogenic Bacteria Target Mode of Action Reference

Nucelopolyhedrovirus
Helicoverpa zea NVP Lepidoptera [21]
Spodoptera exigua NVP Lepidoptera Kill the host when ingested and also [21]
Granulovirus (GV) spread during mating and egg laying [21]
Cydia pomonella GV Lepidoptera [21]
Entomopathogenic Nematode
Heterorhabditis bacteriophora [50]
Inside the host, the nematodes release
Steinernema carpocapsae Several orders of soil borne pest symbiotic bacteria that kill the host [50]
S. feltiae through bacterial septicemia [50]
Entomopathogenic Protozoa
Microsporan protozoans
The larva feeds on the viable spores
Nosema sp. and the infection cycle is repeated for [60]
Lepidoptera and Orthoptera the next generation.
Vairimorpha sp. [60]

Essential Oils as Biopesticides

Essential oils (EOs) and plant extracts include significant natural compounds that can
naturally degrade and can therefore be used to effectively control pests and diseases [63].
These natural products are mostly made up of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), which
are predominantly from the phenylpropanoid and terpenoid families and have a high
vapor pressure at room temperature. There are numerous abiotic conditions that cause
essential oils to degrade quickly (making their handling easy since there are no residue
problems). They offer a broad spectrum of activity are simple to process and utilize as they
are less persistent, making them safe for people and the environment [64]. The application
of EOs in more environmentally sustainable agronomic techniques has been the subject
of numerous research investigations. Given their antibacterial, antifungal, insecticidal,
acaricidal, nematicidal, and herbicidal properties, EOs have a considerable biopesticidal
potential according to a number of studies. Since EOs’ biocidal effects can be specific,
their application may be suited for integrated pest management (IPM) [65]. However,
EOs and plant extracts are biologically unstable because environmental factors, including
pH, oxygen, light, and mild temperatures, can quickly cause them to degrade. In general,
EOs have significant volatility and poor water solubility. As a result, efforts are being
undertaken to address these issues [63].
In a study, EOs of Thymus zygis, Thymus vulgaris, and Mentha suaveolens were found
to be strong ixodicidal and antifeedant agents. It was suggested that these plants be
developed as biopesticides to successfully manage ticks and insect pests. It was interesting
to note that these EOs’ interactions had synergistic effects as well. In a large-scale field
trial, the use of aqueous extracts of Murraya paniculata, Cassia tora, Amphineuron opulentum,
Tithonia diversifolia, and C. alata reduced the red spider mite population, a significant pest
of tea, while having less of an effect on natural enemies and increasing the tea plant yield
without having a fatal impact on the plants or the consumers. Nonetheless, the larvicidal
activity of EOs from five different piper species, including Piper aduncum, P. marginatum,
P. gaudichaudianum, P. crassinervium, and P. arboreum, against the Aedes aegypti mosquito
that causes yellow fever, demonstrated up to a 90% lethality at a screening concentration of
100 pm, making these EOs potential alternatives for controlling A. aegyp [63].
Agriculture 2023, 13, 557 14 of 22

8. Technological Advancement in Enhancing Biopesticide Efficacy

Until now, there are no established processes for preparing or assessing efficacy in
field situations. With the advent of nano-technology and others, there are new and better
possibilities for enhancing biopesticide efficacy.

8.1. Nanotechnology
Nano-biopesticides contained in carriers are being designed, and help in the regulated
release of active components to obtain desired effects in a particular environment. Adding
nano-biopesticides to biopolymers has enhanced stiffness and penetrability. Crystallinity,
thermal stability, biodegradability, and solubility are also enhanced [66]. However, these
techniques need to be improved. The soil-based application of nanomaterials resulted in
the growth of mutualistic microorganisms that promote the plants’ activities [67]. Silver
nanoparticles synthesized using Trichoderma harzianum have shown to inhibit the growth of
Fusarium oxysporum, a causative agent of wilt disease in sweet pepper plants [68]. Some-
times, coatings of silver-based nanoparticles can induce toxicity, which can be reversed
by biocompatible coatings, thereby enhancing seed germination in plants. Some nano-
pesticide delivery techniques that are used with different functionalities for plant protection
include nano-encapsulates, nanocontainers, nano-emulsions, and nano-cages [69]. Thus,
nanotechnology can help in the development of less toxic biopesticides with suitable safety
profiles and an enhanced stability of the active agents, increased activity on target pests, and
adoption by the end-users, and seems promising in the direction of formulation [70–72].

8.2. New Strains

Several new strains have recently been discovered containing substances that can be
used as biopesticides (Table 3), but more testing is required to prove their efficacy [14].
Table 3. List of various substances with pest control properties.

Product Target Pest Chemical Nature Reference

Products of the fungus
Fusarium root rot Fungicide [73]
Trichoderma harzianum
Anthracnose caused by
Strains of the fungus Talaromyces flavus
Glomerella cingulata and Fungicide [74]
SAY-Y-94-01
Colletotrichum acutatum
Bacillus thuringiensis var. tenebrionis strain
Alder leaf beetle (Agelastica alni) Insecticide [75]
Xd3 (Btt-Xd3)
Extract of the species Clitoria ternatea
Helicoverpa spp. Insecticide [76]
(butterfly pea)
Olive mill waste Various pests Fungicide and Bactericide [77]
Spodoptera litura,
Alkaloid compound oxymatrine Insecticide [78]
Helicoverpa armigera, Aphis gossypii
Stilbenes isolated from grapevine extracts Spodoptera littoralis Insecticide [79]
Fermentation products of the bacterium Angular leaf spot caused by
Bactericide [80]
Lactobacillus casei strain LPT-111 Xanthomonas fragariae

8.3. Recombinant DNA Technology

Novel fusion proteins are being adopted to develop next-generation biopesticides. The
principle is to combine a toxin with a carrier protein that makes it toxic only to insect pests
when consumed orally and not to the higher organism. Initially, it was toxic only when
injected by a predator into a target prey [81]. The microbial system may be used to form
the fusion protein as a recombinant protein. The latter can be scaled up for commercial
formulations and industrial production. Several other advanced, innovative approaches
Agriculture 2023, 13, 557 15 of 22

are being designed to develop biopesticides as efficient, acceptable, and effective pest
control measures.

8.4. RNAi for Biopesticide

The RNAi technology is a new intervention for combatting pests. Double-stranded
RNA (dsRNA), the leading molecule of the RNAi system, has been shown to provide
protection under in vitro conditions, without the need for integration as a transgene. So
far, some success has been gained in terms of viruses and fungi, and it seems a promising
alternative against chemical pesticides if the cost of generating dsDNA reduces. The
functional foliar application of dsRNAs targeting the plant viruses Pepper mild mottle
virus (PMMoV), Alfalfa mosaic virus (AMV), and Tobacco etch virus (TEV) was first
reported by Tenllado and co-workers in 2001 [82]. Other alternatives used a crude extract of
E. coli HT115 expressing the same dsRNA fragments used previously and achieved similar
positive results with viral co-inoculation, though the window of resistance was limited to
five to seven days [83]. Since the pioneering work of Tellendo, many other positive reports
have been obtained against Sugarcane mosaic virus coat protein using the HT115 system
developed earlier by Tenllado [84]. Bacterial extracts have been used to generate dsRNA
against Cymbidium mosaic virus coat protein [85,86]. Direct application on detached
barley leaves of a dsRNA targeting three CYP450 genes could inhibit Fusarium graminearum
growth [87]. Wang and co-workers targeted two Dicer-like genes in Botrytis cinerea on fruit,
vegetable, and flower surfaces and thereby showed that RNAi could play a role in the
post-harvest protection of agricultural produce in addition to pre-harvest protection [88].
In the case of protection against arthropod pests, there are technical challenges involving
the application of topical RNAi strategies. This is because there is a lack of amplification
of the RNAi silencing signal and dsRNA degradation during ingestion [89]. However,
mortality could be caused by the oral uptake of dsRNAs targeting critical genes in some
arthropods. Though success could be gained for some species, more research is needed
before this technology could be commercialized. The risk involving this approach is evident
and includes the potential for toxic fermentation by-products, the presence of selective
antibiotics used in growth media, and the uncertain GMO status of a non-purified product.

9. Usage of Biopesticide as a Contributor to Agriculture and Sustainable Development

Biopesticide-driven sustainable agriculture has social acceptance, increases economic
productivity, and lessens environmental hazards. These features represent the ternate
approach to sustainable development. There are several advantages involving the use of
biopesticides. They can be inhibitory through multiple modes of action, such as metabolic
poison, neuromuscular toxins, gut disruptors, non-specific multisite inhibitors, and growth
regulators [90]. The chances of developing resistance are completely eliminated because
of these multiple modes of action against targeted pests. This is why there is a declin-
ing number of classical pesticides and increased demand for biopesticides. The benefits
include a reduced pest resistance, reciprocal use of synthetic pesticides, eco-friendliness,
low-toxicity properties, specificity (does not impact non-target organisms and humans),
biodegradability, the very minor problem of post-harvest contamination, stability against
abiotic stress [91,92], and compatibility in integrated pest management (IPM). Like other
natural resources, such as biofertilizers and biostimulators, biopesticide application in
modern farming creates a balance amongst socio-cultural relevance, economic productivity,
and environmental protection, and is considered pivotal to sustainable agriculture. Thus,
we can say that the integration of public policy into the four sections (including technology)
would be the basis of sustainable development [48,93].
Agriculture 2023, 13, 557 16 of 22

10. Potential Risk of Biopesticides to Human and Ecosystem Health

Most biopesticides can be categorized as basic or low-risk substances with a minimum
risk factor. Many of them are employed in concentrations that are similar to those found
in nature. Low-risk compounds break down relatively quickly, leaving little to no trace in
the environment or food that could harm living things [94], contrary to slow-degrading
chemical pesticides in the ecosystem [49].
The likelihood of negative effects on human health caused by microbial pesticides is ex-
tremely low, and the observation that crystal protein must be converted into its active toxic
form in an alkaline environment—a condition present in insect guts but absent in the major-
ity of mammalian systems—may help to partially explain the lack of animal and human tox-
icity. In addition, the targeted insect species selectively express the crystal protein binding
site, which is purportedly absent in mammalian systems [95]. The Bt-based biopesticides
are typically regarded as a safer and more environmentally friendly substitute for chemical
pesticides. Commercial Bt species are thought to be non-infectious, and opportunistic infec-
tions in humans have only rarely been linked to them [96]. Bacillus thuringiensis is widely
distributed throughout the world, making human exposure to it ubiquitous. B. thuringiensis
was found to be a likely contaminant in 95% of instances rather than the root of the clinical
illness that led to the specimen collection. In conjunction with its use as a biopesticide in the
US, B. thuringiensis has been discovered in human bodily fluid cultures. The organism has
also been found in skin infections in burn patients. One evaluation conducted in a hospital
revealed that the detected strains originated from contaminated water used to treat the
burns. Insecticidal activity and other microbiological features required for B. thuringiensis
to be employed as a biopesticide were later found to be absent from the isolates. Although
the B. thuringiensis strains discovered in these infections were not due to their usage as
biopesticides, the research did demonstrate that pathogenic impacts from this organism
in immunocompromised hosts were plausible [95]. Furthermore, according to a study
conducted on mice, frequent exposure to biopesticide aerosols may cause sub-chronic lung
inflammation, which may aid in the emergence of serious lung disorders. Bt aerosols were
inhaled without causing any observable airway irritation, indicating that exposure will not
cause a warning symptom, rendering the exposure insidious [96].
In the context of biocontrol, an assessment of the effects of the biopesticide azadirachtin
on the queens of the stingless bee Partamona helleri using the neonicotinoid imidacloprid
as a toxic reference standard, during development, showed that azadirachtin caused
deformations, slowed down development, and decreased the size of reproductive organs.
Each of these elements has the potential to jeopardize colony viability. According to
the study’s findings, P. helleri queens were toxicologically at risk from azadirachtin [97].
Additionally, melanization and antifeedant activities demonstrated that neem extract may
have an impact on the insect’s hormonal level [98].
Over the past few years, abamectin-containing plant protection products have seen
a substantial increase in terms of use. Studies showed that abamectin has a minimal
toxicity for mammals, but it can cross the blood–brain barrier in fish and induce toxicity.
Abamectin was tested for acute lethality on Lithobates catesbeianus and caused a reduced
activity and loss of equilibrium posture. The loss of equilibrium posture could make them
more vulnerable to predators and reduce the amount of food available to them in the wild,
both of which could have a negative impact on their capacity to survive in the wild. In the
current investigation, it was seen that animals with a loss of equilibrium posture consumed
less food than test organisms that were not affected. These observations are consistent
with abamectin’s mode of action, which blocks the interneuronal stimulation of excitatory
motoneurons and causes a flaccid paralysis by inhibiting GABA neurotransmission [99].
Another study found that the biopesticide Derisom, which is based on karanjin, significantly
altered Cyprinus carpio’s biochemical parameters at low concentrations. Upon exposure
to derisom, the total protein content and enzymes involved in protein metabolism, such
as glutamate dehydrogenase, alanine amino transferase, and aspartate amino transferase,
were altered in the gill, liver, kidney, and muscle. The degree of biochemical alterations
Agriculture 2023, 13, 557 17 of 22

brought on by exposure to biopesticides varied among the organs, but there were some
similarities to an extent. The alterations in biochemical parameters were a crucial marker
for tracking the condition and well-being of fish exposed to pesticides. Thus, as the data
indicate, the application of biopesticides in agricultural areas requires monitoring [100].
Thus, the lack of a thorough examination into the harmful consequences of biopesti-
cides and the fragmentary information on this subject are quite concerning. In addition to
their direct toxicity, all of the major classes of biopesticides can have a wide range of subtle
adverse consequences. Despite the fact that this field of study is expanding, the existing risk
assessment methodology is insufficient to accurately evaluate all of the potential negative
effects that these bioagents of control may have [101]. When integrating biopesticides into
IPM and organic programs, it is crucial to have a better understanding of the potential risks
involved with their use against natural enemies. The adverse effects can differ significantly
depending on a number of variables, including the endpoint (lethal vs. sublethal and instar
evaluated), pesticide persistence, and the development plans of the non-target species in
issue [102]. As a result, in the present situation, safety testing and risk assessment need
to become more accepted practises in order to ensure the safety of exposed workers, the
environment, and the management of potentially harmful side effects [103,104].

11. Biopesticide Application and Its Limitations

Biopesticides have proved to be a very positive alternative to chemical pesticides;
however, there is a long way to go before they can completely replace the other synthetic
market. There are several pieces of evidence for the success of pesticides against a wide
range of crop plants. However, it is not devoid of limitations.
• Availability of plant sources: the production of a biopesticide is dependent on the
availability of host plants in large quantities and their cultivation. Until now, these
plants are grown for food, medicine, etc. Moreover, engaging in commercial produc-
tion will require huge land areas, which are mostly all reserved for crop cultivation,
hence the incapability of meeting the correct applied dosage remains inappropriate.
• Formulation: this is challenging as more than one active compound with different
chemical properties can be derived from one plant. The extraction procedure requires
the use of organic solvents, which pollutes the environment through their disposal.
• Shelf life: compared to their rate of biodegradability, they have a very short shelf life.
This has an impact on the cost of development, production methods, and inconsistency
in their field performance.
• Specificity: microbes form a very small portion of the entire pest community. Hence,
these microbial biopesticides are only effective in controlling a small portion of the
pest population. They are also slow in action compared to chemical pesticides.
• Efficacy: the effectiveness of microbial pesticides is susceptible to adverse climatic
conditions. The effect is reduced by heat, desiccation, UV light, etc. Hence, it is
important to precisely design the system of delivery. Moreover, they show mild
toxicity to the pathogens and are inferior to the efficacy of conventional pesticides.
Overall, the cost of manufacturing a biopesticide is very high. In this regard, both
private and public sectors should cooperate, develop, manufacture, and sell this eco-
friendly product. The constant discovery of active compounds and scientific work on
their formulation and delivery would enhance biopesticides’ commercialization and usage.
The Indian Government has already taken the initiative to subsidize the availability of
biological pesticides to farmers in order to promote the commercialization of biopesticides.
Still, the regulation of processes that enhance the registration of low-risk substances can
boost the exploitation and accessibility of biopesticides in the market.
Agriculture 2023, 13, 557 18 of 22

12. Conclusions
For more than 50 years, biopesticides have been proven to be a convenient, efficient,
and budget-friendly alternative for the management of insect pests and weeds in the field
of agriculture and public health in India. They have shown a significant contribution to the
enhancement of the agricultural production and global income of the farmers. Presently,
India is independent in producing biopesticides and also in their export services. The
most frequently used species in the Indian biopesticide industry is Trichoderma viride. This
biopesticide has already been utilized in 87 various crops, 70 soil-borne diseases, and 18
foliar diseases.
Biopesticides can be beneficial for farmers in decreasing the use of chemical pesticides
because of their sustainable and environment-friendly qualities, as well as potentially pos-
ing less of a threat to mankind. Thus, it is advised that public and commercial sectors must
work together to encourage the farmers from the basic level by providing an integrated pol-
icy and guidelines for the use of biopesticides. In that regard, discovering new substances
and researching their formulation and delivery would foster the commercial aspects of
biopesticides. It is necessary to induce more research work on integrating biological agents
into common production methods of biopesticides. In addition to that, the promotion of
low-risk compounds with incentives could also intensify the commercialization of biopesti-
cides at the market level. However, more field research is needed to examine the efficiency
of specific pest problems in different cropping systems.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, N.C. and C.K.; methodology, R.M., S.P. and R.G.; software,
R.G. and A.S.; validation, C.K., T.M. and K.A.; resources, N.C. and K.A.; writing—original draft prepa-
ration, R.G., S.P. and R.M.; writing—review and editing, N.C., C.K., A.S. and K.A.; funding acquisition,
C.K. and T.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: CK gratefully acknowledges the financial support from the Ministry of Science and Higher
Education of the Russian Federation project on the development of the Young Scientist Laboratory
(no. LabNOTs-21-01AB) and by the Strategic Academic Leadership Program of the Southern Federal
University (“Priority 2030”).
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: This is a review article, and no data were generated during
manuscript preparation.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Pragati, N.; Solanki, H. Pesticides and Indian agriculture—A review. Int. J. Res. Granthaalayah 2021, 9, 250–263.
2. Krattiger, A.F. Insect Resistance in Crops: A Case Study of Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) and its Transfer to Developing Countries; ISAAA
Briefs No. 2; ISAAA: Ithaca, NY, USA, 1997; p. 42.
3. Vendan, S.E. Current Scenario of Biopesticides and Eco-Friendly Insect Pest Management in India. South Indian J. Biol. Sci.
2016, 2, 268. [CrossRef]
4. Sharma, A.; Kumar, V.; Shahzad, B.; Tanveer, M.; Sidhu, G.P.S.; Handa, N.; Kohli, S.K.; Yadav, P.; Bali, A.S.; Parihar, R.D.; et al.
Worldwide pesticide usage and its impacts on ecosystem. SN Appl. Sci. 2019, 1, 1446. [CrossRef]
5. Anamika, R.; Sharma, N.; Tyagi, M. Impact of Chemical Pesticides vs. Biopesticides on Human Health and Environment. Int. J.
Res. Writ. 2019, 2, 45–51.
6. Suresh, K.; Chandra, A.; Pandey, K. Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) transgenic crop: An environment friendly insect-pest management
strategy. J. Environ. Biol. 2008, 29, 641–653.
7. Singh, J.S.; Pandey, V.C.; Singh, D.P. Efficient soil microorganisms: A new dimension for sustainable agriculture and environmental
development. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2011, 140, 339–353. [CrossRef]
8. Mishra, J.; Dutta, V.; Arora, N.K. Biopesticides in India: Technology and sustainability linkages. 3 Biotech 2020, 10, 210. [CrossRef]
9. Fenibo, E.O.; Ijoma, G.N.; Matambo, T. Biopesticides in sustainable agriculture: Current status and future prospects. In New and
Future Development in Biopesticide Research: Biotechnological Exploration; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2020; pp. 1–53.
10. Swati, S.; Singh, R.P. Current challenges, constraints and future strategies for development of successful market for biopesticides.
Clim. Chang. Environ. Sustain. 2016, 4, 129–136.
Agriculture 2023, 13, 557 19 of 22

11. Keswani, C. (Ed.) Bioeconomy for Sustainable Development; Springer-Nature: Singapore, 2020; p. 388, ISBN 978-981-13-9430-0.
12. Marrone, P.G. The market and potential for biopesticides. Biopesticides: State of the art and future opportunities. Am. Chem. Soc.
2014, 1172, 245–258.
13. Leng, P.; Zhang, Z.; Pan, G.; Zhao, M. Applications and development trends in biopesticides. Afr. J. Biotechnol. 2011, 10,
19864–19873.
14. Damalas, C.A.; Koutroubas, S.D. Current status and recent developments in biopesticide use. Agriculture 2018, 8, 13. [CrossRef]
15. Mishra, J.; Tewari, S.; Singh, S.; Arora, N.K. Biopesticides: Where We Stand? In Plant Microbes Symbiosis: Applied Facets;
Arora, N., Ed.; Springer: New Delhi, India, 2015.
16. Neelam, T.; Kaur, S.; Tomar, P.; Thakur, S.; Yadav, A.N. Microbial biopesticides: Current status and advancement for sustainable
agriculture and environment. In New and Future Developments in Microbial Biotechnology and Bioengineering; Elsevier: Amsterdam,
The Netherlands, 2020; pp. 243–282.
17. Srinivasan, R.; Sevgan, S.; Ekesi, S.; Tamò, M. Biopesticide based sustainable pest management for safer production of vegetable
legumes and brassicas in Asia and Africa. Pest Manag. Sci. 2019, 75, 2446–2454. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
18. Yatin, T. The biopesticide market for global agricultural use. Ind. Biotechnol. 2006, 2, 194–208.
19. Olson, S. An analysis of the biopesticide market now and where it is going. Outlooks Pest Manag. 2015, 26, 203–206. [CrossRef]
20. Hazarika, L.K.; Puzari, K.C.; Bhuyan, M. Biopesticide Technology and Entrepreneurship Development. In Science and Technology
for Regional Development: Case for North-East India; Tezpur University: Assam, India; IIT Guwahati: Guwahati, India; C-MMACS:
Bangalore, India, 2005; pp. 27–33.
21. Suman, G.; Dikshit, A.K. Biopesticides: An ecofriendly approach for pest control. J. Biopestic. 2010, 3, 186.
22. Abbey, L.; Abbey, J.; Leke-Aladekoba, A.; Iheshiulo EM, A.; Ijenyo, M. Biopesticides and biofertilizers: Types, production, benefits,
and utilization. In Byproducts from Agriculture and Fisheries: Adding Value for Food, Feed, Pharma, and Fuels; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ,
USA, 2019; pp. 479–500.
23. Kumar, S. Biopesticides: A need for food and environmental safety. J. Biofertil. Biopestic. 2012, 3, 4. [CrossRef]
24. Rishap, D.; Singh, D.N. Biopesticides: A key to sustainable agriculture. Int. J. Pure App. Biosci. 2019, 7, 391–396.
25. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. Directory of Biopesticides for Agricultural Crops in OECD Countries; Agriculture and Agri-Food
Canada: Summerland, BC, Canada, 2010. Available online: https://publications.gc.ca/site/eng/359060/publication.html
(accessed on 15 November 2022).
26. Errol, H.; Gökçe, A. Production and consumption of biopesticides. In Advances in Plant Biopesticides; Springer: New Delhi, India,
2014; pp. 361–379.
27. Silverio, F.O.; de Alvarenga, E.S.; Moreno, S.C.; Picanço, M.C. Synthesis and insecticidal activity of new pyrethroids. Pest Manag.
Sci. 2009, 65, 900–905. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
28. Ghumar, V.; Sharma, N.; Gavkare, O.; Khachi, B.; Singh, D.K. Biopesticides-for Future. J. Ind. Pollut. 2014, 30, 203–205.
29. Abdollahdokht, D.; Gao, Y.; Faramarz, S.; Poustforoosh, A.; Abbasi, M.; Asadikaram, G.; Nematollahi, M.H. Conventional
agrochemicals towards nano-biopesticides: An overview on recent advances. Chem. Biol. Technol. Agric. 2022, 9, 13. [CrossRef]
30. Singhal, V. Biopesticides in India. In Biopesticides for Sustainable Agriculture, Prospects and Constraints; TERI: New Delhi, India,
2004; pp. 31–39.
31. Chetan, K.; Dilnashin, H.; Birla, H.; Singh, S.P. Regulatory barriers to Agricultural Research commercialization: A case study of
biopesticides in India. Rhizosphere 2019, 11, 100155.
32. Chetan, K.; Sarma, B.K.; Singh, H.B. Synthesis of policy support, quality control, and regulatory management of biopesticides in
sustainable agriculture. In Agriculturally Important Microorganisms; Springer: Singapore, 2016; pp. 3–12.
33. Rajni, Y.; Singh, S.; Singh, A.N. Biopesticides: Current status and future prospects. Proc. Int. Acad. Ecol. Environ. Sci. 2022, 12,
211–233.
34. Dar, S.A.; Khan, Z.H.; Khan, A.A.; Ahmad, S.B. Biopesticides–Its Prospects and Limitations: An Overview. In Perspect Anim Ecol
Reprod; Astral International (P) Ltd.: New Delhi, India, 2019; pp. 296–314.
35. Anindita, P.; Majumder, S.; Singh, S. Bio pesticide: A paradigm shift of pesticide development in India. Food Sci. Rep. 2022, 3,
22–25.
36. GOI. Statistical Database|Directorate of Plant Protection, Quarantine & Storage|GOI. 2020. Available online: http://ppqs.gov.
in/statistical-database (accessed on 22 November 2022).
37. Bikramjit, S.; Biswas, I. Potential of Bio-pesticides in Indian agriculture vis-a-vis Rural Development. India J. Sci. Technol. 2008.
[CrossRef]
38. Indranil, C.; Roshan, D. Biopesticides Market Research 2020–2031. 2022. Available online: https://www.alliedmarketresearch.
com/biopesticides-market (accessed on 22 November 2022).
39. DPPQS. Directorate of Plant Protection Quarantine and Storage, Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Government of
India. 2021. Available online: https://ppqs.gov.in/divisions (accessed on 22 November 2022).
40. Desai, S.; Kumar, G.P.; Amalraj, E.L.D.; Talluri, V.R.; Peter, A.J. Challenges in regulation and registration of biopesticides:
An overview. In Microbial Inoculants in Sustainable Agricultural Productivity: Vol. 2: Functional Applications; Springer: Cham,
Switzerland, 2016; pp. 301–308.
41. Arora, N.K.; Verma, M.; Prakash, J.; Mishra, J. Regulation of biopesticides: Global concerns and policies. In Bioformulations: For
sustainable Agriculture; Springer: New Delhi, India, 2016; pp. 283–299.
Agriculture 2023, 13, 557 20 of 22

42. Kumar, K.K.; Sridhar, J.; Murali-Baskaran, R.K.; Senthil-Nathan, S.; Kaushal, P.; Dara, S.K.; Arthurs, S. Microbial biopesticides for
insect pest management in India: Current status and future prospects. J. Invertebr. Pathol. 2019, 165, 74–81. [CrossRef]
43. Kabaluk, J.; Todd, A.M.; Svircev, M.S.G.; Stephanie, G.W. (Eds.) The Use and Regulation of Microbial Pesticides in Representative
Jurisdictions Worldwide; IOBC Global: Berlin, Germany, 2010; pp. 15–16.
44. Arjjumend, H.; Koutouki, K. Science of biopesticides and critical analysis of Indian legal frameworks regulating biocontrol agents.
Int. J. Environ. Agric. Biotechnol. 2018, 11, 563–571. [CrossRef]
45. Hazra, D.K.; Patanjali, P.; Raza, S.K. Formulation, Registration, and Quality Regulation of Plant Biopesticides. In Advances in Plant
Biopesticides; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2014; p. 403.
46. Travis, G.; Caradus, J.; Gelernter, W.; Jackson, T.; Keyhani, N.; Köhl, J.; Marrone, P.; Morin, L.; Stewart, A. Have biopesticides
come of age? Trends Biotechnol. 2012, 30, 250–258.
47. Chandler, D.; Bailey, A.S.; Tatchell, G.M.; Davidson, G.; Greaves, J.; Grant, W.P. The development, regulation and use of
biopesticides for integrated pest management. Philos. Trans. R Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2011, 366, 1987–1998. [CrossRef]
48. Singh, H.B.; Sarma, B.K.; Keswani, C. Agriculturally Important Microorganisms: Commercialization and Regulatory Requirements in
Asia; Springer: Singapore, 2016; p. 305.
49. Keswani, C.; Dilnashin, H.; Birla, H.; Roy, P.; Tyagi, R.K.; Singh, D.; Rajput, V.D.; Minkina, T.; Singh, S.P. Global footprints of
organochlorine pesticides: A pan-global survey. Environ. Geochem. Health 2022, 44, 149–177. [CrossRef]
50. Dara, S.K. Insect resistance to biopesticides. UCANR E-J. Entomol. Biol. 2017. Available online: https://ucanr.edu/blogs/
blogcore/postdetail.cfm?postnum=25819 (accessed on 1 December 2022).
51. Siegel, J.P. The mammalian safety of Bacillus thuringiensis-based insecticides. J. Invertebr. Pathol. 2001, 77, 13–21. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
52. Mazid, S.; Kalita, J.C.; Rajkhowa, R.C. A review on the use of biopesticides in insect pest management. Int. J. Sci. Adv. Technol.
2011, 1, 169–178.
53. Gray, E.J.; Lee, K.D.; Souleimanov, A.M.; Di Falco, M.R.; Zhou, X.; Ly, A.; Charles, T.C.; Driscoll, B.T.; Smith, D.L. A novel
bacteriocin, thuricin 17, produced by plant growth promoting rhizobacteria strain Bacillus thuringiensis NEB17: Isolation and
classification. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2006, 100, 545–554. [CrossRef]
54. Yadav, E.; Pathak, D.V.; Sharma, S.K.; Kumar, M.; Sharma, P.K. Isolation and characterization of mutants of Pseudomonas
maltophilia PM-4 altered in chitinolytic activity and antagonistic activity against root rot pathogens of clusterbean (Cyamopsis
tetragonoloba). Indian J. Microbiol. 2007, 47, 64–71. [CrossRef]
55. Pathak, D.V.; Kumar, M.; Sharma, S.K.; Kumar, N.; Sharma, P.K. Crop improvement and root rot suppression by seed bacterization
in chickpea. Archiv. Agron. Soil Sci. 2007, 53, 287–292. [CrossRef]
56. Pathak, D.V.; Verma, N.K.; Kumar, M. Evaluation of phosphate solubilizing bacteria in chickpea using rockphosphate or
diammonium phosphate as P source. Natl. J. Plant Improv. 2007, 9, 14–16.
57. Dowd, P.F. Antiinsectan compounds derived from microorganisms. In Microbial Biopesticides; Koul, O., Dhaliwal, G.S., Eds.; Taylor
& Francis: London, UK, 2002; pp. 113–116.
58. Arthurs, S.P.; Lacey, L.A. Field evaluation of commercial formulations of the codling moth granulosis virus: Persistence of activity
and success of seasonal applications against natural infestations of codling moth in Pacific Northwest apple orchards. Biol. Control
2004, 31, 388–397. [CrossRef]
59. Arthurs, S.P.; Lacey, L.A.; Fritts, R.J. Optimizing use of codling moth granulosis virus: Effects of application rate and spraying
frequency on control of codling moth larvae in Pacific Northwest apple orchards. J. Econ. Entomol. 2005, 98, 1459–1468. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
60. Lewis, L.C. Protozoan control of pests. In Encyclopedia of Pest Management; Pimental, D., Ed.; Taylor & Francis: New York, NY,
USA, 2002; pp. 673–676.
61. Copping, L.G.; Menn, J.J. Biopesticides: A review of their action, applications and efficacy. Pest Manag. Sci. 2000, 56, 651–676.
[CrossRef]
62. Miranpuri, G.S.; Khachatourians, G.G. Entomopathogenicity of Beauveria bassiana toward flea beetles, Phyllotreta cruciferae Goeze
(Col., Chrysomelidae). J. Appl. Ento. 1995, 119, 167–170. [CrossRef]
63. Lahlali, R.; Barka, E.A.; Jemâa, J.M.B. (Eds.) The Use of Plant Extracts and Essential Oils as Biopesticides; Front Agron: Cham,
Switzerland, 2022.
64. Medina-Romero, Y.M.; Hernandez-Hernandez, A.B.; Rodriguez-Monroy, M.A.; Canales-Martínez, M.M. Essential oils of Bursera
morelensis and Lippia graveolens for the development of a new biopesticides in postharvest control. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 20135.
[CrossRef]
65. Werrie, P.Y.; Durenne, B.; Delaplace, P.; Fauconnier, M.L. Phytotoxicity of essential oils: Opportunities and constraints for the
development of biopesticides. A review. Foods 2020, 9, 1291. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
66. Manjunatha, S.; Biradar, D.; Aladakatti, Y.R. Nanotechnology and its applications in agriculture: A review. J. Farm Sci. 2016, 29,
1–13.
67. Lu, W.; Senapati, D.; Wang, S.; Tovmachenko, O.; Singh, A.K.; Yu, H. Effect of surface coating on the toxicity of silver nanomaterials
on human skin keratinocytes. Chem. Phys. Lett. 2010, 487, 92–96. [CrossRef]
68. Sundaravadivelan, C.; Padmanabhan, M.N. Effect of mycosynthesized silver nanoparticles from filtrate of Trichoderma harzianum
against larvae and pupa of dengue vector Aedes aegypti L. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int. 2014, 21, 4624–4633. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Agriculture 2023, 13, 557 21 of 22

69. Bouwmeester, H.; Dekkers, S.; Noordam, M.Y.; Hagens, W.I.; Bulder, A.S.; de Heer, C.; Voorde, S.E.T.; Wijnhoven, S.W.; Marvin,
H.J.; Sips, A.J. Review of health safety aspects of nanotechnologies in food production. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 2009, 53, 52–62.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
70. Khot, L.R.; Sankaran, S.; Maja, J.M.; Ehsani, R.; Schuster, E.W. Applications of nanomaterials in agricultural production and crop
protection: A review. Crop. Prot. 2012, 35, 64–70. [CrossRef]
71. Agrawal, S.; Rathore, P. Nanotechnology pros and cons to agriculture: A review. Int. J. Curr. Microbiol. Appl. Sci. 2014, 3, 43–55.
72. Prasad, R.; Kumar, V.; Prasad, K.S. Nanotechnology in sustainable agriculture: Present concerns and future aspects. Afr. J.
Biotechnol. 2014, 13, 705–713.
73. Kirk, W.W.; Schafer, R.S. August Efficacy of new active ingredient formulations and new biopesticides for managing Fusarium
root rot disease of gladiolus hybrids. In Proceedings of the XXIX International Horticultural Congress on Horticulture: Sustaining
Lives, Livelihoods and Landscapes (IHC2014), Brisbane, Australia, 17 August 2014; pp. 55–60.
74. Ishikawa, S. Integrated disease management of strawberry anthracnose and development of a new biopesticide. J. Gen. Plant
Pathol. 2013, 79, 441–443. [CrossRef]
75. Eski, A.; Demir, D.; Sezen, K.; Demirbağ, Z.A. New biopesticide from a local Bacillus thuringiensis var. tenebrionis (Xd3) against
alder leaf beetle (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2017, 33, 95. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
76. Mensah, R.; Moore, C.; Watts, N.; Deseo, M.A.; Glennie, P.; Pitt, A. Discovery and development of a new semiochemical
biopesticide for cotton pest management: Assessment of extract effects on the cotton pest Helicoverpa spp. Entom. Exp. Appl. 2014,
152, 1–15. [CrossRef]
77. El-Abbassi, A.; Saadaoui, N.; Kiai, H.; Raiti, J.; Hafidi, A. Potential applications of olive mill wastewater as biopesticide for crops
protection. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 576, 10–21. [CrossRef]
78. Ranga Rao, G.V.; Kumari, B.R.; Sahrawat, K.L.; Wani, S.P. Integrated pest management (IPM) for reducing pesticide residues in
crops and natural resources. In New Horizons in Insect Science: Towards Sustainable Pest Management; Springer: New Delhi, India,
2015; pp. 397–412.
79. Pavela, R.; Waffo-Teguo, P.; Biais, B.; Richard, T.; Mérillon, J.-M. Vitis vinifera canes, a source of stilbenoids against Spodoptera
littoralis larvae. J. Pest Sci. 2017, 90, 961–970. [CrossRef]
80. Dubois, C.; Arsenault-Labrecque, G.; Pickford, J. Evaluation of a new biopesticide against angular leaf spot in a commercial
operation system. Acta Hortic. 2017, 1156, 757–764. [CrossRef]
81. Fitches, E.; Edwards, M.; Mee, C.; Grishin, E.; Gatehouse, A.M.; Edwards, J.P.; Gatehouse, J. Fusion proteins containing insect-
specific toxins as pest control agents:snowdrop lectin delivers fused insecticidal spider venom toxin to insect haemolymph
following oral ingestion. J. Insect Physiol. 2004, 50, 61–71. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
82. Tenllado, F.; Diaz-Ruiz, J.R. Double-stranded RNA-mediated interference with plant virus infection. J. Virol. 2001, 75, 12288–12297.
[CrossRef]
83. Tenllado, F.; Martinez-Garcia, B.; Vargas, M.; Diaz-Ruiz, J.R. Crude extracts of bacterially expressed dsRNA can be used to protect
plants against virus infections. BMC Biotechnol. 2003, 3, 3–14. [CrossRef]
84. Gan, D.; Zhang, J.; Jiang, H.; Jiang, T.; Zhu, S.; Cheng, B. Bacterially expressed dsRNA protects maize against SCMV infection.
Plant Cell Rep. 2010, 29, 1261–1268. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
85. Lau, S.E.; Mazumdar, P.; Hee, T.W.; Song, A.L.A.; Othman, R.Y.; Harikrishna, J.A. Crude extracts of bacterially-expressed dsRNA
protect orchid plants against Cymbidium mosaic virus during transplantation from in vitro culture. J. Hortic. Sci. Biotech 2014, 89,
569–576. [CrossRef]
86. Mitter, N.; Worrall, E.A.; Robinson, K.E.; Xu, Z.P.; Carroll, B.J. Induction of virus resistance by exogenous application of
double-stranded RNA. Curr. Opin. Virol. 2017, 26, 49–55. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
87. Koch, A.; Biedenkopf, D.; Furch, A.; Weber, L.; Rossbach, O.; Abdellatef, E.; Kogel, K.H. An RNAi-based control of fusarium
graminearum infections through spraying of long dsRNAs involves a plant passage and is controlled by the fungal silencing
machinery. PloS Pathog. 2016, 12, e1005901. [CrossRef]
88. Wang, M.; Weiberg, A.; Lin, F.M.; Thomma, B.P.H.J.; Huang, H.D.; Jin, H.L. Bidirectional cross-kingdom RNAi and fungal uptake
of external RNAs confer plant protection. Nat. Plants 2016, 2, 16151. [CrossRef]
89. Niu, J.Z.; Taning, C.N.T.; Christiaens, O.; Smagghe, G.; Wang, J.J. Rethink RNAi in insect pest control: Challenges and perspectives.
Crop Prot. 2018, 55, 1–17.
90. Sparks, T.C.; Nauen, R. IRAC: Mode of Action Classification and Insecticide Resistance Management. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol.
2015, 121, 122–128. [CrossRef]
91. Deravel, J.; Krier, F.; Jacques, P. Biopesticides, a complementary and alternative approach to the use of agrochemicals. Biotechnol.
Agron. Soc. Environ. 2014, 18, 220–232.
92. Kalpana, T.; Anil, K. High Performance Liquid Chromatography (HPLC) and Phytochemical Screening of Three Plant Malvastrum
Coromandelianum, Medicago Lupulina and Parathenium Hysterophorus. Ann. Rom. Soc. Cell Biol. 2021, 25, 3589–3596.
93. Marteel-Parrish, A.; Newcity, K.M.; Matthey, J. Highlights of the Impacts of Green and Sustainable Chemistry on Industry,
Academia and Society in the USA. Johns. Matthey Technol. Rev. 2017, 61, 207–221. [CrossRef]
94. Czaja, K.; Góralczyk, K.; Struciński, P.; Hernik, A.; Korcz, W.; Minorczyk, M.; Ludwicki, J.K. Biopesticides–towards increased
consumer safety in the European Union. Pest Manag. Sci. 2015, 71, 3–6. [CrossRef]
95. Sudakin, D.L. Biopesticides. Toxicol. Rev. 2003, 22, 83–90. [CrossRef]
Agriculture 2023, 13, 557 22 of 22

96. Barfod, K.K.; Poulsen, S.S.; Hammer, M.; Larsen, S.T. Sub-chronic lung inflammation after airway exposures to Bacillus thuringien-
sis biopesticides in mice. BMC. Microbiol. 2010, 10, 233. [CrossRef]
97. Bernardes, R.C.; Barbosa, W.F.; Martins, G.F.; Lima, M.A.P. The reduced-risk insecticide azadirachtin poses a toxicological hazard
to stingless bee Partamona helleri (Friese 1900) queens. Chemosphere 2018, 201, 550–556. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
98. Anjum, S.I.; Yousf, M.J.; Ayaz, S.; Siddiqui, B.S. Toxicological evaluation of chlorpyrifos and Neem extract (Biosal B) against 3RD
instars larvae of Drosophila melanogaster. J. Anim. Plant Sci. 2010, 20, 9–12.
99. Vasconcelos, A.M.; Daam, M.A.; dos Santos, L.R.; Sanches, A.L.; Araújo, C.V.; Espíndola, E.L. Acute and chronic sensitivity,
avoidance behavior and sensitive life stages of bullfrog tadpoles exposed to the biopesticide abamectin. Ecotoxicology 2016, 25,
500–509. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
100. Tasneem, S.; Yasmeen, R. Biochemical alterations in total proteins and related enzymes in tissues of Cyprinus carpio (L.) during
sublethal exposure to karanjin based biopesticide Derisom. Indian J. Exp. Biol. 2021, 59, 125–131.
101. Cappa, F.; Baracchi, D.; Cervo, R. Biopesticides and insect pollinators: Detrimental effects, outdated guidelines, and future
directions. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 837, 155714. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
102. Biondi, A.; Zappalà, L.; Stark, J.D.; Desneux, N. Do biopesticides affect the demographic traits of a parasitoid wasp and its
biocontrol services through sublethal effects? PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e76548. [CrossRef]
103. Keswani, C.; Prakash, O.; Bharti, N.; Vílchez, J.I.; Sansinenea, E.; Lally, R.D.; Singh, H.B. Re-addressing the biosafety issues of
plant growth promoting rhizobacteria. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 690, 841–852. [CrossRef]
104. Singh, H.B.; Keswani, C.; Bisen, K.; Sarma, B.K.; Chakrabarty, P.K. Development and Application of Agriculturally Important
Microorganisms in India. In Agriculturally Important Microorganisms: Commercial and Regulatory Requirement in Asia; Singh, H.B.,
Sarma, B.K., Keswani, C., Eds.; Springer: Singapore, 2016; pp. 167–181.

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.