Robotics and artificial muscles · Food and agriculture
New ways to protect crops: drones, lasers, RNA sprays and gene editing
What do four newer crop-protection methods target, how are they regulated, and what field evidence exists for each?
This table compares four newer ways to protect crops from weeds, insects and disease. Each cell states its evidence type and the conditions behind it. Null marks a dimension where no reliable public figure was found in the sources opened.
| Option | What it targetsThe weed, insect or disease the method is designed to act on. Described in words, not measured. | Regulatory statusThe named regulator or law, and the authorisation or permit status for the method. No units. | Change in chemical pesticide useReported change in chemical pesticide or herbicide use, as a percentage where a source gives one, with the trial or source conditions. | Strongest field evidenceThe best-documented field result found, with crop, place, year and scale. Lab and greenhouse results are labelled as such. | Stated cost or priceCost or price per hectare, per product or per unit, as stated by a source, with currency and year. Null where no figure is public. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agricultural spray drones | Pesticides and other sprays applied from the air. The target depends on the product applied.Demonstrated[1] | UK (HSE): drone pesticide use counts as aerial spraying and needs an Aerial Spraying Permit. HSE says there are currently no commercial authorisations.Demonstrated[1] | No reliable public figure | Energy comparison study on wheat in Lorestan province, Iran: drone spraying used 146.84 MJ/ha, against 365.26 MJ/ha for tractor spraying. Measures energy, not pest control.Reported, unverified[2] | No reliable public figure |
| Laser weeding robots | Seedling weeds. Works best at the cotyledon to two-leaf stage; efficiency falls for larger weeds. A comparison table in the same review notes that efficiency falls when weed density is high.Demonstrated[3] | No reliable public figure | No reliable public figure | No reliable public figure | No reliable public figure |
| Sprayable RNA biopesticides | Colorado potato beetle, a major pest of potato crops grown in the United States.Demonstrated[4] | US EPA registered biopesticide products containing the new active ingredient Ledprona for three years, announced on 22 December 2023.Demonstrated[4] | No reliable public figure | EPA's registration announcement mentions no field efficacy trial data. An experimental use permit allowed testing in 10 states from May 2023.Demonstrated[4] | No reliable public figure |
| Gene-edited disease-resistant crops | Set by the edit. The UK government names drought and disease resistance as aims of the Act.Proposed[7] | UK Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023 sets rules for releasing and marketing precision-bred organisms, including plants, in England. The Act extends to England and Wales, with Part 1 and section 41 also extending to Scotland.Demonstrated[6] | The UK government presents reduced fertiliser and pesticide use as an intended benefit of the Act. No measured change is reported.Proposed[7] | 2017 greenhouse study in tomato: leaves of edited quadruple mutants had over 19-fold more GABA. No field trial and no disease-resistance test.Demonstrated[5] | No reliable public figure |
What the table shows
- The laser weeding row rests on one opened source, a review of robotic weeding. The primary trial papers could not be opened.
- The RNA biopesticide and gene-edited rows have no field efficacy figures in the sources opened.
- No row has a reliable public cost figure, and no row has a measured percentage change in chemical pesticide use.
- The four rows act on different targets: weeds, insects, disease and, for drones, whatever product is applied.
Read with care
- Figures come from different crops, countries and scales, so the cells are not directly comparable. Energy use in wheat cannot be set against any pest control result.
- Regulatory status is given for the UK and US only. Rules differ by country and product, and no UK regulator is named for laser weeders in the sources opened.
- Null cells mean no reliable public figure was found in the sources opened. They do not mean the method has no effect. The laser weeding field trial papers returned HTTP 403 and could not be read, so no laser field figures are given.
- Company claims about RNA product degradation and non-target safety were not used, because the company source was not opened and could not be verified.
Sources
- government report
Aerial spraying permit arrangements
Health and Safety Executive, 1 Jul 2026. Accessed 21 Oct 2026. - peer reviewed paper
Reducing energy and environmental footprint in agriculture: A study on drone spraying vs. conventional methods
Mojtaba Safaeinejad, Mahmoud Ghasemi-Nejad-Raeini, Morteza Taki. PLOS ONE, 9 Jun 2025. Accessed 21 Oct 2026. - review article
A Review of Robotic Weeding Modalities for Site-Specific Weed Management
Feng Gao, Shugui Ding, Wenpeng Zhu et al.. Sensors, 7 May 2026. Accessed 21 Oct 2026. - government report
EPA Registers Novel Pesticide Technology for Potato Crops
US Environmental Protection Agency, 22 Dec 2023. Accessed 21 Oct 2026. - peer reviewed paper
Multiplexed CRISPR/Cas9-mediated metabolic engineering of γ-aminobutyric acid levels in Solanum lycopersicum
Li R, Li R, Li X et al.. Plant Biotechnology Journal, 2 Aug 2017. Accessed 21 Oct 2026. - government report
Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023, c. 6
legislation.gov.uk (The National Archives), 23 Mar 2023. Accessed 21 Oct 2026. - government report
Genetic Technology Act key tool for UK food security
GOV.UK (UK Government, Defra), 23 Mar 2023. Accessed 21 Oct 2026.