In my years of reviewing INCI lists and assessing ingredients against certification standards, I have watched biotechnology move quietly from the edge of the formulation to its centre, with the latest buzzword being precision fermentation. It is one of the most exciting things happening in our industry. It also comes with a sustainability story we need to tell more carefully than some suppliers are telling it.
The OECD defines biotechnology as “the application of science and technology to living organisms, as well as parts, products and models thereof, to alter living or non-living materials for the production of knowledge, goods and services.” A broad definition to define biotechnology consistently across pharma, agriculture and industry, and keep working as new techniques arrive.
Precision fermentation is the sharper end of it. Instead of growing an organism for its whole biomass, the genetic engineer programmes a host — a yeast, a bacterium, sometimes a microalgae — to make one specific molecule, which is then purified. The organism becomes the factory, and what comes out is a defined molecule, batch after batch.
Actives and much more
Actives take centre stage: panthenol, retinol, now PDRN. But the more interesting advancement, for me, is everywhere else in the formulation. Xanthan gum has been made by fermentation since the 1960s, so in fact many of us have been formulating with biotechnology for decades without ever calling it that.
What is new is the variety of applications. Glycolipid biosurfactants have reached industrial scale, with Evonik’s rhamnolipid plant in Slovakia fermenting European sugar for personal care. Whereas in Belgium AmphiStar’s sophorolipids are made from agri-food side streams rather than virgin crop, showing upcycling and biotechnology can partner together for new environmental benefits. Antimicrobial multifunctionals, for example Pentylene glycol and Lactobacillus ferment, can support preservation. Postbiotics are working on the barrier and the microbiome. Microalgae grown in photobioreactors give us pigments, lipids and actives on a footprint no field crop can match. And for anyone with a palm-free brief, fermented and enzymatically tailored emollients are starting to appear on the market.
Can we call it “natural”?
This is the objection I hear sometimes. ISO 16128 has already answered it. Under ISO 16128-1:2016, natural ingredients are those obtained from plants, animals, micro-organisms or minerals by physical processes, fermentation and extraction, without chemical modification, and derived natural ingredients are those of more than 50% natural origin. Micro-organisms are a natural source. Fermentation is a permitted process. A fermentation-derived ingredient can legitimately carry a natural origin index of 1.
However, most consumers have never heard of ISO 16128 and certification schemes draw their own line, and several still exclude anything made using GMOs. Therefore, technically we can call it natural, but a careful market and consumer assessment needs to be made before using materials made using GMM or GM crops.
AI-powered search and product intelligence supports your most demanding development work. Learn more here!
Replacing one petrochemical at a time
Every precision-fermented surfactant or emollient on a shelf replaces a fossil stream. It’s scalable renewable carbon in a tank.
The sheer size of the incumbent market—roughly 87% petrochemical out of a $47 billion total—shows just how much ground there is to capture. Bio-based alternatives are already outpacing market growth, expanding at 5.8% annually against 5.4%. While first-generation oleochemicals hold the majority of that volume today, precision fermentation represents the higher-value frontier.
Scaling requires pragmatic economics. While commodity surfactants compete purely on unit cost, fermentation commands capital. Biotechnology’s immediate advantage lies at the high-margin peak of the pyramid: performance molecules, actives, and specialities where superior properties command the price. Conquering the premium tier first isn’t a compromise—it’s how the capacity to challenge the commodities base can be funded.
The claim I would question
Many suppliers now sell fermentation as a solution to deforestation: fewer hectares per tonne, therefore forest saved. The first half is often true. The second half is an assumption which is likely to be wishful thinking.
A 2025 systematic review in PNAS Nexus by Augustin and colleagues looked at 57 studies of the land sparing versus land sharing debate and found the evidence supports neither approach on its own. Fifty-two per cent found that context-specific solutions combining both worked best, and the authors warn that higher yields can, without policy to direct them, drive further agricultural expansion rather than release land.
Land we do not use does not automatically go back to nature. It can be planted with something else, sold, or built on. Fewer hectares is an input; recovered biodiversity is an outcome, and only outcome data shows it.
The missing link: regenerative sourcing
None of this dismisses biotech ingredients—it simply clarifies their role. Producing molecules in a bioreactor dramatically shrinks the direct land footprint, but land sparing alone does not guarantee restored ecosystems or stopped deforestation. Feedstocks still come from the wider agricultural landscape.
That is why the most credible forward path isn’t biotechnology in isolation, but biotechnology paired with regenerative sourcing:
- A precision-fermented emollient formulated alongside a regeneratively sourced botanical butter.
- A high-purity biotech active partnered with an extract from land actively rebuilding topsoil and supporting local biodiversity.
Biotechnology limits our draw on finite natural capital; regenerative agriculture actively restores it. One reduces the pressure, while the other repairs the damage. A truly resilient supply chain—and an unshakeable sustainability story—needs both working in tandem.
References
- OECD statistical definition of biotechnology, as reproduced by Eurostat. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Glossary:Biotechnology
- Evonik, “Evonik manufactures first product from world’s first industrial-scale rhamnolipid biosurfactant plant”, January 2024. https://www.evonik.com/en/company/we-go-beyond/rhamnolipids.html
- AmphiStar, AmphiCare — upcycled glycolipid biosurfactants from agri-food side streams, launched October 2024. https://amphistar.com/amphicare/
- ISO 16128-1:2016 and ISO 16128-2:2017, Cosmetics — Guidelines on technical definitions and criteria for natural and organic cosmetic ingredients; summarised by CTPA. https://www.ctpa.org.uk/natural-ingredients
- Grand View Research, Surfactants Market (2025: USD 47.4 bn; petroleum-based 87.4%) and Biosurfactants Market (2025: USD 6.1 bn; MES 33.3% of segment). https://www.grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/surfactants-market
The views, opinions and technical analyses presented here are those of the author or advertiser, and are not necessarily those of ULProspector.com or UL Solutions. The appearance of this content in the UL Prospector Knowledge Center does not constitute an endorsement by UL Solutions or its affiliates.
All content is subject to copyright and may not be reproduced without prior authorization from UL Solutions or the content author.
The content has been made available for informational and educational purposes only. While the editors of this site may verify the accuracy of its content from time to time, we assume no responsibility for errors made by the author, editorial staff or any other contributor.
UL Solutions does not make any representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy, applicability, fitness or completeness of the content. UL Solutions does not warrant the performance, effectiveness or applicability of sites listed or linked to in any content.
