You saved cacao and chocolate!
Human Practices / Entrepreneurship
Entrepreneurship
From problem discovery to a defensible biocontrol venture: PhytoBlock couples synthetic biology, market validation, regulatory foresight and financing strategy to protect cacao and farmer livelihoods.
Customer & Needs
PhytoBlock targets Cargill, Puratos, and Mondelez as early adopters, addressing farmers’ unmet need for a rain-resistant, easy-to-use biocontrol spray.
Feasibility & Scalability
Built on AMPs and logic-gated control, PhytoBlock is stable and scalable through existing cacao networks, priced at ~€85/ha with a €290M market in West Africa.
Development & Risks
A seven-year roadmap (2026–2033) links phased R&D, regulatory checks, and funding (€100M) to milestones for de-risked growth.
Skills & Stakeholders
An interdisciplinary team backed by KU Leuven experts and industry mentors engages key stakeholders—manufacturers, investors, and farmers—for credibility and adoption.
Long-Term impact
PhytoBlock improves farmer income and soil health, aligns with UN SDGs, and manages ecological and regulatory risks responsibly.
Overview
The global cacao industry is at a tipping point. Climate change, aggressive plant diseases, shifting consumption patterns, and stricter regulations are reducing yields and threatening farmer livelihoods.
PhytoBlock, developed by iGEM KU Leuven, applies synthetic biology to this challenge. Our microbial solution protects cacao pods from black pod disease and strengthens crop resilience, offering a sustainable, scalable alternative to conventional chemical treatments that integrates seamlessly into current farming practices.
Our approach combines science with entrepreneurship. Supported by KICK (KU Leuven’s incubator) and Flemish Government funding, we developed a 48-month plan and roadmap from pre-seed to commercialization. By engaging farmers, industry leaders, and academic experts, we ensure PhytoBlock delivers value where it is most needed.
On this page, we guide you through the key elements of our entrepreneurship work. Starting from the problem and our mission, we move into the market context and business plan, followed by the product development timeline and financial outlook. We also introduce the team and outline our fundraising journey. More details, assumptions and methodologies are available in the Business Plan embedded under Plan & Traction.
You can find how our work aligns with the iGEM Entrepreneurship Criteria in this section.
The Stakes
Problem Statement
Around 70 % of the world’s cacao is produced in West Africa, where about 2.5 million farmers cultivate plots of 3 hectares on average[1], [2]. For most of them, cacao is the main source of income, yet they live on less than USD 1 a day [3]. This means any yield loss can threaten food security, children’s education, and farm survival.
The biggest and most immediate threat is Black Pod Disease. Caused by Phytophthora species, it infects pods directly in the field, wiping out up to 30 % of annual harvests [4] and costing the region over USD 423 million every year[5]. In Côte d’Ivoire and Ghana, the largest cacao producing countries, shifting rainy seasons, rising temperatures, and aging trees make outbreaks more frequent and more severe. Many younger generations are abandoning cacao, leaving production to older growers and increasingly vulnerable orchards.
Current control measures fall short. Copper-based fungicides wash away during heavy rainfall and accumulate in soils, damaging ecosystems. Systemic fungicides, which are absorbed by the plant and internally transported, are prone to resistance, and largely inaccessible to smallholders. Breeding resistant varieties is promising but far too slow to meet today’s urgency. Without sustainable alternatives, millions of West African farmers and the communities that depend on their work face escalating ecological, social, and economic risks [6], [7].
Although cocoa prices have recently spiked, smallholders capture only 6 – 8 % of the final value chocolate [8], [9]. Rising market volatility does not translate into better incomes; instead, it makes planning even harder for families already living below the poverty line [9].
Cacao Supply Chain 101
Cacao traditionally moves through a long and fragmented chain. Smallholder farmers in West Africa harvest, ferment and dry the beans on plots of just a few hectares before selling them to local aggregators. These middlemen bulk, grade and transport the beans to exporters or traders, who handle customs clearance, finance commodity risk and deliver the product to chocolate manufacturers. Producers then roast, grind and transform the beans into cocoa mass, butter and finished chocolate goods for consumers. This multi-step system has low traceability and leaves farmers capturing only a small fraction of the final value[10], [11].
In recent years the structure has begun to shift. Major brands such as Cargill, Puratos and Mondelez increasingly source directly from farmers and cooperatives, driven by consumer demand for transparency, tighter deforestation and labor regulations and the growth of fair-trade and sustainability programs [12], [13].
More importantly, these direct-sourcing initiatives also provide farmers with training, technological standards and to inputs such as improved pesticides, which makes them key entry points for new, sustainable disease-control solutions.
The cacao supply chain is complex. Most cocoa is produced by smallholder farmers in hot, humid tropical regions. Below is a concise outline of the traditional supply chain according to the World Cocoa Foundation, followed by what direct sourcing programs change, and why they are gaining traction [15].
- Growing
Cocoa trees require heavy rainfall (≈ 1,500–2,000 mm/year), stable humidity and shade. Farmers must manage soil fertility, pruning, pests and diseases to maintain yields. - Harvesting & Pod Breaking
Ripe pods are cut from trunks and branches (often in two main crop cycles per year). Pods are broken open within 7–10 days to extract wet beans. - Fermentation & Drying
- Beans with pulp are fermented for 3–7 days; this develops flavour.
- Then beans are sun-dried for ~5–7 days to reduce moisture, improve shelf life, and stop fermentation.
- Sourcing, Marketing & Shipment
- Farmers sell dried beans to intermediaries (local traders, wholesalers).
- Beans move to cooperatives or exporter agents, are cleaned, graded, packed, and shipped.
- Processing (roasting, grinding) usually occurs after export, often in importing countries.
- Processing, Manufacturing & Retail
- Roasting, shelling, grinding into cocoa liquor. Cocoa butter is separated; cake is crushed or powdered.
- Mixed with sugar, vanilla, milk etc. to make chocolate. Packaged, marketed, and sold via retail.
Direct Sourcing Programs
Direct sourcing programmes shorten the cocoa supply chain by allowing companies to buy beans directly from farmers or cooperatives instead of through multiple intermediaries [16]. This approach can improve traceability, quality control and compliance with new deforestation and labour regulations, potentially offering clearer premiums and training to producers [16]. Despite these benefits, studies show that a large share of cocoa in West Africa still flows through indirect channels and that farm-level traceability remains difficult and costly to implement [17]. As a result, direct sourcing is expanding but is not yet the dominant model, making it an important entry point for new solutions like PhytoBlock.
Stakeholder Analysis
To ensure PhytoBlock creates value at every level, we conducted a stakeholder analysis of the cacao supply chain coupled with the agrochemical industry. Mapping the needs and influence of each actor helps us align our solution with both regulatory requirements and market expectations.
More on our approach to stakeholder management in IHP
The horizontal axis of the graph represents the level of interest of different stakeholders, while the vertical axis represents their level of influence. Using this tool allows us to prioritize stakeholders along our development timeline and identify the most strategic partners for future operations.
Key stakeholders with high interest and high influence include:
- Chocolate manufacturers: they control large sourcing programs and are under direct ESG pressure. They have the resources and incentives to fund pilot programs [18].
- VCs and Impact Investment Firms: they provide funding, networks and strategic guidance, and are highly interested in sustainable innovation [19].
Farmer cooperatives and smallholders show high interest but medium/low influence. They represent thousands of farmers and directly benefit from yield protection but do not set regulatory or financial rules. Maintaining good relationships is valuable because they can accelerate adoption and influence other stakeholders, even though product development is not their primary focus [20].
NGOs and certifiers also fall in the high-interest, medium-influence They are important for validating our product, spreading information, and ensuring compliance with organic and fair-trade directives. Keeping them engaged helps unlock larger markets through certification [21].
Some stakeholders have high influence but lower direct interest in PhytoBlock. They must be managed carefully because they control critical resources or permissions:
- Agrochemical incumbents: they have large budgets, market reach and lobbying power. They may become partners, licensees or acquirers, but can also be competitive [22].
- Regulators: they exert very high influence but may not prioritise approving an alternative, especially if it is perceived as GMO-related. Diligent engagement and early relationship-building are essential [23].
Finally, end consumers have only indirect influence. While they shape brand behavior, their main concerns tend to be deforestation and labor practices rather than pesticide use, making their interest moderate.
In conclusion, our team should work most closely with chocolate companies to achieve streamlined market entry through existing supply chains and sustainability programs. We must also prioritize engagement with investors to meet the long development timelines and capital requirements. At the same time, we should cultivate constructive relationships with high-influence but lower-interest actors (incumbents and regulators) so that, when the time comes, they see PhytoBlock as an opportunity rather than a threat.
Market Snapshot
Farmer and Industry Insights
To identify unmet needs and opportunities in the cacao sector, we conducted in-depth interviews with stakeholders across the supply chain, including farmers, cooperatives, regulatory agencies, IP strategists, agrochemical leaders, chocolate manufacturers, and retailers. Insights from these conversations shaped the critical success factors for PhytoBlock’s adoption and are detailed on our IHP page.
Unfortunately, an attempted Qualtrics survey to farmers yielded little structured data due to supply-chain fragmentation, limited literacy, and low trust in NGOs.
Our interviews underscored several systemic challenges. A primary issue is regulation: EU Regulation No. 396/2005 sets strict Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs), sharply reducing allowable pesticide residues to protect consumers [24]. In parallel, the 2023 EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR) requires proof that cocoa entering or leaving the EU does not originate from recently deforested land, creating strong incentives to increase yields on existing acreage [25].
Within this context, product success depends on a clear set of Critical Success Factors: proven effectiveness against black pod disease, strong regulatory alignment, farmer-centric usability, adherence to ESG standards, affordability and value creation, scalability across markets, and robust distribution networks. These success factors combine insights from both industry research and stakeholder interviews, and they guide our approach to ensuring that PhytoBlock can achieve sustainable adoption in the cacao sector. These CFS are outlined in the figure below:
Current Solutions
Understanding where PhytoBlock creates value begins with a look at the existing and upcoming solutions targeting black pod disease:
Chemical Fungicides: Copper-based and systemic pesticides remain the backbone of black pod control. They are relatively cheap, widely distributed and have decades of farmer familiarity. However, they face growing regulatory pressure to cut metal residues in the ecosystems.
Biological/Non-Chemical Approaches: New wave of products using living or naturally derived agents to suppress Phytophthora. Examples include Trichoderma spp. sold by Koppert Biological Systems or Certis USA, and Bacillus subtilis in Bayer’s Serenade® or Certis’ Double Nickel®. These solutions promise lower environmental impacts but require cold chain handling, training and consistent formulations to match performance
A parallel trend in the chocolate industry is the pursuit of synthetic alternatives to traditional cocoa. Strategies include breeding more disease-resistant cacao varieties, such as CCN51 [26], which offers greater resilience but sacrifices some flavor and quality [26], as well as developing cocoa-free chocolate made from plant-based or cell-cultured ingredients.
| Category | Competitor | Product | Type | Key Features |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chemical Fungicides | Syngenta | Pergado® Ultra / Cocoa | Systemic fungicide | Preventive + curative vs Phytophthora; rainfast; West Africa formulation [27] |
| Ridomil Gold® | Systemic fungicide | Long-standing mainstay; entrenched channels; facing resistance pressure [30] | ||
| Certis Belchim | Valis Plus | Valifenalate + copper | Less total copper; curative + preventive; safer; rainfast [28] | |
| Adama | Vamos 500 SC | Protectant fungicide | Fluazinam; inhibits P. megakarya & P. palmivora; strong residual [29] | |
| Biological / Non-Chemical | Roam Technology | Huwa-San | Stabilized H₂O₂ | Non-toxic, low-residue; under COCOBOD trials; potential resistance-free option [31] |
| Biocontrol (Koppert, Certis USA, Bayer) | Trichoderma, Bacillus subtilis | Biopesticides | Beneficial microbes; low residues; promising but variable field results; may need cold-chain and training [32] | |
| Indirect Competitors | Voyage Foods | Cocoa-free chocolate | Ingredient substitute | Plant-protein & seed-oil chocolate analogue; 80% lower CO₂; Cargill distribution [33] |
| Planet A Foods (ChoViva) | Fermented cereal chocolate | Ingredient substitute | Oats & sunflower seeds; 42k EU stores; Lindt & Lufthansa partners; developing cocoa-butter substitute [34] |
Market Segmentation
Segmenting our market is essential for PhytoBlock’s deployment in the fragmented cacao supply chain. We divided the industry into smaller segments to tailor our approach to specific stakeholder needs and reach smallholder farmers more effectively.
Our initial target are small-scale cacao farmers in West Africa (Côte d’Ivoire, Ghana, Nigeria and Cameroon), especially those enrolled in sustainability and direct-sourcing programs. Pesticide use is increasing in these regions, and with support from chocolate manufacturers’ sustainability initiatives, farmers have both the incentive and the capacity to adopt PhytoBlock to increase yields and protect crops.
We segmented the agrochemical market based on three factors:
- Product type: Agrochemicals are broadly divided into fertilizer and pestidides; further subdivided into herbicides, insecticides, and fungicides. Within fungicides, biofungicides stand out as one of the fastest-growing segments with a value of USD 7.72 billion in 2024 and a CAGR of 10.3% due to regulatory and sustainability pressures [35].
- Geography: West Africa produces ~70% of global cocoa, with Côte d’Ivoire, Ghana, Nigeria, and Cameroon as priority markets where black pod disease remains a major yield constraint [36].
- Distribution channel: While traditional agrochemical distribution relies on local dealers and cooperatives, we plan to leverage sustainability programs that already deliver training, subsidized inputs, and traceability to farmers, accelerating adoption [37].
Our market segmentation strategy is outlined in the following figure, assuming an average farm size of 3 hectares [38] (a full list of assumptions and methodology can be found in the Business Plan)
PESTEL Analysis
When developing PhytoBlock, it is crucial to understand the forces that shape our development and operations. We conducted a PESTEL analysis to identify the main factors in the cacao and agrochemical industries that can influence the success of our project (see our Business Plan for more details).
The current landscape in the cacao and agrochemical industries creates both opportunities and challenges for PhytoBlock. Regulations are evolving rapidly toward ESG directives, residue reduction and deforestation-free sourcing. By aligning early with these standards, PhytoBlock can position itself as a sustainable solution that chocolate companies can adopt without regulatory risk.
At the same time, rising demand for higher yields requires high R&D and compliance costs that favor large multinationals. Securing funding and partnerships with sustainability programs and industry players will therefore be essential to accelerate development, reduce costs and gain access to farmer networks.
Growing consumer demand for ethical, low-residue chocolate and climate-driven pest pressures increase the need for effective but sustainable crop protection. PhytoBlock’s biological approach directly addresses these pressures, but it also requires navigating biosecurity and certification rules; as well as developing a strong IP strategy to protect our innovation from imitation.
TAM/SAM/SOM
Based on our target market segmentation, we conducted a TAM/SAM/SOM analysis to quantify the value of our target market. This analysis follows the assumptions outlined in our Business Plan (farmer numbers, average farm size, price per hectare).
- TAM (Total Addressable Market): All cacao farmers worldwide, about 5–6 million farmers cultivating ~12 million hectares [39], [40]. This represents the total potential if every cacao farmer used PhytoBlock. At a reference price of EUR 85 per hectare treated, the TAM equals roughly EUR 1.02 billion annually [38].
- SAM (Serviceable Addressable Market)All cacao farmers in West Africa, our entry region. West Africa accounts for ~70 % of global production, with approximately 2.6 million farmers in Cote d’Ivoire, Ghana, Nigeria and Cameroon [1]. Assuming an average of 3 ha per farm, the SAM is about 7.9 million hectares (≈EUR 670 million per year at the same price) [38].
- SOM (Serviceable Obtainable Market) Farmers in West Africa who are directly engaged in sustainability or direct-sourcing programs run by major chocolate manufacturers, our most immediate and accessible segment. This group comprises ~1.1 million farmers cultivating ~3.3 million hectares. At EUR 85 per hectare treated, the SOM represents roughly EUR 290 million per year in potential revenue [38].
Our Solution: What is PhytoBlock?
PhytoBlock is a biological crop-protection spray developed at iGEM KU Leuven to combat black pod disease in cacao. It is based on Bacillus subtilis, a naturally occurring bacterium in cacao that is safe for plants, humans and the environment. Through synthetic biology, we engineered the bacterium to secrete antimicrobial peptides (AMPs) that inhibit Phytophthora, the pathogens responsible for the disease.
Unlike many conventional fungicides, PhytoBlock is designed to reduce risks such as soil accumulation, wash-off during heavy rainfall, and the development of pathogen resistance. The product is formulated as dried spores of Bacillus subtilis that are reactivated with water and applied as a spray in the field. This spore-based format makes the product stable in tropical conditions and easy to distribute and store, while fitting seamlessly into existing farming practices.
We are also developing a logic-gated control system to improve safety and effectiveness. This system allows PhytoBlock to detect specific carbon sources from the cacao plant together with signals from Phytophthora (such as elicitin proteins) to activate AMP secretion. This targeted response reduces the risk of resistance by avoiding constant peptide production in the plant.
The impact of PhytoBlock extends beyond disease control. By protecting pods that would otherwise be lost, it increases farmer yields and incomes, stabilizes supply for chocolate producers and reduces reliance on environmentally damaging chemicals.
Mission and Vision
PhytoBlock is more than a research project. It is a mission to protect cacao from devastating disease and a vision for a more sustainable, resilient cocoa industry. Our goals are summarized below.
Mission
To protect cacao crops from black pod disease by engineering safe microbial solutions that increase farmer yields, keep cocoa prices competitive, and reduce reliance on harmful chemicals. PhytoBlock aims to contribute to a fairer cacao industry by aligning with the sustainability programs of major chocolate producers.
Vision
To build a stable and resilient cacao supply chain where yields are protected, price volatility is reduced, and cocoa is no longer treated as a commodity that profits at the expense of farmers’ livelihoods. Our vision is a sector that values sustainability, fairness, and long-term security for both producers and consumers.
Access & Value
Chocolate manufacturers benefit when farmers achieve higher and more stable yields. Smallholder farmers in West Africa currently lose about 30% of their cocoa harvest to black pod disease [4]. PhytoBlock aims to cut average yield losses by 50%, thus reducing them to roughly 15%. Evidence from studies on bacterial biocontrol strains against Phytophthora reports reductions in disease severity of up to 50%, thus making the target a plausible target by commercialization in 2033 [41].
For a typical West African smallholder, cutting losses toward ~15% could add around €355 in cocoa revenue per hectare. With PhytoBlock priced at € 85 per hectare, most of the value accrues to the farmer, creating strong adoption incentives. This also benefits manufacturers, who can distribute through existing sustainability networks under non-exclusive agreements, supporting farmer incomes and securing long-term supply.
To deliver this impact at scale, PhytoBlock is designed to plug directly into the direct-sourcing programs run by major chocolate companies. About 90% of global cocoa is produced on smallholder farms, and these programs provide the most efficient channel to reach them while using established supply-chain structures. By aligning with established sustainability initiatives, PhytoBlock reinforces their mission while advancing ours: reducing crop losses, stabilizing farmer incomes and contributing to a fairer cocoa sector. The momentum behind this model is growing; for example, by the end of 2024, 91% of the cocoa for Mondelez’s chocolate brands came through its Cocoa Life program, up from 63% in 2022 [42], [43].
PhytoBlock applies a value-based pricing model. We first quantified the economics of black pod disease and the extra income our product can generate for farmers. In West Africa, an average cacao plot yields about 500 kg/ha after losses, with farm-gate prices ranging from USD 2,360–5,400/t depending on the country (weighted average ≈ €3,320/t as of September 2025) [38].
| Scenario (per ha) | Yield (kg) | Value at EUR 3,320/t | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Potential yield (no loss) | 714 | € 2,370.00 | Max potential |
| Current reality (30 % loss) | 500 | € 1,660.00 | Farmer’s current average |
| With PhytoBlock (15 % loss) | 607 | € 2,015.00 | +107 kg cocoa, + € 355/ha |
As previously mentioned, the average farm in West Africa has 3 hectares. Thus implying an average extra benefit of EUR 1,065 per farm per year.
| Metric | Value |
|---|---|
| Average Cocoa Yield | 0.5 t/ha |
| Extra cocoa per ha with PhytoBlock | 0.107 t |
| Cocoa value at USD 3,900/t | € 355/ha |
| Target capture of value created | 24 % |
| Revenue per ha (to PhytoBlock) | € 85/ha |
Current fungicide regimes cost between EUR 6.50 – 65/ha per season [38] but still leave high disease losses. By actually reducing the impact of black pod, PhytoBlock provides a much higher return on input spend.
Chocolate companies would purchase PhytoBlock at this rate and distribute it through their existing direct-sourcing networks, leaving the majority of the income gains with farmers while giving PhytoBlock a scalable, predictable revenue stream.
More details surrounding our methodology can be found on our Business Plan below
SWOT Analysis
This SWOT analysis outlines PhytoBlock’s position as an engineered Bacillus - AMP solution against black pod disease. It highlights the project’s strengths, limitations, market opportunities and external threats within the cocoa supply chain and regulatory landscape.
Strengths
- AMP-based, specific action against black pod; less risk of resistance.
- Biodegradable, stable spores do not need cold chain; fits into cocoa value chains.
- Regulatory & ESG alignment (traceability, reduced copper use).
Weaknesses
- Initially limited to one disease; spectrum expansion needed.
- High development & production cost; spray losses unknown.
- Need for safety, stability, residue/metabolite data.
- Long product development timeline, operational plans are dependent on future trends in the cacao industry
Opportunities
- Little or no current biotech solution for black pod.
- EU restrictions on copper + deforestation regulations open market space.
- ESG & consumer demand for sustainable, safer inputs.
Threats
- Consumer pushback against GMOs; complications with organic certification.
- Emergence of disease‐resistant cocoa strains reducing demand (SCA-6)
- Poor field performance, misuse, or counterfeit versions of PhytoBlock can affect credibility.
- Emergent regulation limiting the use of GMO products in the cacao industry
Differentiation Matrix
The competitive analysis grid highlights PhytoBlock’s differentiating strengths as well as its major gaps relative to industry incumbents. Scores on a 1–10 scale were assigned using publicly available data, benchmarking against competitors using the Critical Success Factors defined in the Market Snapshot section.
The competitor analysis shows PhytoBlock’s clear differentiators alongside its current weaknesses. In particular, PhytoBlock stands out for its regulatory and sustainability profile, a biological, low-residue design aligned with biopesticide frameworks and for its cost-value proposition, projecting +€335/ha revenue at a €85/ha cost (BCR ~4.2×). At present its potential has only been demonstrated in the lab, with field validation planned for upcoming multi-site trials. Low scores in distribution, farmer usability, and in-house R&D depth highlight the need to accelerate experimental trials, co-develop application protocols with farmers, secure distribution partnerships, and strengthen the technical team. Closing these gaps would transform PhytoBlock’s sustainability and pricing advantage into a defensible market position, thus translating into the forecasted points of differentiation.
Plan & Traction
Business Plan
In this section, you can find PhytoBlock’s complete business plan, including expanded details, assumptions and methodology on the sections covered earlier, presented in the following investor-facing document:
Open Business Plan
Product Development Timeline
The development of PhytoBlock is structured as a phased, milestone-driven process, with built-in flexibility to account for technical, regulatory, and market uncertainties. Product development is scheduled to commence in Q3 2026 (Year 1) and is expected to reach first commercialization by Q4 2033. Business development activities will begin earlier, in Q4 2025, with the objective of securing the necessary funding to initiate R&D.
Our product and business development timelines are outlined in the following document, coupled with a risk management analysis for each phase.
Open Business Timeline
Our timeline is mapped into discrete overlapping milestones, to spread risk across the development timeline and ensure safety for investors with their investment. The milestones are as follows:
Phase 0 – Lead Compound Characterization (Q3 2026–Q2 2027)
We validate the lead AMP in vitro, check chassis safety and early AMR risks, file provisional patents, review EFSA-style safety data and secure pre-seed funding to lock in our starting point.Phase 1 – AMP Optimization & Input Discovery (Q2 2027–Q1 2028)
Next, we optimize the AMP and test it within cacao microbiomes while scouting promoters and sensors for our logic gate, filing IP, signing MTAs with fermentation partners, engaging regulatory consultants and raising Seed funding.
Phase 2 – Logic Gate Assembly & Contained Testing (Q1 2028–Q3 2029)
We build and integrate the first logic-gate and AMP constructs in our chassis to finalize our Minimally Viable Product (MVP). Moreover, we will perform WGS and biosafety checks, contract CROs and greenhouses for contained trials, start EFSA/EPA pre-submission consultations, extend our IP and close a Series A round.
Phase 3 – Gate Optimization & Scale-Up Preparation (Q4 2029–Q2 2031)
The gate is optimized for robustness and stress-tested across soils and climates, including 10-50 L pilot fermentations. Moreover, we start drafting a EU biosecurity dossier, GLP safety studies and early regulatory engagement.
Phase 4 – Field Trials & Advanced Scale-Up (Q3 2031–Q2 2032)
Once Series B funding has been raised, we move into large greenhouse and West-African field trials, scale fermentation to 100–500 L, file EPA and EU dossiers, register with Ghana and Côte d’Ivoire authorities. Moreover, securing distribution partnerships with major chocolate companies becomes a priority.
Phase 5 – Final Validation & Market Launch (Q2 2032–Q4 2033)
Finally, we complete multi-site trials, build an in-house regulatory team, submit the final EU dossier, obtain approvals in Côte d’Ivoire and Ghana, and launch the product commercially through partner chocolate producers. Securing Series C funding will be essential to support commercialization and scale-up beyond 2033.
IP and Regulatory Strategy
This section outlines PhytoBlock’s intellectual property (IP) and regulatory strategy in detail. It includes a preliminary freedom-to-operate (FTO) analysis and distinguishes between patentable elements and trade secrets. The regulatory strategy, in turn, highlights the key steps from development to commercialization to ensure a streamlined approval process and effective market entry.
The first step in our IP strategy will be a freedom-to-operate (FTO) analysis to confirm that our approach does not infringe existing patents and to identify clear spaces for protection.
Building on this, we will file patents around our engineered constructs (including secretion tags and regulatory logic) and the novel AMP sequences in our portfolio. Since Phytophthora affects not only cacao but also many other crops, these filings will help position PhytoBlock as a platform technology with broad agricultural applications.
A preliminary patent scan confirmed that most prior art on B. subtilis focuses on AMP expression for peptide production rather than direct agricultural application. While Barry Callebaut’s WO2025088113 filing [44] covers vicilin-derived peptides in cacao, it does not involve the use of a whole microbial construct or in situ biological delivery within the plant. PhytoBlock’s approach remains distinct and defensible, centered on engineered B. subtilis strains that use logic-gated control to regulate AMP secretion. The inventive aspects lie in this programmable control mechanism and in the design of AMP constructs from non-overlapping sequence families, both of which strengthen novelty, freedom to operate, and IP defensibility. Further patent landscaping and FTO analysis will be conducted to confirm these boundaries and refine our protection strategy.
The first provisional patent filing is planned for Q1 2027, followed by a final patent in Q1 2028 covering the finalized AMP designs, as outlined in the Business Development Plan. This initial IP protection will strengthen defensibility and provide leverage in upcoming funding rounds. Additional filings covering the logic-gate control system are expected between Q2 and Q3 2029. Close collaboration with patent experts specialized in biotechnology will be essential to ensure robust protection and maximize the strategic value of our IP portfolio.
To complement patents, we will protect fermentation optimization, large-scale spore production, and formulation processes as trade secrets, ensuring that key know-how remains proprietary. NDA agreements will be used when outsourcing fermentation trials and production.
In short, our IP strategy combines patent protection on constructs, secretion logic, and AMP optimization with trade secrets in manufacturing and formulation, supported by an early FTO analysis. This creates a defensible and scalable foundation for PhytoBlock as both a cacao solution and a wider agricultural biocontrol platform.
Our regulatory strategy builds on initial consultations with regulatory experts and international biosafety guidance. This section does not represent an exhaustive list of requirements but serves as an early mapping of the key regulatory considerations that will guide our development.
At the international level, the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety provides the overarching legal framework for the safe handling, transport, and use of living modified organisms (LMOs). It emphasizes risk assessment and a precautionary approach to protect biodiversity from the potential risks of GMOs [45].
Within the European Union, Directive 2001/18/EC sets the requirements for environmental release of GMOs. Any agricultural application requires a full environmental risk assessment submitted to EFSA, covering potential soil impacts, effects on non-target organisms, and risks of horizontal gene transfer, alongside public consultation that can lengthen the approval process [46]. Authorization as a biocontrol agent under this framework would ultimately enable the release of B. subtilis for targeted application.
Within this framework, our choice of microbial chassis, B. subtilis, benefits from its listing under EFSA’s Qualified Presumption of Safety (QPS), meaning it is generally considered safe at the species level when certain qualifications are met. However, further studies will be needed to confirm its suitability for agricultural applications and to address strain-specific factors such as antimicrobial resistance and toxigenicity [23], [47]. In parallel, we will conduct a systematic literature review to identify potential human health, environmental, and non-target impacts .
Two “red-flag” assessments will be prioritized early:
Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) profiling, following EC guidance for microorganisms used in plant protection products [48].
Secondary metabolite assessment, to evaluate potential harmful by-products, in line with OECD and EU frameworks [49], [50].
For dossier-grade characterization, we will follow EFSA’s detailed requirements for microorganisms in plant protection products, including whole-genome sequencing (WGS) where needed to ensure genetic safety and compliance [51], [52], [53].
For cacao-producing countries, regulatory readiness is equally critical. All major producers are signatories of the Cartagena Protocol and thus apply precautionary biosafety measures. In Ghana, approvals are governed by the Biosafety Act 2011 (Act 831) and its 2019 Biosafety Regulations, which empower the National Biosafety Authority to oversee GMO introductions into the environment, requiring prior written authorization before commercialization [54], [55]. Moreover, Ghana’s Pesticides Control and Management Act (1996, Act 528) also regulate plant protection products and will apply to PhytoBlock [48], [49].On the other hand Côte d’Ivoire, the world’s largest cacao producer, passed Law No. 2016-533 establishing biosafety oversight by CNBIOS and ONBIOS, but implementation remains uneven [56], [57]. This highlights the importance of proactive due diligence with regulatory bodies in the target geographies.
Given regional dynamics, many African markets require prior registration in a reference country (e.g., a G7 member). We will therefore also consider pursuing registration via the U.S. EPA biopesticide pathway to accelerate approvals and support recognition in West Africa [50].
This staged approach ensures that regulatory, IP, and product-safety considerations progress in parallel with our R&D, providing both flexibility and credibility as we move toward commercialization.
Impact Assessment
This Impact Matrix evaluates PhytoBlock’s long-term impact across five dimensions: farmer livelihoods, environment, supply chain, regulation & society, and innovation & IP. It highlights where the solution can deliver measurable benefits, such as improved farmer incomes, reduced environmental harm, and greater supply chain stability, while also acknowledging potential risks ranging from ecological uncertainties to regulatory delays. These considerations are integrated into our ongoing risk assessment and regulatory strategy, ensuring that both opportunities and challenges remain central to our development plan.
| Dimension | Positive Impact | Potential Risks |
|---|---|---|
| Farmer Livelihoods | Cutting black pod losses from ~30% to ~15% adds ~€355/ha annually, improving household income stability (see Access & Value). | Without training, adoption may be inconsistent, and marginalized farmers may be excluded in the process. |
| Environment | Less reliance on copper fungicides lowers soil contamination and runoff, aligning with EU residue limits (see PESTEL). | Engineered microbes may create unintended microbiome interactions in cacao trees or cause pathogen selection pressures. |
| Supply Chain | Protecting pods increases supply predictability, reducing shocks from disease outbreaks (see Mission & Vision). | Early revenues tied exclusively to cocoa, thus at risk of cacao market dynamics without crop diversification. |
| Regulation & Society | PhytoBlock fits new EU regulations (EUDR, MRL standards), lowering regulatory risk for chocolate companies (see PESTEL). | Consumer skepticism toward synthetic biology could challenge adoption, especially in premium markets. Organic certification boards may resist GMO products. |
| Innovation & IP | Patents around AMPs and secretion logic can extend to other Phytophthora-affected crops. | Unregulated or counterfeit versions of PhytoBlock could undermine farmer trust and brand reputation. |
Pitch
This subsection features the pitch presented to investors during the Impact House event in Brussels (see Entrepreneurship in Action). The presentation highlights PhytoBlock’s vision, value proposition, and commercialization roadmap, establishing a strong foundation for continued collaboration and future investment opportunities.
Open Pitch
Financials & Funding
This section presents the financial projections for PhytoBlock, covering fundraising needs, projected cash flows, and market adoption. For a detailed explanation of the underlying assumptions and calculations, please refer to the embedded Business Plan.
Fundraising Timeline
Fundraising is a critical component of our development plan. Each round of financing is aligned with specific milestones, as stated in the business development plan, to ensure a progressive de-risking of both technical and market uncertainties.
Our financing strategy is designed to align with PhytoBlock’s development trajectory. Pre-Seed funding covers Phase 0, while the Seed round finances Phase 1 in full and approximately 70% of Phase 2. Series A completes Phase 2 and supports Phase 3. Series B funds Phases 4 and 5 while providing initial runway for commercialization. Lastly, Series C supplies the capital required for full commercialization and scale-up, while also creating flexibility to bridge toward a potential exit. The estimated financing requirements are summarized below:
| Series | Amount (€) | Coverage |
|---|---|---|
| Pre-Seed Funding | 400,000 | Phase 0 |
| Seed Funding | 2,600,000 | Phase 1 and ~70% of Phase 2 |
| Series A | 12,000,000 | Remaining of Phase 2 and Phase 3 |
| Series B | 30,000,000 | Phase 4–5, initial runway for commercialization |
| Series C | 55,000,000 | Full commercialization and scaling |
| Total | 100,000,000 | Concept to Commercialization |
For the purpose of early development, Pre-Seed and Seed funding rounds are scheduled for July 2026 and March 2027, respectively.
The Pre-Seed round (€400,000) will finance the full scope of Phase 0 and partially overlap with the beginning of Phase 1. It is structured as a €300,000 VLAIO Research Project grant [58] (non-dilutive) and a€100,000 PMV Start Loan[59] at 3.5% interest, with only a minimal equity component. The goal of this round is to demonstrate proof-of-concept, secure provisional IP, and generate the data package needed to unlock Seed financing.
The Seed round (€2.6 million) will be raised before Phase 0 finalizes to ensure seamless continuity of operations. This round will cover the all of Phase 1 and approximately 70% of Phase 2, allowing the team to expand personnel, execute protein engineering and microbiome assays, and initiate logic-gate scouting while engaging regulatory consultants. The Seed will be raised primarily from Flemish venture capital funds (V-Bio, Novalis) [60], [61] alongside strategic investors in agriculture and biotechnology. This financing stage is designed to bridge early validation into contained testing, positioning PhytoBlock for a strong Series A.
Cash Flow Projections
As part of our financial projections, we provide a cash-flow forecast covering Phases 0 and 1, which correspond to the Pre-Seed and Seed funding rounds, with a combined projected expenditure of €1,137,130.48 and a total financing requirement of €3 million to ensure operational continuity and sufficient runway for Phases 2 and beyond. The model can be found below, spanning a 21-month period and capturing projected monthly expenditures across personnel, R&D, consulting, facilities, and supporting operations.
A temporary spike in cash burn occurs in Q2 2027, when Phase 0 activities overlap with the early stages of Phase 1. This reflects the transition from proof-of-concept validation to MVP development. The Seed round is deliberately structured to cover this overlap, ensuring uninterrupted progress without funding gaps.
A full breakdown of expenditures, assumptions, and category allocations is available in the Business Plan.
Open Cash Flow Projection
Market Adoption and Profit Pool
Based on our SOM estimations, we modeled three adoption levels that reflect country specific assumptions (Cote d’Ivoire, Ghana, Nigeria, Cameroon) and the prevalence of direct sourcing programs. The projected number of farmers and hectares reached at market maturity are summarized in the table below (more details and assumption tables in the Business Plan.):
| Scenario | Farmers Reached at Maturity | Hectares Treated at Maturity |
|---|---|---|
| Low Adoption | 275,000 | 825,000 |
| Medium Adoption | 441,000 | 1,323,000 |
| High Adoption | 607,000 | 1,821,000 |
To estimate the pace of adoption over time, we applied the Bass diffusion model for market penetration. This framework captures both innovation-driven early uptake and imitation-driven wider penetration. Using parameters of p = 0.02 (independent adopters due to pilot programs) and q = 0.50 (peer-influenced adopters due to word-to-word spread), the model reflects adoption dynamics are in line with industrial averages [62].
The figure below illustrates the modeled adoption curves in terms of hectares treated over time. These curves highlight how market penetration expands gradually before reaching maturity.
Assuming each hectare treated is priced at €85 per year, projected revenues scale significantly across all adoption scenarios. In the case of low-adoption, annual revenues rise from ~€1.4M in 2033 to ~€69.8M by 2050. The medium-adoption scenario grows faster, reaching ~€111.9M annually by 2050, while in the high-adoption scenario, revenues surpass €154M by 2050. To translate these revenues into profit potential, we apply an estimated cost of goods sold of 40% (yielding a 60% gross margin) [63], [64]. On this basis, the cumulative gross profit is summarized in the following analysis.
Team & Advisors
Our team
We are a multidisciplinary team from KU Leuven, combining expertise in biochemistry, biotechnology, bioscience and industrial engineering, and business development to transform scientific innovation into scalable, sustainable solutions for the cacao industry. The table below introduces our team members and their key roles in advancing PhytoBlock.
| Name | Position | Contact |
|---|---|---|
| Niels Visser | Team Lead & Strategy |  |
| Aditya Rout | Operations Lead | |
| Mauricio Lamoyi | Finance & Business Relations Lead | |
| Daniel Steukers | Science Lead | |
| Olga Kowalska | Science Lead | |
| Beatriz Pereira Pinho | Communications Lead | |
| Valeria Jackson Sandoval | Tech Lead | |
| Agathe Pourprix | Dry Lab Lead | |
| Brindha Basker | Marketing Lead | |
| Adithi Ravikumar | Wet Lab Scientist | |
| Amalia Villar Jakobsen | Wet Lab Scientist | |
| Guglielmo Pessano | Wet Lab Scientist | |
| Joshua Ijidakinro | Wet Lab Scientist | |
Our current team brings the expertise and leadership needed to successfully launch the venture. As we grow, we will strategically expand our capabilities by recruiting and training team members to cover the necessary skills at each phase.
Firstly, we will strengthen our capabilities in the wet lab and bioinformatics department by continued training and external recruiting. To complement this, we will engage specialized consultants in regulatory affairs and IP management at key stages, ensuring best-in-class compliance and protection of our innovations. Core operational functions such as HR management, general finance, and recruitment will remain in-house, allowing us to maintain efficiency and control. A detailed skill gap analysis, presented in Figure 12, maps the areas where targeted expansion will deliver the greatest value.
Partnership acquisition and management are central to our growth strategy and a key focus in our skill gap analysis. Since PhytoBlock’s operations depend on collaboration in R&D, pilot testing, field trials, and distribution, we are investing in business management and partnership capabilities within our team. This strengthens our ability to negotiate, secure, and manage high-value deals with chocolate manufacturers such as Cargill, Puratos, Mondelez, etc.
Given the decentralized nature of our development and operations, quality assurance and auditing are critical pillars. We will build internal capacity through targeted training while engaging external consultants and auditors to safeguard product standards. By combining strong internal systems with strategic partnerships, we will deliver reliable, market-ready solutions and maintain a competitive advantage.
Board of Directors
Our scientific and business advisory board has been essential in keeping our project grounded and focused. Drawing on their backgrounds in venture capital, consulting, biotechnology, and academia, they have supported us to tackle the challenges of bringing PhytoBlock from idea to product.
Entrepreneurship in Action
Fundraising
Fundraising is a vital part of every iGEM journey. Scientific innovation carries significant costs, from laboratory reagents to travel and outreach activities. To support the first phase of our project, iGEM KU Leuven secured €27,930.30 in equity-free funding through contributions from industry partners, KU Leuven research collaborators, and support from the Flemish government.
| Name | Investor Type |
|---|---|
| KU Leuven LRD | Sponsor |
| KU Leuven W&T | Sponsor |
| Cargill | Sponsor |
| Vlaams EWI | Sponsor |
| Bain & Co | Sponsor |
| Globachem | Sponsor |
| Glasatelier Saillart | Sponsor |
| Cultivarium | Sponsor |
| Novogene | Sponsor |
| Crowdfunding | Donor |
A key element of our approach was building trust with potential sponsors by demonstrating that our project was feasible and aligned with their priorities. We pitched to companies across Belgium and successfully obtained the support. The table blow summarizes the deals closed by iGEM KU Leuven:
KICK Challenge
On April 29th, 2025, team member Mauricio Lamoyi represented PhytoBlock at the KICK Challenge, KU Leuven’s annual business-plan competition in Leuven. We pitched our project to a jury of experts from academia, finance, venture capital, entrepreneurship support, and industry innovation.
Our aim was to present PhytoBlock in its early stages and gather feedback to refine both our entrepreneurial and pitching strategy. We had a four-minute pitch followed by a fifteen-minute Q&A session.
We are proud to have reached the semi-finals of the competition. KICK proved highly valuable, connecting us with business coaches who challenged us to look beyond the competition and design sustainable strategies for commercializing our idea.
iGEM Summer School
In July 2025, PhytoBlock participated in the online iGEM Startups Summer School, a two-day program focused on the entrepreneurial side of synthetic biology projects. Sessions covered business modelling, intellectual property management, fundraising options, regulatory pathways and communication with stakeholders.
For us, this was an opportunity to test assumptions and receive critical feedback. The team learned how to clarify its value proposition for different audiences, structure a phased go-to-market plan and identified which activities should be prioritized in the first year. Mentors also pointed out gaps in our pitch deck and suggested ways to present the technical, social and financial impact of our solution more clearly. By the end of the program, we had a more realistic view of the steps needed to turn PhytoBlock from a student project into a real product.
Pitch at Impact House Brussels
On Monday, September 15th, team members Mauricio Lamoyi and Beatriz Pinho presented PhytoBlock at Impact House in Brussels. Impact House is a collaborative hub for social entrepreneurship that connects impact investors, NGOs and early-stage ventures. The session was attended by Piet Colruyt, an independent impact investor and founder of Impact House, who is known for supporting projects that align profit with purpose.
The goal of our visit was to test and refine our pitch, assess its alignment with social entrepreneurship frameworks and validate our idea. From this meeting we received advice on how to place farmers at the center of our approach, define measurable impact indicators at an early stage and communicate more clearly how PhytoBlock creates value for its stakeholders. This feedback was used to adjust our pitch and guide the next steps of our strategy.
iGEM Entrepreneurship Criteria
For your convenience, we summarize how PhytoBlock addresses all five iGEM Entrepreneurship Criteria. Each answer links back to the relevant section above:
From the beginning, the team engaged with stakeholders across the cacao supply chain to identify where PhytoBlock could create the most immediate value. Early customers are chocolate manufacturers running direct-sourcing and sustainability programs, such as Cargill, Puratos, and Mondelez, that already interact directly with smallholder farmers in West Africa. These programs provide training, subsidized inputs, and traceability infrastructure, making them ideal distribution channels for a novel biocontrol product.
Farmers within these programs face clear unmet needs that existing solutions fail to address copper-based fungicides are washed away during heavy rains, systemic fungicides are prone to resistance, and biological competitors often demand cold-chain logistics or training beyond the means of smallholders. PhytoBlock responds to these gaps with a stable spore-based spray that is easy to transport, store, and apply in tropical field conditions.
For more details, see: “Cacao Supply Chain 101” (direct sourcing as entry point), “Market Snapshot – Farmer and Industry Insights”, and “Current Solutions” (limits of fungicides and existing biocontrols).
Our market research, including extensive discussions with academics and leaders in chocolate manufacturing, confirms that although full commercialization is expected by 2033, the solution can be integrated into existing cacao distribution networks.
The technology is feasible through a dual mechanism: antimicrobial peptides (AMPs) that suppress Phytophthora species in vitro, and a logic-gated control system that triggers AMP secretion only when the bacterium detects cacao-derived carbon sources and Phytophthora-specific signals. This targeted design minimizes unnecessary expression, reduces resistance pressure, and limits ecological spillover.
Scalability is built into the product. Shelf-stable spores withstand tropical climates without cold-chain requirements, allowing efficient distribution through direct-sourcing programs that already reach millions of smallholders. This technical scalability is reinforced at the market level, with TAM/SAM/SOM analysis identifying a serviceable obtainable market of €290 million annually in West Africa alone.
For more details, see: “Our Solution: What is PhytoBlock?” (AMPs, logic gates, spore stability), “Access & Value” (deployment and pricing model), “TAM/SAM/SOM” (scaling potential), and “Product Development Timeline” (phased feasibility path).
We mapped a seven-year, milestone-driven roadmap in consultation with academic and industry mentors. It is structured into 5 phases, starting in Q3 2026 with lead compound validation and ending with commercial launch in Q4 2033. Each phase builds incrementally: early AMP screening and provisional patents (Phase 0), AMP optimization and promoter scouting (Phase 1), logic gate assembly and contained testing (Phase 2), iterative redesign and pilot fermentations (Phase 3), large-scale field trials and dossier submissions (Phase 4), and finally, multi-site validation and regulatory approval (Phase 5).
Importantly, risks such as biosafety, strain stability, and regulatory hurdles are addressed proactively, with parallel regulatory consultations and whole-genome sequencing safety checks built into early phases. Resources are tied to funding tranches, ensuring financial transparency and avoiding gaps. The phased financing strategy, from €400k Pre-Seed to €55M Series C, aligns capital needs with technical milestones and risk reduction.
For more details, see: “Product Development Timeline” (phased milestones), “Learn more about our Regulatory Strategy!” (risk management), and “Financials & Funding – Fundraising Timeline” plus “Cash Flow Projections” (resource allocation and buffers).
The team composition balances science, business, and operations: wet lab and dry lab scientists, finance and business development leadership, and communications experts. A skill gap analysis shows the plan to expand capabilities in bioinformatics, quality assurance, and regulatory compliance as the project matures.
Furthermore, the team is supported by an advisory board of KU Leuven professors, industry engineers, and incubator managers, who provide guidance on science, commercialization, and venture development.
On the stakeholder side, a detailed analysis mapped actors across the cacao supply chain and agrochemical industry. High-influence/high-interest groups such as chocolate manufacturers and impact investors are prioritized for early pilots and financing, while regulators and agrochemical incumbents are identified as critical but lower-interest actors requiring proactive engagement. Farmers, NGOs, and certifiers are also included, ensuring adoption and credibility at the grassroots level.
This multi-layered approach ensures PhytoBlock is backed by the right expertise internally and aligned with key external stakeholders.
For more details, see: “Team & Advisors – Our team” and “Board of Directors” (skills and capabilities), plus “Stakeholder Analysis” (influence/interest mapping).
We developed an Impact Matrix across five dimensions, farmer livelihoods, environment, supply chain, regulation and society, and innovation and IP, to systematically balance benefits against risks. Positive outcomes include higher farmer incomes (approximately €355 per hectare from reduced black pod losses), lower reliance on copper fungicides with less soil contamination, and greater supply stability for chocolate manufacturers.
At the same time, potential risks are openly acknowledged, including ecological uncertainties related to engineered bacteria, consumer skepticism toward synthetic biology, regulatory delays, and the risk of counterfeit products undermining trust. These factors are integrated into our ongoing risk assessment and regulatory strategy to ensure they remain central to PhytoBlock’s long-term development.
In parallel, the IHP and Sustainability team has conducted a complementary analysis with external stakeholders to map long-term impacts aligned with the UN Sustainable Development Goals. This work extends beyond business metrics, addressing ethical, social, and labor dimensions to ensure a responsible and sustainable trajectory for PhytoBlock.
For more details, see: “Access & Value”, “PESTEL Analysis”, “Mission & Vision”, and “Impact Assessment”.