What pesticide industry policies in 2022 drew significant public attention?

In 2022, major policy decisions that have shaped the industry—such as the pesticide industry development plan, pesticide registration management regulations, and the action plan for tackling agricultural and rural pollution—were successively introduced, drawing widespread public attention.

The steady advancement of pesticide regulation, the successful implementation of initiatives to reduce pesticide use while enhancing efficacy, the robust monitoring of agricultural product quality that strengthens regulatory safeguards, and the emergence of notable achievements in the collection and management of pesticide‑packaging waste have all earned widespread public recognition. At the same time, addressing pesticide residue concerns and cracking down on counterfeit and substandard pesticides remain key areas of public attention.

01

Public Opinion Overview

In 2022, a total of 291,000 pieces of public opinion related to pesticides were monitored, a year-on-year decrease of 30.55%. The sharp decline in the incidence of high-profile incidents involving pesticide poisoning that endangered lives was the primary factor behind the overall reduction in public sentiment.

From the perspective of dissemination channels (Figure 1), mobile apps account for the largest share of pesticide-related public opinion—42.99%—while news media rank third, with 25.94%. Together, these two channels comprise over 60% of the total volume of public discourse, underscoring the media’s dominant position, bolstered by their authoritative reporting and extensive distribution networks. WeChat ranks third, contributing 20.51% of the total, with its content primarily focusing on interpretations of industry‑related policies and highlights of achievements across various regions. In addition, Sina Weibo and major video platforms also serve as key channels through which netizens access pesticide information and engage in online discussions.

Judging from the public‑opinion trend, pesticide‑related sentiment in 2022 exhibited pronounced monthly fluctuations, with two sharp spikes (Figure 2). In March, the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs issued an announcement introducing phase‑out measures for four highly toxic pesticides—phorate, methyl parathion, isocarbophos, and monocrotophos—and outlined plans to continue promoting fertilizer and pesticide reduction while enhancing efficiency throughout 2022. Media outlets widely reprinted and disseminated reports on local initiatives to ensure the safe supply of agricultural inputs during spring planting, driving the first peak in public sentiment that month. In August, a case in Yulin, Shaanxi, in which an individual was fined RMB 66,000 for selling five jin of celery with pesticide residues exceeding regulatory limits—specifically chlorpyrifos—sparked intense public debate, pushing sentiment to its highest level of the year.

According to the pesticide‑related news ranking (Table 1), the case of an individual vendor in Yulin, Shaanxi, who sold 2.5 kilograms of celery with chlorpyrifos residues exceeding regulatory limits was fined RMB 66,000, topping the list in terms of information volume. Official policies and major initiatives in the pesticide sector have drawn significant public attention; the “Action Plan for Winning the Battle Against Agricultural and Rural Pollution (2021–2025),” jointly issued by the Ministry of Ecology and Environment and four other departments, has been widely disseminated, ranking second on the annual public‑opinion heat index. Routine sampling inspections of agricultural products have also been a key focus of public discourse. In addition, the issue of counterfeit agricultural inputs has attracted considerable media coverage, with Sichuan’s Guangyuan police cracking a major case involving the production and sale of fake pesticides, which was extensively reprinted by numerous outlets.

1.1 The pesticide industry plan outlines the direction of development, and the sector’s achievements have earned widespread praise from public opinion.

At the beginning of 2022, the pesticide industry development plan drew widespread public attention. On January 29, the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, together with seven other departments, jointly issued the “14th Five-Year National Pesticide Industry Development Plan.” Public opinion highlighted that safety, green practices, high quality, and innovation are the key themes of this plan, noting that it will promote the high-quality development of the pesticide sector and better safeguard food security, agricultural product quality and safety, and ecological environmental protection. Public discourse has focused primarily on three areas:

First, the focus is on the impact of the Plan on agrochemical companies and the industry as a whole. The Plan encourages mergers and reorganizations, as well as end-to-end production integration; public opinion suggests this will spark a wave of M&A activity among agrochemical firms, potentially reshaping the competitive landscape, reinforcing the dominance of leading players, further optimizing capacity deployment, and creating new growth opportunities for industry leaders.

Second, there is strong confidence in the development prospects and environmental benefits of nano‑based pesticides. The Plan encourages innovative applications of nanotechnology in pesticide formulation, and public opinion holds that, while maintaining agricultural yields, nanotechnology significantly reduces pesticide use, thereby mitigating potential risks to the ecological environment. Customized nano‑pesticide blending services are already being piloted in several regions, quietly transforming traditional pesticide‑application practices.

Third, attention should be paid to the positive impact of the Plan on pesticide registration. The Plan calls for restructuring the pesticide product portfolio by phasing out outdated pesticide varieties and formulations that exhibit strong resistance, poor efficacy, and high risks, while simultaneously establishing an innovation-driven R&D system and bolstering the development of green pesticides. Public opinion holds that the market demands registration of both new and environmentally friendly pesticides, and that pesticide companies need access to novel active ingredients; the Plan provides clear guidance in this regard.

In 2022, public opinion widely recognized the significant achievements of China’s agrochemical industry. Leading agrochemical companies further consolidated their advantages across the value chain, production, and sales, achieving rapid growth. Financial results from listed agrochemical firms show that major players reached record highs in revenue and profits, with stronger enterprises accelerating onto a faster growth trajectory thanks to robust capital support. Moreover, forecasts regarding the 2023 trends in the agrochemical market have become a focal point of public discourse. The Central Economic Work Conference emphasized the continued implementation of an active fiscal policy and a prudent monetary policy, while calling for expanding domestic demand and boosting consumption. Many commentators noted that the conference has established a favorable policy environment for agriculture‑related industries, and the array of measures it unveiled will undoubtedly benefit and stimulate the agrochemical sector, creating opportunities for both the market and the industry’s development. Public sentiment suggests that expanding domestic demand will improve the supply‑demand balance in the 2023 agrochemical market, making the outlook for China’s agrochemical industry and market promising. At the same time, the agrochemical sector is likely to become more concentrated, with a pronounced polarization between strong and weak players—where the strong grow stronger and the weak face increasing challenges. This trend aligns with the government’s increasingly stringent regulatory framework and the industry’s nature as technology‑intensive. Some analytical reports predict that China’s agrochemical exports will maintain strong momentum in 2023, with more capable enterprises expanding into international markets. However, other reports caution that export performance will continue to be constrained by anti‑globalization trends. Furthermore, given that China’s exports are predominantly technical-grade active ingredients (raw materials) rather than branded products, they suffer from low added value, limited competitiveness, and a reliance on straightforward “buy‑and‑sell” trade, failing to establish a cohesive global brand image commensurate with China’s status as a major player in agrochemical production.

1.2 Top-level design for pesticide regulation has been implemented throughout the year, with innovative practices across regions strengthening the safety safeguards.

In 2022, pesticide regulation efforts continued nationwide, drawing sustained public attention. The Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs issued several regulatory measures that became year-round focal points of public discourse. In January, it released the “Decision of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs on Amending and Repealing Certain Regulations and Normative Documents,” revising provisions related to pesticide registration management and the administration of pesticide registration trials. In March, a decision was announced to phase out four highly toxic pesticides, including phorate; this move received extensive media coverage, prompting outlets to compile a comprehensive list of restricted or banned pesticides—covering a total of 70 active ingredients. In May, a notice was issued to strengthen oversight and inspection of pesticides, with “enhanced regulation of online pesticide sales” sparking intense debate. Industry insiders argued that e‑commerce in the pesticide sector is indeed an emerging trend and called for more detailed policies and guidelines to ensure comprehensive oversight. In August, excerpts from responses to CPPCC proposals highlighted plans to promptly implement prescription‑based pesticide sales and real‑name registration for purchases, along with improvements to the regulatory framework governing e‑commerce pesticide transactions—news that drew significant media attention. Public commentary noted that these measures would chart a new course for future oversight of pesticide e‑commerce. Meanwhile, some netizens contended that requiring real‑name registration for pesticide purchases and reducing input subsidies risked being overly restrictive, warning against demonizing pesticides and fertilizers and suggesting that such measures could inadvertently fuel illicit trade. In October, the Pesticide Management Division of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs published the “Opinions on Further Refining Requirements for Pesticide Label Approval,” with public scrutiny focused on the specific details outlined in the document. In December, a national video conference on pesticide management was held, summarizing and sharing experiences from 2022 while mapping out strategies for ensuring stable production, supply, and effective regulation in 2023; the ensuing policy arrangements attracted considerable public attention.

Across the country, research and pilot initiatives have been launched to strengthen oversight of pesticide production, use, and distribution throughout the entire lifecycle, yielding a number of effective practices and valuable lessons that have drawn public attention. Public opinion has noted that these pesticide‑management measures range from high‑level, strategic guidance aimed at advancing the industry to timely reminders and warnings urging compliance with regulations. Such efforts are resolute, leave a tangible mark, and demonstrate a commitment to accountability—both as concrete evidence of the sector’s move toward more refined and precise management and as practical steps by regulatory bodies to fulfill their duties. Localities’ implementation of pesticide‑regulation tasks—including safety‑production inspections, special checks on restricted‑use pesticides, quality‑supervision spot checks, and safety‑production audits of pesticide retailers—has consistently captured public scrutiny. Critics commend these efforts for plugging loopholes in the trade of substandard or unsafe pesticides, tightening the safety‑regulation network for agricultural inputs, and effectively safeguarding food‑production security, the quality of agricultural products, and ecological sustainability. Furthermore, local campaigns to combat counterfeit agricultural inputs—designed to ensure successful spring planting and a bountiful autumn harvest—have also drawn widespread attention, with banned and restricted‑use pesticides emerging as key targets of regulatory scrutiny.

1.3 The state has clearly outlined a roadmap for reducing pesticide use while enhancing efficacy, and localities have launched a comprehensive package of measures to advance green agricultural development.

In January, the State Council issued the “Comprehensive Work Plan for Energy Conservation and Emission Reduction during the 14th Five-Year Plan Period,” which calls for the implementation of key energy‑saving and emission‑reduction projects, with reducing the use of pesticides and chemical fertilizers while improving their efficiency emerging as a major task. Central media outlets such as CCTV’s “News Broadcast,” “News Live Room,” and “Morning News” all reprinted the plan. Leading national newspapers including People’s Daily and Guangming Daily, as well as Xinhua News Agency, also reported on its contents. Public opinion praised the plan for seizing the critical window to peak carbon emissions and providing a clear roadmap for energy conservation and emission reduction during the 14th Five-Year Plan period. On January 25, five departments, including the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, jointly released the “Action Plan for Winning the Battle Against Agricultural and Rural Pollution (2021–2025).” Media outlets highlighted the plan’s objectives and key tasks through infographics, drawing widespread attention. On March 26, an official from the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs stated that in 2022, efforts to reduce fertilizer and pesticide use while enhancing their efficiency would continue. CCTV programs such as “Morning News,” “News Live Room,” and “China Rural Areas Report,” along with authoritative platforms like Xinhuanet, China.org.cn, and China News Service, promptly covered and republished this announcement, with public discourse focusing on advancing green and high‑quality development in the agricultural sector. Public opinion commended the Ministry’s accelerated push to replace chemical pesticides with biopesticides, viewing it as a positive direction. In November, the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs issued the “Action Plan for Reducing Chemical Fertilizer Use by 2025” and the “Action Plan for Reducing Chemical Pesticide Use by 2025,” sending a strong signal about the government’s commitment to cutting fertilizer and pesticide consumption.

Localities’ vigorous efforts to reduce the use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides have been widely reported by the media, with public opinion focusing on the practical challenges of cutting pesticide use while enhancing efficacy and offering corresponding recommendations. Public discourse highlights pressing issues such as an incomplete mechanism for achieving reduced pesticide use and increased efficiency, growing difficulties in pest and disease monitoring and control, slow progress in professional and socialized pest‑management services, and obstacles to the widespread adoption of new, science‑based application technologies. Local agricultural extension agencies should mobilize resources to develop and promote physical or biological control methods suited to small‑scale farming, thereby elevating the overall integrated pest management capabilities of smallholders and reducing their overreliance on chemical controls. At the local level, it is essential to allocate resources rationally and optimize the industrial layout of the pesticide sector; continuously adjust the industry structure to accelerate enterprise transformation and upgrading; standardize business operations and service delivery to promote the safe and rational use of pesticides; strengthen oversight and regulation; and establish a green pesticide R&D framework to enhance indigenous innovation capacity. Meanwhile, local authorities should intensify outreach, training, and technical guidance, making full use of television, newspapers, the internet, and other media to disseminate knowledge on the scientific use of pesticides. Through training programs, technology‑extension initiatives, and other channels, they should further popularize and promote sound pesticide‑use practices, raising both awareness and technical proficiency in this area.

1.4 Pesticide residue levels exceeding regulatory limits have captured public attention, prompting strengthened testing to safeguard food safety.

In 2022, food quality‑testing efforts carried out across China have continued to draw public attention. Among the results of random inspections, issues such as excessive pesticide residues, microbial contamination, heavy‑metal pollution, and elevated veterinary drug residues have been prominently reported by the media. Notably, excessive pesticide residues accounted for the largest share of non‑compliant findings; according to comprehensive media coverage, the State Administration for Market Regulation released its third‑quarter report on food‑safety supervision, revealing that pesticide‑residue exceedances made up 30.82% of all violations. From December 2021 to January 2022, the magazine “Xiaokang” conducted a nationwide survey titled the “2022 China Modern Diet Development Index.” Among the five primary indicators, the food‑safety index was the only one scoring below the passing threshold of 60 points, with “excessive pesticide residues in fruits and vegetables” ranking first.

In 2022, localities across the country launched intensive campaigns to address excessive pesticide residues, drawing widespread public attention. Provinces and municipalities such as Hebei, Hunan, and Gansu introduced action plans and regional standards for managing pesticide residues. Many regions also rolled out rapid‑testing initiatives—ranging from “you name it, we test” programs to “rapid testing plus random sampling” and on‑site residue analysis—to safeguard food safety. The media commended these efforts, with public opinion noting that such measures protect citizens’ “vegetable baskets,” strengthen the regulatory safeguards for agricultural product safety, and weave a robust network of collaborative food‑safety governance. These targeted campaigns rigorously ensure quality and safety at the source, helping to create a safe and reassuring food environment for residents.

1.5 Prominent achievements in the recycling of pesticide packaging waste, with a “look-back” campaign establishing long-term regulatory mechanisms.

In 2022, across the country, efforts to collect and dispose of pesticide‑packaging waste were vigorously implemented. Public attention focused on three key areas: First, the issuance of implementation plans for the collection and treatment of pesticide‑packaging waste, which launched comprehensive measures to manage this waste. Critics noted that these plans clearly delineated responsibilities for collection, storage, treatment, and oversight, while also outlining concrete steps such as establishing a robust recycling system, thereby providing a clear regulatory framework and enhancing operational effectiveness. Second, diverse models for collecting pesticide‑packaging waste were explored. Localities tailored approaches to their specific circumstances, setting up well‑planned collection networks that included village‑level collection, township‑level aggregation, and county‑ or district‑level processing and disposal. Grassroots systems were also established, with village cleaners and administrators concurrently serving as collectors. Innovative schemes—such as exchanging used pesticide packaging for gifts or prizes, along with distinctive initiatives like “green fiscal programs,” “green sheds,” “green savings accounts,” “green cradles,” and “green councils”—received widespread acclaim. Public opinion emphasized that, supported by government subsidies and market‑driven mechanisms, ecological awareness has taken root, fostering voluntary participation among farmers in the proper collection of pesticide‑packaging waste and strengthening overall awareness of its proper handling. Third, progress in local efforts to collect and treat pesticide‑packaging waste was highlighted. Observers reported a marked increase in farmers’ awareness of waste management and a significant reduction in the practice of indiscriminately discarding such materials. By ensuring that pesticide‑packaging waste no longer wanders aimlessly but finds a permanent home, these measures have advanced green agriculture and led to noticeable improvements in the rural environment.

Media reports have highlighted issues in some regions, including pesticide retailers failing to install collection facilities for pesticide‑packaging waste at their premises, neglecting to collect such waste, omitting to maintain records of its collection, and improperly storing it or illegally dumping and stockpiling it. In response, procuratorial organs across the country have launched “follow-up” inspections to address these problems, earning public approval. Public opinion holds that bringing public interest litigation directly to the fields has strengthened collaborative efforts to protect the environment, demonstrating tangible progress in tackling pollution caused by pesticide‑packaging waste.

02

Public Opinion Analysis of Hot-Topic Events

2.1 In Yulin, Shaanxi, an individual vendor was fined 66,000 yuan after selling five jin of celery with pesticide residues of chlorpyrifos exceeding the legal limit, sparking widespread debate.

On August 27, 2022, China Central Television’s “News 30 Minutes” reported that the Market Supervision Administration of Yuyang District, Yulin City, Shaanxi Province, determined that a privately owned business had sold five jin of celery found to be non‑compliant in a supervisory sampling inspection. The vegetables were detected to contain chlorpyrifos, a pesticide prohibited for use on food crops, and the business failed to provide receipts or truthfully disclose its source of supply—violations of relevant provisions of the Food Safety Law. As a result, the authorities imposed an administrative penalty of a 66,000‑yuan fine. This case attracted widespread public attention due to the stark disparity between the goods’ value of 20 yuan and the 66,000‑yuan fine, the involvement of a State Council inspection team, and CCTV’s coverage. By December 31, 2022, the total volume of related public opinion reached 50,600 posts. Among these, news outlets such as Guangming Online and China News Service published or reprinted 1,787 reports; mobile apps carried 19,382 entries; WeChat accounted for 3,905 posts; Weibo hosted 20,353 entries; forums contributed 515 posts; and video platforms featured 4,703 items. The incident sparked intense public scrutiny over the standards for testing and penalizing agricultural products. Weibo emerged as the platform with the highest level of public engagement, followed by mobile apps. Sina Weibo launched six related hashtags, accumulating over 700 million views. Public discourse focused primarily on four key issues: First, many criticized law enforcement agencies for imposing penalties that appeared disproportionate, arguing that their discretionary powers were excessive. Numerous netizens expressed strong empathy toward the fined shopkeeper. At its core, this reflects a public recognition of the distinction between egregious violations of food safety laws—actions deemed unforgivable—and unintentional, minor infractions that may warrant leniency. For small and micro businesses committing minor offenses, authorities could rely more heavily on measures such as orders to rectify, corrective guidance, criticism, and education to encourage compliant operations, rather than resorting to automatic, heavy fines. Some observers also contended that existing regulations lack sufficient specificity, granting enforcement officers overly broad discretion, while linking penalty severity to performance evaluations creates pressure to pursue strict enforcement. Moreover, there is a perceived absence of effective checks and balances on the execution of administrative sanctions. Second, concerns were raised about the difficulties faced by frontline supervisors in enforcing the law. From a legal standpoint, uncertainty remains regarding whether the Food Safety Law or the Law on Quality and Safety of Agricultural Products should apply—a point that has long been debated in practice and in similar court rulings, causing confusion among grassroots regulators. One market supervision official noted that the high threshold for initiating penalties has consistently troubled local enforcers; however, given the paramount importance of “food safety,” failure to rigorously address violations could invite accusations of lax enforcement. Others argued that while detecting pesticide residues warrants punishment, imposing excessively harsh penalties risks being tantamount to bureaucratic negligence; conversely, failing to penalize such cases constitutes dereliction of duty. For small and micro entities whose culpability is relatively minor, the focus should be on issuing corrective orders and warnings, with severe penalties reserved for those who knowingly and illegally use banned pesticides—only then would such sanctions carry meaningful weight. Third, some viewed the shopkeeper’s actions as obstructing traceability investigations, advocating for stricter sentencing and heavier penalties. Public opinion holds that only by intensifying punishment for violations in key sectors—raising the cost of non‑compliance through stringent sanctions—can true deterrence be achieved, thereby ensuring that problematic products like celery contaminated with chlorpyrifos are swiftly eliminated. Critics further pointed out that the party concerned failed to fulfill its statutory obligation to verify incoming goods and provide accurate information on sources, resulting in ineffective traceability of the tainted celery and rendering full‑chain oversight of edible agricultural products little more than empty rhetoric. An essential principle of food safety governance is “prevention first, risk management”; given the significant food safety risks posed by such violations, failure to impose rigorous, law‑based penalties will undermine deterrence and prevent the desired social effect of “using severe penalties to restore order.” Fourth, dissatisfaction was voiced over selective reporting by certain media outlets, which some saw as contributing to a form of public judgment. Critics noted that reports largely omitted details about the celery’s excessive pesticide residue levels and the associated health hazards, focusing instead on the overall finding of non‑compliance. Accounts of the incident remained vague, describing the couple from Yulin as first‑time offenders with modest profits, and attributing the heavy penalty to unclear record‑keeping—without mentioning that the specific issue was the detection of the banned pesticide chlorpyrifos. From the perspective of the overarching principle that food safety takes precedence above all else, the penalty decision in this case indeed should not have been subject to such extensive media and public interpretation.

Netizens have engaged in a lively debate on this issue, with the following main viewpoints: First, some support imposing severe penalties for similar incidents. One netizen argued that since the celery was found to contain residues of prohibited pesticides and the vendor failed to provide a clear explanation of its origin, it is justified under the law to levy a hefty fine. While this may seem harsh, from the perspective of food safety—especially for Chinese consumers—it is the right course of action. Another netizen added that food safety is of paramount importance; without stringent penalties for exceeding contamination limits, such violations will only proliferate, and the more alarming consequence is the potential for chronic health problems arising from long-term consumption. Second, others contend that the punishment is too severe and could harm the business environment. One netizen pointed out that this case involved merely seven jin of contaminated celery, so the broader social harm is limited. Penalizing such small-scale vendors may fail to serve as an effective deterrent and could instead worsen the business climate; sanctions should be proportionate. Another remarked that the real focus should be on cracking down on the indiscriminate use of pesticides at the farm level, as well as on large wholesalers and farmers’ markets—strictly regulating these major players while treating individual street vendors selling a few scallions or cloves of garlic as “trivial offenders” is simply misguided. Yet another user warned that inappropriate fees and fines could prompt businesses to “vote with their feet,” discouraging them from returning to their hometowns to start enterprises. Third, some believe that legal education for farmers and small traders needs to be strengthened. One netizen suggested that efforts should prioritize public awareness and legal outreach among small vendors, as most ordinary people are unlikely to knowingly break the law. Another noted that even if a vendor has erred, practical circumstances should be taken into account: first provide education and guidance, then enforce the law—after all, is the purpose of legislation merely to impose fines? A final commenter argued that expanding both the scope and depth of legal education might be a worthwhile approach to address these issues.

2.2 Sichuan’s Guangyuan police have drawn attention by cracking a major case involving the production and sale of counterfeit pesticides.

On September 14, 2022, the Cangxi County Public Security Bureau in Guangyuan City, Sichuan Province, announced that it had successfully solved a case involving the production and sale of substandard and counterfeit products. Authorities dismantled eight counterfeit‑manufacturing dens, apprehended 84 suspects, seized a large quantity of related assets, and dismantled 11 sales‑network gangs operating across 31 provinces, autonomous regions, and municipalities, with the total value of the case exceeding RMB 120 million. According to reports, this is the largest‑scale, most extensive, and highest‑value case of its kind—concerning the production and sale of fake pesticides—since the launch of the “Kunlun–2022” special operation by Sichuan’s public security organs. As of December 31, a total of 633 pieces of public opinion had been recorded; on Sina Weibo, a topic titled “Guangyuan Police Crack Major Case of Producing and Selling Fake Pesticides” garnered 15,000 views. On Toutiao, multiple trending search topics emerged. The case was also selected as one of the ten exemplary cases of agricultural law enforcement safeguarding food security, published by the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs. Online discussions centered around several key points: First, many users praised the police’s actions, with some commenting, “Kudos to our Guangyuan police officers—you’ve worked hard! Manufacturing counterfeits is extremely harmful; criminal acts undermining agricultural production must be severely punished. We hope more efforts are made to ensure food and agricultural product safety.” Second, there were calls for strict punishment of those who produce and sell fake pesticides. One netizen noted, “It’s not easy for farmers to grow crops; buying fake fertilizers or pesticides leads to severe direct and indirect losses. Relevant authorities should strengthen oversight and crack down harder on the agro‑chemical market.” Another added, “The sums involved are staggering. How can people making fakes have the audacity to exploit farmers? Such crimes must be met with zero tolerance—farmers already face hardships, investing both money and labor, only to end up with little return.” Third, several commenters pointed out that counterfeit pesticides are widespread. “There are so many fake pesticides on the market,” one user remarked. “No wonder the pesticides I bought this year didn’t kill the pests—maybe I got a fake product. No wonder they’re labeled ‘low‑toxicity’—but they still don’t work.” Fourth, some suggested that behind these counterfeit operations there may be protective networks. One commenter questioned, “They have business licenses, production permits, and inspection reports—where do all these documents come from?”

03

Public Opinion Summary and Outlook

Overall, in 2022, macro policies—including agricultural‑pesticide industry planning, pesticide regulation, and initiatives to reduce pesticide and fertilizer use while enhancing efficiency—provided a strategic blueprint for the sector’s development through top‑level design. Local authorities, by fully leveraging their regulatory autonomy, facilitated the implementation of these plans and concrete actions, with many achievements receiving broad public recognition.

Looking ahead to 2023, public opinion in the agrochemical industry is expected to exhibit the following characteristics: From the perspective of dissemination channels, the “Two WeChat Accounts and One Client” platforms remain key venues for media outlets and netizens to promptly release information and engage in discussions, enjoying a distinct advantage in shaping public discourse. Meanwhile, short‑video platforms such as Douyin and Kuaishou continue to strengthen their reach and influence. In terms of emerging areas of public concern: first, waste from pesticide packaging may become a focal point of public attention. The No. 1 Central Document of 2023 calls for accelerating the promotion and application of technologies that reduce input use while enhancing efficiency, and for advancing systems to collect, utilize, and treat agricultural waste—including plastic mulch film, pesticide packaging, and livestock and poultry manure. The implementation progress, governance measures, and outcomes achieved across regions are likely to remain under sustained public scrutiny. Second, findings of excessive pesticide residues in routine quality‑and‑safety inspections of agricultural products will continue to draw widespread public attention. Third, initiatives aimed at reducing pesticide use while improving efficacy will also be central to public debate. In 2022, a series of policy documents—such as the Comprehensive Work Plan for Energy Conservation and Emission Reduction during the 14th Five‑Year Plan period, the Action Plan for Winning the Battle Against Agricultural and Rural Pollution (2021–2025), and the Action Plan for Reducing Chemical Pesticide Use by 2025—were successively issued, providing clear roadmaps for local governments to advance these efforts. Over the coming year, exemplary practices and tangible results achieved in implementing these plans will attract close public scrutiny. Fourth, the outlook for the agrochemical market remains promising. The three‑year pandemic posed significant challenges to pesticide companies’ operational capabilities, cash flow management, and R&D capacity for cyclical products. Coupled with the release of the National Agrochemical Industry Development Plan for the 14th Five‑Year Plan period, we may see a wave of mergers and restructurings among agrochemical firms, potentially intensifying the Matthew effect within the sector. Moreover, persistently high global food prices bode well for pesticide exports, making the market prospects worthy of anticipation.

Source: Pesticide Science and Management, Issue 6, 2023 Author(s): Zhou Wei, Song Heping, et al.