What pesticide industry policies in 2022 drew 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 ongoing 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, contributing 25.94%. Together, these two channels comprise over 60% of all public‑opinion volume, underscoring the media’s dominant position thanks to their authoritative reporting and extensive distribution networks. WeChat ranks third, with a share of 20.51%, primarily featuring 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 further promote 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, where an individual was fined RMB 66,000 for selling five jin of celery with chlorpyrifos residues exceeding regulatory limits, sparked widespread debate, pushing public 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. Random inspections of agricultural products have also been a key focus of public discourse. In addition, the issue of counterfeit agricultural inputs has attracted 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 praise from public opinion.

At the beginning of 2022, the pesticide industry development plan drew widespread public attention. On January 29, eight departments, including the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, 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, with the view 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 safety. Public discourse has focused primarily on three areas:

First, the focus is on the impact of the Plan on pesticide 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 pesticide firms, potentially reshaping the competitive landscape of the sector by reinforcing the dominance of leading agrochemical players, further optimizing capacity deployment, and creating new growth opportunities for these 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 expanded domestic demand and boosted consumption. Observers note that the conference has established a favorable policy environment for agriculture‑related industries, and the array of measures it unveiled is expected to benefit the agrochemical sector, creating opportunities for both market expansion and industrial development. Public sentiment suggests that boosting 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 industry is likely to become more concentrated, with growing polarization between strong and weak players—where the strong continue to strengthen and the weak face increasing challenges. This trend aligns with the government’s increasingly stringent regulatory framework for agrochemicals and the sector’s status as a technology‑intensive industry. Some analytical reports predict that China’s agrochemical exports will maintain strong momentum in 2023, with more capable companies expanding into international markets. However, other reports caution that export performance will still 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 comprehensive brand image commensurate with China’s position as a major global producer of agrochemicals.

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 the compilation of 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 policies mandating real‑name registration for pesticide purchases and reducing input costs were overly one-sided, 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 unveiled the “Opinions on Further Refining Requirements for Pesticide Label Approval,” with public scrutiny focused on the specific details of these guidelines. In December, a national video conference on pesticide management was held, summarizing and sharing experiences from 2022 while outlining plans for ensuring stable production and supply and strengthening regulatory oversight in 2023; the ensuing arrangements attracted widespread 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 lasting impact, and bear clear evidence of progress—both as concrete manifestations of the sector’s move toward more refined and precise management and as practical steps by regulatory bodies to fulfill their responsibilities. 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 handling 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 a successful spring planting season 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 designated as a major task. Central media outlets such as CCTV’s “News Broadcast,” “News Live Room,” and “Morning News” all reprinted the plan. Prominent 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’s Three Rural Issues 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 related recommendations. Critics argue that pressing issues remain, including an imperfect mechanism for achieving reduced pesticide use with improved efficiency, growing difficulties in pest and disease monitoring and control, slow progress in professional and socially organized 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 same time, local authorities must 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 practices and promote the safe and rational use of pesticides; strengthen oversight and establish a green pesticide R&D framework to enhance independent innovation capacity. In addition, local governments 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‑driven initiatives in rural areas, and other channels, they should further popularize and advance scientifically sound application techniques, raising both awareness and competence 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 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 violations made up 30.82% of all non‑conformities. 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 regions such as Hebei, Hunan, and Gansu introduced action plans and local standards for managing pesticide residues. Many areas also rolled out rapid pesticide‑testing initiatives—such as “you name it, we test,” “rapid testing plus random sampling,” and “on‑site pesticide‑residue testing”—to safeguard food safety. The media commended these efforts, with public opinion noting that such measures protect consumers’ “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 of agricultural products, creating 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 ensuring that collection and disposal operations are both rule‑based and practical. Second, diverse models for collecting pesticide‑packaging waste were explored. Localities, tailored to their specific circumstances, established well‑planned collection networks, giving rise to approaches such as village‑level collection, township‑level aggregation, and county‑ or district‑level processing and disposal. Grassroots systems were also put in place, with village cleaners and administrators concurrently serving as collectors. Additionally, discarded pesticide packaging was exchanged for gifts or redeemed for rewards, and distinctive initiatives—such as green fiscal programs, “green huts,” 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 a growing sense of responsibility among farmers to voluntarily collect and properly dispose of pesticide‑packaging waste, thus strengthening overall recycling and treatment awareness among smallholders. Third, progress in local efforts to collect and treat pesticide‑packaging waste was highlighted. Observers reported a marked increase in farmers’ awareness of proper waste management and a significant reduction in the practice of indiscriminate dumping. By ensuring that pesticide‑packaging waste no longer wanders aimlessly but finds a permanent home, these measures have helped promote environmentally sustainable agriculture and led to noticeable improvements in rural environments.

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 residue levels 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 in Yulin City, Shaanxi Province, determined that a privately owned business had sold five jin of celery that failed a supervisory sampling inspection. The sample was found to contain chlorpyrifos, a pesticide banned for use on vegetables, and the business could not 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 intervention 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 Net and China News Service published or reprinted 1,787 articles; mobile apps carried 19,382 posts; WeChat accounted for 3,905 entries; Weibo hosted 20,353 posts; forums contributed 515 entries; and video platforms recorded 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 were disproportionate to the violations, arguing that their discretionary powers were too broad. Numerous netizens expressed strong empathy toward the fined shopkeeper. At its core, this reflects the public’s ability to distinguish between egregious violations of food safety laws—actions that are unforgivable—and unintentional mistakes that may warrant leniency. For minor infractions committed by small and micro‑enterprises, authorities should prioritize 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 pointed out that existing legal regulations lack sufficient specificity, granting enforcement officers excessive discretion, while linking penalty severity to performance evaluations, thereby incentivizing overly stringent enforcement. Moreover, there is a lack of effective checks and balances on the execution of administrative penalties. Second, concerns were raised about the difficulties faced by frontline supervisors in enforcing the law. From a legal standpoint, there remains ambiguity regarding whether to apply the Food Safety Law or the Law on Quality and Safety of Agricultural Products. Past enforcement practices and similar court rulings have indeed generated controversy, creating challenges for grassroots regulators. One market supervision official noted that the high threshold for initiating penalties has long been a burden for local enforcement officers; however, given the paramount importance of “food safety,” failing to rigorously address violations could invite accusations of lax enforcement. Others argued that while detecting pesticide residues warrants punishment, imposing excessively harsh penalties can amount to bureaucratic negligence, whereas failing to act at all constitutes dereliction of duty. For small and micro‑businesses whose culpability is relatively minor, the focus should be on issuing corrective orders and warnings, reserving severe penalties only for those who knowingly and illegally used prohibited pesticides—only then would such sanctions carry real 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 areas—raising the cost of noncompliance through rigorous sanctions—can true deterrence be achieved, ensuring that problematic products like celery contaminated with chlorpyrifos are swiftly eliminated. Critics further contended that the party concerned failed to fulfill its legal obligation to verify incoming goods and truthfully disclose their origins, resulting in ineffective tracing of the tainted celery and rendering full‑chain oversight of food 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 strict, lawful penalties will undermine deterrence and prevent the desired social effect of “using severe penalties to restore order.” Fourth, dissatisfaction arose 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 fact that the batch failed inspection and vaguely describing the circumstances of the incident. Statements such as “the Yulin couple were first-time offenders,” “the profits were modest,” and “they were heavily penalized because their records were unclear” left unmentioned that the specific violation involved the detection of the banned pesticide chlorpyrifos. From the perspective of the overarching principle that food safety takes precedence over everything 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, many 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 clear evidence of its origin, levying a hefty fine on the stallholder is justified under the law. While it 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 must be treated as a top priority; without stringent penalties for exceeding contamination limits, such violations will only proliferate, with even more alarming consequences, including chronic health problems that may develop over time. Second, some contend that the punishment is too severe and harms 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 fails 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 curbing the indiscriminate use of pesticides at the farm level, as well as regulating large wholesalers and farmers’ markets. Targeting individual street vendors who sell just a few scallions or cloves of garlic each day for exceeding residue limits amounts to “playing games” with the system. Yet another user noted that inappropriate fees and fines can prompt businesses to “vote with their feet,” discouraging them from returning to their hometowns to start enterprises. Third, there is a view 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-scale sellers, as most ordinary people are unlikely to knowingly break the law. Another argued that even if a vendor has erred, practical circumstances should be taken into account—education and guidance should come first, followed by legal instruction. After all, is the purpose of the law merely to impose fines? A further comment highlighted that expanding both the scope and depth of legal education could be a worthwhile approach.

2.2 Sichuan’s Guangyuan police have drawn attention for 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 cracked 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 goods related to the case, 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 officials, this is the largest‑scale, most extensive, and highest‑value case of its kind—both in terms of monetary impact and geographic reach—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, the topic “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 the police of Guangyuan—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 user noted, “It’s already difficult 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 agrochemical market.” Another added, “The figures are staggering—how can people who make fakes have the audacity to exploit farmers? Such crimes must be met with tough measures. Farmers already face hardships—spending money and labor only to end up with little return.” Third, several netizens pointed out that counterfeit pesticides are widespread. “There are so many fake pesticides on the market,” one 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 fraudulent practices 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 from the top level. Local authorities, by fully leveraging their regulatory autonomy, ensured the effective implementation of these plans and measures, 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 share information and engage in discussions, enjoying a distinct advantage in shaping public discourse. Meanwhile, short‑video platforms such as Douyin and Kuaishou are steadily expanding 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 at the local level are likely to continue drawing significant public scrutiny. Second, findings of excessive pesticide residues in routine quality‑safety inspections of agricultural products will remain a major topic of public debate. Third, initiatives aimed at reducing pesticide use while improving efficacy will also be central to public discourse. In 2022, a series of policy documents—including 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 released, providing clear roadmaps for local efforts to cut pesticide consumption and boost efficiency. Over the coming year, exemplary practices and tangible results reported by various regions in implementing these plans will attract close public attention. Fourth, the outlook for the pesticide market remains promising. The three‑year pandemic posed substantial 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 reorganizations among pesticide 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: Zhou Wei, Song Heping, et al.