After fierce competition in the agrochemical industry, who will emerge as the survivor? Only by grasping the underlying logic can companies achieve lasting success.

Societal dynamics invariably follow certain patterns and are underpinned by intricate webs of cause-and-effect relationships. These connections are so complex that they often remain obscured, leaving us with a tangled mess—much like the blind men feeling different parts of an elephant: one feels the belly and concludes the elephant is a wall; another touches the leg and sees it as a pillar; yet another perceives the ear and imagines it to be a fan. This holds true not only for society at large but also for specific industries—and the agrochemical sector is no exception. When one adopts too low a vantage point or stays too close to the subject, one can only glimpse fragments, easily generalizing from limited observations and arriving at flawed conclusions. Only by stepping back, gaining a broader perspective, and piercing through this dense matrix of causal links can one discern the underlying logic. Though such fundamental principles may be few in number, they serve as the guiding “framework”; only by grasping this core logic can we truly understand the essence of the industry.

01

What deeper implications are embedded in the offhand remark, “Pesticides are an essential factor of agricultural production”?

Pesticides are an essential input in agriculture—a point so well‑known that it often goes without saying. Yet familiarity with this fact should not dispense with careful reflection. The greatest truths are often the simplest; by seeking the “great way” in simplicity, and by acting in harmony with nature to secure survival and development, we follow the right path.

1.1 Agriculture determines the primary demand in the pesticide market.

The methods of agricultural production, cropping patterns, environmental conditions, and the incidence of crop diseases, pests, and weeds all determine the demand for pesticides and the composition of the product portfolio. Meeting agriculture’s needs is not achieved through administrative mandates—no level of government or individual leader dictates which specific products must be purchased. Instead, it is driven by market competition: the pesticide company whose products best satisfy farmers’ requirements will enjoy strong sales, capture a larger market share, and thrive, thereby securing an increasingly favorable position in the marketplace.

1.2 Pesticides are agricultural inputs.

The role of inputs is primarily manifested during the production process; their characteristics, performance, attributes, and quality are not reflected in the final product, nor do they establish a direct connection with consumers. As a result, consumers generally do not develop any specific preferences for them—for example, electricity or coal. Inputs typically exhibit weak brand characteristics. By contrast, products with strong brand identities not only convey assurance of quality but also, more importantly, satisfy consumers’ psychological need for “status” or “prestige,” such as high‑end baijiu, cosmetics, and automobiles. While superior product quality is certainly important, what matters even more is that these items serve as symbols of the consumer’s social standing—suggesting that only by affording them can one project an image of being “high‑end, sophisticated, and upscale.” Consequently, products with strong brand power command higher price premiums, whereas those with weak brand power tend to have lower markups. As agricultural inputs, pesticides possess three key characteristics: First, they have a weak brand effect; no one feels particularly proud or self‑confident simply because they purchased a particular pesticide brand. In fact, many pesticide manufacturers today, following the model of the consumer goods sector, register multiple brands for a single product—a practice that, from a competitive standpoint, amounts to little more than imitating others without real necessity. Second, what pesticide consumers ultimately care about is product quality. Since most companies employ uniform quality‑control systems, the quality of their products tends to be consistent. As a result, consumers often place greater emphasis on the company’s brand than on the specific product brand, and the premium attached to branded products is usually not very high. Accordingly, for any given pesticide, competition largely hinges on price, with consumers gravitating toward lower‑priced options. Third, the state of the agricultural market significantly influences both the demand for and the pricing of pesticides. To take an extreme example, a few years ago, in a certain area of Guangxi, the price of Wogan oranges plummeted due to oversupply, prompting farmers, in pursuit of economic viability, to drastically reduce—or even cease—applying pesticides altogether. When farmers cut back on or stop using pesticides, demand for the corresponding formulations naturally declines, driving prices down as well.

1.3 The characteristics of agriculture determine or influence the characteristics of pesticides.

This is manifested in three ways: First, the regional nature of agriculture gives pesticides a distinct regional character. Unlike industry—where products can be standardized globally without regional variations—agriculture exhibits pronounced regional differences: water, fertilizers, soil, and climatic conditions vary from one area to another; the crops best suited to each region differ; and the pests, diseases, and weeds that arise also vary. Consequently, the types of pesticides required differ accordingly. Second, the diversity of agriculture dictates the diversity of pesticides. With a wide array of crop species, an equally broad spectrum of pests, diseases, and weeds, and a rich variety of ecological environments, the range of pesticide formulations is extensive and highly specialized. Third, the seasonality of agricultural production imposes a corresponding seasonal pattern on both the manufacturing and marketing of pesticides.

Businesses seek to identify which products remain in short supply, particularly when the market is generally oversupplied—after all, scarcity signals demand. So where should one look for such shortages? Fundamentally, the search must follow the “demand” axis: wherever there is demand, there is a market—and ultimately, the answer lies in agriculture. From three perspectives, there is still considerable room for growth in agriculture’s demand for pesticides.

First, there is the pressing need arising from agricultural structural adjustments. For example, this includes the use of pesticides in the production of minor crops, as well as products for off‑peak market launches and for storage and preservation. These demands are real: because the volume of each individual minor crop is small, some companies simply do not bother to conduct trials or seek registration. However, “small” and “large” are relative; once the major crops have all been registered and the market has reached saturation, the smaller ones naturally become more significant, and their market appeal grows accordingly. When drought strikes, we certainly hope for a heavy, cleansing rain—but even a light drizzle can be beneficial.

Second, there is a growing demand driven by advances in agricultural production technologies. Practices such as protected‑field farming, drone‑based spraying, and soil fumigation all require more suitable pesticides. This does not mean that no products are available; rather, the market currently lacks formulations that are more targeted and better suited to these specific applications. With the market approaching saturation, manufacturers typically seek out niche demands after meeting broad‑category needs, developing new, more tailored products to address these specialized requirements and capture greater market share. The same holds true for crop protection: because facility agriculture, drone spraying, soil fumigation, and integrated seed‑pesticide systems each present unique application challenges, companies will inevitably focus on these areas, leading to the emergence of dedicated, purpose‑built products.

Third, there is the potential demand of the future—such as nano‑pesticides, the large‑scale cultivation and application of biotech‑bred crops, and RNA‑based biopesticides. At the current pace of agricultural development, these future needs will soon translate into actual market demand. As the saying goes, “prepare an umbrella on a clear day”; forward‑thinking entrepreneurs should begin making preparations well in advance.

02

Why impose strict regulations on pesticides?

Speaking of this issue, we must first ask why Sun Wukong was subjected to the Magic Headband. Endowed with extraordinary powers and hailed as the Great Sage Equal to Heaven, he accompanied Tang Sanzang on his journey to the West to obtain the sacred scriptures, vanquishing demons and eradicating evil along the way and earning countless merits. Yet Sun Wukong possessed both divine nature and beastly instincts: when his divine side emerged, he slew monsters and banished harm; when his beastly side took over, he ran wild, heedless of law or order. By having the Magic Headband placed upon him, he was compelled to dutifully slay demons and eliminate evil, daring not to act recklessly.

Pesticides are like Sun Wukong—possessing extraordinary powers, yet prone to acting capriciously when misused. Used properly, they can cure diseases, control pests, and weed out weeds, ensuring food security and benefiting society; used improperly, they harm the environment, jeopardize the safety and quality of agricultural products, and inflict damage on society. Unlike ordinary commodities that are unremarkable and require no special oversight, pesticides are a special class of goods: powerful but wayward. To ensure that pesticides serve as angels, bringing benefits to humanity rather than demons wreaking havoc, we must impose strict controls—human ingenuity is more than capable of taming both their angelic and devilish sides.

The first regulatory hurdle is the pesticide registration and review system. Before a new pesticide can be launched, it must undergo safety‑assessment trials conducted by nationally accredited testing facilities, and the resulting data and supporting documentation must be submitted to a specialized national agency for review. Only after passing this review may the pesticide be registered and issued an official “certificate of registration.”

The second “tightening spell” is the phase-out regime for highly toxic pesticides. Pesticides that are highly toxic, leave persistent residues, and pose risks to environmental and agricultural product safety will no longer be approved for use—effectively amounting to a “life sentence.”

The third restrictive measure is the pesticide production licensing system. In addition to meeting other statutory requirements, pesticide manufacturers must obtain a production license issued by the provincial agricultural and rural affairs authority before they are permitted to commence production.

The fourth restrictive measure is the pesticide business licensing system. Operators must meet prescribed requirements to obtain a pesticide business license; for restricted-use pesticides, even stricter conditions must be satisfied to secure a license for their sale and distribution before they may commence operations.

The fifth restraining spell is the system for the rational use of pesticides. Pesticide use that exceeds the permitted scope or dosage will be subject to corresponding penalties.

Five stringent regulatory measures tightly confine the life and death, production, marketing, and use of pesticides within a strict framework; once subjected to these controls, pesticides can only dutifully serve humanity.

The essence of the “tightening‑hat spell” is a set of limited regulatory measures applied to specific industries—necessary steps taken to foster constructive outcomes while curbing destructive ones, not to stifle them entirely. If an industry were to die out or cease to exist, there would no longer be any need for regulation. It is important to emphasize three points: First, regulation must be proportionate; measures that are unnecessary, or that yield short‑term benefits at the expense of long‑term harm, should be avoided. For example, when Sun Wukong was pinned beneath Mount Wutai by the Buddha, he did not require the tightening‑hat spell; it was only when he accompanied Tang Sanzang on the journey to the West that the spell was imposed. Moreover, the spell was not invoked daily—it was used only when his actions threatened to undermine the mission. Second, regulatory policies should be adjusted gradually in response to socio‑economic changes. Since the reform and opening‑up, China’s pesticide‑management regime has grown progressively stricter, driven by our enhanced capacity to ensure safe pesticide use and by rising public expectations for agricultural product quality and environmental protection. Such incremental adjustments facilitate adaptation by both industry and society; just as one eats one bite at a time, redevelopment proceeds step by step. Attempts to achieve rapid, sweeping change—whether by trying to “eat a whole pig in one bite” or by demolishing old buildings to erect new ones—only lead to chaos. Third, regulation entails costs. Businesses, society, and government all bear additional burdens. If the positive effects of regulation fail to offset these costs, such measures amount to ineffective or excessive control. On the subject of regulation, let us consider a practical question: Some argue that cutthroat market competition is extremely harsh, consuming vast social resources, and suggest strengthening the management of production licenses—perhaps by reducing or restricting their issuance—to cool down an already oversupplied pesticide market. The intention behind this proposal is commendable: unbridled, bottomless competition inflicts severe damage on the industry, often driving prices below cost, squandering valuable resources, and stifling investment in research and development, thereby constraining industry growth. However, seeking to further intensify the heat in an already brutal competitive environment by curtailing production licenses or imposing capacity controls may not be the most prudent approach. Our current economic system is a socialist market economy, which emphasizes the decisive role of the market in resource allocation: decisions about whether, where, and what to invest are left to market participants. By contrast, the former Soviet Union and pre‑reform China adopted centrally planned economies, motivated by concerns that excessive market competition led to overcapacity and resource waste, necessitating central planning. Yet the outcome is well known: while overcapacity was indeed addressed, producers lost motivation, shortages emerged, and many essential consumer goods had to be rationed through coupons. Unable to sustain the planned economy, China was compelled to introduce market mechanisms after the reform and opening‑up. Excessive government intervention in industry is not conducive to healthy development. When overcapacity arises, the government can issue timely policy warnings or disclose relevant capacity data, allowing market actors to decide, based on this information, whether to reinvest or resume production.

What impact will the regulatory measures—akin to a tightening noose—have on agrochemical companies? It is undeniable that these measures will increase firms’ costs, whether through the need to conduct additional field trials for registration or the investment required to meet the conditions for obtaining licenses. Nevertheless, the positive effects on the industry are equally evident.

First, it is about enhancing the industry’s reputation. In 1962, American marine biologist Rachel Carson published “Silent Spring,” which depicted how a once idyllic, harmonious town—filled with fragrant blossoms and the songs of countless birds—had been transformed into a valley of death due to the destructive effects of chemical pesticides and industrial pollution: the flowers had vanished, the birds were gone, and the vibrant spring had fallen silent. The book sparked an intense public outcry in the United States and around the world, leading to widespread condemnation of the pesticide industry. Fortunately, humanity eventually devised regulatory measures to rein in the industry, curbing its harmful impacts, and gradually restoring its credibility—so much so that today, while there may still be some criticism, it no longer threatens the broader picture.

Second, it promotes orderly competition within the industry. Without effective regulatory oversight, some enterprises may act with unchecked recklessness, engaging in harmful practices that not only provoke widespread public outrage but also drive out high‑quality products and force the industry into a self‑destructive cycle of cutthroat competition.

Third, a competitive moat has been established. The registration and licensing regime imposes certain barriers to entry in the agrochemical sector, making it difficult both to enter and to operate within the industry. Once established, this barrier naturally creates a protective moat. With such a moat in place, competition is largely confined to the industry itself; external players seeking to break into the market face additional hurdles, which benefits incumbent agrochemical firms.

03

Why is pesticide use always a topic of discussion?

I often hear colleagues in the agrochemical industry say that public opinion toward pesticides is unfavorable—there’s a tendency to treat them as something to be feared, even to turn pale at the very mention of them—and they express deep concern and some frustration. Is this negative public perception really grounded in reality, or are there deeper underlying factors? Is it due to inadequate communication, or does it stem from the inherent dynamics of public discourse itself? If the problem lies in insufficient outreach, we can certainly work to improve it; but if it reflects the natural ebb and flow of public sentiment, there’s no need to overreact or to cultivate an overly sensitive, fragile “glass heart” that constantly hesitates and falters. Alternatively, we might both step up our communication efforts and maintain a calm, balanced perspective.

3.1 “Talking about matters” follows a pattern.

Public opinion follows its own patterns; what we need to do is recognize these patterns, master them, and respond effectively—rather than ignoring or dismissing them and blaming external factors. First, issues that directly affect everyone tend to attract attention. Compared with the defense industry, pesticides are vastly different in both importance and economic scale: the latter is far removed from everyday life, and unless one is a dedicated enthusiast, most people pay little heed to its development. By contrast, everyone needs to eat, and pesticide residues are inextricably linked to our food, water, and living environment—concerns that touch us all. As a result, even minor incidents involving pesticides often get blown up into widely known events. Second, the unusual and unexpected draws more attention. As a famous adage goes in journalism: “A dog biting a man is not news; a man biting a dog is.” Routine matters fail to capture public interest, while extraordinary occurrences readily draw it. In a country as large as ours, where pesticides are used every day, society generally overlooks their safe application—but even a single case of harm can grab headlines and spread rapidly. Third, past incidents leave lasting impressions. In a classroom, for example, some students may have a history of misbehavior but later turn over a new leaf. Yet when something negative happens, teachers and classmates often associate it with those who have “a record.” In social dynamics, there is a well‑known concept called the “Tacitus Trap”: once a government agency or organization loses public trust, whether it tells the truth or lies, does good or bad, its words and actions will be interpreted as dishonest or malicious. Pesticides, too, have a history of reckless use leading to severe harm; even today, occasional adverse effects persist. This fuels a natural public skepticism toward those who were once seen as “troublemakers.” Fourth, “finding fault” is a fundamental habit—and right—of consumers in a market economy. As the saying goes, “Praise and criticism are the lifeblood of business”; when shoppers buy products, offering feedback and being discerning is perfectly normal. From a broader perspective, consumer demands also serve as a powerful driver for industry improvement—whether in other sectors or in agriculture.

3.2 You must present the “matter” clearly and effectively.

When it comes to the role of pesticides, we must conduct a comprehensive review and clarify the facts so that our outreach efforts are targeted and effective. First, pesticides help ensure food security. No matter how loudly certain groups or individuals tout “returning to ancient agriculture,” “traditional farming,” or “organic agriculture,” humanity would still struggle to feed itself adequately without them. Our neighbor Sri Lanka once banned chemical fertilizers and pesticides, only to see food prices soar—delivering a harsh lesson that forced it to reverse course. Second, pesticides have contributed to the liberation of rural labor. This point is seldom highlighted, yet decades ago, weeding was almost entirely done by hand, and pest control relied on manual labor as well. With modern pesticides, only minimal human effort is required, freeing up rural workers. While everyone recognizes that modern agricultural machinery has liberated humanity, few realize that pesticides have similarly freed rural labor—even those within the pesticide industry often fail to appreciate this, let alone promote it. How, then, could the wider public be aware? Third, pesticides safeguard environmental health and public hygiene. The Regulations on Pesticide Management explicitly include “preventing mosquitoes, flies, cockroaches, rodents, and other harmful organisms” within the scope of pesticides, commonly referred to as sanitary‑use products. Mosquitoes, flies, cockroaches, and rodents spread pathogens and trigger outbreaks; they were once dubbed the “Four Pests.” Eradicating these pests and protecting the environment depends on pesticides. According to the World Health Organization’s 2021 Global Malaria Report, in 2020 there were 241 million malaria cases worldwide, resulting in 627,000 deaths—over 90 percent of which occurred in Africa. Since 2001, among the 663 million malaria cases that have been successfully averted, 69 percent can be attributed to the use of insecticide‑treated bed nets, while another 10 percent stems from indoor residual spraying. Data show that between 2001 and 2010, increased adoption of insecticide‑treated bed nets prevented the deaths of 842,800 children in malaria‑endemic regions around the world.

3.3 Approach “discussing matters” with a calm and balanced mindset

As a product that directly affects people’s food and livelihoods, pesticides naturally attract scrutiny and mixed reviews from consumers. It is essential to approach the management of pesticides with the mindset of “not seeking universal praise every day, but ensuring they remain indispensable to all.” At the same time, we must further strengthen public outreach, highlighting the vital role of pesticides and the progress achieved in their development. This will help the general public recognize that just as humans need medicine when ill, crops also depend on protective treatments to stay healthy; neglecting such care can lead to worsening conditions or even crop failure, while proper use of pesticides safeguards both human health and agricultural productivity. In short, taking medicine benefits human health, and applying pesticides benefits crop health.

04

Who will survive the fierce competition in the agrochemical industry?

At present, the agrochemical market suffers from severe overcapacity. Through market competition and corporate mergers, the number of agrochemical firms is expected to decline significantly—a consensus widely shared and consistent with the general principles of a market economy. A key concern is: what outcomes will competitive pressures produce, and what kind of industry structure will emerge? Will the sector, like the household appliance and automotive industries, evolve into a landscape dominated by a few major oligopolists, with smaller and medium-sized enterprises serving as suppliers of raw materials or component parts to these leading players? Simple comparisons can easily lead to misjudgments; a case‑by‑case analysis tailored to each specific sector is essential. Unlike the automotive and home‑appliance industries, the agrochemical sector will likely see the emergence of several oligopolistic firms, alongside small and medium‑sized enterprises that supply them with raw materials and components, while also maintaining a contingent of independent, specialized SMEs. Why, then, do some SMEs persist specifically within the agrochemical industry? This is largely determined by the unique characteristics of the agrochemical sector—and, by extension, of agriculture itself.

First, the agrochemical industry is highly fragmented. To facilitate our explanation, let’s use the relatively less fragmented household automobile sector as a point of comparison. In the automotive industry, whether at the high end or the low end, there is no fundamental difference in function or utility; the distinctions lie primarily in equipment and comfort levels. This sector is characterized by exceptionally fierce competition, with firms vying on price, marketing, and economies of scale. As a result, the market increasingly concentrates among leading, dominant players, driving up industry concentration and giving rise to oligopolistic market structures. Today, virtually anyone who drives can name several well-known automakers, because only large, well‑known brands that have survived the brutal competitive landscape remain. By contrast, the agrochemical industry is far more complex: with an immense diversity of plant species and a wide array of pests, diseases, and weeds, different targets require distinct active ingredients. Even within the broad category of “agrochemicals,” products vary significantly in their functions and applications. China’s agrochemical market encompasses over 700 active ingredient types and more than 45,000 registered formulations currently in use. This extreme fragmentation creates natural barriers to entry for some small and medium‑sized enterprises that have achieved deep expertise in specific product categories, enabling them to become niche leaders and posing challenges to larger firms seeking mergers and acquisitions. Consequently, these specialized companies are often able to withstand intense market competition and maintain their positions.

Furthermore, agriculture exhibits pronounced regional characteristics. Agricultural production depends on specific environmental conditions—such as climate, topography, soil, and water resources—and, unlike industrial production, it is highly localized. These regional factors influence the selection of pesticide varieties, application rates and methods, and even impose special requirements. Consequently, certain pesticide companies that serve particular agricultural regions are able to sustain their operations.

In summary, pesticide companies that can sustain long-term viability generally fall into the following categories:

One category comprises large, internationally operating agrochemical companies. These firms enjoy clear economies of scale and possess significant advantages in new‑product R&D, cost control, channel development, and brand building.

The second category comprises low-cost raw-material suppliers. These companies primarily supply active pharmaceutical ingredients or raw materials to leading firms under contractual agreements, leveraging their cost‑advantage to earn modest profits.

The third category comprises proprietary‑product manufacturers. Although these companies are not particularly large, they maintain a focused business strategy with clearly defined target markets and place a strong emphasis on applied R&D. Their products are tailored to specific crops, diseases, weeds, or production stages, ensuring high product concentration. While their overall scale may lag behind that of larger firms, they hold a commanding position within their respective sub‑sectors, effectively becoming “hidden champions.”

The fourth category comprises integrated service providers that serve specific regions. Their product portfolios are largely confined to particular areas, with a focus on serving those locales rather than pursuing broad geographic expansion at the expense of shallow market penetration or sporadic, low‑yield operations. Instead, they adopt a steady, methodical approach—carefully cultivating their foothold and building a solid base. Such companies may still be vertically integrated, offering not only production but also related crop‑protection services.

05

Who is in charge of selecting pesticides?

Generally speaking, when purchasing goods, the buyer calls the shots—but that doesn’t apply when farmers buy pesticides. Most farmers who go to retail outlets don’t know which product to choose; in the end, the decision rests with the retailer, who calls the shots. Of course, retailers will consult with farmers, but such formal consultations can’t change the underlying reality: it’s still the retailer who decides. Moreover, some farmers simply skip buying and applying pesticides altogether, finding it too costly and time‑consuming. Instead, they turn to professional agricultural service providers. In this case, the service provider calls the shots—farmers may not even know what specific treatments are being applied; they just pay the bill. Doesn’t that strike you as rather unfair? Farmers foot the bill yet still have no say in how things are done. In fact, we’re often even worse off than farmers when we go to the hospital: who pays for medical care and medications? Naturally, the patient does. But do doctors consult with patients? Usually not—they simply prescribe treatment, and the patient pays and takes the medication. By contrast, our retail outlets or specialized service providers sometimes do take farmers’ preferences into account.

So the question arises: since farmers pay out of pocket and are in charge of operating retail outlets and specialized service organizations, the latter may, in pursuit of their own interests, end up harming the former—after all, they are not charities and need to turn a profit, perhaps by deliberately overcharging farmers. How can we ensure that the latter do not exploit the former? The solution is straightforward. First, fully leverage market competition. If a service provider deliberately takes advantage of farmers, the farmers can simply stop doing business with that provider and seek out a new partner. This approach works only if there are enough retail outlets and specialized service organizations, competition is sufficiently robust, and the transaction costs for farmers to find a new partner remain low. For example, suppose a pesticide normally costs 15 yuan, but a local retailer insists on charging 20 yuan. If farmers know that another town’s retailer sells the same product at the standard price of 15 yuan, will they travel to that other town to buy it? Typically not, because the cost of the trip far outweighs the 5-yuan savings. Farmers will not go to another town just to save 5 yuan; accordingly, the local retailer can confidently charge an extra 5 yuan. However, if online channels for purchasing pesticides exist, farmers can shop online, which deters local retailers from arbitrarily hiking prices. In some places, for the sake of so‑called administrative convenience, authorities seek to reduce the number of retail outlets or even ban online sales of pesticides. This reflects a typical one‑dimensional mindset: fixating on a single issue while dismissing the whole picture. By the same token, socialized service organizations must also maintain adequate competition to keep service prices reasonable. Yet, when it comes to choosing which products to use, their behavior runs counter to that of retail outlets: retailers benefit from recommending expensive or heavily discounted products, whereas service organizations, given fixed service fees, stand to gain by opting for lower‑priced, lower‑cost pesticides. Second, strengthen oversight of both retail outlets and socialized service providers. Market competition alone cannot solve all problems; government regulation must complement it. Providers who recommend or directly dispense off‑label or substandard pesticides, or who issue prescriptions clearly exceeding reasonable levels, should face severe penalties. Without clear rules, order cannot be maintained; resolutely cracking down on illegal practices is essential to safeguarding fair market competition. Overall, the following principles should be upheld.

5.1 It is imperative to further encourage, support, and regulate professional social service organizations.

Older-generation farmers still harbor a strong attachment to farming and are willing to purchase and apply pesticides themselves. By contrast, the younger generation takes a more economically driven approach: they find it more cost-effective to outsource pest‑control services rather than handle it on their own. As a result, socialized, specialized service organizations hold great promise; their role in selecting appropriate pesticides and implementing scientifically sound application practices is becoming increasingly evident. It is imperative to strengthen management and oversight by establishing clear qualification requirements—particularly the need for a certain number of qualified technical personnel—and ensuring that these entities conduct their operations in compliance with relevant laws and regulations.

5.2 It is imperative to further strengthen the management of pesticide retail outlets and enhance the professional competence of their staff.

Operators who handle diagnosis, prescription, and dispensing must possess a certain level of scientific and cultural literacy. Retail outlets must conduct their operations strictly within the bounds of laws and regulations, and routine government oversight is indispensable.

5.3 Regulate and permit, subject to restrictions, the online sale of pesticides.

Regulating pesticide sales online is challenging and has, in practice, disrupted the existing distribution landscape. However, online channels offer farmers greater convenience and introduce effective competition to brick-and-mortar outlets, aligning with broader societal trends. Attempts to impose outright bans are futile; instead, we must explore practical, viable approaches to better manage and guide this evolving market.

Source: Pesticide Science and Management Issue No. 1, 2024 Author: Wu Guoqiang, Pesticide Inspection Institute, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs