An Analysis of the Current State of Pesticide Advertising Review in China and Paths for Improvement

Pesticide advertising refers to advertisements—published through media or formats such as radio, television, newspapers, and online platforms—that promote chemical synthetic or natural substances and their formulations for the prevention and control of agricultural and forestry pests, diseases, and other harmful organisms. Pesticide advertising review means that, prior to publication, advertisements for pesticides disseminated via radio, television, newspapers, online platforms, or other media must undergo a legally mandated review of their content by the competent advertising review authority; such advertisements may not be published without prior approval.

As China has transitioned from a planned economy to a socialist market economy, and particularly since the Third Plenary Session of the 18th CPC Central Committee launched the comprehensive deepening of reform, the pesticide‑advertising review system has been continuously refined, playing a crucial role in regulating the pesticide market, safeguarding ecological security, and protecting public health. Drawing on the Advertising Law of the People’s Republic of China (hereinafter “the Advertising Law”), the Regulations on the Administration of Pesticides, and related rules, and in conjunction with the Anti-Unfair Competition Law of the People’s Republic of China (hereinafter “the Anti-Unfair Competition Law”) and other relevant statutes, this paper examines the evolution of the pesticide‑advertising review regime and the challenges encountered in practice. On this basis, and drawing on pertinent past case law, it explores the appropriate scope and criteria for assessing pesticide advertisements, with the aim of providing insights for further improving China’s pesticide‑advertising review system.

 1 

The Historical Evolution of the Pesticide Advertising Review System

1.1 Establishment of the Pesticide Advertising Review System

China’s pesticide‑advertising review system can be traced back to 1982, when the former Ministry of Agriculture and four other departments jointly issued the “Regulations on Pesticide Registration” (Document No. 10 [1982] of the Agricultural Protection Department). In September of the same year, the “Detailed Rules for the Implementation of the Regulations on Pesticide Registration” (Document No. 72 [1982] of the Agricultural Department) stipulated in Article 9 that pesticides not registered may not be advertised in domestic publications, on radio, or on television—this provision marks the origin of China’s policy on pesticide advertising management. In 1987, the “Administrative Regulations on Advertising” introduced an advertising‑review system; the following year, the “Detailed Rules for the Implementation of the Administrative Regulations on Advertising” (Document No. 13 [1988] of the Administration for Industry and Commerce) provided in Article 13(9) that “advertisements for pesticides must submit a ‘Pesticide Advertising Approval Form’ approved by the drug‑inspection or plant‑protection department of the provincial, autonomous‑region, or municipality‑directly‑under‑the‑Central‑Government agricultural, animal husbandry, and fishery administration.” In 1994, the “Advertising Law” formally established, for the first time in statutory form, a review system for pesticide advertisements. In 1995, the State Administration for Industry and Commerce promulgated the “Standards for the Review of Pesticide Advertisements” (Order No. 28) and, in conjunction with the Ministry of Agriculture, issued the “Measures for the Review of Pesticide Advertisements” (Order No. 30), which prescribed that pesticide advertisements be reviewed at both the ministerial and provincial levels by the relevant agricultural authorities. In 1997, Article 33 of the “Regulations on the Administration of Pesticides” stipulated: “Pesticides that have not been registered shall be prohibited from being advertised through publication, broadcast, placement, or posting. The content of pesticide advertisements must be consistent with the registered information and shall be subject to review in accordance with the Advertising Law and other relevant national regulations governing pesticide advertising.” Collectively, these laws and regulations have established the framework of the pesticide‑advertising review system.

1.2 Revision and Improvement of the Pesticide Advertising Review System

In 1998, Order No. 88 of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce and the Ministry of Agriculture revised the “Measures for the Examination of Pesticide Advertisements,” thereby maintaining the practice of having pesticide advertisements reviewed at both the ministerial and provincial levels. In 2012, the “Decision of the State Council on the Sixth Batch of Cancellation and Adjustment of Administrative Approval Items” (Guofa [2012] No. 52) stipulated that the Ministry of Agriculture would no longer conduct approval of pesticide advertisements, instead delegating such authority to the agricultural administrative departments of the people’s governments at the provincial level. The 2015 amendment to the Advertising Law supplemented and refined the guidelines governing pesticide advertising, while continuing to implement the pesticide advertisement review system. In 2015, Order No. 81 of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce promulgated the “Standards for the Examination and Publication of Pesticide Advertisements,” which replaced the “Standards for the Examination of Pesticide Advertisements” previously issued under Order No. 28 of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce in 1995. On October 23, 2020, Order No. 31 of the State Administration for Market Regulation announced the “Decision of the State Administration for Market Regulation on Amending Certain Regulations,” revising the title of the “Standards for the Examination and Publication of Pesticide Advertisements” to “Regulations on the Examination and Publication of Pesticide Advertisements.” During the 2017 revision of the “Regulations on the Administration of Pesticides,” the relevant provisions pertaining to pesticide advertising were deleted. To further advance the “delegation, regulation, and service” reform, the State Administration for Industry and Commerce conducted a review of its currently effective administrative regulations; on October 27, 2017, Order No. 92 of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce repealed the “Measures for the Examination of Pesticide Advertisements” (Order No. 28).

In 2018 and 2021, the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress amended the Advertising Law on two occasions, primarily making textual revisions to align with the requirements of institutional reform. During the 2021 revision of the Advertising Law, a proposal was put forward to abolish the review system for pesticide advertisements. In its report on the deliberation results of the “Draft Amendment to Nine Laws, Including the Road Traffic Safety Law of the People’s Republic of China,” the Constitution and Laws Committee of the National People’s Congress noted: “Some members of the Standing Committee suggested that, given the impact of pesticides and veterinary drugs on the ecosystem and public health and safety, in order to better safeguard food and drug safety, the relevant provisions currently set forth in the Advertising Law should be retained. After careful consideration, the Constitution and Laws Committee recommends adopting this view.”

The Advertising Law continues to maintain the advertising review system for pesticides and veterinary drugs. To regulate online advertising practices, promote the sound development of the online advertising industry, and safeguard consumer rights, the Measures for the Administration of Internet Advertising have been officially implemented as of May 1, 2023.

In summary, the Advertising Law, the State Council’s Decision on the Sixth Batch of Administrative Approval Items to Be Canceled or Adjusted (Guofa [2012] No. 52), the Regulations on the Examination and Publication of Pesticide Advertisements, and the Measures for the Administration of Internet Advertising together constitute the current framework of China’s pesticide‑advertising review system. The historical evolution of China’s pesticide‑advertising review system is illustrated in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Historical Evolution of China’s Pesticide Advertising Review System

 2 

The main provisions of laws, administrative regulations, and rules concerning the administration of pesticide advertising.

The Advertising Law, the State Council’s Decision on the Sixth Batch of Canceled and Adjusted Administrative Approval Items (Guofa [2012] No. 52), the Regulations on the Examination and Publication of Pesticide Advertisements, and the Measures for the Administration of Internet Advertising, among other relevant provisions, set forth clear requirements for the review of pesticide advertisements (see Table 1). Furthermore, the provisions of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law concerning commercial promotion and advertising must also be observed.

Table 1: Laws, Administrative Regulations (Decisions), and Rules

 3 

Grasping the Standards for Reviewing Pesticide Advertisements

3.1 General Principles to Be Followed in Advertising Review

Article 3 of the Advertising Law stipulates that advertisements shall be truthful and lawful, while Article 9 sets forth ten prohibited categories of content; these provisions apply to all types of advertising, including that for pesticides. Under Article 9(3) of the Advertising Law, advertisements may not use terms such as “national-level,” “highest-grade,” or “best.” Similar expressions—including “national-level,” “world-class,” “highest-grade,” “best,” “number one,” “unique,” “the best,” “top-tier,” “cutting-edge technology,” “absolute,” “newest,” “most advanced,” “leading brand,” “gold medal,” and other absolutist language—are often misleading and thus expressly prohibited. Advertisements must also comply with Article 9 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, which prohibits business operators from using advertising to make false or misleading representations.

3.2 Special Principles to Be Followed in the Review of Pesticide Advertisements

Various laws, regulations, and administrative rules—including the Advertising Law, the Regulations on the Administration of Pesticides, and the Provisions on the Examination and Publication of Pesticide Advertisements—contain detailed prohibitive provisions governing the regulation of pesticide advertising. Article 21 of the Advertising Law and Article 5 of the Provisions on the Examination and Publication of Pesticide Advertisements are entirely consistent; a brief summary of the criteria for applying these provisions is set out below:

3.2.1 Regarding Assertions or Guarantees Concerning Efficacy and Safety

In general, registered pesticide products comply with national regulations on environmental protection, residue limits, and human health; however, this does not permit the use in product advertising of explicit or implied claims such as “safe,” “ecological,” “zero residue,” or “natural ingredients.” Nor is it appropriate to employ misleading terms like “safety‑type” or “environmentally friendly,” or to make unsubstantiated assertions about special efficacy, non‑toxicity, or all‑natural origins. For example, a biotechnology company in Shenyang, Liaoning, posted an advertisement for its “Beineng Brand Insecticidal Emulsion” on its online store. The ad contained unlawful efficacy claims, such as “specializing in the control of 140 pest species, focusing on pests affecting flowers, fruits, and vegetables, eliminating them all with a single spray,” thereby violating Article 21 of the Advertising Law. Similarly, an environmental technology company in Dalian published a pesticide‑related advertisement for a “cockroach‑killing gel bait” on its Taobao page, which included safety‑related assertions or guarantees, such as “safer than table salt” and “LD50 test results show safety superior to that of table salt (sodium chloride, NaCl).” As a result, the Market Supervision Administration of Lüshunkou District, Dalian, imposed administrative penalties on the company.

3.2.2 Making recommendations or providing endorsements in the name of or using the image of professionals or users.

It should be noted that, on today’s online platforms and in new-media livestreaming sales, the practice of farmers personally sharing their experiences with medication is in violation of regulations.

3.2.3 Approved pesticide labels shall serve as an important basis for the review of pesticide advertisements.

Article 11 of the Advertising Law stipulates that if the matters covered by an advertisement require administrative approval, such advertising must be consistent with the content of the approval. The review of pesticide advertisements involves pesticide registration approval, and the examination of pesticide labels constitutes an essential component of that approval process. Relevant provisions in the Regulations on the Administration of Pesticides and the Measures for the Administration of Pesticide Labels and Instructions must also be strictly implemented in the course of pesticide‑advertising review. During the review process, the approved and publicly disclosed pesticide label shall serve as the basis for examining such elements as the scope of use, methods and dosages of application, technical requirements for use, and precautions, thereby ensuring the accuracy and compliance of the advertising information.

3.2.4 Other Situations Requiring Attention

First, pesticide advertisements that expand the scope of use—by listing additional registered crops or target pests and diseases—may mislead users and could also constitute a violation of Article 10 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, which prohibits “using advertisements or other means to make false or misleading representations regarding the quality, composition, performance, intended uses, manufacturer, shelf life, place of origin, or other attributes of a product.” Second, in accordance with Article 34(2) of the Measures for the Administration of Pesticide Labels and Instructions, advertisements for public‑health pesticides must not include any text, symbols, or graphics that refer to special populations such as children, pregnant women, or individuals with allergies. Third, when pesticide advertisements contain link identifiers—such as web links or QR codes—the content of those linked pages must also be subject to review.

 4  

Current Status and Existing Issues in the Review of Pesticide Advertisements

In recent years, China’s regulatory framework for pesticide advertising has undergone significant reforms. In 2012, the authority to approve pesticide advertisements was devolved to the agricultural administrative departments of provincial people’s governments; in 2015, the revised Advertising Law came into effect; in 2017, the Measures for the Examination of Pesticide Advertisements were repealed; in 2020, the Regulations on the Examination and Publication of Pesticide Advertisements were promulgated; and in 2023, the Measures for the Administration of Internet Advertising were issued and implemented, marking the entry of pesticide‑advertising regulation into a new phase. Adaptation to the online environment, the decentralization of approval powers, and the acceleration of review timelines have become key features of this institutional evolution. However, as administrative approval processes become increasingly standardized and legal frameworks are further refined, and as internet‑based and new‑media advertising continue to flourish, pesticide‑advertising regulation now faces emerging challenges.

4.1 The capacity for reviewing and regulating pesticide advertisements remains in need of improvement.

The shortage of personnel at advertising review agencies is particularly acute; provincial-level agricultural and rural affairs departments tasked with reviewing pesticide advertisements typically assign only one or two staff members to this duty. In today’s digital age, the cost of publishing pesticide ads has declined, update cycles have accelerated, and both the volume of advertisements and their length have surged. During practical review work, the author has repeatedly encountered pesticide‑advertising applications that include designs for dozens of products, totaling over a hundred pages of ad content—each accompanied by a “Pesticide Advertising Review Form.” Without reforming the review system and methods, the sheer workload is readily apparent. Although some provinces—such as Guangdong and Jiangxi—have devolved review authority to city‑ or county‑level agencies, and others have delegated review functions to market‑regulation authorities, thereby alleviating some of the pressure, these measures still fall short in the face of an era characterized by an overwhelming flood of advertising information. Moreover, inconsistencies persist in interpreting and applying review standards: for instance, certain claims such as “highly effective” or “fast‑acting” may be permissible in Province A but deemed non‑compliant in Province B.

4.2 Challenges in the Regulation of New Media and Digital Platforms

Digital platforms such as WeChat, Taobao, Douyin, Kuaishou, and Pinduoduo have become both the focal points and the most challenging areas for regulating pesticide advertising. It is widespread for personal accounts to engage in pesticide sales under the guise of “agricultural technology promotion,” with violations—including exaggerated claims about pesticide efficacy and overextension of their intended uses—occurring all too frequently. Given these platforms’ massive user bases and the rapid dissemination of information, they pose significant challenges to regulatory authorities.

4.3 Ineffective Crackdown on Illegal Pesticide Advertisements

The forms of pesticide advertising are becoming increasingly diverse, leading to a steady rise in monitoring and enforcement costs. Approved pesticide advertisements lack a unified public‑access query platform, and the functions of advertising review and violation enforcement are divided between the agriculture and rural affairs authorities and the market regulation authorities, resulting in an inability to effectively integrate regulatory resources. Moreover, the social oversight mechanism is underdeveloped, making it difficult to forge comprehensive, multi‑level collaborative supervision.

 5 

Several Recommendations for Improving the Pesticide Advertising Review System

At present, traditional media advertising for pesticides is steadily declining, while new-media platforms and emerging business models are giving rise to an ever‑expanding array of pesticide advertising formats. Consequently, the existing regulatory framework for pesticide advertising requires greater attention and reform to meet the demands of the new era.

5.1 Appropriately Adjust the Scope of Pesticide Advertising Review

The author believes that, by drawing on the practices of pharmaceutical advertising review, the scope of pesticide‑advertising review could be appropriately adjusted. For example, Article 2 of the Measures for the Review of Pharmaceutical Advertisements stipulates: “Over-the-counter drugs that advertise only their names (including both the generic name and the trade name), or prescription drugs that, in designated medical and pharmaceutical professional publications, advertise only their names (including both the generic name and the trade name), are exempt from review.” By analogy, it is recommended that, in specialized publications on plant protection and pesticides, advertisements that promote only the names of pesticides—comprising both the generic name and the trademark—should be excluded from the scope of pesticide‑advertising review.

5.2 Clarification of the Validity Period for Pesticide Advertising Review

The Measures for the Examination of Pesticide Advertisements previously set the validity period of pesticide advertisements at one year. However, with the repeal of these Measures, no explicit time limit is now prescribed for the validity of pesticide advertising reviews. It is recommended that the validity period of an advertisement be calculated based on the remaining term of the pesticide product’s registration certificate. For example, if a pesticide registration certificate has 2 years and 5 months remaining, the advertisement should be approved with a validity period of 2 years and 5 months. If the advertisement does not refer to a specific product, its validity period may be extended further, thereby facilitating market entities and reducing the administrative burden of review and approval.

5.3 Strengthening the Application of Big Data and Artificial Intelligence Technologies in Pesticide Advertising Regulation

With the rapid development of the digital economy, traditional manual regulatory approaches can no longer keep pace with the massive volume of online advertising. It is recommended to deepen the application of big data and artificial intelligence technologies in the oversight of pesticide advertising, strengthen the accountability of online advertising platforms, and establish an intelligent regulatory framework. Specifically, internet platform operators should earnestly fulfill their principal responsibilities, leverage their technological advantages, and explore innovative regulatory measures. For example, by deploying deep-learning–based natural language processing (NLP) models, they could build intelligent systems for identifying pesticide advertisements, enabling automated detection of non‑compliant ads and real-time alerts, thereby shifting regulatory practices from reactive responses to proactive prevention. Regulatory authorities and platform enterprises could establish data‑sharing mechanisms to jointly refine the smart regulatory system, while also educating the public to accurately identify illegal advertisements, thus fostering a multi‑stakeholder governance model that integrates government oversight, platform self‑regulation, and social monitoring.

Source: Pesticide Science and Management - CNKI