The Past, Present, and Future of Pesticides

The history of pesticide development in China is a story of vigorous progress driven by reform and opening-up, innovation, market orientation, and supportive policies. Over more than 70 years since the founding of the People’s Republic of China, China has emerged as the world’s leading producer and exporter of pesticides.

Pesticide production capacity has evolved through stages of reliance on imports, a balance between supply and demand, and ultimately an export‑oriented trajectory. Over time, this capacity has grown from extremely weak to a comprehensive system encompassing active‑ingredient manufacturing, formulation processing, and the supply of raw materials and intermediates. Production enterprises have shifted from small, fragmented operations toward large‑scale, intensive consolidation. The number of pesticide firms has increased, while their size has expanded; through ongoing mergers and reorganizations, the share of large, leading companies has risen markedly. Production technologies have advanced from rudimentary formulation processing to end‑to‑end, full‑chain capabilities. In the early days, pesticide manufacturing was concentrated on highly toxic products with few synthetic steps and simple processes, whereas categories requiring sophisticated equipment, long process chains, and complex syntheses were largely dependent on imports. With advances in science and technology and improvements in manufacturing standards, China now produces active ingredients covering virtually all major pesticide classes, and formulation processing has become environmentally friendly, functionally tailored, and target‑specific. The production chain has transitioned from being constrained by foreign bottlenecks to achieving full controllability across the entire value chain. Prior to the year 2000, high‑end pesticide intermediates—such as pyridine, used in the manufacture of key commodities like paraquat, diquat, and imidacloprid—were predominantly imported from the United States and Japan, severely limiting domestic active‑ingredient production. Today, China’s pyridine capacity accounts for more than 80% of the global total, breaking the multinational corporations’ monopoly on these critical high‑end intermediates. Moreover, leveraging the country’s complete chemical industry chain, overall production capacity has been comprehensively upgraded, driving the extension of the industrial value chain—from simply “selling individual products” to “providing crop‑specific solutions.”

The structure of pesticide varieties has evolved from a reliance on highly toxic, persistent compounds to one characterized by high efficacy and low risk. With the banning of organomercury compounds, BHC, DDT, as well as highly toxic organophosphates and carbamate pesticides, the pesticide portfolio has continued to improve, effectively meeting the demands of modern agricultural production. In terms of pesticide types, the number of registered biopesticides has grown steadily in recent years; in some years, newly registered biopesticides accounted for as much as 50% of all new pesticide registrations. Regarding toxicity, highly toxic chemical pesticides have largely been phased out, while low‑toxicity and virtually non‑toxic products now dominate, representing over 85% of registered formulations. As for formulation types, the share of efficient, safe, water‑based pesticides has increased markedly, and environmentally friendly formulations are gradually becoming the predominant format.

Pesticide research and development has undergone a transformative evolution, shifting from import‑based imitation to independent innovation. The state has mobilized efforts across science and technology, education, and talent cultivation to steadily advance indigenous pesticide innovation. Education in the field of pesticides and related workforce training have been continuously strengthened. Since the Tenth Five-Year Plan period, a series of national and provincial‑level pesticide R&D platforms and innovation alliances have been established, with successive approvals for national science and technology projects and steadily increasing investment in pesticide discovery and development. In the realm of new pesticides, China has cumulatively developed nearly 60 proprietary pesticide varieties, laying the groundwork for a domestically tailored R&D pathway and becoming one of the few countries worldwide with genuine capacity for original pesticide innovation. On the front of novel manufacturing processes, through rigorous process upgrades and the phasing out of outdated equipment, many enterprises have achieved automation, continuous operation, and intelligent production. As for emerging technologies, innovations such as microcapsule formulations and nano‑delivery systems have endowed pesticide products with controlled‑release, sustained‑release, and precision‑targeted delivery capabilities, promoting environmentally friendly and highly efficient pesticide use. Meanwhile, the widespread adoption of agricultural drones has boosted operational efficiency by more than thirtyfold compared with manual methods.

Pesticide management has evolved through stages of legalization, scientification, and standardization. Throughout these phases, it has remained closely aligned with national strategies and the needs of agricultural production, actively adapting its guiding principles and continuously pursuing innovative development. From 1949 to 1997, pesticide administration gradually transitioned toward law-based governance, ensuring that regulatory frameworks were firmly in place. During this period, supply was limited, product quality was difficult to guarantee, and the overarching policy was “ensure availability to meet basic needs.” Drawing on international practices, China introduced a pesticide registration system and enacted the Regulations on Pesticide Administration. From 1998 to 2017, the focus shifted to risk assessment, with increasingly stringent safety controls. Food safety and environmental risks associated with pesticides became major societal concerns, prompting a policy orientation of “use safe products to ensure safety” and strengthening risk prevention and control measures. Since 2018, pesticide management has moved toward an agriculture‑oriented green agenda, emphasizing more scientific use. In this phase, reducing pesticide inputs while enhancing efficacy has emerged as the central priority, guided by the principle of “use effective products to protect the ecosystem.” A phased phase-out of the remaining ten highly toxic pesticides has been implemented, while efforts have steadily increased the efficiency of pesticide application in crop production, thereby advancing green and sustainable development.

International exchanges in the pesticide sector have evolved through stages of passive participation, proactive engagement, and service to the industry. In the course of international cooperation, the pesticide industry has transitioned from a “rule‑taker” to a “system co‑builder,” establishing a multi‑dimensional cooperative framework characterized by compliance commitment, mutual recognition of standards, and coordinated production capacity. On the front of international compliance, China, as a party to conventions such as the Rotterdam Convention, actively engages in global affairs, leading the drafting of international guidelines and standards, including the Guideline on Online Sales of Pesticides. Grounded in national realities, China has successfully advocated for the delayed inclusion of key domestic specialties—such as chlorpyrifos and paraquat—in international conventions, thereby safeguarding national interests. In the realm of international standards, since assuming the chairmanship of the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues (CCPR) in 2006, China has presided over the adoption of 5,722 international maximum residue limit standards and spearheaded the development of international standards for specialty crops like tea, ginseng, and goji berries. In terms of international trade, China has strengthened technical exchanges on pesticide management with major trading partners, signing memoranda of understanding with 11 countries, including Brazil, and establishing long‑term liaison mechanisms with major importers such as Thailand and Turkey. Furthermore, China has promoted its pesticide‑management expertise to Belt and Road partner countries, jointly reinforcing export‑control measures, curbing illicit trade, and effectively facilitating the global expansion of Chinese pesticide products.

At present, the agrochemical industry is at a juncture where the dual tasks of ensuring supply and stabilizing the market overlap with the imperative of green transformation. The tension between rigid demand and sustainable development is intensifying, making it urgently necessary to accelerate efforts to address the following challenges in order to achieve high-quality development.

The agrochemical industry is experiencing “involutionary” competition. As China’s agrochemical sector has expanded rapidly, issues such as overcapacity, product homogenization, and declining profitability have become increasingly apparent. In 2024, the nation’s total agrochemical production capacity stood at 3.45 million tons, yet capacity utilization was only 66%, nearly 10 percentage points below the national average for large-scale industrial enterprises that year. Moreover, a significant number of registered agrochemical products in China are highly similar, with a high proportion consisting of outdated formulations, placing the industry at the lower end of the value chain. This cyclical overcapacity has compelled companies to slash prices and engage in cutthroat competition in pursuit of limited market share, resulting in a broad decline in industry-wide profits.

Innovation in science and technology lacks sufficient momentum. The early stages of developing new agrochemicals require substantial investment, and without a certain level of global market share, it is difficult to recoup costs and achieve profitability. At present, China has relatively few multinational agrochemical companies; existing products yield modest profits, and individual firms allocate insufficient resources to R&D. Small and medium-sized agrochemical enterprises account for more than half of the sector; most of these firms produce only one or two products, serving local markets and barely meeting their revenue needs, thus lacking the incentive to pursue technological innovation.

The misuse and overuse of pesticides are widespread. For persistent, highly resistant, and difficult-to-control pests and diseases, farmers often rely on experience when selecting chemicals, frequently increasing application rates, boosting the number of applications, and switching to different crops. Drone‑based pesticide application lacks registered formulations tailored to this method; in practice, growers typically follow conventional spray‑volume guidelines, leading to imprecise liquid‑application rates and occasional phytotoxicity. Moreover, legal pesticide options for specialty minor crops remain insufficiently available, prompting farmers to make hasty, unregulated choices and apply products outside their approved uses.

Regulatory challenges are mounting. Online pesticide sales are highly flexible yet difficult to oversee; some e‑commerce operators lack the requisite business licenses and the technical expertise to provide proper guidance on pest and disease management, leading to persistent violations involving the sale of counterfeit or substandard products. Meanwhile, offline “hustle groups” peddling agricultural inputs operate covertly and proliferate, with itinerant vendors often adopting a hit‑and‑run approach to peddle fake or inferior pesticides, making detection, evidence collection, and enforcement particularly arduous. Moreover, the illicit adulteration of pesticides takes myriad forms, leaving regulators short of robust, scientifically grounded methods to effectively monitor and address such practices.

The stigmatization of pesticides has yet to undergo a fundamental shift. For some time now, certain members of the public have misinterpreted pesticide safety, equating pesticides indiscriminately with “toxic and harmful substances” and wrongly assuming that any agricultural product treated with pesticides is unsafe. They also fail to grasp the scientific rationale behind the Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) stipulated in China’s national food‑safety maximum residue limits for pesticides (GB 2763). Even worse, some individuals, seeking attention and traffic, deliberately exaggerate pesticide residues and chemical risks, intentionally stoking public fear.

To become a global leader in the agrochemical industry, we will adhere to the fundamental principles of green development, high-quality development, and innovative development, and build a modern agrochemical industrial system.

Technology empowers and drives innovation in the pesticide sector. Industry‑wide policies to encourage innovation have been introduced, clarifying the essence of new‑type productive forces in the pesticide industry and identifying priority areas for support, thereby guiding the direction of innovation. Protection for new pesticides has been strengthened, and policies governing the transfer of pesticide registration data have been refined, providing robust backing for the development of novel pesticide formulations. Capacity for innovation has been bolstered through the establishment of a number of pesticide innovation engineering centers and key laboratories, fostering cross‑disciplinary, cross‑sectoral, and cross‑industry collaboration. Mechanisms for cultivating, attracting, deploying, and ensuring the rational mobility of talent in the pesticide field have also been improved. Innovation mechanisms have been further refined by promoting deep integration among industry, academia, and research institutions, encouraging enterprises to lead the formation of pesticide‑related science‑and‑technology innovation consortia, and reinforcing joint efforts to tackle core technologies. An information and technology exchange platform for the industry has been established. Service channels and quality have been expanded by enhancing corporate advisory services and exploring the implementation of a service model characterized by “one product, one tailored strategy; early engagement; coordinated R&D and review; and end-to-end guidance,” thereby supporting the registration of innovative pesticides.

Adjust the industrial structure and promote quality upgrades. Develop a strategic plan for the spatial layout of the agrochemical industry, identifying key industrial parks and specific product categories best suited to local natural conditions and the sector’s unique characteristics. Integrate industry resources, encourage mergers, restructurings, and group‑based development, and support enterprises in expanding upstream and downstream, concentrating efforts on cultivating a number of internationally competitive leading agrochemical firms. Regulate agrochemical production capacity by conducting global demand assessments and capacity monitoring for major active ingredients, and promptly revising the Guidance Catalogue for Industrial Structure Adjustment to curb overcapacity and “involutionary” competition at the source. Optimize the product mix by monitoring the efficacy and safety of existing agrochemicals, issuing early‑warning signals, and guiding companies to exercise caution when seeking registration for new products. Strengthen the post‑registration evaluation system for agrochemicals, ensuring the timely phase‑out of high‑risk or low‑efficiency formulations.

Professional services to support the safe and rational use of pesticides. A sound legal framework has been established, with efforts underway to draft and revise the Plant Protection Law and the Regulations on Pesticide Administration, and to implement qualification‑based management systems for personnel engaged in pesticide sales, specialized pest control, and related activities. A prescription‑based pesticide‑use system has been introduced to standardize disease and pest diagnosis and treatment prescriptions, clearly defining legal responsibilities. Pesticide management has been refined: the distribution network has been optimized to better align with agricultural production patterns; rules governing online pesticide sales have been formulated, and a negative list for such activities has been established. Specialized pest‑control services have been standardized through the development of codes of conduct for organizations providing professional crop‑protection services, thereby mitigating pesticide‑use risks at the source. Demonstration initiatives are being carried out, promoting specialized pest control and precision application in major grain‑producing regions and large‑scale fruit and vegetable growing areas. Mechanisms for managing pesticide‑packaging waste have been improved, with producers and operators assuming primary responsibility for recycling such waste, while local authorities are guided to establish robust three‑tiered collection systems at the county, township, and village levels, thus safeguarding the ecological environment.

Innovating science communication to serve a better life. We are pioneering new formats for science outreach, exploring ways to bring pesticide‑related knowledge into schools and classrooms, and achieving deep integration between online and offline educational campaigns to enhance their impact. To elevate the effectiveness of science communication, we have established the National Digital Pesticide Science Museum—a comprehensive platform that combines public education on pesticides, technological demonstrations, and interactive experiences. We have also developed an augmented reality (AR)–based pesticide‑application simulation training system to improve the adoption and reach of sound application practices. In addition, we are strengthening positive publicity by proactively highlighting advances in pesticide research, smart manufacturing, and application technologies, thereby conveying the sector’s constructive contributions, disseminating scientific knowledge, and sharing compelling stories about pesticides. At the same time, we remain vigilant in addressing public opinion and promptly and effectively responding to societal concerns.

Strengthen regulation to ensure high-quality industrial development. Enhance technical support capabilities by establishing the National Pesticide Risk Monitoring Center and a big-data‑based pesticide regulatory service platform, enabling full‑lifecycle traceability management of pesticides. Reinforce market oversight by refining the random‑inspection mechanism for pesticide products, compiling lists of enterprises and products with significant compliance issues, implementing targeted supervision, and conducting special inspection campaigns to rigorously crack down on illegal and criminal activities. Intensify international exchanges and cooperation by advancing “Belt and Road”‑related pesticide diplomacy, promoting China’s pesticide‑management model, expanding bilateral and multilateral agreements, and facilitating international trade in pesticides and agricultural products. Build an international pool of talent and expertise, leveraging the strengths of platforms such as the CCPR to further advance the internationalization of China’s pesticide standards and enhance its global influence.

The high-quality development of the agrochemical industry is a vital pillar of agricultural modernization in the new era and a solid guarantee for ensuring food security and meeting the people’s aspirations for a better life. Through sustained efforts, we have every reason to be confident that China will become a global leader in the agrochemical sector, and that agrochemicals will continue to make even greater contributions to safeguarding national food security, promoting sustainable agricultural development, and enhancing the well-being of the people.

 

Source: Farmers’ Daily

Editor of this issue: Peng Leyao

This issue was reviewed by Zhai Yiting.

Executive Producer: Zheng Hongyan