Review and Summarize Recent Changes in China’s Pesticide Registration Management

Pesticides are a special category of commodities and an indispensable input for agricultural production. However, while they effectively control diseases, pests, weeds, and rodent damage, they can also pose significant risks. Consequently, major economies worldwide have established dedicated regulatory agencies and clear, well-defined management systems for pesticides. As the cornerstone of pesticide regulation, pesticide registration has long been one of the core tools used by these economies to oversee the sector. China has consistently attached great importance to pesticide registration and management, developing a comprehensive regulatory framework that encompasses institutional development, policy formulation, technical implementation, and market oversight. In particular, since the 2017 revision of the Regulations on Pesticide Management and the promulgation of five accompanying rules, China’s pesticide registration and management system has entered a phase of rapid advancement, ushering in a new era. As a result, China now leads the world—both in terms of institutional robustness and in the scientific rigor, comprehensiveness, and depth of its registration and oversight processes—thereby providing strong safeguards for bountiful harvests, food security, human and animal health, and environmental protection.

From a macro perspective

In 2017, the State Council promulgated the revised Regulations on the Administration of Pesticides. Subsequently, the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs issued five accompanying regulations to implement these provisions, thereby establishing a basic regulatory framework consisting of “one law plus five regulations.” This framework has laid a solid institutional foundation for the lawful management of pesticides in China. Since the implementation of this “one law plus five regulations” system, pesticide registration management has undergone a series of transformations—moving from ambiguity to clarity, from fragmentation to systematic organization, and from being poorly understood to gaining broad support. Today, following five years of addressing existing backlogs, all products that were initiated for registration by pesticide companies prior to the 2017 revision of the Regulations have been fully processed, and pesticide registration policy has smoothly transitioned into a new phase. In recent years, pesticide registration management has witnessed numerous new developments, which continue to improve, primarily manifested as:

Pesticide registration management is steadily advancing along a path of greater fairness, impartiality, and transparency.

The core functions of pesticide registration management include pesticide registration review and approval, accreditation of pesticide registration testing institutions, renewal approval for pesticide registrations, and approval of registration amendments. In addition, this regulatory framework encompasses the filing of pesticide registration labels, changes to pesticide product registration certificates, and issuance of import‑export release notices. From the perspective of fairness, significant and widely welcomed reforms have been implemented. Today, all aspects of pesticide registration management are governed by clear, well‑defined regulations and standardized review and evaluation criteria, effectively minimizing human interference in decision‑making and ensuring that identical products and comparable assessment items generally receive consistent outcomes. From the standpoint of impartiality, an administrative approach that treats all registrants equally—applying uniform standards across the board—has greatly inspired the industry. The stakeholders involved in pesticide registration management include individuals, public institutions, pesticide manufacturers, foreign‑trade enterprises, registration service providers, and testing organizations; within the legal framework, these entities are equal, with no distinctions based on hierarchy, priority, or favoritism. Over recent years, as the nation has advanced the modernization of its governance system and capabilities, those subject to pesticide registration management have keenly observed rapid progress toward uniform regulations, equal treatment, and equal opportunities. This transformation has laid a solid foundation for pooling the strengths of all stakeholders and driving the overall advancement and high‑quality development of China’s pesticide industry. From the perspective of transparency, remarkable strides have been made in making policies, outcomes, and key information publicly available. Here, we emphasize openness from three angles: (1) In terms of breadth, in the past, only pesticide registration approval information was disclosed, with very limited transparency regarding the processes and results of other registration‑related matters. Today, regularly published items include, but are not limited to, pesticide registration approvals, accreditation of testing institutions, renewal approvals, amendment approvals, label filings, and changes to product registration certificates. Such comprehensive disclosure virtually covers every facet of pesticide registration management, with an unprecedented scope and level of detail. (2) In terms of depth, previously, pesticide registration management disclosed only the conclusions of approval decisions, typically including only company names, product details, and application‑acceptance information. Since 2020, public announcements have expanded to encompass additional elements such as label information, providing broader visibility into the substance of registration decisions. This more extensive disclosure not only conserves administrative resources but also simplifies procedures for applicant companies and enhances convenience for end‑users, yielding multiple benefits. (3) In terms of handling objections, parties may submit feedback via telephone, fax, email, or other channels. Management authorities assign dedicated personnel to promptly address such concerns, establishing smooth communication channels between government bodies and businesses. Fairness, impartiality, and transparency are three cornerstone principles of modern administrative procedures. The advancements achieved in these three dimensions within China’s pesticide registration system are evident and widely recognized, earning high praise from the industry and delivering substantial impetus to the sector’s overall progress.

Policies and regulations governing pesticide registration continue to evolve in a more scientific, rational, clear, and transparent direction.

Having a legal basis is the foundation for the smooth implementation of all management activities. The issuance of “one law plus five regulations” has established the basic framework for pesticide management. From a developmental perspective, no policy or regulation is ever entirely comprehensive, fully feasible, or immutable; accordingly, the provisions on pesticide registration and management within this framework have consistently evolved in step with industry trends, moving toward greater scientific rigor, rationality, clarity, and transparency. For example: (1) To standardize the registration of pesticide products containing metalaxyl‑M mixtures, the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs issued Announcement No. 275 on April 27, 2020, stipulating administrative measures for mixtures registered solely for the control of rice bakanae disease or damping-off when used for seed treatment or nursery spraying. (2) In order to implement the State Council’s “delegation, regulation, and service” reform spirit, promote pesticide export trade, and optimize the business environment, the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs issued Announcement No. 269 on June 8, 2020, clarifying the requirements for registering pesticides designated exclusively for export. (3) To regulate the filing of pesticide registration trials, the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs issued Announcement No. 345 on October 16, 2020, specifying procedures for filing such trials and addressing cases where a product contains more than three active ingredients (or where the active ingredients and formulation are identical but the ratios exceed three). (4) To further standardize the naming of active ingredients in products related to veratrine and liriopesin, the Pesticide Management Division of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs issued a notice on March 20, 2021, outlining the nomenclature for these substances. (5) To further regulate the use of thifluzamide on rice, the Pesticide Management Division successively released Pesticide Registration Information Issues Nos. 32 (2021), 2 (2022), 16 (2022), and 22 (2022), emphasizing that thifluzamide exhibits weak activity against rice false smut and blast pathogens and offers poor efficacy, thus retaining its registration only for controlling rice sheath blight. Moreover, Issue No. 32 explicitly stated that six domestically produced formulations containing chlorimuron‑ethyl, 2,4‑D butyl ester, and paraquat are no longer permitted for domestic use and must be reclassified as exclusively export‑only registered products. (6) To further strengthen the rule of law in agriculture and rural areas, the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs issued Order No. 1 of 2022 on January 7, 2022, formally abolishing the requirement for a permit to submit applications for new pesticide registration trials. (7) To thoroughly implement the State Council’s “delegation, regulation, and service” reform spirit, the Pesticide Management Division issued a letter on April 8, 2022, soliciting public comments on proposed amendments to five departmental regulations and one normative document. (8) To further advance quality and efficiency improvements in pesticide products and address issues related to toxicological data required for the registration of newly approved pesticides intended exclusively for export, the Pesticide Management Division issued Pesticide Registration Information Issue No. 21 on July 29, 2022, stipulating that, except for the control of soilborne diseases or subterranean pests, granular formulations used to treat aboveground pests and diseases via soil application will generally not be approved. For newly registered pesticides intended exclusively for export, toxicological data may be submitted from official sources such as JMPR, EFSA, or USEPA; if such official data cannot be provided, a toxicological test report must be submitted. The release of this series of pesticide registration management documents—designed to supplement, adjust, correct, and solicit feedback—fully demonstrates the state’s determination and resolve to elevate pesticide management to a higher level, while also helping pesticide manufacturers minimize risks throughout the product registration process.

The practices for pesticide registration management are more meticulous, standardized, rigorous, and convenient.

Enhancing the efficiency of administrative services and supporting industry development is one of the core objectives of pesticide management. China’s pesticide registration system has consistently been aligned with this goal, yielding significant social benefits. On June 8, 2020, the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs issued Announcement No. 269, introducing specific regulations on the registration and management of export‑only pesticides not intended for use within China. This measure has provided substantial convenience and tangible policy support to China’s numerous export‑oriented pesticide manufacturers, enabling many enterprises to reap considerable policy dividends. Starting in 2021, during the pesticide registration approval process, China has strictly curtailed the practice of submitting supplementary documentation mid‑procedure, while permitting applicants to withdraw their registration dossiers at any stage. This provision has helped foster a clean and transparent environment for pesticide registration and approval, safeguarded the rights of applicants, and generated far-reaching impacts. On March 25, 2022, the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs issued Announcement No. 542, “Requirements for Registration Dossiers of Target Herbicides Used on Genetically Modified Herbicide‑Tolerant Crops,” thereby establishing a formal regulatory framework for the registration of agrochemicals used on GM crops—a major milestone in the evolution of China’s pesticide registration system. The issuance of this announcement not only addresses the longstanding shortage of approved products for GM crops but also opens up broad opportunities for Chinese pesticide manufacturers to compete on the international stage.

Comprehensively implement pesticide risk management and control, driving China’s pesticide industry toward green, high-quality development.

The people’s aspiration for a better life is enduring. Pesticides are closely linked to bountiful harvests, food security, human and animal health, and environmental safety; accordingly, the principles of green development, coordinated development, and sustainable development must be thoroughly integrated into the pesticide sector. At the heart of pesticide registration and approval lie two key considerations: efficacy and safety. Building on years of experience in risk management and control, China has expanded both the depth and scope of its pesticide‑registration oversight, increasingly prioritizing product safety and environmental protection. Since the implementation of the “One Law + Five Regulations” framework, pesticide registration management has embraced the concept of green development, significantly enhancing its capacity for risk mitigation. Key measures include requiring registrants to submit comprehensive assessments—covering health risks, resistance risks, dietary exposure, and environmental impacts—and subjecting these evaluations and their conclusions to rigorous scrutiny. Products posing even the slightest safety risk are categorically barred from entering the market, thereby safeguarding the food‑security chain at its very first stage. This approach will undoubtedly provide a powerful impetus for high‑quality development in China’s pesticide industry, accelerating its transition toward the development model championed by the CPC Central Committee and guiding it onto a path of high‑quality, high‑efficiency growth.

Pesticide registration management has played a positive role in driving the industry’s robust growth.

Only when governance is smooth and public sentiment is harmonious can all industries flourish. In the context of pesticide registration management, “smooth governance” means having clear, well-defined regulations that keep pace with contemporary trends, while “harmonious relations” refer to the entire pesticide industry’s network—encompassing both horizontal relationships among various stakeholders and vertical relationships between regulators and those they regulate. Over the past few years, pesticide registration management has consistently evolved in ways that better enable industry players to grow stronger and larger, and foster harmonious relationships across the sector, yielding significant social and economic benefits. For example, in 2021, China’s pesticide industry enjoyed robust production and sales: large-scale enterprises saw their operating revenues rise by approximately 20% year on year, a growth rate 13.5 percentage points higher than in 2020; total profits increased by 28% year on year, with the growth rate accelerating by more than 27 percentage points. Despite the global economic downturn triggered by the COVID‑19 pandemic, China’s pesticide sector maintained steady, sustained progress and delivered strong performance—results closely tied to the positive impact of macro‑level policy adjustments in pesticide regulation. In particular, over these years, Chinese pesticide companies have strengthened their R&D capabilities, improved investment returns, invigorated market activity, expanded export earnings, and grown increasingly confident in the sector’s future prospects.

From a micro perspective

Various approaches and methods for pesticide registration management have gained widespread acceptance and are highly regarded.

Pesticide registration management has consistently evolved toward greater precision. Each step of refinement reflects substantial, well‑grounded efforts, broadened understanding, and the interests of a wide range of stakeholders. To ensure that pesticide registration continues to advance in a more scientific, rational, transparent, and clear direction, the relevant regulatory authorities have undertaken extensive and highly effective work. For example: (1) Equal treatment in pesticide registration. For many years, requiring supplementary documentation during the approval process has been standard practice, with numerous companies viewing it as both legally mandated and entirely justified. The latest approach, implemented in 2021, clarifies who may submit additional materials and which documents are eligible for supplementation, establishing consistent criteria and regulations. This fair, impartial, and transparent review system has marked a solid step forward toward higher standards and improved quality in pesticide registration. (2) Frequent, clear, and comprehensive industry training. In the past, most pesticide registration trainings were superficial, offering limited substantive content and rarely addressing core issues of critical concern to the sector. Many experts were reluctant or even hesitant to discuss key aspects of registration, often qualifying their remarks with disclaimers such as “this represents only my personal view and should not be taken as official guidance.” By contrast, today’s trainers—both in mindset and practice—have undergone a profound transformation. A growing number of experts and scholars now clearly explain the industry’s most pressing questions and thoroughly elucidate the rationale behind various practices. Even controversial topics are addressed promptly at subsequent meetings. (3) Timely and accurate disclosure of review opinions. Throughout the pesticide registration process, considerable effort by regulators and expert insight have yielded numerous conclusions. Historically, these findings remained obscure and inaccessible to businesses, often obtainable only through fragmented, unofficial channels—conditions that inadvertently facilitated informal exchanges and violations of regulations. In recent years, the core conclusions reached by the Pesticide Registration Review Committee are frequently made public at the earliest opportunity, helping companies avoid unnecessary detours and saving significant time and resources. (4) Grassroots research by regulatory bodies to better understand societal and business realities. Conducting field investigations is an essential means for leaders to gain first-hand insights into industry conditions, listen to stakeholders’ voices, and inform evidence‑based policymaking, rule‑making, and knowledge accumulation. Over the past few years, officials at all levels of the national pesticide management system have markedly increased the frequency, depth, and scope of such surveys. They have visited fields, on‑site registration trials, and corporate offices, engaging directly with industry leaders and experts to promote pragmatic, efficient, and actionable policy revisions and their effective implementation. Notably, in recent months, senior officials from the national pesticide registration authority have led teams across regions despite the summer heat, a proactive stance that has greatly inspired the entire sector. (5) Strengthening institutional safeguards, reinforcing checks and balances on the exercise of power, and elevating the quality of registration submissions. While regulations grant decision‑makers authority, failure to enforce them can lead to abuse. In the past two years, the state has maintained rigorous, ongoing education on preventing corruption risks in pesticide management, adopting precise and efficient measures to raise the political awareness and integrity of the sector. As a result, China’s pesticide registration system has seen significant improvements in both the standardization of administrative procedures and the scientific rigor and accuracy of review outcomes. Particularly noteworthy is the progress made in managing registration information, yielding encouraging results. These developments have underscored for all pesticide companies the need to place even greater emphasis on registration management—and, above all, on the quality of submitted documentation. The days when a hastily assembled dossier could secure registration approval are long gone.

The direction of pesticide registration management is shifting from “high efficiency, low toxicity, and low residue” to “high efficiency and low risk.”

Prior to the issuance of “One Law + Five Regulations,” China’s pesticide registration system prioritized high efficacy, low toxicity, and low residue. For an extended period, this evaluation framework made a substantial contribution to national food security. However, the public’s aspiration for a better quality of life has consistently driven the pesticide industry toward higher standards. The “high efficacy, low toxicity, low residue” paradigm can no longer meet the regulatory demands of the new era, as it does not equate to “low risk.” To align with contemporary trends, China has shifted its overall assessment approach and management orientation in pesticide registration from “high efficacy, low toxicity, low residue” to “high efficacy, low risk.” Here, “high efficacy, low risk” emphasizes two key aspects: (1) proactive promotion. In practice, regulatory authorities have actively encouraged the substitution of older, high‑risk or poorly characterized products with those that are both highly effective and low in risk. For example, in addition to conducting efficacy assessments, rigorous evaluations are carried out across health, resistance, dietary, and environmental dimensions, guided by the principle of maximizing risk mitigation. (2) tangible results. In recent years, the majority of pesticides approved for registration in China reflect a “high efficacy, low risk” profile, manifested in the following ways: a) the share of slightly toxic and low‑toxicity products continues to grow, while moderately and highly toxic formulations are rarely registered; b) environmentally friendly formulations have become the cornerstone of registration, with the number of non‑environmentally friendly types steadily declining; c) the number of biopesticides remains on an upward trajectory; d) products featuring reduced application rates, lower toxicity, and enhanced performance are increasingly available and receiving accelerated approval; e) the situation where small‑scale crops lacked viable options has improved markedly. This timely adjustment in pesticide‑evaluation thinking marks a qualitative leap in China’s pesticide registration and management system. It provides clear guidance for advancing research and development of novel pesticide compounds, optimizing formulation design, selecting appropriate adjuvants, and other related areas, thereby making a significant contribution to the sustainable growth of China’s pesticide industry.

The new pesticide registration and management policy has yielded significant results in reducing the volume of pesticide use and optimizing the product mix in China.

Since the implementation of the “One Law + Five Regulations” framework, pesticide registration has undergone profound changes. In terms of registration costs, investment has risen markedly; in terms of documentation requirements, the materials now demanded are far more systematic, comprehensive, and precisely tailored. Moreover, the full-scale rollout of risk assessments has made it increasingly difficult for outdated products—those that have never undergone thorough evaluation, feature obsolete formulations, deliver poor efficacy, or pose certain risks—to obtain registration approval. This coordinated regulatory approach has made a significant contribution to addressing pressing issues such as severe product homogenization, an overabundance of legacy active ingredients, a dearth of novel ones, and excessively high application rates for older formulations. A telling indicator is the trend in registration numbers: in 2017, more than 3,000 formulated‑product registrations were filed nationwide; by 2018, this figure had climbed to over 4,000; in 2019, however, registrations plummeted to just over 250; in 2020, they rebounded to more than 800; 2021 proved pivotal in clearing the backlog, with over 2,700 registrations submitted throughout the year; and as of August 2022, only slightly more than 160 registrations had been granted. From the perspective of product composition, formulations based on new, superior active ingredients now account for roughly half of all registered products. Taken together, the recent trajectory of pesticide formulation registrations underscores the indispensable role of the new‑era regulatory policies in fostering a more rational and balanced structure of China’s pesticide portfolio.

The pesticide industry has become more adaptable to and better understands the new‑era pesticide registration management system.

To advance the overall development of China’s pesticide industry and actively promote the international outreach of its products, technologies, and management practices, the trend toward dynamic adjustments in pesticide registration management has clearly accelerated. We firmly believe that each adjustment and change is consistently aimed at fostering industry growth while safeguarding food security, human and animal health, and environmental safety. In the past, for various reasons, nearly every regulatory overhaul sparked considerable misunderstanding; some more radical stakeholders frequently voiced strong criticism or even made outspoken objections. In recent years, China’s pesticide registration system has remained under continuous, dynamic reform. However, thanks to thorough preparatory work, once the revised regulations are announced, there have been few reports of companies struggling to adapt or of registration practitioners reacting adversely. At present, a well‑functioning framework for pesticide registration management has begun to take shape—rooted in regulators’ willingness to listen to industry perspectives, conduct extensive and in‑depth research and deliberations (such as toxicology review workshops, discussions on pesticide registration for genetically modified crops, consultations on metabolite data requirements, forums on viral‑based pesticides, and seminars on nano‑pesticides), and synthesize diverse viewpoints while comprehensively weighing historical context and future‑oriented considerations. If this approach endures, we are confident that, given time, China’s pesticide sector will flourish, with robust, high‑quality growth gaining greater momentum, and the healthy, orderly, and sustainable development of the pesticide industry will inevitably become a reality.

The agrochemical industry is highly confident in the standardized development of pesticide registration and management.

Standardization fosters fairness, which in turn supports the growth and expansion of pesticide companies, testing institutions, export‑oriented enterprises, and other stakeholders seeking to strengthen and scale up within the industry. Pesticides are a specialized category of products; they cannot be marketed or used without prior registration. Consequently, pesticide firms must navigate the complex process of pesticide registration. In recent years, China has established clear and consistent practices across multiple dimensions—regulatory frameworks, procedural protocols, approval and evaluation criteria, and measures to prevent external interference. In my day-to-day work, I have engaged with numerous pesticide company executives and registration professionals, who agree that as long as policies are applied uniformly and impartially, all players can enjoy a level playing field free from undue influence. Such an environment delivers tangible benefits and instills strong confidence in future development.

Pesticide companies have more comprehensive, specific, and stringent requirements for themselves.

At the policy level, the state has implemented numerous measures that favor the development of the agrochemical industry. Industry players committed to deepening their expertise have responded promptly, seized opportunities, and enhanced both their capabilities and product quality. In the face of increasingly comprehensive, rigorous, and standardized agrochemical regulation, manufacturers risk severe consequences—ranging from fines to criminal liability—if they fail to ensure product quality, as market‑entry inspections are likely to uncover non‑compliant items. Similarly, in the registration process, inadequate training of qualified registrants will hinder the efficient and high‑quality completion of product filings. Many agrochemical producers have already suffered costly setbacks—stemming from errors in product selection, inconsistent testing protocols, insufficient risk‑assessment expertise, and deficiencies in documentation review—underscoring the critical importance of strengthening registration competence and quality. On the business front, the government is intensifying market oversight; illicit practices such as license‑borrowing and certificate‑swapping will inevitably lead to serious repercussions, while counterfeit and substandard products will no longer be able to evade detection, ensuring a more transparent and accountable market environment.

Characteristics of Pesticide Registration at the Current Stage

Changes in national pesticide‑management policies have a profound impact on product registration for agrochemical companies. In recent years, the overall trend in China’s pesticide‑registration landscape has been characterized by the following features: (1) More prudent product selection. With China’s pesticide‑registration regime now fully aligned with international standards, many requirements and practices are even stricter than those in developed economies. The cost of registering a single product can range from several hundred thousand yuan to several million or even tens of millions. Consequently, companies place greater emphasis on comprehensive pre‑launch assessments, evaluating active ingredients, formulations, adjuvants, efficacy, risk profiles, and other factors before deciding to proceed. This cautious approach is one I strongly endorse. (2) Higher‑quality products with improved performance. Drawing on thorough evaluations and considerations conducted prior to registration, many well‑capitalized firms are now focusing on registering products that combine high efficacy with low environmental and health risks—hallmarks of today’s advanced offerings. This shift reflects the most direct outcome of evolving regulatory thinking in national pesticide‑registration reviews. (3) An increasing share of registrations for novel, proprietary active ingredients and a decline in reliance on older, established compounds. Since the implementation of the “One Law + Five Regulations” framework, guided by authorities’ efforts to address the aging composition of China’s pesticide portfolio and accelerate product renewal, a growing number of original, proprietary formulations have emerged. Meanwhile, the relatively modest cost differential between registering new versus legacy products has prompted companies to prioritize innovative, cutting‑edge options over outdated ones, thereby steering the domestic pesticide market toward greater efficacy, reduced toxicity, lower application rates, and diminished residue risks. (4) Rising professional standards among registration personnel. Stricter registration policies have compelled registrars to possess broad expertise, substantial experience, and a commitment to rigorous, results‑oriented work. Under earlier, more lax management conditions, many registrars struggled to keep pace with sweeping reforms; some could no longer meet the heightened quality expectations of current regulations, while others found it difficult to adapt to the increasingly stringent review procedures. Today, senior registrars at major firms typically hold advanced degrees, bring extensive industry experience, and demonstrate a deep, holistic understanding of registration requirements. A small but notable subset even conducts self‑assessments of registration dossiers and performs independent risk evaluations—remarkable progress. (5) Enhanced reliability of registration submissions. The tightening of registration standards means that companies must ensure their dossiers not only meet formal criteria but also exhibit robust internal coherence and substantive rigor to secure approval. Practices such as fragmented documentation, pervasive logical inconsistencies, incomplete content, or haphazard patchwork—once common—are now virtually impossible to pass muster. (6) Registration has become more challenging. While I do not believe registration is inherently easy or difficult, the observed trends in registration approval rates—reflected in both industry perceptions and official statistics—underscore the objective reality that registration has grown more demanding. At the heart of this shift lies the meticulous, granular, and comprehensive enforcement of registration policies, coupled with the standardization of procedural workflows. Simultaneously, the all‑round professional development of registrars remains an ongoing process; the principle of prioritizing quality still requires further reinforcement, and a culture of achieving registration through quality must be gradually cultivated.

The industry calls for pesticide registration management to evolve in a more scientific and rational direction.

Over the past few years, significant progress has been made in the registration and management of pesticides. These achievements have not come easily, and we are keenly aware that the road ahead remains fraught with challenges. Nevertheless, opportunities undoubtedly outweigh the challenges. Moving forward, as long as our overall management approach remains sound and does not undergo abrupt or fundamental shifts, and as long as we continue to refine our practices in upholding law-based administration and prioritizing truth over falsehood; as long as we redouble our efforts to encourage research and development and foster innovation; and as long as we implement effective measures to curb product homogenization, the pesticide industry will be better equipped to safeguard agricultural production, gain greater confidence in international competition, and enable a growing number of enterprises to achieve remarkable success.

The tremendous changes and remarkable achievements belong to the past, but we are even more optimistic about a brighter future. Pesticide regulation has entered a new phase, and the pesticide industry has stepped into a new era. China’s pesticide management will undoubtedly intensify its proactive efforts to advance key tasks in rural revitalization, strengthen measures that safeguard human and animal health and minimize environmental impacts, and bolster initiatives—both bilateral and multilateral—that seek international recognition and greater opportunities for the development of China’s pesticide sector.

Source: WeChat Official Account: Kefa Weiye – Pesticide Registration Agency