● Homemade potato slices drying under the scorching sun. Photographed in Yang County, Shaanxi. Image: Foodthink
I. Dried produce can be sold again
The *Administrative Measures for the Supervision and Administration of Quality and Safety of Edible Agricultural Products in Market Sales* (hereinafter referred to as the “Measures”), a matter of great concern to farmers across the country, have finally been released. Compared to the previously published draft for comment, the controversial definition of “edible agricultural products” has been simplified, and the text no longer specifies the exact processing methods for such products. The regulatory interpretation released by the State Administration for Market Regulation on 22 July explicitly emphasises: “‘Dried goods’ such as dried fish, dried vegetables, and dried fruits may be sold on the market as edible agricultural products, provided they have only undergone simple air-drying and no other processing.”● Adjustments to the definition of edible agricultural products in the 2016 version of the Measures, the draft for comment released on 4 May 2023, and the new version released on 30 June 2023. Graphic: Foodthink
While such “guidance” may not constitute formal administrative regulations, it serves as a crucial benchmark for law enforcement at the local level. Consequently, farmers and traders who produce or sell dried produce can now breathe a sigh of relief. Much like the recent controversy surrounding “smashed cucumbers”, the clarification on “dried chillies” means that legitimate producers and sellers no longer have to fear market regulators or professional “fraud hunters”.
This revision echoes the calls made in several previous Foodthink articles. On 29 May, Foodthink published a piece titled “Will Banning Farmers from Selling Dried Chillies Make Food Safer?”, in which it objected to the removal of “dried” from the consultation draft of the “Measures”.
In the absence of a sufficient explanation from the relevant authorities, we believed there was reason to fear that amending the definition of “edible agricultural products” could make it illegal for farmers to sell homemade dried vegetables, fruits, and fish. This concern resonated strongly with our readers, many of whom shared the compliance hurdles they faced when selling homemade dried produce and expressed fear that the new law would leave them even more vulnerable.
● Dried morels and cowpeas at a township morning market in southern Shaanxi. Photo: FoodthinkSoon, mainstream media outlets, including the Beijing News, provided follow-up reporting and discussions on the matter. In response, we collaborated with farmers, sellers, cooperatives, scholars, non-profit organisations and consumers to submit a set of suggestions for amendment to the State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR). We are pleased to see that SAMR adopted our suggestions in the final regulations.
II. Other Amendments
Meanwhile, the two other suggestions we raised were also addressed in the new Measures. We argued that requiring sellers of ready-to-eat agricultural products to implement a vague ‘full-process food safety management’ system was highly impractical and placed an excessive burden on small-scale vendors selling freshly cut fruit. Furthermore, we were concerned that the phrasing ‘encourage agricultural products to be brought to market with packaging’ in the original draft might lead to unnecessary packaging waste.
In the new Measures, both of these references have been removed.
● The suggestions for modification submitted by Foodthink through official channels were adopted in the new version of the Measures. The image illustrates the differences between the draft for comment and the new version of the Measures. Graphic by: FoodthinkWe found similar modifications in other clauses, particularly regarding the differential treatment of enterprises and individuals based on their scale. For example, sole traders engaged in wholesale are no longer required to keep sales records for six months; this responsibility is now limited to agricultural product sales enterprises. The draft for comment had stipulated penalties for the market regarding “farmers selling self-produced agricultural products across county lines”, but in the latest “Measures”, this phrasing has been removed. These changes demonstrate that in this revision, the State Administration for Market Regulation indeed listened to the opinions of various groups, considered the circumstances of producers and sellers of different scales, and respected and protected their rights and interests. The new “Measures” are also more practical in certain details than the draft for comment.
III.Challenges Beyond “Dried Goods”
Although farmers can continue to sell dried goods, during the past month of focusing on the processing rights of smallholders, we have heard stories such as: Szechuan pepper oil requires fresh peppers, which are difficult to transport over long distances, but farmers cannot find contract manufacturers locally and obtaining a production licence is extremely difficult, meaning home-made pepper oil is potentially illegal;
Farmers in certain areas who have the means to set up small flour-processing workshops still need to find ways to pull strings and get in the good graces of local officials;
Many processed goods are difficult to certify and can only be sold locally; as soon as they are sold online, they are targeted by professional “fraud fighters”;
……
● Food Production Licence. A single thin piece of paper, but behind it are requirements for factory-grade premises and equipment, costing hundreds of thousands or even millions of yuan. Image source: The Web
These are not isolated cases; almost every farmer hoping to increase the value of their produce through simple processing can tell a similar story. This makes us wonder: is the effort over now that the law has been successfully amended? As we stated in our previous proposal: the right of farmers to independently produce simply processed goods should be protected, and a “one-size-fits-all” approach cannot be applied under the guise of food safety. And the right to retain the production of home-made dried goods is only a small part of this.
There is a natural distinction between the cottage industries of smallholders and large-scale food production enterprises: different scales, technologies, distribution scopes and channels, types of processed goods, and sources of raw materials. In rural areas, home-made foods from cottage industries still hold an important position and are the livelihood for many farmers. Whether differentiated supervision can be achieved—ensuring that both large enterprises and small workshops are “moderately regulated”—will be a test of the governance wisdom of the relevant departments.
IV. Speaking Out is the First Step in Protecting Smallholder Rights
Currently, the authority to establish management measures for small-scale food producers and sellers has been decentralised from the central government to local authorities.(We have previously listed the management systems for small workshops and street vendors across various regions; why not check the regulations in your hometown?)Therefore, encouraging local regulations to be a little more ‘friendly’ towards farmers who produce and sell their own goods is just as important as revising national administrative laws. Last month, an enthusiastic reader from Zhejiang, drawing on Foodthink’s articles and suggested amendments, submitted a public opinion report to the local political consultative body, urging the legislative departments and the government to respect the practical realities of small-scale farming when drafting management measures for small vendors.
One of our readers in the Southwest, who also heads a local cooperative, had always been anxious about the legality of producing dried mushrooms. Though she had doubts about whether submitting amendments would make any difference, after seeing the outcome of the legal revisions, she said: “The previous version was too top-down and lacked a practical foundation. This change reflects the will of the people; it shows that the bottom-up approach works.”
This is one of the original reasons Foodthink was founded: to give farmers a voice. It is also the meaning behind our logo: to be a microphone rooted in the soil.
● In April this year, Foodthink gathered with farming friends and partners at the Farmers’ Seed Network annual conference.
Special thanks to the farming friends, readers, scholars, and non-profit organisations who participated in interviews, sent us messages, and helped write the proposed amendments over the past two months, as well as the media outlets that followed the story. Together, we have carried out a successful piece of “policy advocacy” and fulfilled our civic duties.
Finally, we call upon farmers who care about their rights and interests to continue speaking out bravely, so that the public and the government can understand your actual circumstances. For readers who have the capacity to influence policy, we encourage you to try submitting suggestions to the relevant local authorities. At a time when there is a renewed emphasis on research and investigation, is this not an excellent field for such study?
Foodthink’s TakeIf you have any thoughts on this or would like more information, please add the Foodthink personal WeChat account: foodthinkcn, or scan the QR code below. Please include the note “edible agricultural produce” and a brief introduction of yourself, and we will invite you to join the group discussion.
