This month, an article published by Foodthink on revisions to pesticide residue standards for Chinese chives sparked considerable discussion. Many readers gained a clearer view of the government’s and legislative bodies’ thinking and reasoning behind food safety regulation.
The relaxation of pesticide residue standards for Chinese chives is now a foregone conclusion, but another important regulation concerning food safety is still being revised and is currently open to public comment. After a careful reading, we found that the draft for public comment of the Measures for the Supervision and Administration of Quality and Safety of Edible Agricultural Products in Market Sales (hereinafter referred to as the “draft”) contains not only reasonable changes but also some developments that warrant concern. As a regulation that affects every consumer, farmer and agricultural product vendor, let us take a closer look at the adjustments it makes.
I. Can Farmers No Longer Make Their Own Dried Goods?
Dried vegetables, dried fruits, dried fish — foods that keep for a long time simply through drying. For thousands of years, ordinary farming and fishing households have sun-dried these not only for their own table but also to sell at market. Yet under the new draft, dried goods made by farmers at home may no longer be allowed to circulate in the market, because these dried goods would no longer qualify as “edible agricultural products” but instead become food requiring a legally mandated (production) licence.
● The key difference between the 2023 draft and the 2016 version of the Measures in their definitions of edible agricultural products is the deletion of “drying”. This means that dried goods produced by farmers cannot be sold directly unless they obtain a complex and expensive food production licence.
In China, food production is regulated following an industrial management model. Anyone engaged in food production must obtain a licence — the long “production licence number” beginning with “SC” that you see on food packaging. This means producers must comply with the requirements set out in the Measures for the Administration of Food Production Licensing, as shown in the image below.
But edible agricultural products are an exception. After all, they do not come from factories — they come from the land, forests, grasslands and water. A farmer working the soil does not need to observe the fifteen requirements mentioned above, such as “disinfection and changing clothes”.
In the past, although dried goods could also be classified as food, the 2016 version of the Measures included “drying” in its definition of edible agricultural products, which kept open the pathway for farmers to sell their home-made dried goods.
But once the new rules close off this “drying” route, many farmers will lose an important source of income. Fresh produce has a short shelf life, and prices fluctuate with the market. By drying it themselves, farmers extend the shelf life, add value, and can spread sales over a longer period.
For products such as goji berries and jujubes, which appear on the market almost exclusively in dried form, the new rules mean that farmers can only sell their fresh fruit (via middlemen) to licensed enterprises — they cannot dry or dehydrate the produce themselves and sell it on. For most small and medium-sized farming households, obtaining a food production licence and meeting those fifteen basic requirements is simply out of reach, whether in terms of the capital needed to set up a factory or the capacity to achieve compliance. In other words, the new rules will effectively close the door on many farmers who could previously earn more through selling dried goods.
● Whether farmers can sell their jujubes, peanuts and walnuts all hinges on a change to just these two characters.Having said that, it is questionable how much safety this rule would actually improve. It is genuinely hard to see how many additional food safety risks the drying process introduces compared with selling fresh produce, such that the two should be treated differently. Anyone with basic common sense can foresee that farmers who relied on dried goods to supplement their income will see their earnings plummet under the new rules.
II. How Do You “Manage the Whole Process” When Cutting a Pineapple or Watermelon?
Another so-called “highlight” of the new draft is the first time a supervisory law or regulation introduces the category of “ready-to-eat edible agricultural product”, defined as “an edible agricultural product made from fresh agricultural products, having undergone simple processing such as washing, peeling and cutting, and available for direct consumption”. This appears to correspond to common items such as freshly cut fruit, fruit platters and similar products. Under the draft, vendors of ready-to-eat edible agricultural products “shall implement whole-process food safety management”. If they fail to do so and contamination occurs, “the market supervision and administration department at or above the county level shall order rectification and issue a warning; if they refuse to rectify, a fine of between ¥5,000 and ¥30,000 shall be imposed.”
But when a vendor at a wet market cuts open a pineapple or watermelon, divides a jackfruit or durian, or peels a water chestnut in between waiting for customers — how exactly are they supposed to implement “whole-process food safety management”? And how is contamination to be determined? The draft offers little clarity, and we have been unable to find a dedicated explanation. Language such as “whole-process safety management” is generally wording used to describe corporate operations.
● An elderly vegetable seller we met in Foshan, selling a bag of peeled water chestnuts for just two yuan.If the requirement were directed at supermarkets, convenience stores or dedicated fresh-cut fruit shops — enterprises that have both the conditions and the capacity for “whole-process management” — then so be it. But how exactly should an ordinary vendor at a wet market “manage” things to fulfil their safety responsibility? If the rules are not clearly formulated, they can easily lead to inconsistent enforcement. And if the responsibilities imposed on vendors far exceed their capacity, then the moment something goes wrong, they will have virtually no escape from penalties.
III. Can Food Safety and Environmental Protection Coexist?
We also discovered other contentious provisions in the new draft. For instance, does the newly added language encouraging packaging risk leading to excessive packaging of agricultural products?Article 6 encourages the sale of edible agricultural products as pre-cleaned vegetables, pre-packed goods or chilled fresh produce. Article 11 encourages vendors to sell edible agricultural products in packaging, to label them with the date of production or packaging, storage conditions and best-before dates, and to display a certificate of compliance with standards.
The text in red marks new additions in the new version. In both instances, there is no mention of packaging being “moderate” or “reasonable”, and both run counter to the growing governmental and social concern about reducing packaging and waste.
IV. Can Consumer and Producer Interests Coexist?
Nevertheless, there is much to praise. We also see some welcome improvements in the new draft, evidence that the regulators genuinely attempt to work from the practical interests and specific operations of consumers, producers, distributors and enforcement authorities alike, making regulation more grounded and more reasonable. Take the use of “traffic-light” lighting in wet markets, supermarkets and greengrocers: meat sellers and fruit sellers use red lights, vegetable sellers use green lights, so that the goods appear more vibrant and fresh in colour. Under the new draft, this practice would be a violation. Article 6 adds the following:
“When selling fresh edible agricultural products, lighting or other facilities that alter the true colour, organoleptic properties or other sensory attributes of the produce shall not be used, nor shall lighting or other facilities be used to mislead the seller’s sensory perception of the goods.”● From a distance, a fruit shop glowing crimson looks just like a “red-light district.”Another headache for farmers and retailers alike: complaints that vegetables come with soil, insects, or that leaves have yellowed after sitting too long. Such conditions are entirely normal in agricultural produce and do not constitute a food safety issue, yet they are easily exploited by professional complainants for extortion. Under the Food Safety Law, “producing or trading food or food additives that are spoiled, rancid in fats and oils, mouldy, insect-infested, filthy, contaminated with foreign matter, adulterated, or displaying abnormal organoleptic properties” is an illegal act. This not only inflicts unnecessary losses on farmers and vendors but also squanders the regulatory authorities’ public resources. Article 14 in the new draft addresses these situations directly:
“Fresh edible agricultural products sold in bulk that carry soil, grit, insects or partial wilting, and aquatic products sold in bulk that carry water, mud or grit, shall not be classified as spoiled, mouldy, insect-infested, filthy, contaminated with foreign matter, adulterated, or displaying abnormal organoleptic properties, etc.”These sensible adjustments grounded in actual conditions demonstrate that a broadly participatory legislative process can ensure that laws, regulations and government oversight protect consumer interests and safeguard food safety while also taking into account the realities faced by producers and operators — leaving no opening for “professional complainants” and similar syndicates that genuinely disrupt market order.
V. Participating in Legislation Is Everyone’s Responsibility
Do farmers truly have the right to make their own dried goods? How can you cut a pineapple without breaking the law? Should vegetable sellers also care about the environment? If you, too, want legislation to be more reasonable, there is still time. The Measures for the Supervision and Administration of Quality and Safety of Edible Agricultural Products in Market Sales, currently under revision by the State Administration for Market Regulation, is open for public comment. Before 4 June, anyone can submit their views through the following channels:
Log on to the website of the Ministry of Justice of the People’s Republic of China — China Government Legal Information Network — and enter the “Legislative Comment Solicitation” section in the main menu on the homepage to submit your views.
Log on to the State Administration for Market Regulation website and submit your views through the “Solicitation and Survey” section under “Interactions” on the homepage.
Send an email to: agrifood@samr.gov.cn; the subject line should read “《食用农产品市场销售质量安全监督管理办法（修订征求意见稿）》公开征集意见”.
Send your comments by post to: Food Business Safety Supervision and Administration Department, State Administration for Market Regulation, Building 1, North Luyuan, Exhibition Road, Xicheng District, Beijing (Postal code: 100037). Mark the envelope with “《食用农产品市场销售质量安全监督管理办法（修订征求意见稿）》公开征集意见”.
China’s agricultural production and sales system still encompasses countless farmers and ordinary small-business operators. Only through oversight and speaking up can agriculture- and food-related legislation and regulation take account of the realities they face and attend to their vital interests.
A Note from FoodthinkIf you would like to join the discussion or learn more, feel free to add Foodthink’s personal WeChat account: foodthinkcn, or scan the QR code below. Please note “食用农产品” and briefly introduce yourself; we will invite you to join a discussion group.
