●Potato slices made by farmers are being sun-dried under the blazing heat. Photographed in Yang County, Shaanxi. Image: Foodthink
I. Dried Goods Can Keep Being Sold
The Measures for the Supervision and Administration of the Quality and Safety of Edible Agricultural Products in Market Sales (hereinafter referred to as the “Measures”), a regulation of great concern to farmers nationwide, have finally been published. Compared with the earlier draft for public consultation, the controversial definition of “edible agricultural products” has been simplified, and the text no longer specifies particular processing methods for edible agricultural products. The official interpretation of the regulation, published by the State Administration for Market Regulation on 22 July, states unequivocally: “Dried goods such as dried fish, dried vegetables and dried fruit can be sold on the market as edible agricultural products, provided they have only undergone simple sun-drying and no further processing.”●How the definition of edible agricultural products has changed across the 2016 Measures, the draft for public consultation published on 4 May 2023, and the new version published on 30 June 2023. Graphic: Foodthink
While the “interpretation” is not itself a formal administrative regulation, it will serve as an important reference for grassroots enforcement going forward. So for the many farmers and sellers who make or sell dried goods, this means they can finally breathe a sigh of relief. In a sense, “dried chillies” have now, like the recently spotlighted “smashed cucumber” case (a cold dish whose sale was once deemed a licensing violation), helped ensure that farmers and sellers running legitimate businesses need no longer fear market regulation enforcement or professional counterfeit hunters.
One could say this revision echoes the demands voiced in several earlier Foodthink articles. On 29 May, Foodthink published “If Farmers Are Not Allowed to Sell Dried Chillies, Would Food Be Safer?”, which challenged the draft’s removal of “drying” from the list of permitted processing methods for edible agricultural products.
In the absence of any thorough explanation from the relevant authorities, we had good reason to believe that revising the definition of “edible agricultural products” could render farmers’ home-made dried vegetables, dried fruit and dried fish illegal to sell. This concern immediately drew a flood of responses from readers, and many farmer friends shared with us the compliance barriers they face when making dried goods and other processed products, worrying that the new law would leave them in an even more vulnerable position.
●Dried morel mushrooms and dried yardlong beans at a morning market in a rural township of southern Shaanxi. Image: FoodthinkSoon afterwards, major mainstream media outlets including The Beijing News followed up with reports and commentary on the issue. In response, we joined forces with some farmers, sellers, cooperatives, scholars, public-interest organisations and consumers to jointly submit a set of revision recommendations to the State Administration for Market Regulation. We are delighted to see that the Administration has adopted our suggestions in the final regulation.
II. Other Changes
Meanwhile, the other two suggestions we raised have also been addressed in the new Measures. We had argued that requiring sellers of ready-to-eat edible agricultural products to implement a vague “whole-process food safety management” system was wholly unrealistic and excessively burdensome for the small vendors selling fresh-cut fruit at markets. We also worried that the draft’s wording encouraging “packaged sales of agricultural products” might lead to unnecessary packaging waste.
Both of these provisions have been removed in the new Measures.
●The revision recommendations submitted by Foodthink through official channels have been adopted in the new version of the Measures. The image shows the differences between the draft for public consultation and the new Measures. Graphic: FoodthinkIn other provisions, we also noticed similar changes, particularly the differentiated treatment of enterprises and individual operators of different scales. For instance, individual operators engaged in wholesale are no longer required to retain sales records for six months; this obligation has been narrowed to apply only to agricultural product sales enterprises. The draft had imposed penalties on markets that permitted “cross-county sales of farmers’ own produce,” but this provision has also been removed in the latest Measures. These changes show that, in this revision, the Administration has genuinely listened to the voices of different groups, taken account of the circumstances of producers and sellers of varying scales, and respected and protected their rights. In several details, the new Measures are also more practical than the draft.
III. Challenges Beyond Dried Goods
Although farmer friends can now continue selling dried goods, during the past month or so of concentrated focus on small farmers’ processing rights, we also heard stories like these: Sichuan pepper oil requires fresh Sichuan peppercorns to make, making it difficult to transport over long distances, yet farmers cannot find contract manufacturers locally and obtaining a food production licence is extremely difficult — home-made Sichuan pepper oil risks being deemed non-compliant;
A farmer friend in a certain area, despite having the conditions to set up a small food workshop for flour processing, still had to find a way to get things sorted through connections and a word in with the right officials;
Many processed products are difficult to licence, so they can only be sold locally, but as soon as they go online for sale, they are targeted by professional counterfeit hunters;
……
●A Food production licence. Behind this single thin sheet of paper lies a requirement for factory-grade premises and equipment, costing at least several hundred thousand, if not over a million, yuan. Source: internet
These are not isolated cases. Almost every farmer who hopes to add value to their produce through simple processing could tell a similar story. This leads us to ask: once the law is revised, is the effort over? As we stated in our earlier submission: Farmers’ right to independently produce simply processed goods should be protected and must not be subject to a one-size-fits-all ban under the guise of food safety. Retaining the right to make dried goods at home is only a small part of that.
Small farmers’ home workshops and large-scale food manufacturers are naturally different: different scales, different technologies, different distribution ranges and channels, different types of processed products, and different sources of raw materials. In rural areas, home-made foods from family workshops still hold an important place, and they are the livelihood of many farmers. Whether differentiated regulation can be achieved — keeping both large enterprises and small food workshops under proportionate oversight — is a test of the governance wisdom of the relevant authorities.
IV. Speaking Up Is the First Step in Safeguarding Small Farmers’ Rights
At present, the authority to formulate management regulations for small-scale food producers and sellers has been devolved from the central government to local authorities. (An earlier article has already surveyed the various local systems for regulating small food workshops and street vendors — take a look at what rules apply in your hometown.) So making local regulations a little more “friendly” to farmers who produce and sell their own goods is every bit as important as revising regulations at the national level. Last month, an enthusiastic reader from Zhejiang, drawing on Foodthink’s articles and revision recommendations, submitted a report on public sentiment and social concerns to the local Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference, proposing that legislative bodies and government should respect the practical realities of small farmers’ production and sales when drawing up management regulations for small-scale vendors.
A reader in south-west China who also runs a local cooperative had always been anxious about the legality of her dried mushrooms, but she too had doubts about whether submitting revision recommendations would make any difference. After seeing the outcome of the law revision, she said: “The earlier version was rather top-down and lacked a foundation in practice. The change reflects the will of the people — it shows that the bottom-up path works.”
This is one of the founding purposes of Foodthink: to give farmers a voice. It is also the meaning behind our logo: a microphone rooted in the soil.
● In April this year, Foodthink gathered with farmer friends and partners at the Farmer’s Seed Network annual meeting.
We are especially grateful to all the farmer friends, readers, scholars and public-interest organisations who sat for our interviews over the past two months, who left us messages, and who took part in drafting the revision recommendations, as well as to the media who followed up with reports. Together, we have completed a round of “policy advocacy” and fulfilled our duties and responsibilities as citizens.
Finally, we urge farmer friends who care about their own rights to keep speaking up bravely, so that the public and the government may understand your real circumstances. And readers who are in a position to participate in political affairs, do consider submitting relevant suggestions to the authorities in your area. In a time when the campaign to “vigorously promote a spirit of study and investigation” is in full swing — is this not a fine field for the kind of investigation being called for?
Foodthink SaysIf you have any thoughts on this, or would like to learn more, you are welcome to add Foodthink’s personal WeChat: foodthinkcn, or scan the QR code below to add us. Please note “食用农产品” (Edible agricultural products) in your message and introduce yourself briefly; we will then invite you to join our discussion group.
