● Farmer-made potato slices are drying in the scorching sun. Taken in Yang County, Shaanxi. Photo: Foodthink
I. Dried produce can continue to be sold
The Measures for the Quality and Safety Supervision and Administration of Edible Agricultural Products in Market Sales (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Measures’), long awaited by farmers across the country, have finally been issued. Compared with the consultation draft previously released, the definition of ‘edible agricultural products’—which had been the subject of considerable debate—has been simplified. The text no longer stipulates specific processing methods for these products. An interpretation of the measures released by the State Administration for Market Regulation on 22 July explicitly states: ‘Dried fish, vegetables and fruit, and other ‘dried goods’, may be sold on the market as edible agricultural products where they have undergone only simple drying and no further processing.’● Changes to the definition of ‘edible agricultural products’ in the 2016 version of the ‘Measures’, the consultation draft released on 4 May 2023, and the new version issued on 30 June 2023. Graphic: Foodthink
Although this official clarification does not constitute a formal administrative regulation, it will nonetheless serve as a key reference for local enforcement going forward. Consequently, farmers and vendors who produce or sell dried produce can finally put their minds at ease. In a sense, “dried chillies” now share the same standing as the recently publicised“smashed cucumber”case, meaning that law-abiding farmers and sellers no longer need to fear market supervision checks or professional complaint filers.
This revision echoes the arguments presented in several previous Foodthink articles. On 29 May, Foodthink published an article, “Does banning farmers from selling dried chillies make food safer?”, which took issue with the draft version of the Measures for omitting “drying” from its provisions.
In the absence of a clear explanation from the relevant authorities, we have good reason to believe that altering the definition of “edible agricultural products” could prevent farmers from legally selling home-dried vegetables, fruits, and fish. This concern quickly prompted substantial reader feedback. Many farming contacts also shared with us the compliance hurdles they face when selling homemade dried goods, worrying that the new regulations would leave them at an even greater disadvantage.
● Dried morels and long beans at a township morning market in southern Shaanxi. Photo: FoodthinkSoon after, mainstream media outlets such as Beijing News followed up with reports and discussion on the matter. In response, we joined forces with farmers, vendors, cooperatives, academics, public interest organisations, and consumers to submit a proposal for amendments to the State Administration for Market Regulation. We are pleased to see that the Administration adopted our recommendations in the final regulations.
II. Other Amendments
Meanwhile, the new *Measures* also address the other two recommendations we raised. We believe it is highly impractical to require sellers of ready-to-eat agricultural produce to implement the vaguely defined “full-process food safety management” system, as it places an excessive burden on small market vendors selling fresh-cut fruit. At the same time, we were concerned that the original draft’s phrasing—”encouraging agricultural products to be marketed with packaging”—might lead to unnecessary packaging waste.
Both of these references have been removed in the new *Measures*.
● The revision suggestions submitted by Foodthink through official channels have been incorporated into the new *Measures*. The image illustrates the differences between the consultation draft and the new *Measures*. Illustration: FoodthinkIn other provisions, we also noted similar revisions, particularly in how they distinguish between enterprises and individual operators of varying scales. For example, individual traders engaged in wholesale are no longer required to retain six months’ worth of sales receipts; this requirement now applies solely to agricultural product sales enterprises. The consultation draft stipulated penalties for markets that allowed “farmers to sell their own produce across county borders.” However, this clause has been removed in the latest Measures. These adjustments show that, during this revision, the State Administration for Market Regulation genuinely listened to feedback from diverse groups, considered the circumstances of producers and sellers at different scales, and respected and protected their rights. In several respects, the new Measures are also more practical than the consultation draft.
III.Challenges Beyond “Dried Goods”
Although farmers can now continue to sell dried goods, over the past month of focusing on the processing rights of smallholders, we have also heard accounts such as these: Sichuan pepper oil must be made from fresh peppercorns, which are difficult to transport over long distances. Yet local farmers cannot find contract manufacturers, obtaining a production licence is exceedingly difficult, and making the oil themselves risks regulatory non-compliance;
In one locality, farmers who met the criteria to operate a small flour-processing workshop still had to rely on personal connections to gain access to local officials;
Many processed products are difficult to certify, restricting sales to local markets. The moment they are listed online, they are quickly targeted by professional accusers;
……
●A food production licence. A single thin sheet of paper, yet it demands factory-grade facilities and equipment, costing at least several hundred thousand, if not a million, yuan. Image source: Internet
These are not isolated cases. Almost every farmer hoping to add value to their agricultural produce through simple processing could recount a similar experience. This prompts us to ask: does a successful revision of the law mark the end of our efforts? As we have already stated in our previous submission: The right of farmers to independently produce simple processed goods must be protected, and a “one-size-fits-all” approach cannot be justified under the guise of food safety. Preserving the right to make and sell home-dried goods is merely a small part of this.
Smallholder family workshops and large food manufacturing enterprises are fundamentally different: they vary in scale, technology, distribution scope and channels, types of processed goods, and raw material sources. In rural areas, foods made in family workshops still hold a significant place and are tied to the livelihoods of many farmers. Whether regulators can implement differentiated oversight that strikes the right balance for both large corporations and small workshops will test the governance acumen of the relevant authorities.
IV. Speaking Out is the First Step in Safeguarding Smallholder Farmers’ Rights
Currently, the authority to draft management regulations for small-scale food producers and sellers has been decentralised from the central government to local authorities.(We have previously published articles outlining local management systems for small workshops and street vendors. Take a look to see what the regulations are in your hometown.) Therefore, pushing for local regulations to be a little more ‘farmer-friendly’ towards those who produce and sell their own goods is just as important as revising national-level administrative rules. Last month, an engaged reader in Zhejiang drew on Foodthink’s articles and amendment proposals to submit a report on local conditions and public sentiment to the local people’s political consultative conference. They urged legislative bodies and the government to take into account the specific realities of smallholder production and sales when formulating management measures for small vendors.
A reader of ours in the southwest, who also serves as head of a local cooperative, had long been anxious about the legality of dried mushrooms. Though she initially doubted whether submitting amendment proposals would make any difference, she remarked upon seeing the revised law: “The earlier draft was quite top-down and lacked a practical foundation. This revision reflects the public’s will, proving that a bottom-up approach can indeed get results.”
This aligns with one of Foodthink’s founding principles: giving farmers a voice. It also echoes the meaning behind our logo: a microphone rooted in the soil.
● This past April, Foodthink gathered with fellow farmers and partners at the Annual Conference of the Farmers’ Seed Network.
We extend our sincere gratitude to the fellow farmers, readers, scholars, and NGOs who agreed to be interviewed, left us messages, and helped draft the amendment proposals over the past two months, as well as to the media outlets that covered the story. Together, we have successfully carried out a ‘policy advocacy’ effort, fulfilling our civic duties and responsibilities.
Finally, we urge farmers who care about protecting their rights to keep speaking up courageously, so that the public and government can better understand your real-life circumstances. For readers in a position to engage in policy-making, we encourage you to try submitting relevant proposals to the appropriate local authorities. With the current push to ‘foster a strong culture of investigation and research’, isn’t this an ideal setting for field research?
Foodthink SaysIf you have any thoughts on this, or would like to learn more, feel free to add Foodthink’s personal WeChat: foodthinkcn, or scan the QR code below to add us. Please include ‘edible agricultural produce’ in your remarks, along with a brief introduction about yourself, and we will invite you to join our group discussion.
