This month, Foodthink’s article regarding the revision of pesticide residue standards for chives sparked significant discussion. Through this, many readers gained insight into the reasoning and evidence used by the government and legislative bodies in food safety regulation.
While the relaxation of pesticide residue standards for chives is now a settled matter, another important regulation concerning food safety is still under revision and open for public consultation. Upon careful reading, we found that the draft for comments of the revised *Measures for the Supervision and Administration of the Quality and Safety of Edible Agricultural Products for Market Sale* (hereinafter referred to as the “Draft for Comments”) contains both reasonable changes and some concerning developments. As a regulation affecting all consumers, farmers, and agricultural produce traders, let us examine the adjustments.
I. Can farmers no longer make their own dried goods?
Dried vegetables, fruits, and fish—foods that can be preserved long-term simply by drying—have been produced by ordinary farmers and fishers for millennia, not only for their own use but also for sale at market. However, according to the new Draft for Comments, produce dried by farmers themselves may no longer be allowed to circulate in the market, because these **dried goods are no longer classified as “edible agricultural products”**, but have instead become food items that “require a (production) licence obtained in accordance with the law”.
● The most significant difference in the definition of ‘edible agricultural products’ between the 2016 version and the 2023 consultation draft of the Management Measures is the removal of ‘drying’. This means that dried produce produced by farmers can no longer be sold directly unless they obtain a complex and costly food production licence.
In China, food production supervision mimics an industrial management model. Anyone engaged in food production must obtain a qualification—the long “Production License Number” starting with “SC” often seen on food packaging. This means producers must comply with the provisions of the *Administrative Measures for Food Production Licensing* shown in the image below.
But edible agricultural products are an exception. After all, they do not originate in factories, but from the soil, forests, grasslands, and waters; farmers are not expected to follow the 15 requirements mentioned above, such as “sanitisation and changing clothes”.
Previously, while “dried goods” could be classified as food, the 2016 *Administrative Regulations* included the word “dried” in the definition of edible agricultural products, preserving a route for farmers to sell home-made dried produce.
However, should the new regulations close this “dried” route, many farmers will lose a vital source of income. Fresh produce has a short shelf life, and prices fluctuate with the market. By drying the produce themselves, farmers can extend its shelf life and increase its value, allowing them to sell over a longer period.
For the majority of products that appear on the market as “dried goods”, such as goji berries and red dates, the new rules dictate that farmers may only sell fresh fruit (via middlemen) to licensed enterprises, rather than selling them after self-drying or dehydrating. For most small-to-medium farmers, obtaining a food production license and meeting those 15 basic requirements is a prohibitive prospect, both in terms of the capital required to build a facility and the capacity for compliance. In short, the new regulations will strangle the livelihoods of many farmers who previously relied on dried goods to earn a higher income.
● Whether farmers can sell their red dates, peanuts, and walnuts depends entirely on the revision of these two words.That said, it is questionable how much this regulation actually improves safety. It is difficult to see what additional food safety risks are introduced by adding a drying process compared to selling fresh produce, such that the two should be treated differently. It takes little common sense to foresee that farmers who previously relied on dried goods to supplement their income will see their earnings plummet under the new rules.
II. Cutting a pineapple or watermelon:how is “full-process management” to be achieved?
Another “highlight” of the new consultation draft is the introduction of a new category in the regulatory laws and regulations: “ready-to-eat agricultural products”. These are defined as “agricultural products made from fresh agricultural raw materials, which have undergone simple processing such as washing, peeling, and cutting, and can be consumed directly by humans”. This appears to refer to common items like freshly cut fruit and fruit platters. According to the draft, sellers of ready-to-eat agricultural products “shall implement full-process food safety management”. If they fail to do so and cause contamination, market supervision and administration departments at or above the county level will order rectification and issue a warning; those who refuse to comply may be fined between 5,000 and 30,000 yuan.
But how, exactly, is a vendor in a wet market supposed to implement “full-process food safety management” while cutting a pineapple or watermelon, portioning jackfruit or durian, or peeling water chestnuts between customers? And how is contamination determined? The consultation draft is vague on these points, and we have found no specific explanation. Furthermore, terms like “full-process safety management” are typically terminology used to describe corporations.
● An elderly vegetable vendor encountered in Foshan; a bag of peeled water chestnuts costs only two yuan.If these requirements were aimed at enterprises such as supermarkets, convenience stores, or professional pre-cut fruit shops, it would be one thing, as they have the means and capacity for “whole-process management”. But how on earth is an ordinary vendor in a wet market expected to “manage” their produce to be considered as having fulfilled their safety responsibilities? If the regulations are unclearly defined, it is easy for inconsistencies to arise in the scale of law enforcement. Furthermore, if the responsibilities imposed on sellers far exceed their actual capabilities, they will have almost no escape from punishment should a problem occur.
III. Can food safety and environmental protection coexist?
Additionally, we have identified other controversial clauses in the new consultation draft, such as the newly added phrasing encouraging packaging, which may lead to the over-packaging of agricultural products:Article 6: The sale of agricultural food products through methods such as pre-prepared vegetables, packaged sales, and chilled fresh sales is encouraged. Article 11: Sellers are encouraged to sell agricultural food products in packaging, and are encouraged to mark the production or packaging date, storage conditions, and best-before date of the agricultural food products, and to display a certificate of compliance.
The text in red consists of newly added content in the new version. In both these expressions, there is no mention that packaging should be “moderate” or “reasonable”, which runs contrary to the trend of reducing packaging and waste that is increasingly being prioritised by the government and society.
IV. The interests of consumers and producers can both be served
Despite these shortcomings, we have also seen some welcome progress in the new consultation draft. It appears that the regulators are indeed attempting to approach the issue from the practical interests and specific operations of consumers, producers, distributors, and law enforcement, making regulation more grounded and reasonable. For example, the “traffic lights” often used in wet markets, supermarkets, and greengrocers: red lights are used for meat and fruit, and green lights for vegetables, to make the colours of the goods look more appealing and fresh. In the revised consultation draft, this practice would be a violation. The following content has been added to Article 6 of the consultation draft:
“When selling fresh agricultural products for consumption, lighting and similar facilities that alter the true colour or other sensory characteristics of the products should not be used, nor should such facilities be used to mislead consumers regarding the sensory perception of the goods.”● Fruit shops bathed in bright red light, which from a distance look like ‘red-light districts’.Then there are the complaints that cause such headaches for farmers and retailers: vegetables still having soil on them, the presence of insects, or leaves turning yellow after being on display for a while. Such occurrences are common in agricultural produce and are entirely normal; they shouldn’t be escalated to food safety issues. However, they are often used as leverage for extortion by ‘professional fraud-fighters’. This is because, under the Food Safety Law, the ‘production and sale of food or food additives that are decayed, rancid, mouldy, insect-infested, filthy, contaminated with foreign objects, adulterated, or exhibit abnormal sensory characteristics’ is an illegal act. This not only causes unnecessary losses for farmers and vendors but also drains the public resources of regulatory bodies. The additions to Article 14 of the new draft for public comment address these issues:
“Agricultural products such as fruits and vegetables sold in bulk that contain soil, sand, or insects, or are partially withered, and aquatic products sold in bulk that contain water, mud, or sand, shall not be considered as being decayed, mouldy, insect-infested, filthy, contaminated with foreign objects, adulterated, or exhibiting abnormal sensory characteristics.”These reasonable adjustments, based on practical realities, demonstrate that an inclusive legislative process allows laws and government supervision to protect consumer interests and maintain food safety while remaining mindful of the specific circumstances of producers and operators. This prevents gangs of ‘professional fraud-fighters’—who are the ones truly disrupting market order—from finding loopholes to exploit.
V. Participating in Legislation: A Shared Responsibility
Do farmers actually have the right to produce their own dried goods? How can one cut a pineapple without breaking the law? Must selling vegetables also be ‘eco-friendly’? If you also believe that legislation should be more reasonable, there is still time to act. The State Administration for Market Regulation is currently seeking public comment on the revised ‘Measures for the Supervision and Administration of Quality and Safety of Agricultural Products Sold in Markets’. Until 4 June, the public may submit their views through the following channels:
Visit the China Government Legal Information website of the Ministry of Justice of the People’s Republic of China and submit your comments under the ‘Collection of Legislative Opinions’ section on the homepage.
Visit the website of the State Administration for Market Regulation and submit your comments via the ‘Collection and Investigation’ section under the ‘Interaction’ tab on the homepage.
Send an email to agrifood@samr.gov.cn, with the subject line ‘Public Comments on the Measures for the Supervision and Administration of Quality and Safety of Agricultural Products Sold in Markets (Draft for Revision and Comment)’.
Send a letter to the Department of Food Business Safety Supervision and Administration, State Administration for Market Regulation, Building 1, Luyuan, North Zhanlan Road, Xicheng District, Beijing (Postcode: 100037). Please mark the envelope with ‘Public Comments on the Measures for the Supervision and Administration of Quality and Safety of Agricultural Products Sold in Markets (Draft for Revision and Comment)’.
Currently, countless farmers and ordinary sole traders still exist within China’s agricultural production and sales system. Only through oversight and speaking out can legislation and regulation regarding agricultural food recognise the realities they face and, in turn, safeguard their vital interests.
Foodthink SaysIf you would also like to join the discussion or learn more, please add Foodthink on WeChat: foodthinkcn, or scan the QR code below. Please include the note ‘Agricultural Products’ and a brief introduction of yourself, and we will invite you to join the group discussion.
