Public Notice on Commissioning of the 200-Ton-Per-Year Pyrazolyl Herbicide Production Project of Hunan Haohua Chemical Co., Ltd.

Public Notice on Commissioning of the 200-Ton-per-Year Pyrazolyl Herbicide Production Project of Hunan Haohua Chemical Co., Ltd. In accordance with the “Decision of the State Council on Amending the Regulations on Environmental Protection for Completion of Construction Projects” (State Council Order No. 682) and the Ministry of Environmental Protection’s “Notice on the Issuance of the Provisional Measures for Environmental Protection Acceptance upon Completion of Construction Projects” (Guohuan Gui Huanping [2017] No. 4), the following public notice is hereby issued regarding the commissioning of the 200-ton-per-year pyrazolyl herbicide production project of Hunan Haohua Chemical Co., Ltd.: Project Name: Hunan Haohua Chemical Co., Ltd. 200-Ton-per-Year Pyrazolyl Herbicide Production Project Construction Site: No. 1 Yuwang Road, You County High-Tech Industrial Development Zone, Zhuzhou City, Hunan Province (within the land area allocated for Phase I of Hunan Haohua Chemical Co., Ltd.) Project Undertaker: Hunan Haohua Chemical Co., Ltd. Content of Public Notice: Duration of commissioning for environmental protection facilities Public Notice Period: December 16, 2021 – September 30, 2022 During the public notice period, any objections to the above‑mentioned information should be submitted in writing. Individuals must provide their real names, while organizations must affix their official seals. Contact Person: Yuan Mehe Contact Telephone: 0731-22969008

Public Notice of Completion of Environmental Protection Facilities for the 200-Ton-Per-Year Pyrazolyl Herbicide Production Project of Hunan Haohua Chemical Co., Ltd.

Public Notice of Completion of Environmental Protection Facilities for the 200-Ton-Per-Year Pyrazolate Herbicide Production Project of Hunan Haohua Chemical Co., Ltd. In accordance with the “Decision of the State Council on Amending the Regulations on Environmental Protection Management for Completed Construction Projects” (State Council Order No. 682) and the Ministry of Environmental Protection’s “Announcement on the Issuance of the Interim Measures for Environmental Protection Acceptance upon Completion of Construction Projects” (Guohuan Gui Huanping [2017] No. 4), the following public notice is hereby issued regarding the completion of environmental protection facilities for the 200-ton-per-year pyrazolate herbicide production project of Hunan Haohua Chemical Co., Ltd.: Project Name: Hunan Haohua Chemical Co., Ltd. 200-Ton-Per-Year Pyrazolate Herbicide Production Project Construction Site: No. 1 Yuwang Road, You County High-Tech Industrial Development Zone, Zhuzhou City, Hunan Province (within the land area allocated for Phase I of Hunan Haohua Chemical Co., Ltd.) Project Undertaker: Hunan Haohua Chemical Co., Ltd. Notice Content: Completion date of environmental protection facilities Notice Period: December 15, 2021 During the notice period, any objections to the above‑mentioned content should be submitted in writing. Individuals must provide their real names, while organizations must affix their official seals. Contact Person: Yuan Mehe Contact Telephone: 0731-22969008

Save this now! An introduction to domestic and international pesticide-related databases.

Quick Save! Introduction to Domestic and International Pesticide-Related Databases Chemical pesticides, when used on a large scale, have significant impacts on both the ecological environment and human health. When conducting research in areas such as environmental pollutant risk assessment, pollution control, pesticide management, and ecotoxicology, systematic pesticide-related database platforms serve as indispensable foundational support. This article introduces the overview and characteristics of six commonly used international pesticide-related databases: EFSA OpenFoodTox, EPA CompTox Chemicals Dashboard, Pesticide Properties Database (PPDB), Pesticide Action Network (PAN), U.S. Environmental Toxicology Database (ECOTOX), and Toxicology Data Network (TOXNET). It compares the queryable data content, advantages, and disadvantages of these six databases, and analyzes their applications in pesticide risk management. Additionally, it presents an overview and features of four domestic pesticide-related databases, highlighting the shortcomings of China’s existing databases. As the variety of pesticides increases and efforts to ensure agricultural product quality and safety deepen, pesticide-related data are rapidly expanding. Therefore, achieving scientific, systematic, and standardized data management is crucial for effective pesticide administration. One approach to systematically managing pesticide data is establishing a dedicated pesticide contaminant database; currently, foreign countries have already developed relatively comprehensive pesticide toxicology databases. In China, some pesticide toxicology studies must rely on overseas databases, whose data sources are predominantly English-language literature or non-English publications with English abstracts. Moreover, Chinese native bio-toxicity data are scarce in these international databases. This disparity in species and ecological structures between China and other countries diminishes the scientific rigor of domestic pesticide toxicology and ecological risk assessment studies. At present, China often faces constraints in conducting research related to environmental pollutant risk assessment, environmental pollution control, pesticide management, and ecotoxicology due to the lack of indigenous toxicity databases and platforms. Consequently, establishing localized pesticide environmental and toxicity databases along with corresponding data application platforms has become an urgent priority for China’s environmental pollutant research. By introducing the current status of domestic and international pesticide-related databases, this article outlines the basic information, data types, categories, and distinctive features of commonly used databases, providing valuable references for relevant research endeavors. Introduction to Major International Pesticide-Related Databases The development of soil environmental contaminant databases abroad began early and has reached a high level of sophistication. European and American countries established comprehensive toxicology databases and robust data collection and quality assurance protocols as early as the 20th century. Examples include the European Food Safety Authority’s (EFSA) OpenFoodTox database, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) CompTox Chemicals Dashboard database, and the Pesticide Properties Database (PPDB). These international toxicology databases are primarily supported and constructed by national government agencies, research institutions, and private companies, managed and maintained by specialized departments, and regularly updated. Most of these databases are publicly accessible, offering full or partial data sharing. EFSA OpenFoodTox Database Founded in 2002, the EFSA operates independently from European legislative and administrative bodies (such as the Commission, Council, and Parliament) and EU member states. It serves as an independent risk assessment agency responsible for food and feed safety within the European Union. The organization aims to evaluate risks throughout the entire food chain, safeguarding consumers, animals, and the environment from food-related hazards, while providing impartial scientific advice to decision-makers involved in managing European food safety. OpenFoodTox offers open-access data on chemical hazards in food and feed, with pesticide risk assessment forming a key component of its content. Researchers at EFSA have conducted risk assessments on nearly 5,000 substances drawn from over 2,040 scientific opinions, statements, and conclusions. For each substance, EFSA provides summaries covering human health, animal health, and ecological hazard evaluations. Specifically, the substance characterization section includes molecular formulas, CAS numbers, and other relevant details; the reference points section contains information on experimental types, species, mechanisms of action, effects, and toxicity; the reference values section lists substance classifications, special groups, and reference thresholds; the OpenFoodTox section encompasses chemical evaluations, genotoxicity assessments, and endpoint studies; the EFSA output section provides legal bases and output types; and the genotoxicity section details genetic toxicity data, authors, and publication years. The primary purpose of this database is to extract and compile data from EFSA researchers’ reports, making all its data derived from EFSA publications—scientific opinions, statements, and pesticide review conclusions—thus constituting a secondary compilation database. Users can quickly locate original source documents directly through the database. Beyond pesticide data, the database also covers food additives, nutrients, and contaminants found in the food chain. Its endpoint section reports key studies, enabling researchers to derive reference values from these studies. During data entry, the system automatically verifies data quality, and users must manually correct submissions to ensure accuracy. EFSA maintains a Scientific Committee and expert panels that analyze published data, supplemented by auditors who verify credibility, while committing to transparency in all operations. The EFSA OpenFoodTox database website is: https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/data/chemical-hazards-data (free access and use) EPA CompTox Chemicals Dashboard Database Established on December 2, 1970, the EPA released its distributed structure database in 2004. Currently, it contains more than 875,000 substances, primarily sourced from EPA environmental researchers’ studies. Starting in 2014, three public datasets were gradually integrated after screening: EPA’s Substance Registration Service (SRS), the U.S. National Library of Medicine’s ChemID, and PubChem. Initially, the Distributed Structure-Searchable Toxicity (DSSTox) database held information on only about 7,000 chemicals, all entered manually. By 2013, this number had expanded to 24,000 substances, but manual management and maintenance could no longer sustain further growth. Thus, DSSTox_V2 was born, digitizing all first-generation DSSTox data and integrating multiple public chemical databases, resulting in over 740,000 chemical entries. In 2016, building upon DSSTox_V2, the EPA launched the CompTox Chemicals Dashboard—a primary tool for public access to DSSTox’s chemical structure database and index listings. In addition to the CompTox Chemicals Dashboard, the EPA maintains several other pesticide- and toxicology-related databases, including Pesticide Chemical Search, ChemView, Comprehensive Risk Information System, Water Quality Portal, and National Pesticide Information Retrieval System. On the EPA homepage, one can find toxicological profiles from the Toxic Substances Control Administration, featuring approximately 275 substances with detailed toxicological reports, covering basic information, physicochemical properties, human health indicators, and legal regulations. The EPA’s main website is https://www.epa.gov/, while the page dedicated to pesticide risk assessment is https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks, which provides extensive information on pesticide risk assessment, pesticide databases, and pesticide science. The EPA CompTox Chemicals Dashboard website is: https://comptox.epa.gov/dashboard (free access and use) PPDB Launched in 2007 as a free-access website, PPDB was developed by the University of Hertfordshire’s Institute of Pesticides and Environment for various end-users. Originating from a database embedded in agricultural environmental management software, it underwent systematic further development, receiving funding support from the EU-funded FOOTPRINT project and additional revenue, thereby expanding its capabilities for risk assessment and management. PPDB is a comprehensive information database providing data on pesticide chemical characteristics, physicochemical properties, human health, and ecological toxicology. As of 2017, PPDB contained data on nearly 2,300 active pesticide substances and over 700 metabolites. Each substance stores approximately 300 parameters, covering chemical outcomes, general conditions, pesticide formulations, environmental trends, ecological toxicology, human health, and protective measures—all six aspects. PPDB obtains its data from globally published scientific literature, databases, manuals, registration records, corporate technical datasheets, and research projects. Before entering the database, all data undergoes rigorous quality control, employing peer reviews and cross-checks with other databases and data sources. If doubts arise regarding specific data and the original reference source is known, PPDB revisits the original source and adjusts its quality score for user reference. The range of pesticides covered includes approved products, newly developed ones, as well as outdated or banned substances. In addition to the pesticide characteristics database, PPDB also maintains two separate databases focusing on biopesticides and veterinary medicines. Its website is: http://sitem.herts.ac.uk/aeru/ppdb/en/index.htm (free access) Pesticide Action Network (PAN) The PAN Pesticide Database is a one-stop resource for information on pesticide toxicity and regulatory status, established in 1982. PAN is a global network comprising over 600 non-governmental organizations, institutions, and individuals from more than 90 countries. It operates through five independent regional centers—Africa, North America, Latin America, Europe, and Asia-Pacific—to implement its programs and activities. The North American Center is responsible for maintaining and updating the PAN Pesticide Database, which aggregates pesticide information from various sources. The database contains data on approximately 6,400 pesticides and their transformation products, including identification details, health toxicity (both chronic and acute), symptoms of poisoning, regulatory status, potential for water contamination, ecotoxicity, and regulatory information. It is considered the most comprehensive database of registered pesticide data available in North America. To ensure data accuracy, all entries undergo peer review by scientists, with most data derived from official sources evaluated using weight-of-evidence methodologies. All data sources are clearly cited, enabling users to quickly access the original datasets. Each dataset includes reference documentation indicating its origin, along with assessments of the source’s accuracy, timeliness, and comprehensiveness. The majority of PAN’s data originates from official agencies such as the U.S. EPA, the World Health Organization, the National Toxicology Program, the U.S. National Institutes of Health, and the International Agency for Research on Cancer. When data is obtained from the internet, links to the original sources are provided. If authoritative databases cannot supply relevant information, the database offers primary scientific literature that has been reviewed by expert peers. The website is accessible at http://www.pesticideinfo.org/ and is freely available for browsing. Ecotoxicology Database (ECOTOX) ECOTOX is developed and maintained by the Mid-Continent Ecological Division within the National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory of the EPA’s Office of Research and Development. Its primary focus is on ecological toxicity data for aquatic and terrestrial organisms resulting from exposure to specific chemical substances. ECOTOX staff compile this information by reviewing documents housed in the library of the EPA’s Mid-Continent Ecological Division. ECOTOX integrates three distinct databases—AQUIRE, PHYTOTOX, and TERRETOX—and compiles toxicity data for aquatic and terrestrial species published between 1970 and the present. As of February 8, 2020, the database contained information on 11,822 chemical substances affecting 13,039 species. Updates occur approximately every three months. Data elements include basic chemical substance details such as English name, chemical name, solvent name, CAS number, molecular formula, and purity; experimental organism parameters like species name, Latin name, sample size, age, and descriptive characteristics; experimental conditions including test type, concentration or dose of the toxicant, test location, method of exposure, and duration; and toxicity metrics such as LD50, LC50, residual toxicity effects, and endpoint data. Quality assurance involves both self‑checks by data collectors and reviews conducted by experienced personnel, followed by final verification by data administrators. The database can be accessed at: https://cfpub.epa.gov/ecotox/search.cfm and is freely available for use. TOXicology data NETwork (TOXNET) TOXNET is a collective term for a suite of databases created by the Specialized Information Services Branch of the U.S. National Library of Medicine. It comprises two bibliographic databases—Toxicology Literature Online and Developmental and Reproductive Toxicology—as well as twelve additional specialized databases, including the Chemical Carcinogenesis Research Information System, the Carcinogenic Potency Database, the Comparative Toxicogenomics Database, the Genetics Database, the Hazardous Substances Database, the Comprehensive Risk Information System, and the International Toxicity Risk Assessment Database. Currently, the Hazardous Substances Database contains toxicity data on over 5,000 hazardous chemicals that have undergone expert review, while the Toxicology Literature Online database holds four million records documenting biochemical, pharmacological, physiological, and toxicological effects of drugs and other chemicals. Other databases likewise provide detailed, professional information, with complete data volumes listed under each database’s respective link on the website. Key content areas encompass fundamental chemical substance information, health-related toxicity assessments—including carcinogenicity, mutagenicity, tumor promotion and suppression, and overall health risk evaluations—and environmental impacts.

Summary of Toxicity Classification Criteria for Pesticides to Environmental Organisms

Summary of Toxicity Classification Standards for Pesticides on Environmental Organisms Animals commonly associated with pesticide environmental toxicology include fish, daphnia, algae, birds, honeybees, earthworms, soil microorganisms, silkworms, and beneficial insects. In the series of national standards GB/T 31270–2014 of the People’s Republic of China, detailed criteria are provided for classifying the toxicity levels of pesticides toward more than ten categories of environmental organisms, including fish, daphnia, algae, large crustaceans, birds, honeybees, silkworms, natural enemies, earthworms, soil microorganisms, non-target plants, and livestock. 1. Fish Fish toxicity refers to the adverse effects and hazards caused by pesticides to fish, encompassing acute toxicity, chronic toxicity, embryotoxicity, and teratogenicity. In safety assessments, only acute toxicity is typically evaluated, generally using the median effective concentration (TLm) or the median lethal concentration (LC50) as measurement indicators. Based on the LC50 value (96 h) for fish, pesticide toxicity toward fish is divided into four classes: 2. Daphnia Daphnia are an important group of aquatic animals, serving as food for fish and playing a crucial role in the aquatic food chain. Due to their high sensitivity to pesticides, their toxicity is often used as an indicator for assessing the environmental safety of pesticides. The classification criteria for pesticide toxicity toward daphnia mirror those for fish. Based on the EC50 value (48 h) that inhibits half of daphnia activity, acute toxicity toward daphnia is categorized into four levels: 3. Large Crustaceans According to the LC50 value (96 h) for large crustaceans, acute toxicity of pesticides toward these organisms is classified into four levels: 4. Algae Algal toxicity indicates the ability of pesticides to damage algal cells, manifesting as killing or growth inhibition effects. It is expressed by the EC50 value—the concentration at which half of the algal population is affected. This metric is frequently used as a key indicator in evaluating pesticide environmental safety. Based on the EC50 value (72 h) for algal growth inhibition, pesticide toxicity toward algae is divided into three classes: 5. Birds Bird toxicity refers to the impacts and hazards pesticides have on bird growth, reproduction, and physiological and biochemical functions. It includes both acute and chronic toxicity; acute toxicity is usually indicated by LD50. According to national standards, based on the acute oral LD50 and the acute feeding LC50 values for birds, pesticide toxicity toward birds is divided into four classes, as shown in the following table: 6. Honeybees Honeybee toxicity denotes the capacity of pesticides to harm honeybee bodies, expressed either by LD50 or LC50. Based on the acute oral and contact LD50 values (48 h), pesticide toxicity toward honeybees is classified into four levels: 7. Silkworms Silkworm toxicity refers to the damaging effects of pesticides on silkworm bodies, typically measured by LD50 or LC50. Test data on silkworm toxicity are essential materials for pesticide registration and guidance on safe usage. Based on the acute leaf‑soaking LC50 value (96 h) for silkworms, pesticide toxicity toward them is divided into four levels, as shown below: Fumigation tests are primarily conducted under simulated indoor application conditions for sanitary pesticides. If the mortality rate among silkworms exceeds 10%, it is considered a high risk to silkworms. 8. Natural Enemies Toxicity toward natural enemies: In nature, pests and their natural enemies normally maintain a balanced relationship—natural enemies feed on pests, and when pest populations increase, natural enemy numbers also rise accordingly. However, since natural enemies are more sensitive to pesticides than pests, improper pesticide use can lead to massive natural enemy deaths, allowing pest populations to rebound unchecked. Therefore, understanding the harmful effects of pesticides on natural enemies is a critical component of integrated pest management and ensuring safe pesticide application. Pesticide toxicity toward natural enemies is often assessed using Trichogramma wasps as a representative example, while amphibians among natural enemies are also subject to safety evaluations. (1) Natural Enemy: Trichogramma Wasps Using a safety factor approach to evaluate the safety of pesticides toward Trichogramma wasps, pesticide risks toward these beneficial insects are divided into four levels: (2) Natural Enemy: Amphibians Taking frogs as an example, based on the LC50 value (96 h) for tadpole acute toxicity, pesticide toxicity toward tadpoles is registered into four levels: 9. Earthworms Earthworm toxicity refers to the short-term harmful effects of pesticides on earthworms, typically expressed by LC50, which is used to assess the impact of pesticides on soil organisms. Based on the LC50 value for earthworms, acute toxicity toward earthworms is divided into four levels: 10. Soil Microorganisms The classification criteria for pesticide toxicity toward soil microorganisms are as follows: (1) CO2 Absorption Method Under the CO2 absorption method, pesticide toxicity toward soil microorganisms is divided into three levels: a. When the amount of pesticide added to the soil remains constant, if the respiratory intensity of soil microorganisms is inhibited by 50% within 15 days, it is classified as highly toxic; b. If the pesticide dosage is increased tenfold compared to the baseline and still achieves the same level of inhibition, it is classified as moderately toxic; c. If the pesticide dosage is increased one hundredfold yet still reaches the same inhibition threshold, it is classified as low toxicity; if none of these three scenarios achieve the required inhibition level, it is likewise classified as low toxicity. (2) Nitrogen Conversion Method For samples taken at any time after a 28-day test period, if the difference in nitrate formation rates between the low-concentration treatment group and the control group does not exceed 25%, the pesticide can be considered to have no long-term impact on nitrogen conversion in the soil. 11. Non-Target Plants Based on the EC50 value—the concentration at which half of non-target plants experience growth inhibition—pesticide toxicity toward non-target plants is divided into four levels: 12. Livestock Based on the LC50 value (28 days) for livestock, short-term feeding toxicity of pesticides toward livestock is classified into four levels: (Source: Yingtai Analysis)

On the Social Attributes of Pesticides

On the Social Attributes of Pesticides Every commodity possesses both natural and social attributes. The natural attribute is embodied in the commodity’s inherent use-value—for example, pesticides are used to control pests, diseases, and weeds. The social attribute, on the other hand, manifests through social relations and is reflected in political, social, and economic characteristics. Only by understanding the social attributes of pesticides and correctly grasping their status and value in political, social, and economic spheres can we truly appreciate their significance for national economic development and societal progress. 1. The Political “Stamp” of Pesticides Pesticides are commodities; as agricultural inputs, they are a special kind of commodity that has been deeply imprinted by modern politics and endowed with distinct contemporary political characteristics. 1.1 Concerning the “Major National Issue”—Food Security Food is paramount for the people. Without food, individuals either perish or fall ill; without food, nations may descend into chaos or even collapse. Food security is a matter of life and death—a true “major national issue.” Pesticides serve as a crucial pillar in ensuring food security. According to statistics from the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, annual global grain losses due to pests, diseases, and weeds range from 20% to 40%. If current pesticide use were abandoned, these losses would double. There are two key implications here: first, even with pesticide application, crop losses still amount to 20%–40%; if pesticide use were more scientific and rational, these losses could be further reduced. Second, abandoning existing pesticides altogether would result in an additional 20%–40% loss in crop yields. In a world where global food production is already tightly balanced, giving up current pesticides would mean either reducing the population by 20%–40% or leaving everyone perpetually undernourished. Undoubtedly, such a scenario is simply unsustainable. Throughout Chinese history, locusts have been among the most devastating pests. When locusts arrive, they blot out the sun; when they depart, entire harvests may vanish. During periods of good governance, local officials might distribute relief supplies, allowing some impoverished people to survive. But during times of neglect, widespread famine and cannibalism ensued. The Communist Party of China and the Chinese government place the people at the center of their policies, treating food security as a “major national issue.” How can food security be ensured? As a populous nation, entrusting one’s food supply to others—keeping it in someone else’s hands—cannot guarantee safety. Instead, China must rely on its own resources to solve its food problems, firmly holding its rice bowl in its own hands. Reality shows that discussing national food security without pesticides is unrealistic. Focusing solely on the drawbacks of pesticides while ignoring their immense contributions reflects a myopic bias and a mechanistic approach that fails to grasp dialectical principles. Small pesticides are linked to great security, and this relationship will remain unchanged for the foreseeable future. 1.2 Concerning the “Fundamental Pillar of the Nation”—Environmental Safety Excessiveness leads to harm, and blessings and misfortunes coexist. While pesticides safeguard food security, improper or unsafe use can also harm the environment. In 1962, American marine biologist Rachel Carson published Silent Spring, describing how birds fell silent and spring became eerily quiet due to the overuse of chemical pesticides. Her work resonated widely across international society, prompting people to recognize that chemical pesticides are not miracle cures but rather double-edged swords—one side angelic, the other demonic. While protecting crops from pests and diseases, pesticides can also inflict severe damage on the very environment upon which humanity depends. Thus, while embracing the benefits of pesticides, we must strive to curb their potential harms, confining them within safe boundaries and employing rigorous technologies and regulations to restrain their negative impacts. This led to the establishment of pre‑market registration reviews and post‑market oversight systems. Over nearly six decades, humanity has accumulated extensive experience in balancing the benefits of pesticides with their risks, gradually mastering this delicate task. The basic approach involves encouraging the development of highly effective, low‑toxicity, low‑residue pesticides while phasing out high‑risk, high‑residue ones. At the same time, precision application techniques are promoted to enhance pesticide efficiency, minimizing both crop damage and environmental harm. Since the reform and opening-up period, alongside socioeconomic development, China’s environmental awareness has steadily grown. A comprehensive legal framework for pesticide management has been established and continuously refined, ensuring that every stage—from registration and production to distribution and use—is governed by law. Environmental damage caused by pesticide production and use has significantly improved, yet vigilance in environmental protection remains essential. 1.3 Concerning “Public Health”—Food Safety Most residual chemicals in the natural environment naturally degrade over time, but trace amounts may persist in the environment or in crops, eventually entering the food chain and posing health risks to humans. With public welfare being of paramount importance, safeguarding public health under the leadership of the Communist Party of China constitutes the highest political priority. To control the impact of pesticide residues on food safety, four critical checkpoints must be strictly enforced: first, rigorous review and registration procedures—products exceeding risk thresholds should be denied registration and market access, preventing problems before they arise; second, stringent market supervision—counterfeit and substandard products must be resolutely removed from circulation; third, proper pesticide application—prescribing medications according to specific conditions, following standardized formulations, and adhering to prescribed dosages. As the saying goes, “even medicine contains poison”; when people take medication, too little is ineffective, while too much can lead to poisoning. The same principle applies to pesticides: strict adherence to dosage standards is essential, along with intensive training for applicators and tight control over usage quantities. Fourth, periodic reevaluation and withdrawal mechanisms—existing products should undergo regular reassessment, with high‑risk, high‑residue pesticides promptly phased out in response to evolving circumstances and technological advances. 2. The Social Role of Pesticides 2.1 Liberating Labor—A Key Component of People’s Happiness Karl Marx once remarked that replacing human labor with machinery and freeing people from arduous physical work represents the greatest contribution of industrial society. One of the hallmarks of social progress and human well-being is precisely the liberation of humanity from heavy manual labor. Agricultural work, especially under extreme heat or cold, often leaves workers drenched in sweat and exhausted—hardly conducive to happiness. Machinery has indeed replaced human labor and liberated farmers, a fact widely acknowledged. However, the role of pesticides in liberating farmers remains somewhat unclear to some. Herbicides have only recently begun to replace manual weeding—this shift occurred toward the end of the last century. Before the advent of chemical pest control, pest management relied almost entirely on manual labor, which was not only inefficient but also entailed grueling, high‑intensity agricultural tasks. The primary purpose behind inventing pesticides was to control pests and diseases, protect crops, increase yields, and boost incomes. Yet objectively, pesticides have also played a significant role in freeing labor and enhancing people’s happiness. 2.2 Driving Social Welfare—Displaying Quasi‑Public Goods Characteristics Pests, diseases, and weeds spread rapidly through environmental factors and their own biological traits, potentially causing large‑scale disasters. Take the fall armyworm, which has drawn intense attention from agricultural authorities at all levels and even central leaders in recent years. Carried by wind currents, this pest can travel hundreds of miles in a single day, crossing oceans and national borders, wreaking havoc wherever it goes. Such outbreaks require top‑down planning, unified deployment, and coordinated prevention and control measures; isolated, individual efforts yield minimal results. Even some pests less mobile than the fall armyworm can spread extensively via host transportation and migration. Consequently, pest control exhibits a clear “spillover effect”: collective action benefits not only the individual but also the wider community and society at large. Conversely, failure to act harms not only oneself but also others. From this perspective, pesticides are not ordinary commodities—they possess certain characteristics of public goods and serve as social welfare products that directly affect the common good. These public‑goods and social‑welfare attributes of pesticides impose significant responsibilities and obligations on governments. Some regions have therefore issued green pesticide catalogs, subsidizing or even providing certain varieties free of charge, based on this rationale. However, this does not mean that pesticides must be fully funded by state budgets. Individual and societal benefits from pest control justify appropriate cost‑sharing between private and public finances; as fiscal resources grow, increased government funding—or even full coverage—becomes entirely reasonable. 2.3 Ensuring Public Health—The Special Social Function of Alternative Pesticides The Regulations on Pesticide Administration explicitly include “prevention and control of mosquitoes, flies, cockroaches, rats, and other harmful organisms” within the scope of pesticides. We commonly refer to these as “sanitary pesticides.” Mosquitoes, flies, cockroaches, and rats disrupt both production and daily life, affecting rural areas as well as urban centers, agriculture as well as commerce and services. Often dubbed the “Four Pests,” these creatures can even trigger epidemics of malaria and plague, underscoring their grave dangers. According to World Health Organization statistics, in 2019 there were 228 million cases of malaria worldwide, resulting in 409,000 deaths—over 94% of which occurred in Africa. Since 2001, among the 663 million malaria cases successfully averted, 69% were attributable to insecticide‑treated bed nets, while another 10% resulted from indoor spraying of pesticides. Data indicate that between 2001 and 2010, the increased use of insecticide‑treated bed nets prevented the deaths of 842,800 children in malaria‑endemic regions. As WHO strives to achieve its goal of controlling and eliminating malaria and other vector‑borne tropical diseases by 2030, public health products play an increasingly prominent role in vector‑control interventions. Although classified as “alternative” within the broader category of pesticides, these sanitary agents fulfill vital functions in safeguarding public health and improving quality of life, exhibiting strong characteristics of public goods as well. 3. Economic and Market Characteristics of Pesticides As commodities, pesticides naturally possess the typical economic attributes of general goods. At the same time, as agricultural inputs, they also exhibit unique economic features of their own. 3.1 The Seller’s Dominant Position in End‑User Transactions In ordinary commodity transactions, such as purchasing a television, buyers typically have clear objectives and articulate their needs, while sellers promptly complete settlement and delivery, bringing the transaction to a close—even if installation services are required, they remain straightforward. By contrast, pesticide transactions differ significantly: farmers generally cannot directly specify which product to buy or how much to purchase, nor can they clearly describe the specific pests or diseases they wish to address. More often, they bring samples of pests or diseases, leaving it to the seller to make recommendations. This effectively grants sellers prescribing and decision‑making authority, placing them in a dominant—and sometimes decisive—position throughout the final transaction process. The rights and obligations of buyers and sellers are thus unequal. From the perspective of fair trade economics, such asymmetry makes equitable transactions difficult to achieve. To ensure fairness, the state must enact laws and regulations that impose stronger obligations and responsibilities on the dominant party—for instance, requiring sellers to obtain operating licenses, mandating professional training for sales personnel, ensuring that recommended products are registered and approved for use on specific crops and target pests, and maintaining traceable records. Meanwhile, buyers (farmers) can also take certain self‑protective measures, such as choosing to purchase pesticides from trusted sources with positive reputations.Good reputation means fewer problems, and within familiar circles, even if issues arise, it’s easier to assert one’s rights. 3.2 Complexity of Use and Consequences Taking televisions as an example again, their use is very straightforward—most people can operate them, and even those unfamiliar with them can learn quickly with minimal training. In contrast, pesticide application is far more complex: not only must the right product be selected for the specific pest or disease, but its effectiveness also depends on factors such as which other chemicals are mixed with it, proper mixing ratios, the type of spraying equipment used, environmental conditions during application, and the number of applications. The skill level of the applicator and the method of application significantly influence efficacy, often leading to disputes between buyers and sellers. If the expected results aren’t achieved—especially when serious damage occurs—the buyer may accuse the seller of failing to provide adequate guidance or of supplying substandard products, while the seller might blame the buyer for improper usage. Investigations into such incidents can be difficult due to challenges in verifying facts and collecting evidence. Given that farmers, as pesticide purchasers, typically lack the capacity to rapidly improve their skills, policies encourage the development of agricultural service organizations that offer specialized support, including crop protection management and professional spraying services. 3.3 Amplification Effect of Output As an agricultural input, pesticide consumption is integral to the agricultural production process, and its effects are amplified throughout this process. This differs from ordinary goods: if a non‑compliant television breaks down, the loss is limited to the cost of the device itself, rarely causing cascading losses. With pesticides, however, quality issues can result in significant losses to agricultural output, while the direct impact on the pesticide itself is relatively minor. Properly selecting and applying pesticides promotes crop growth and improves quality, leading to exponentially increased yields; conversely, incorrect selection or misuse can cause damages that likewise escalate dramatically. It is precisely for this reason that governments strengthen oversight over pesticide safety and usage, cracking down rigorously on counterfeit and substandard products. These are the primary economic characteristics unique to pesticides. Linked to these core attributes, pesticides also exhibit three additional market features. 3.3.1 Master–Slave Relationship with Agriculture Pesticides serve agriculture, so when agricultural policies support smooth development, the pesticide industry prospers accordingly; conversely, sluggish agricultural growth leads to constraints on the sector. Pesticide prices generally move in tandem with agricultural commodity prices, though price fluctuations tend to be more pronounced. The underlying reason lies in the relatively small share of pesticides in overall agricultural costs, coupled with certain barriers to entry that make it difficult for new producers to establish themselves. When agricultural markets perform well—expanding acreage and increasing cropping intensity—demand for pesticides rises sharply, driving rapid price increases. 3.3.2 High Customer Loyalty Due to the complexity of pesticide transactions and their application, a company’s reputation and word-of-mouth play a crucial role in shaping farmers’ choices among varieties and brands. In rural communities, where social networks are tight-knit and information channels relatively limited, farmers place great importance on recommendations from neighbors and firsthand observations of results. Such relationships tend to be stable, and once mutual trust is established, they can endure over long periods, demonstrating strong customer loyalty. By contrast, introducing new pesticide brands or products into a market requires substantial investment in both time and resources. Thus, the pesticide market demands careful cultivation; rapid expansion or aggressive market capture is unrealistic. 3.3.3 Pronounced Regional Characteristics The regional nature of pesticides stems first from the regional diversity of agriculture itself. Local differences in crop varieties and cropping patterns inevitably lead to variations in pesticide needs. Second, differing agricultural environments give rise to distinct pest and weed pressures across regions, while variations in sunlight, temperature, and humidity further affect pesticide performance. All these factors contribute to differences in pesticide use between countries and regions. Finally, the localized nature of agricultural service systems amplifies regional distinctions: most agricultural service providers focus on local areas, with few operating across large regions. These local service organizations wield considerable influence in recommending agricultural inputs, and their fragmented market structure further reinforces the regional character of pesticide usage. 4 Practical Implications of Understanding Pesticides’ Social Attributes Theoretical analysis exists to better serve practical realities, not merely for academic purposes. By examining the social attributes of pesticides, we aim to gain clearer insight into the direction and path of industry development. 4.1 Approach Pesticide Industry with Confidence Although the pesticide industry is relatively small, humanity relies on pesticides to ensure food security, and they have played a vital role in freeing people from arduous labor. Moreover, pesticides help protect human health by controlling pests and diseases. As global populations continue to grow, the demand for safe and effective pesticides will only increase. Therefore, we should approach this field with optimism, recognizing its critical role in sustaining life and supporting sustainable agricultural practices.