Public Opinion Analysis of the Pesticide Industry in 2020 and Outlook for 2021

2020 Pesticide Industry Public Opinion Analysis and 2021 Outlook In 2020, public attention toward the pesticide industry remained generally high, with a significant year-on-year increase in overall public sentiment. A series of policy decisions and deployment measures related to pesticide management were successively announced, sparking intense public interest in the sector’s future development. Notable achievements in reducing pesticide use while improving efficiency, along with efforts to recycle and properly dispose of pesticide packaging waste and strengthen pesticide supervision, became major reporting topics. Plans for controlling crop diseases and pests, as well as preparations for combating the fall armyworm, also generated considerable public anticipation. Meanwhile, issues such as excessive pesticide residues and counterfeit pesticides sold online emerged as hotspots of public concern. ......2020 Pesticide Industry Public Opinion Analysis and 2021 Outlook In 2020, public attention toward the pesticide industry remained generally high, with a significant year-on-year increase in overall public sentiment. A series of policy decisions and deployment measures related to pesticide management were successively announced, sparking intense public interest in the industry’s future development path. Notable achievements in reducing pesticide use while improving efficiency, along with efforts to recycle and properly dispose of pesticide packaging waste and strengthen pesticide supervision and administration, became major reporting topics. Plans for controlling crop diseases and pests, as well as preparations for combating the fall armyworm, also generated considerable public anticipation. Meanwhile, issues such as excessive pesticide residues and counterfeit pesticides sold online emerged as hotspots of public concern. ......Thus, this approach will inspire greater enthusiasm and ingenuity among enterprises, effectively dismantling the invisible “ecological bomb” posed by pesticide packaging waste. Since 2020, localities have implemented region-specific measures to advance the recycling of pesticide packaging waste, achieving notable results. Efforts to standardize the collection and treatment of such packaging, along with the exploration of effective recycling models, have drawn sustained attention. Among these, the deposit‑return system for pesticide packaging has emerged as a focal point in media coverage. Public opinion holds that this deposit‑return mechanism enables low‑cost recovery of pesticide packaging waste, breaking away from the traditional reliance on government subsidies to cover recycling expenses. By providing long-term economic incentives, it promotes the sustainable development of recycling initiatives. This straightforward and practical model has already been adopted in over ten cities and counties across provinces including Sichuan, Heilongjiang, Henan, and Hebei. 2.5 Pesticide Residues in Agricultural Products Draw Attention The issue of agricultural product safety arising from pesticide residues has remained a sensitive topic of intense media scrutiny and public concern in recent years, with food safety inspection reports from various regions drawing widespread attention. Public discourse on pesticide residues has been extensive. Some commentators argue that people tend to worry excessively about pesticide residues, with certain consumers even deliberately choosing vegetables with insect holes for peace of mind. Other media outlets contend that real‑world pesticide residues are not as alarming as commonly perceived, noting that highly toxic pesticides are now relatively rare. Still others emphasize that when used properly, pesticides are safe and controllable; after all, pesticide residue and excessive residue levels are distinct concepts—just as medications can leave side effects and residual traces, expecting zero residue after pesticide application may be overly demanding. Local efforts to enhance pesticide residue testing in agricultural products have received positive public recognition. Notably, a rapid detection technology developed by the Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences has garnered significant attention. Media outlets such as the Economic Daily, Science and Technology Daily, and Xinhuanet have reported on this innovation, highlighting how it enables swift and accurate detection of pesticide residues. Public opinion praises this advancement, stating that "source‑level regulation" better supports food safety oversight and safeguards the public's "safety on the tip of the tongue." 2.6 Online Purchases of Pesticides Become Hotbeds of Counterfeiting In 2020, media reports exposed numerous cases involving the production and sale of counterfeit or substandard pesticides, with total case values reaching tens of millions of yuan, sparking widespread shock. High‑profile incidents included Guangdong’s Weinong Agrochemicals’ massive online sale of fake pesticides, Zhejiang’s former university professor who built an underground empire manufacturing counterfeit agrochemicals, and a major counterfeit‑pesticide case linked to a farm owner in Taizhou, Jiangsu. Law enforcement agencies rigorously punished offenders, earning broad public approval. Additionally, media revealed further instances of harm caused by fake pesticides: in PingLe County, Guangxi, over 2,300 mu of citrus trees suffered severe fruit drop; in Kaikeng County, Inner Mongolia, chili seedlings belonging to 43 farmers exhibited leaf curling and widespread dieback; and in Pingdu City, Qingdao, Shandong, a large potato farmer faced near‑total crop failure due to the use of counterfeit pesticides. Public discourse has highlighted ten major counterfeiting cases in the agrochemical sector, seven prominent pesticide‑related violations, and several exemplary anti‑counterfeiting examples, reinforcing warnings against opportunistic misconduct. These cases underscore that those seeking quick profits ultimately face bitter consequences and dismal outcomes. Some media outlets note that online platforms—including WeChat—have become hotspots for selling counterfeit or substandard pesticides, affecting victims nationwide. In response, public opinion calls for stronger regulatory oversight of online pesticide sales and stricter standards for pesticide‑related operations on digital platforms. Prominent domestic pesticide manufacturers have issued strong statements banning illegal online sales, igniting heated debate. Such declarations—highlighting market disruption, unfair competition, and infringement of legitimate channel rights—have attracted widespread media attention. Commentators observe that, amid the booming e‑commerce landscape, these forceful "kill‑order" statements reveal the unease felt by traditional distributors. Others view these announcements as part of a broader effort to weed out non‑compliant platforms, supporting the growth of legitimate e‑commerce players and fostering a healthier agrochemical industry overall. 3. Outlook and Recommendations for 2021 Overall, in 2020, public discourse surrounding the pesticide industry saw a substantial year‑on‑year increase in volume, with particular attention focused on pesticide management issues and incidents of misuse. New media platforms such as mobile apps, WeChat, and Weibo have become key channels for institutions and netizens to promptly share trending information and engage in discussions, experiencing rapid growth in content volume and demonstrating clear advantages in shaping public opinion. Looking ahead to 2021, public sentiment regarding the pesticide industry is likely to exhibit the following characteristics: From the perspective of dissemination channels, the influence of "WeChat, Weibo, and mobile apps" will continue to grow, while short videos and live streaming platforms will further expand their reach. As for areas of public concern, initiatives aimed at reducing the use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides are expected to attract heightened attention. The Central No. 1 Document’s call for "continuously decreasing the use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides" sets a firm mandate for transforming rural agricultural production and lifestyles.

Effective September 1, the new Work Safety Law for the first time addresses employees’ mental health.

Effective September 1, the new Work Safety Law for the first time addresses employees’ mental health. On June 10, 2021, the 29th Meeting of the Standing Committee of the 13th National People’s Congress adopted the Decision on Amending the Work Safety Law of the People’s Republic of China, which will take effect on September 1, 2021. Amendments to Legal Provisions This revision introduces the following changes: Effective September 1, 2021 1. Article 3 is amended to read: “Work safety shall be conducted under the leadership of the Communist Party of China.” 2. Article 4 is amended to read: “Production and business entities must comply with this Law and other relevant laws and regulations on work safety, strengthen work safety management, establish and improve a comprehensive work safety responsibility system covering all employees and sound work safety rules and regulations, increase investment in funds, materials, technology, and personnel for work safety, improve work safety conditions, enhance standardization and informationization of work safety, build a dual-prevention mechanism for hierarchical risk control and hazard identification and remediation, refine mechanisms for preventing and resolving risks, raise the level of work safety, and ensure safe production.” 3. Article 5 is amended to read: “The principal person in charge of a production or business entity is the primary responsible person for work safety within that entity and bears overall responsibility for its work safety efforts.” 4. Article 8 is split into two articles, renumbered as Articles 8 and 9, and revised as follows: “Article 8: The State Council and people’s governments at or above the county level shall formulate work safety plans based on national economic and social development plans and organize their implementation.” 5. Article 9 is renumbered as Article 10 and revised to read: “The emergency management department under the State Council shall, in accordance with this Law, exercise comprehensive supervision and administration over work safety nationwide.” 6. Article 18 is renumbered as Article 21 and revised to read: “The principal person in charge of a production or business entity bears responsibility for the entity’s work safety efforts.” 7. Article 22 is renumbered as Article 25 and revised to read: “The work safety management organization and work safety management personnel of a production or business entity shall perform their duties.” 8. Article 33 is renumbered as Article 36, with two additional paragraphs added as Paragraphs 3 and 4. 9. Article 37 is renumbered as Article 40, with Paragraph 2 revised to read: “Production and business entities shall, in accordance with relevant state regulations, file records of major hazard sources and related safety and emergency measures with the local people’s government’s emergency management department and relevant authorities.” 10. Article 38 is renumbered as Article 41 and revised to read: “Production and business entities shall establish a hierarchical risk management and control system, implementing appropriate control measures according to the level of risk.” 11. Article 41 is renumbered as Article 44, with an additional paragraph added as Paragraph 2. 12. Article 46 is renumbered as Article 49, with an additional paragraph added as Paragraph 3. 13. Article 48 is renumbered as Article 51, with Paragraph 2 revised to read: “The state encourages production and business entities to obtain work safety liability insurance; entities operating in industries or fields designated by the state as high-risk must obtain such insurance.” 14. Article 53 is renumbered as Article 56 and revised to read: “Upon occurrence of a production safety accident, production and business entities shall promptly take measures to provide medical treatment to those affected.” 15. Article 54 is renumbered as Article 57 and revised to read: “During operations, workers shall strictly fulfill their post-specific safety responsibilities, abide by the entity’s work safety rules and operating procedures, follow management instructions, and correctly wear and use personal protective equipment.” 16. Article 69 is renumbered as Article 72 and revised to read: “Agencies undertaking safety evaluation, certification, testing, and inspection duties must possess qualifications prescribed by the state and bear legal and factual responsibility for the accuracy and authenticity of their evaluation, certification, testing, and inspection results.” 17. Article 70 is renumbered as Article 73 and revised to read: “Departments responsible for work safety supervision and administration shall establish a reporting system, publicly disclose telephone numbers, mailboxes, email addresses, or other online platforms for receiving reports related to work safety.” 18. Article 71 is renumbered as Article 74, with an additional paragraph added as Paragraph 2. 19. Article 75 is renumbered as Article 78 and revised to read: “Departments responsible for work safety supervision and administration shall establish a database of work safety violations, accurately recording information on violations committed by production and business entities and their relevant personnel.” 20. Article 76 is renumbered as Article 79 and revised to read: “The state shall strengthen emergency preparedness for production safety accidents, establishing emergency rescue bases and teams in key industries and sectors, with unified coordination and command provided by the national work safety emergency rescue agency.” 21. Article 77 is renumbered as Article 80, with an additional paragraph added as Paragraph 2. 22. Article 83 is renumbered as Article 86, with Paragraph 1 revised to read: “Investigation and handling of accidents shall adhere to principles of scientific rigor, compliance with laws and regulations, seeking truth from facts, and focusing on practical outcomes, ensuring timely and accurate clarification of accident causes, determination of accident nature and responsibility, assessment of emergency response efforts, summarization of lessons learned, proposal of corrective measures, and recommendations for disciplinary action against responsible entities and individuals.” 23. Article 89 is renumbered as Article 92 and revised to read: “If agencies issuing safety evaluations, certifications, tests, or inspections produce false reports, they shall be ordered to suspend operations for rectification and fined between RMB 30,000 and RMB 100,000; if damage is caused to others, they shall bear legal compensation liabilities.” 24. Article 91 is renumbered as Article 94, with Paragraph 1 revised to read: “If the principal person in charge of a production or business entity fails to fulfill the work safety management obligations stipulated by this Law, they shall be ordered to make corrections within a specified timeframe and fined between RMB 20,000 and RMB 50,000.” 25. Article 92 is renumbered as Article 95 and revised to read: “If the principal person in charge of a production or business entity fails to fulfill the work safety management obligations stipulated by this Law, resulting in a production safety accident, the emergency management department shall impose fines in accordance with the following provisions.” 26. Article 93 is renumbered as Article 96 and revised to read: “If other responsible persons or work safety management personnel of a production or business entity fail to fulfill the work safety management obligations stipulated by this Law, they shall be ordered to make corrections within a specified timeframe and fined between RMB 10,000 and RMB 30,000.” 27. Article 94 is renumbered as Article 97 and revised to read: “If a production or business entity engages in any of the following behaviors, it shall be ordered to make corrections within a specified timeframe and fined up to RMB 100,000.” 28. Article 95 is renumbered as Article 98 and revised to read: “If a production or business entity engages in any of the following behaviors, it shall be ordered to halt construction or cease operations for rectification within a specified timeframe, and fined between RMB 100,000 and RMB 500,000; direct supervisors and other directly responsible personnel shall also face fines ranging from RMB 20,000 to RMB 50,000.” 29. Article 96 is renumbered as Article 99, with two additional items added as Items 4 and 8. 30. Article 98 is renumbered as Article 101 and revised to read: “If a production or business entity engages in any of the following behaviors, it shall be ordered to make corrections within a specified timeframe and fined up to RMB 100,000.” 31. Article 99 is renumbered as Article 102 and revised to read: “If a production or business entity fails to take measures to eliminate potential accident hazards, it shall be ordered to immediately remove them or do so within a specified timeframe, and fined up to RMB 50,000.” 32. Article 100 is renumbered as Article 103, with an additional paragraph added as Paragraph 3. 33. Article 104 is renumbered as Article 107 and revised to read: “If employees of a production or business entity fail to fulfill their post-specific safety responsibilities, disobey management instructions, or violate work safety rules or operating procedures, the entity shall issue criticism and education, and impose disciplinary sanctions in accordance with relevant regulations.” 34. Article 108 is renumbered as Article 113 and revised to read: “If a production or business entity exhibits any of the following circumstances, departments responsible for work safety supervision and administration shall recommend closure to the local people’s government, and relevant authorities shall revoke its licenses and permits in accordance with the law.” 35. Article 109 is renumbered as Article 114 and revised to read: “In the event of a production safety accident, in addition to requiring the responsible production or business entity to assume corresponding compensation and other liabilities in accordance with the law, the emergency management department shall impose fines in accordance with the following provisions.” 36. Article 110 is renumbered as Article 115 and revised to read: “Administrative penalties stipulated by this Law shall be determined by the emergency management department and other departments responsible for work safety supervision and administration, according to their respective divisions of responsibility.” 37. Article 113 is renumbered as Article 118, with Paragraph 2 revised to read: “The State Council’s emergency management department and other departments responsible for work safety supervision and administration shall, in accordance with their respective responsibilities, formulate standards for identifying major hazard sources and criteria for determining major accident hazards in relevant industries and fields.” (Scroll up to view more content) The following amendments have been made to certain articles: The following amendments have been made to certain articles: Effective September 1, 2021 1. In Articles 20, 24, 27, 35, 40, 59, 62, 83, 86, and 106, the term “work safety supervision and administration department” has been replaced with “emergency management department.” 2. In Article 31, the term “work safety supervision and administration department” has been replaced with “department responsible for work safety supervision and administration.” 3. In Article 40, the term “lifting operations” has been replaced with “lifting operations, hot work, and temporary electrical usage.” 4. In Article 14, the term “persons responsible for production safety accidents” has been replaced with “responsible entities and individuals involved in production safety accidents.” 5. In Article 19, the term “work safety responsibility system” has been replaced with “comprehensive work safety responsibility system covering all employees.” 6. In Articles 21 and 24, the term “road transport unit” has been replaced with “transport unit,” and the term “storage” has been replaced with “storage and loading/unloading.”7. Amend “storage” in Paragraph 2 of Article 31 to read “storage, loading, and unloading.” 8. Amend “lock, block” in Paragraph 2 of Article 39 and Item 2 of Article 102 to read “occupy, lock, or block,” and change “exit” to “exit or evacuation passage.” 9. Amend “supervision and law enforcement” in Article 64 to read “administrative law enforcement.” 10. Delete the word “administrative” from Article 68. 11. Amend “Article 87” in Article 84 to read “Article 90.” 12. Delete “may” from Articles 96, 100, 101, and 102. (Scroll up to view more content) Additional Provisions Additional Provisions Effective September 1, 2021 1. Add Article 12: “Relevant departments under the State Council shall, in accordance with their respective responsibilities, be responsible for proposing projects, organizing drafting, soliciting opinions, and conducting technical reviews of mandatory national standards on work safety.” 2. Add Article 17: “People’s governments at or above the county level shall organize departments responsible for work safety supervision and administration to legally formulate lists of powers and responsibilities related to work safety, make them public, and accept social oversight.” 3. Add Article 109: “If production and business entities operating in high-risk industries or fields fail to obtain work safety liability insurance as required by the state, they shall be ordered to make corrections within a specified time limit and fined between RMB 50,000 and RMB 100,000.” 4. Add Article 112: “If a production or business entity violates the provisions of this Law, is ordered to make corrections and subjected to a fine, but refuses to comply, the department responsible for work safety supervision and administration may impose continuous daily fines, starting from the day following the date of the order to correct, at the original penalty amount.” (Scroll up to view more content) Work safety is a matter of paramount importance concerning both the lives and property of the people, and it also serves as a crucial foundation for steady socio-economic development. As the second amendment since the promulgation of the Work Safety Law in 2002, this revision closely addresses new issues and emerging risks that have arisen in recent years in work safety practices. Drawing on practical experience and lessons learned from accidents, it comprehensively improves relevant systems and regulations. The amended Article 44 of the Work Safety Law introduces a new provision requiring production and business entities to pay close attention to the physical health, psychological well-being, and behavioral patterns of their employees. Meanwhile, Article 97 stipulates that if an entity fails to establish a work safety management organization or appoint qualified safety management personnel, including registered safety engineers, as prescribed, it will face penalties. It is essential to promptly monitor employees’ physical and mental conditions, strengthen training on mental health, provide psychological counseling and emotional support, strictly enforce job-specific safety responsibilities, and prevent abnormal employee behavior that could lead to accidents. Thus, the revised Work Safety Law places greater emphasis on ensuring the occupational safety of workers in enterprises and institutions.

Proposal on Clarifying That the Scope of Application of the Bolar Exemption under Patent Law Includes Pesticides

Proposal on Clarifying That the Scope of the Bolar Exception under Patent Law Includes Pesticides Pesticides, as an essential agricultural input, play a crucial role in crop production, as well as in forestry, grassland management, and pest control for public health. Over many years, China’s pesticide industry has steadily developed, with its industrial system becoming increasingly robust and its product mix continuously optimized, thereby playing an irreplaceable role in stabilizing agricultural production and ensuring food security. According to the Patent‑Intensive Industries Catalog (2016) issued by the National Intellectual Property Administration (for trial implementation), pesticide manufacturing is classified as a patent‑intensive industry, and China’s pesticide market largely relies on technological innovation and intellectual property rights to compete internationally. In 2008, during the third amendment to China’s Patent Law, the Bolar exception was introduced. Article 69, Paragraph 1, Item 5 of the Patent Law (2008) stipulates: “The manufacture, use, or importation of patented pharmaceuticals or medical devices solely for the purpose of providing information required for administrative approval, as well as the specialized manufacture or importation of such patented pharmaceuticals or medical devices, shall not be deemed to infringe upon patent rights.” Due to the lengthy procedures involved in drug registration approvals, even after the expiration of a patent’s term, patented drugs may still monopolize the market, effectively extending the period of patent protection. The Bolar exception addresses this issue by mitigating delays in drug market access caused by administrative approval processes, thus fulfilling the legislative goal of enhancing public access to post‑patent medicines and safeguarding public interests. However, neither the Patent Law (2008) nor its Implementing Rules (2010) explicitly define the specific categories of “patented pharmaceuticals” covered by the Bolar exception—for instance, whether it applies only to human medicines or also extends to veterinary medicines and pesticides. As a major agricultural country, China has substantial demand for pesticides and a vast consumer market. Since the implementation of the Bolar exception, Chinese pesticide companies, while fully respecting others’ patent rights, have utilized this provision to produce, process, and conduct registration trials for numerous pesticide products still under patent protection—such as spirotetramat and chlorantraniliprole—without ever facing patent infringement litigation. Prior to the Bolar exception, there was one notable case in Chinese judicial practice where a company faced patent infringement claims for providing information necessary for pesticide registration approval: Bayer v. Huaxing regarding alleged infringement of an invention patent (see Supreme People’s Court Decision No. 1532 [2009]). At that time, however, the applicable legal framework was the Patent Law (2001). Relying on Article 63, Paragraph 1, Item (4) of that law—which states that “the use of a patent exclusively for scientific research and experimentation shall not be considered patent infringement”—the Supreme People’s Court ruled that Huaxing’s actions did not unreasonably interfere with Bayer’s normal use of its patent nor harm the legitimate interests of the patent holder; therefore, Huaxing’s conduct did not constitute infringement. This ruling indirectly confirmed that pesticides fall within the scope of the Bolar exception. Over the years, Chinese pesticide enterprises have leveraged the Bolar exception to accelerate the development of the generic pharmaceutical sector, reduce prices of expired‑patent pesticides, meet domestic market needs, and contribute significantly to improving agricultural product quality and safety, protecting the agricultural ecological environment, and increasing farmers’ incomes. In 2020, China completed the fourth amendment to its Patent Law, introducing an early dispute resolution mechanism for pharmaceutical patents—the Pharmaceutical Patent Linkage System. Article 76 of the Patent Law (2020) provides: “During the review and approval process for drug marketing authorization, if a dispute arises between the applicant for marketing authorization and the relevant patent holder or interested party concerning the patent rights associated with the drug being registered, the parties concerned may file a lawsuit with the people’s court requesting a judgment on whether the technical solution underlying the drug application falls within the scope of another party’s patent protection.” (Other provisions are omitted.) On May 18, 2021, the National Medical Products Administration officially launched China’s Drug Patent Information Registration Platform, categorizing drugs into traditional Chinese medicine, chemical drugs, and biological products according to the Measures for Drug Registration. Under Article 2, Paragraph 2 of the Drug Administration Law (2020), “drugs” refer to substances intended for the prevention, treatment, or diagnosis of human diseases, designed to purposefully regulate human physiological functions, and specified with indications, primary therapeutic functions, dosage forms, and dosages—including traditional Chinese medicines, chemical drugs, and biological products. Accordingly, at present, the pharmaceuticals covered by China’s Patent Linkage System pertain exclusively to human medicines. However, with the implementation of the Pharmaceutical Patent Linkage System, differing views have resurfaced within China’s pesticide industry regarding the scope of the Bolar exception. Some argue that the Bolar exception should apply only to human medicines and exclude pesticides and veterinary medicines. Their rationale is based on Article 50 of the Patent Law (2008), which refers to “pharmaceuticals obtaining patent rights,” and Article 73, Paragraph 2 of the Implementing Rules (2010), which defines “pharmaceuticals obtaining patent rights” as any patented product or directly derived product in the pharmaceutical field needed to address public health issues, including active ingredients used in manufacturing such products and diagnostic tools employed in their use. Given that identical language in the same statute generally carries the same meaning unless otherwise specified, they contend that the “pharmaceuticals” referenced in Article 69, Paragraph 1, Item 5 of the Patent Law (2008) should be understood to have the same meaning as those mentioned in Article 50. To ensure the healthy, stable, and orderly development of China’s pesticide industry, it is urgently necessary to clarify that the Bolar exception encompasses pesticides, thereby alleviating concerns among pesticide manufacturers about conducting routine production and registration activities and avoiding potential ambiguities in legal interpretation—particularly in cases involving infringement litigation—that could adversely affect the industry. To this end, we recommend that the competent authorities promptly clarify that the Bolar exception applies to pesticides. On the one hand, the Bolar exception primarily aims to provide information required for administrative approval, and pesticides likewise require such approval before they can be marketed, often involving lengthy administrative procedures. On the other hand, pesticides share common characteristics with human medicines, warranting a broader interpretation of what constitutes “patented pharmaceuticals” under the Bolar exception. We suggest clarifying this issue through legislation or the issuance of administrative regulations. For example, in Article 73 of the Proposed Amendments to the Implementing Rules of the Patent Law (Draft for Public Comment, November 27, 2020), a third paragraph could be added, specifying that the “pharmaceuticals” referred to in Article 75, Paragraph 5 of the Patent Law include three categories: first, medicines used for the prevention, diagnosis, or treatment of human diseases; second, chemical compounds or mixtures of natural substances—whether synthetic or derived from biological sources—designed to prevent or control pests, weeds, rodents, and other harmful organisms affecting agriculture and forestry, or to purposefully regulate plant and insect growth; and third, substances used for the prevention, treatment, or diagnosis of animal diseases, or for purposefully regulating animal physiological functions. Meanwhile, China’s early dispute resolution mechanism for pharmaceutical patents has already been implemented, significantly boosting the rapid development of the pharmaceutical sector. Both pesticides and pharmaceuticals share similar characteristics—high investment, high risk, and long development cycles—and rely heavily on patent protection to compete in the marketplace. In line with the policy of comprehensively strengthening intellectual property protection, and drawing on the advantages of the pharmaceutical patent linkage system, we propose exploring the establishment of an early dispute resolution mechanism for pesticide patents. The Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, in collaboration with the National Intellectual Property Administration, could formulate detailed measures for implementing such a mechanism, while the Ministry would oversee the creation of a national platform for registering pesticide patent information and gradually introduce a compensation system for expired pesticide patents. By fully leveraging the patent system’s role in safeguarding innovative achievements and fostering competitive market dynamics, we can protect the legitimate rights and interests of patent holders and ensure the high-quality development of China’s pesticide industry during the 14th Five-Year Plan period. (Author’s Affiliation: Jiangsu Center for Patent Examination Cooperation, Patent Office, National Intellectual Property Administration)

177 pesticide products from 107 companies have been approved for registration—let’s take a look at which ones they are.

177 pesticide products from 107 companies have been approved for registration—let’s take a look at which ones they are. Pesticide Registration Information Issue No. 18, 2021 In accordance with relevant provisions of the Regulations on the Administration of Pesticides and the Measures for the Administration of Pesticide Registration, following technical review and deliberation by the National Pesticide Registration Review Committee, registration has been granted to 177 pesticide products from 107 enterprises, including Weifang Huanuo Biotechnology Co., Ltd. (non‑new pesticides). Additionally, registration changes have been approved for 52 pesticide products from 41 enterprises, such as Yifan Biotechnology Group Co., Ltd. The corresponding “Pesticide Registration Certificates” have been issued, and the approved labels have been published simultaneously; no paper labels will be issued separately. Attachments: 1. Pesticide Product Registration Information (Non‑New Pesticides) 2. Pesticide Product Registration Change Information 3. Approved Labels Pesticide Management Division, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs July 2, 2021 Attachment 1: Pesticide Product Registration Information (Non‑New Pesticides) Attachment 2: Pesticide Product Registration Change Information

“Upholding Our Original Aspiration in the Centenary of the Party’s Founding, Devoting Compassion to Put Our Mission into Practice” — Charity Event by the High-tech Zone and Hunan Haohua Chemical Co., Ltd.

“Upholding Our Original Aspiration in the Centenary of the Party’s Founding, Devoting Compassion to Put Our Mission into Practice” — Charity Event by the High-tech Zone and Hunan Haohua Chemical Co., Ltd.