New regulations on pesticide management are about to be implemented, and domestic pesticides will face greater challenges.

On June 1 of this year, the new pesticide management regulations will officially come into effect. The new regulations clarify the legal responsibilities of pesticide producers, operators, and users at the legal level. In terms of the legal scope of pesticide use, domestic products will face greater challenges compared to imported pesticides.
Under the past and current legal framework, the product registration of domestic pesticide production enterprises has a very narrow scope of use, with the vast majority of products having only one target for prevention and control. The new regulations not only continue to limit the labeling of producers' products but also add legal restrictions on operators and users.
It is important to note that the new regulations use the term "correctly stated" for operators regarding the scope of use, while for users, the term is "strictly according to." This means that operators have a clear and reasonable legal responsibility for the interpretation of the pesticide use scope, and they do not have creative expansion rights such as using beyond the scope. For users, the legal wording "strictly according to" is much stricter. This undoubtedly adds significant difficulty to the operation of using beyond the scope.
With the new regulations approaching and the narrow scope of domestic pesticide product registration, some industry insiders point out that the new regulations do not align with national conditions, are unrealistic, and are difficult to implement.
I remind my colleagues that the law is the law. When the law stipulated that children have equal inheritance rights, there was also opposition, but it did not affect the enforcement of this law for decades, nor did it stop people from depriving daughters of their inheritance rights to this day. However, a basic premise for depriving a daughter of her inheritance rights is private reconciliation, and it must not be brought to court. Otherwise, …, you know.
So, using beyond the scope after June 1 is exactly the same as depriving a daughter of her inheritance rights; it must not be brought to court. Ladies and gentlemen, illegal matters cannot be publicly justified.
Is using beyond the scope completely unacceptable? Not at all!!!
When God closes a door, He opens a window. The law is the same. The pesticide management regulations strictly require the use of pesticides according to the registered scope, while the Agricultural Technology Promotion Law provides a legal basis for using beyond the scope. The law is greater than the regulations.
According to the Agricultural Technology Promotion Law, using the part beyond the scope as agricultural technology promotion is also legally permissible. However, it should be noted that the applicable law has changed, and the entities involved must also change.
For example: Syngenta's Amisida was initially registered in the country for only one target. Now, the number of crops and targets for prevention and control has increased year by year to about thirty. Amisida has been used on pear trees for over a decade, and it has led to the entry of domestic fungicides into the pear market, but Amisida has not yet been registered for use on pear trees, so it is also difficult to find traces of Amisida's use on pear trees in Syngenta's official materials, which is to comply with the current pesticide management regulations. In the pear region, Amisida is promoted based on the Agricultural Technology Promotion Law, with the legal responsibilities and rights conferred by the promotion law being led by the promoting entity. Using pesticides beyond the registered scope led by pesticide production enterprises for promotion and sales is undoubtedly illegal.
In terms of pesticide use scope, the pesticide management regulations close the door on using beyond the scope while opening the window for agricultural technology promotion. Otherwise, some crops would truly have no available pesticides.
The paths of using a window and a door are different; using pesticides beyond the scope operates as part of agricultural technology, and pesticide production enterprises should legally withdraw from the role of promoting and advertising pesticide use beyond the scope.