By Fang Lin on Tuesday, 21 January 2014 in Agrochemical News

 

In 2013, 83.6% of Chinese pesticides met the minimum quality standard, according to a MoA report which outlined results taken from the second part of MoA’s quality monitoring initiative on pesticide products. This figure was down from 87.3% in the same period in 2012, a statistic which is indicative of MoA’s heightened regulatory supervision. A total of 3404 samples and 3417 labels from 2145 distributors and 998 manufacturers were tested. MoA found that 2846 samples met quality standards but 26% of labels were incorrectly labeled. These products have been registered for various crops, including soybean, maize, rice, wheat, fruit tree, vegetable, tea and cotton, etc.

Among the 3404 samples tested under quality standards, 2053 were insecticides, 725 fungicides, 568 herbicides and 58 miscellaneous. 84.6% of the single formulated products met quality standards while 80.3% of combination products met quality standards. The information is summarized in the following table:

Product type	Number of sampled	Number of qualified	rate
Insecticide	2053	1662	81.0%
Fungicide	725	634	87.5%
Herbicide	568	507	89.3%
miscellaneous	58	43	74.1%
Crops and the qualified rate of their pesticide products
Crop	Rate	Crop	Rate
Soybean	89.7%	Fruit Tree	84.4%
Maize	85.9%	Vegetables	83.7%
Rice	85.7%	Tea	80.0%
Wheat	84.7%	Cotton	73.9%

 

Of the 558 samples of unqualified pesticides 33.2 %( 185 samples) contained no active ingredient (or absent one active ingredent), 258 samples contained inadequate contents of the active ingredients; 200 samples contained unregistered active ingredients and 54 samples were detected with highly toxic or hyper toxic ingredients added.

Among the 889 labeling violations, 402 had forged labels, were expired or were without accompanying pesticide registration certificates. 180 were mislabeled with name, formulation type and active ingredients. 250 had overstated application ranges and 111 had incorrect or inadequate toxicity labeling information. 66 were labeled with incorrect production date or batch numbers. 285 were had incorrect trademarks.214 have been labeled with irregular safety entry interval data. 241 have marked with wrong name and contact information of the producer:

Unqualified Sample
Number	Proportion (%)	Major Problem
185	33.15	contained no active ingredient (or absent one active ingredent)
258	46.23	inadequate contents of the active ingredients
200	35.84	contained unregistered active ingredients
54	9.68	highly toxic or hyper toxic ingredients added
Labeling Violation
Number	Proportion (%)	Major Problem
402	45.22	forged labels; with expired or without accompanying pesticide registration certificates;
180	20.25	mislabeled with name, formulation type and active ingredients
250	28.12	overstated application ranges
111	12.49	incorrect or inadequate toxicity labeling information
66	7.42	labeled with incorrect production date or batch numbers
285	32.06	incorrect trademarks
214	24.07	labeled with irregular safety entry interval data
241	27.11	marked with wrong name and contact information of the producer

MoA listed the names, producers, pesticide registration number and related problems of all the substandard and mislabeled products and directed local authorities of agricultural administration to further investigate offending parties mentioned in the list. Violations are punished by seizing all products failing to meet standards and in serious cases the license or certificate of the producer can be revoked.

Over the past two years, MoA has implemented four rounds of quality inspections on pesticide products. Regulatory violations that had previously slipped under the radar are now being uncovered and a clear correlation can be seen between MoA’s increased supervision and the rise in the number of substandard products. MoA has increased the quality requirements for products and the labelling requirements during the inspection. In addition to this, samples are being tested using more sensitive testing methods all culminating in the statistical increase in substandard products.