According to a report, in Jianghua County, Hunan Province, the actual area planted with rice is approximately 23,800 hectares, while the reported figure is nearly 39,000 hectares—a gap of about 15,200 hectares, all filled in on paper. It turns out the grain production task isn't completed in the fields, but in the office. However, a more fundamental question arises: have the fields not planted with rice been left fallow? No. Farmers have planted pumpkins, bitter melons, taro, and monk fruit. The land is not wasted, and the crops are thriving. Crucially, farmers have not fraudulently claimed a single cent of grain planting subsidies. So, what's the problem? Farmers are growing legal crops on their own land, haven't left it fallow, and haven't committed subsidy fraud. Why has this become an issue requiring "rectification"?

The Regulations for the Implementation of the Land Administration Law clearly state: "Cultivated land shall be prioritized for the production of grain, cotton, oil, sugar, vegetables, and other agricultural products." Vegetables and grain are presented as parallel, legal options, not mutually exclusive choices. Similarly, the Food Security Law stipulates: "Cultivated land shall be mainly used for the production of grain, cotton, oil, sugar, vegetables, and other agricultural products, as well as forage and feed." More interestingly, the law explicitly advocates for a "broad food concept" and building a diversified food supply system. What is the broad food concept? It means not focusing solely on staple grains like rice and wheat; tubers, legumes, vegetables, and aquatic products are all part of food security.

So, where does the fault lie? It lies with the assigned task. Jianghua County has 32,000 hectares of permanent basic farmland, yet the higher authorities issued a task of planting rice on 39,000 hectares—a simple multiplication of the 32,000 hectares by a double-cropping coefficient. What is the terrain of Jianghua? It's mountainous and hilly, where paddy fields are "precious cultivated land resources." The conditions for water sources, irrigation, drainage, and sunlight vary greatly in such terrain; not every field is suitable for double-cropping rice. But the task disregards these realities. The task only recognizes the number: 32,000 hectares of farmland must yield 39,000 hectares of rice.

What happens when inspection teams arrive? The "visible-range farming method" is employed—plant rice along the roadsides, while pumpkins, taro, and monk fruit are grown further inside. The official records show all fields planted with rice. A county official stated: "At least, you need to plant rice where it can be seen." Where it can be seen. What a precise phrase. Plant rice where the eyes can see, and plant livelihoods where they cannot. Don't be quick to blame the grassroots cadres. Consider their situation: they face a top-down task of 39,000 hectares. Failure means official reprimands, interviews, and impacts on performance rankings. Yet, for a farmer, planting one hectare of rice, with subsidies and purchase prices combined, might yield a net annual income of just a few hundred dollars after a year's hard work, with the risk of loss if the crop fails. Planting one hectare of monk fruit or taro? The profit can be several times higher.

What can grassroots cadres do? Force farmers to plant rice? Not only is it impractical, but the Rural Land Contracting Law grants farmers autonomy over crop selection, as long as the agricultural use of the land is not altered and it is not left fallow. So, what if the task cannot be completed? There's only one way: "complete" it on paper in the records. This is not a matter of individual cadres' ethics; it is forced by unrealistic tasks. Have those who set the tasks been down to the fields? Have they asked farmers if they are willing to plant rice? Have they calculated how much a farmer can actually earn per hectare of rice? Have they surveyed the irrigation conditions in the mountainous and hilly areas? If not, then this task was decided arbitrarily—this is bureaucracy.

The 2026 Central No. 1 Document emphasizes "improving the mechanism to guarantee the income of grain farmers"—it guarantees income, not area. Area is a means; income is the fundamental goal. If farming doesn't make money for farmers, setting any target area is futile—they will either not plant or plant something else. Food security is not safeguarded by numbers on a ledger; it is safeguarded by the people who grow the grain. Who are the grain growers? They are the farmers.

True food security means ensuring that those who grow grain have dignity, earn money, and have prospects. Through subsidy incentives, technological empowerment, and infrastructure improvements, make farmers feel that growing rice is worthwhile, and they will naturally plant it. "Farming on paper" appears superficially as data fabrication, but its root cause is bureaucracy. Tasks are set arbitrarily from the top, assessments are conducted perfunctorily in the middle, and records are fabricated blindly at the bottom. Food security is not an arithmetic problem; it is not solved by writing a number in an office. It is a question about people—about the livelihoods, dignity, and choices of those who grow our food. The land does not lie; crops do not deceive. What deceives are the eyes that only see numbers and not the people.

To protect cultivated land, we must first protect the people who farm it. To safeguard food security, we are not guarding the 39,000 hectares on a ledger; we are guarding the living, breathing people on the land.