China's 2026 Cotton Law Raises Concerns Over Uyghur Labor Control

China Enacts New Cotton Regulations in Xinjiang, Raising Concerns Over Control of Land and Labor

URUMQI, Xinjiang — A new regulation in China’s Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region took effect on July 1, 2026, establishing a comprehensive framework for the oversight of cotton production and supply chains. The Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region Regulations on Promoting Cotton Quality mandates traceability from farm to market, requiring detailed record-keeping and barcode tracking for every bale of cotton. While framed as a quality-control measure, critics warn the law deepens state control over the livelihoods of Uyghur and other Indigenous farmers in the region.

Under the regulation, all participants in the cotton supply chain—including farmers, processors, and storage facilities—must maintain records identifying the origin, handler, and processing history of each bale. This data must be preserved for at least five years. Additionally, businesses face regular inspections, credit assessments, and potential penalties through an “exit mechanism,” which could restrict access to financing and policy support based on compliance.

Official figures cited by state media indicate that approximately seven million people in Xinjiang were involved in cotton production as of 2020, with around 70% identifying as Uyghur or members of other Indigenous groups. For these communities, cotton is a primary source of income, particularly in southern Xinjiang, where Uyghur populations are concentrated.

The regulation builds upon a prior restructuring of rural land rights, introduced in 2018 through the “separation of three rights” policy. This framework separates collective land ownership from household contracting rights and management rights, allowing land management to be transferred to cooperatives, corporations, or other state-approved entities. While the land remains collectively owned, practical control shifts toward corporate and state-directed agricultural operations. Policies explicitly prioritize large-scale farming and labor absorption, with local officials instructed to assess whether incoming operators align with regional development and poverty-alleviation goals.

A 2018 report from China Science Daily detailed a cotton project in the Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps, where over 95% of participants were Uyghur or other Indigenous residents. Under the project, land was transferred to cooperatives and companies at fixed rates, with farmers compensated through wage labor on the same plots. The initiative introduced mechanized farming, standardized seeds, and data-driven management, significantly expanding the area one laborer could oversee—from 30–50 mu to 100–200 mu. While officials framed this as an economic reform, the shift effectively transitions farmers from independent cultivators to wage laborers within state-coordinated production chains.

The political context of these changes is further illuminated by a 2019 directive from the regional Grain and Material Reserves Bureau, which linked land transfer to broader campaigns of “social stability.” The directive instructed local work teams to prioritize stability maintenance, conduct regular household visits, and expand rural labor transfers as part of targeted poverty-alleviation efforts. It also emphasized ideological instruction, urging residents to “feel gratitude to the Party, listen to the Party, and follow the Party,” while strengthening village-level Communist Party organizations.

Human rights experts, including those at the United Nations, have previously raised concerns about coercive labor practices in Xinjiang’s cotton sector. While the new regulation introduces transparency measures, it does not address allegations of forced labor or address the systemic pressures on Uyghur farmers to comply with state-directed agricultural policies.

The combination of legal frameworks, economic restructuring, and political directives suggests a deliberate effort to integrate Uyghur agricultural communities into a centrally managed, corporate-driven production system. Critics argue that the cumulative effect of these policies—from land transfer to labor mobilization—reinforces control over both land use and livelihoods in the region.