The Truth Behind “Not Enough Waste to Burn”

by Posted on

Foodthink Speaks

Since early June, a video titled “From Cities Under Siege from Waste to Not Enough Waste to Burn: China’s Speed Stuns the West” has gone viral online. Tossing unsightly waste into a furnace to burn it to your heart’s content, then channeling the energy released into electricity generation—many people cried out, thrilled by such a “perfect” technological solution. Upon hearing that “incineration plants in Zhejiang and Shanghai are travelling to other provinces and municipalities to scramble for waste to burn”, quite a few began to marvel: “This news really lets me use over-packaged products without a second thought—before, all I felt was guilt.” Completely upside-down notions even emerged, such as “It’s time to encourage everyone to throw away more waste” or “Forget waste sorting—just haul it all straight to the incinerator.” Given the breadth and intensity of the misleading impact this video’s content has had, in Episode 51 of the Food Talk podcast we invited two seasoned practitioners from the fields of waste governance and environmental public-interest work to discuss what “not enough waste to burn” really means. How exactly should we view waste incineration? What is its relationship to waste sorting and recycling? Can existing incineration safety technologies really prevent the formation of dioxins, along with other toxic emissions and air pollutants? What health risks do food packaging plastics pose to the human body? And how should each of us forge a personal connection with waste, working together to create a “Zero Waste Planet”?

This article is compiled from that podcast episode.

This Episode’s Guests

Mao Da

PhD in Environmental History, Chairperson of the Shenzhen Zero Waste Environmental Protection Public Welfare Development Centre and initiator of the “Nontoxic Pioneer” campaign. For over twenty years, he has been involved in solid waste and environmental health projects at multiple environmental organisations. Currently, his work focuses on the sound management of chemicals, greening e-commerce, plastic waste pollution control, and the practical promotion of zero waste principles.

 

 

 

Sun Jinghua

Nature name “Lianpeng”, Director of the Waste Reduction project at Friends of Nature and Editor-in-Chief of the popular science book The Magic Book of Waste. For many years, she has been deeply engaged in public education and popular science work in areas such as waste reduction and sorting, and zero waste in schools.

 

 

 

Yuyang

Foodthink editor, recently thinking about the toxic relationship between plastic and humans.

 

 

 

 

This Episode’s Host

Chang Tianle

Founding Editor of Foodthink and Convener of the Beijing Organic Farmers’ Market.

 

 

 

 

 

I. What’s All the Excitement About “Not Enough Waste to Burn”?

Tianle: Many of you may have seen the viral video a while ago claiming that China has run out of waste to burn. Some people have followed up by saying that if there is not enough waste to burn, perhaps it does not matter if we produce more, just to support these incineration plants. Some have even called it the best news they have heard all year, saying it can ease their guilt about generating waste. Data shows that by 2023, China had built over 1,000 waste-to-energy incineration plants, and the volume of waste incinerated had far surpassed the combined total of the United States, Japan, and Europe. I would like to ask all three of you: what do you make of this wildly popular topic? Mao Da: Right off the bat, I find the video’s argument quite misguided. I don’t think the blogger really understands waste incineration, let alone the full picture of waste governance. Incineration is just one technical method within the broader system of waste management. That said, looking at it another way, does this creator’s understanding of waste perhaps reflect how ordinary people feel? For a long time, most people have been largely indifferent to waste. Then suddenly a contrarian narrative about waste appears — it is no longer a “cities under siege from waste” problem; we do not have enough to burn. Of course that is going to grab attention and go viral. Another factor is that the video deliberately ties itself to themes that stir national pride. And people may have always felt that waste sorting is terribly inefficient. By framing things in terms of economic returns and efficiency, this video sends a message: incineration is not only highly efficient, it is also profitable. Put all these points together and it is no wonder the video spread like wildfire.

Yuyang: The blogger seems to go by the name “Keji Da Sima“. I actually visited his homepage and noticed that he basically tackles technology through an Industrialist lens. Apart from this “not enough waste to burn” video and another one about “AI lasers replacing pesticides”, most of his content gets very little attention. What struck me about this video is how it made the general public, who have long been frustrated with waste management, suddenly so enthusiastic about incineration. Perhaps that is because incineration represents a brute-force solution — whatever you throw in, it all gets burned, and there is a kind of catharsis in that.

◉ Some netizens believe that waste incineration technology is driving society “towards a clean modernity”. Source: screenshot from a WeChat Channels video
Tianle: Mao Da just mentioned that the general public tends to feel quite detached from waste and what it means for them. But there are also plenty of ordinary people who care about environmental issues and are willing to put the principles into practice in their daily lives. I know Friends of Nature has long been encouraging the public to pay attention to environmental concerns, Lianpeng. Could you tell us how people in Friends of Nature’s community reacted to this topic? Lianpeng: I first came across the video on Weibo. I noticed that everyone resharing it in the chain was a fairly positive, well-regarded content creator in their field, yet they all liked the video. That really surprised me. Waste incineration is common knowledge in the environmental sector, but for people in other fields — even bloggers who are highly knowledgeable in their own areas — it is very easy to get swept up in public opinion.

Soon after, a lot of people started messaging me on WeChat: “Have you seen this video? Is it really true?” Quite a few of them had actually attended our teacher training programme on waste and life. I said to them: I taught you all for two or three days for nothing — have you already forgotten the basics? Think about the waste hierarchy we talked about: incineration ranks second from the bottom. It is only slightly better than landfilling or dumping.

II. Is There Really Not Enough Waste to Burn?

Mao Da: Is it really the case that there is too little waste for the incinerators to handle? No, it is not. In Beijing, the per capita amount of waste requiring incineration is estimated at over 200 kilograms a year. In Shanghai it is even higher — an estimated 290 kilograms or more per year. To put that in perspective, look at Seoul, South Korea. They have been implementing the zero waste philosophy consistently for years, and their combined per capita incineration and landfilling figure is now around 100 kilograms a year. We produce far too much waste, but there are even more incinerators than there is waste. Incinerator capacity is now in surplus. While it is reasonable to keep a certain margin of spare capacity, having so much overcapacity that plants have to compete for waste is clearly unreasonable.

Tianle: Just by observing the lifestyles of yourself or the people around you — all those disposable cups from milk tea shops, the various plastic packaging from takeaways and courier deliveries — you can feel that the amount of waste people generate keeps growing. So why has China built so many waste incineration plants?

◉ Waste has become a problem China must confront and address in the course of modernisation and urbanisation. The shock and fear once generated by “cities under siege from waste” drove people to seek a fast, highly efficient solution to the waste crisis. Source: still from Cities Under Siege from Waste
Lianpeng: In essence, there was simply nowhere left to send waste to landfill. The documentary about Beijing’s waste siege, made over a decade ago, was very well known. If you do not burn it, what are you supposed to do? Incineration was, in a sense, forced into being as a kind of “technological progress”. But consider this: if three incinerators could handle the city’s entire waste stream, yet half of that waste is kitchen waste or recyclables, then really only two incinerators would have been sufficient.

III. Can Incinerators Control Dioxin Emissions?

Yuyang: The video mentions that although waste incineration produces dioxins, under existing incineration technology these carcinogenic substances are broken down at temperatures of 1,100 degrees. Is that correct? Mao Da: This is exactly why I say the blogger does not understand incineration. At over 1,000 degrees, yes, we do have real-time monitoring of temperature. But there are far too many conditions that can trigger dioxin formation. Temperature is only one factor; there are many others we cannot see. For instance, if ash is not cleared from the incinerator in a timely manner, that too can promote dioxin formation.

Lianpeng: A friend asked me whether modern incinerators can now fully control dioxin emissions and whether they are subject to real-time monitoring. I said that dioxin emissions from incinerators are tested at least once a year. Can that really be called real-time monitoring?

Mao Da: In practice, to obtain a comprehensive and accurate picture of dioxin emissions from incineration, periodic or semi-continuous sampling and monitoring is required. But statutory emission monitoring is conducted only once a year. Add voluntary monitoring and you get perhaps three or four tests a year at most. Now many operators are reluctant to carry out monitoring because of the cost, or they do the monitoring, find problems, and then choose to stop altogether. But if you look at the scientific literature, you will find that in some cases dioxin accumulation in soils around certain incinerators is rising compared to control sites, and dioxin concentrations in the air in some areas are elevated.

Lianpeng: In 2020, Friends of Nature took legal action against an incinerator called Daji in Jiangsu for exceeding permissible emission levels, and we won the case. If we could address every non-compliant incinerator through legal action, things might be a little better. China’s incineration technology has certainly improved on the safety front compared with a decade or so ago, but the real problem now is that there are simply too many incinerators.

◉ Distribution of waste-to-energy incineration plants in parts of China. Relevant data shows that by 2023, China had built over 1,000 waste-to-energy incineration plants with 2,172 incinerators and an incineration capacity of approximately 1.11 million tonnes per day. This expansion has made China’s incinerated waste volume far exceed the combined total of the United States, Japan, and Europe. Source: Public Platform for Automatic Monitoring Data from Municipal Waste-to-Energy Incineration Plants
Mao Da: In fact, the government has met its monitoring obligations within the bounds of existing regulations. But that does not guarantee that the emissions from these incinerators are safe, because the standards themselves must be continually revised and brought in line with progress. When I first started looking into incineration emissions, the permissible dioxin emission level was one nanogram per cubic metre. But that could not ensure public health and safety, so — thanks to public advocacy and, of course, the industry’s own efforts — a few years later the standard was tightened to 0.1 nanograms. That is a process. But one cannot say that today’s standard is definitively safe; it is merely a balance.

IV. Why Is Incineration Not a Panacea?

Tianle: I’d like to ask Dr. Mao Da to walk us through why incineration should be the last resort in waste management. Mao Da: Let me start with the 3R hierarchy for waste management: reduce, reuse, recycle. Reduce is always the best option — preventing waste in the first place is the ideal. Next comes reuse, which extends the life of existing items, reduces what gets discarded, and cuts down on waste. Third is recycle — keeping materials in circulation as much as possible, for instance by turning discarded paper or plastic into something new. Only when there is truly no alternative does waste move on to end-of-pipe disposal such as incineration.

◉ The hierarchy of waste management methods. Source: Mao Da

Tianle: And some waste simply is not suited to incineration — glass, for instance, or kitchen waste.

Mao Da: Exactly. Incineration converts carbon-containing materials directly into greenhouse gas emissions. Everyone knows that extreme weather is becoming increasingly frequent. Kitchen waste is the very last thing that should be burned, because most of what we eat is based on carbohydrates — burn it and it turns straight into greenhouse gases. Plastic and wood are also carbon-rich; incinerating either releases more greenhouse gases. Imagine if we skipped all the sorting and recycling we talked about — buying, using, and throwing away without a thought, with everything ending up at an incinerator or landfill. We simply cannot afford the consequences.

◉ Pollutants potentially produced by waste incineration. Source: Tianxia Wufen
Tianle: From a climate change perspective, waste management affects every single one of us. Some new data suggests that people born after 2020 will very likely experience extreme heatwaves within their lifetimes. Lianpeng: Glass bottles are something I find particularly frustrating. Beijing is relatively better — the bottles from common local brands like Yanjing, Beibingyang, and Sanyuan Milk can be returned. But at the moment only local brands offer that kind of service. Some brands are not based locally: for instance, the milk I saw in Suzhou was New Hope, produced in Hangzhou and shipped all the way to Suzhou. The glass bottles cannot be collected and reused, so they effectively become single-use. That is a truly alarming waste of resources.

Tianle: Yes — I’ve noticed that the collectors in my residential compound won’t take glass bottles, either.

Mao Da: And yet incinerators cannot burn glass bottles, either. Incineration is not a panacea — with each different material, we have to consider whether incineration is actually suitable. With something like glass, we should think about how to boost reuse and extend its life — that is, sending bottles back to the factory for refilling. If you look at the outside of a glass bottle and spot scuff marks, it has definitely been reused.

Tianle: Glass is widely considered a far safer food packaging material than plastic, so it is a real shame that it has such a big flaw.

Lianpeng: In truth, it is because glass is so cheap that manufacturers would rather use new bottles than recover old ones — the cost of processing collected bottles can be very high.

V. V. Health Risks of Plastic Food Packaging

Tianle: When people assume that waste incineration lets them produce rubbish guilt-free, what they actually overlook is that much of this waste comes from the plastic packaging on our food — and that plastic is harmful to our own health too. I won’t even mention pre-packaged food. Even at fresh produce markets and supermarkets, fruit and vegetables come wrapped layer upon layer. With plastic so ubiquitous in our food, how safe is it really?

◉ The many types of fruit and vegetables that are heavily over-wrapped in plastic, commonly seen in fresh produce supermarkets. Source: Foodthink
Mao Da: When it comes to food plastics, microplastics have probably been on everyone’s radar lately. Every few days a new study appears, and people feel alarmed. But even if microplastics really are a problem, the world as a whole has no way to quit plastic packaging, so the public slowly grows complacent. When microplastics can reach so many of our organs, even down to the cellular level, the effects could be entirely unpredictable. By the time we realise we need to stop taking them in, it will already be too late. Tianle: I’ve done the same. I love Earl Grey in the morning, but loose-leaf tea is hard to come by in China. Ever since I learned about the dangers of microplastics, I tear open my tea bags and just brew the loose leaves. Many packages that claim to be biomass made from corn starch, and the kind of biodegradable polylactic acid straws used by bubble tea shops actually contain a lot of chemicals added to bind or modify their properties.

Mao Da: Polylactic acid is a relatively biodegradable material, but it may still need additives to give it certain functions — including ones that resist degradation or pose endocrine disruption and carcinogenic risks. Additives from food packaging contaminate the food itself. Researchers in North America have often run studies of this kind: participants order Western fast food every day for weeks, relying on single-use plastic packaging, and find that they ingest far more plastic-related additives than they would on a normal diet.

Compared with microplastics, the health risks of chemical additives are more clearly established in science — some well-known hazardous substances are being added. For example, phthalate plasticizers, whose most obvious effect is endocrine disruption, essentially acting as synthetic oestrogen. When children ingest this kind of plastic additive, it can cause early puberty in girls and abnormal development of the reproductive organs in boys. We know a doctor at a maternity and child health hospital in Hangzhou who found that the rising incidence of hypospadias in boys in recent years may be related to this. Then there is bisphenol A, which everyone is familiar with now — also an endocrine disruptor that can affect women’s reproductive health.

Tianle: I think trying to break free from plastic packaging is like quitting smoking or drinking — everyone understands the logic, but the distance from awareness to action is enormously long. What makes it harder still is that the health impact of these plastics is gradual and imperceptible.

Mao Da: Exactly. Parents today know to choose bisphenol A-free plastic bottles for their babies, but there are still things we don’t know about. For instance, the No. 3 PVC commonly found in Mooncake trays and egg cartons relies most heavily on additives. People may not realise either that during the industrial production of ready meals, the plastic pipes used in processing can also contain harmful substances.

If you enjoy baking, be aware that the cheap Mooncake trays bought online may be made from PVC. And cling film today is still a mix of PVC and non-PVC options. The government has stipulated that plastic packaging in contact with meat, oil, or fat must not be made from PVC, but how on earth is an ordinary person supposed to tell in daily life? It is far too difficult.

VI. New Plastic Pollution from Food Delivery Packaging

Tianle: Yuyang delivered food for a few months. Back then, did you feel the sheer volume of plastic packaging from food delivery was a problem? Yuyang: Honestly, while delivering, the thing I paid most attention to was whether the order was securely wrapped. For riders and merchants alike, the priority is getting the food to the customer intact. So this is the dilemma of ordering takeaways: you have to face an enormous volume of plastic packaging — plastic containers, cling film wrapped around the lids, and so on.

Then there is the issue of single-use cutlery. Every time I order a takeaway I tick “no cutlery needed”, but the shop sends it anyway. It’s probably because shops are too busy during the lunchtime rush to check the notes — even glancing at one note would slow down their packing — or they worry about a bad review if they leave out the cutlery, so they just standardise the process.

◉ Food delivery waste, found everywhere in daily life. Source: Foodthink

Lianpeng: Nowadays food delivery typically comes in composite bags. Because the government restricts merchants from providing non-biodegradable plastic bags, the carrier bags once so common have effectively been banned — merchants who still offer them face fines. So what do they use instead? Either non-woven fabric or biodegradable options. But biodegradable bags are soft and flimsy — they tear easily or buckle, spilling the food. It was then that composite bags emerged to fill the gap: rigid enough to hold their shape and good-looking, but from a waste management perspective they are far worse than ordinary plastic bags. Scrap collectors won’t even accept them, because the composite layers contain plastic, non-woven fabric, and sometimes even aluminium foil, making them extremely difficult to separate and recycle. Non-woven fabric bags, on the other hand, are made of a uniform material and are relatively easier to process.

Tianle: So today, food delivery not only fuels an excess of conventional plastic but also generates a great deal of new packaging waste that is difficult to handle.

Mao Da: Exactly — a different kind of “new contaminant”. Since they are so hard to recycle, there is nowhere for them to go but the incinerator.

Lianpeng: I grew up in the hutongs of Beijing — one of the post-70s generation. Back then we had a term for taking out the trash: “dǎotǔ”, literally “tossing the dirt”, which tells you that most of the waste at the time was ash, soot, and furnace slag. When I was a child, things like glass bottles and empty toothpaste tubes were all recyclable. Nowadays the variety of waste is becoming ever more “diverse”, with more and more non-recyclable packaging, and even these low-value recyclables are no longer being collected.

◉ Non-recyclable plastic packaging waste eventually scatters across mountains and rivers, and may also travel up the food chain back to the human table and ultimately into the human body. Source: Mao Da
Lianpeng: Xiamen is doing the best work on low-value recyclables at the moment. All plastic packaging is collected by the municipal authority every single day, and there are companies ensuring back-end processing. Xiamen also collects glass and ceramics separately. Ceramics are classed as “residual waste” everywhere else in the country, but only in Xiamen are they collected alongside glass, to be recycled into building materials or used for road paving. In residential compounds in Xiamen, I noticed that the blue recycling bins outnumber the grey residual waste bins by about three to one, and the glass-and-ceramics bin really does contain only glass and ceramics. I’m genuinely envious of Xiamen’s model and would love to give the Xiamen government a thumbs-up.

VII. Bidding Farewell to Crude and Simplistic Waste Incineration

Mao Da: China’s incineration plants have raced to the bottom to such an extent that the processing fee per tonne of waste can drop as low as ten or twenty yuan. I believe the government needs to address this problem of low-price competition, because it drags down waste processing costs overall — they are nowhere near enough to cover the true cost of the waste that businesses or individuals generate. Currently, the tax and fees levied on processing a tonne of waste in China are very low, around 100 yuan, or at most two or three hundred. At a comparable level of consumption, the Taiwan region charges at least four to five hundred yuan per tonne, Japan charges 800 yuan, and Europe charges 1,000 yuan — that is the normal fee level. Professor Song Guojun of Renmin University of China once calculated the total social cost of waste disposal, including health costs — for instance, the cancer risks caused by pollutants from incineration, converted into economic losses through modelling — and the figure came out at roughly 2,000 yuan per tonne. Only when these social costs are factored in will all sectors of society have a genuine incentive to drive reduction and reuse.

Tianle: That makes me feel it is terribly unfair. Here at the Beijing Organic Farmers’ Market, a small venture that barely turns a profit, we are willing to invest time and labour in reducing plastics and promoting reuse, yet large corporations refuse to do the same.

◉ To encourage people to cut down on single-use plastic packaging, the Beijing Organic Farmers’ Market has set up a “bring-your-own-container” loose-sale zone. Source: Beijing Organic Farmers’ Market

Tianle: We never hand out new bags, and we encourage customers to bring their own — we collect them and then pass them on to other customers for free. What’s more, some of Beijing Organic’s egg farmers use paper trays and rice husks for packaging, which are very easy to recycle. Of course, some farmers still wrap eggs in polystyrene foam and then place them in cardboard boxes. Even so, whenever customers return the packaging to our stall, we save it up and post it back to the farmers for reuse. It really comes down to whether a vendor has the will to commit a little extra cost — packing is a labour cost, and posting back is a delivery cost.

◉ The second-hand bag collection area. Source: Beijing Organic Farmers’ Market

Tianle: By comparison, major chain supermarkets like Hema and JD could easily set up a recycling station to collect the many unnecessary boxes generated by shopping trips. If those boxes are clean, the supermarket could return them to the manufacturer for reuse, and at high volumes there would be genuine economies of scale. As for fresh-food e-commerce platforms like Hema and Xiaoxiang today, they all basically have their own delivery teams. They could simply hand the order to the customer and take the bags back at the same time. I remember SF Express has a cold-chain service where the driver collects the insulated cold-chain boxes on the return trip — that approach works well.

Lianpeng: Exactly. You could even consider a deposit of one yuan per box: the customer opens the box on the spot, or brings it back a few days later, or even lets the delivery rider collect it on a subsequent run — in every case the deposit gets refunded. Friends of Nature published an article on 30 March specifically exploring some “wild ideas” for reducing packaging on fresh-food platforms. For instance, agreeing a delivery slot in advance so the customer is guaranteed to be home, which means the rider can hand the goods directly to them without needing a bag at all.

Some of Hema’s less sensible policies also need changing: their rule states that any online order must come in a bag, even for in-store pickup, and they charge a 1-yuan packaging fee. You can apply for a refund, but many people don’t even know this rule exists. The way some vouchers are designed is also problematic — certain coupons can only be used online, essentially forcing consumers to order through the app. And then there’s the sheer number of boxes Hema uses — the name is almost too apt, it’s full of “boxes”. You can’t opt out of buying them, you can’t return them once you’ve bought them, and even if you open them on the spot and hand them back, they end up in the bin in the end.

◉ Free U Nature’s “Slow Post” campaign circulates second-hand bags by cycling, making them available to merchants who need them and thereby reducing plastic packaging consumption. Source: Free U Nature
Mao Da: From a public administration perspective, we often manage by “process” — for example, requiring everyone to sort their waste or dictating exactly how a shop should operate. The problem is that this approach often ends up placing a heavy burden on small businesses and small producers, while the large corporations that actually generate the most waste can easily appear to “comply”. In reality, the bulk of the waste comes from them at source; it is just that the system never puts the stick on their backs. So what we really need is “target”-based management: whoever produces more waste — whether an individual or a business — should pay more. In fact, the state has already moved in this direction; it’s just that enforcement hasn’t been thorough enough yet, possibly out of concern about upsetting ordinary people.

VIII. Building a Personal Connection with Waste

Tianle: Finally, I’d like everyone to share: what do you think each of us can do to reduce waste, live a better life, and benefit both our own health and the health of others, as well as the environment? Lianpeng: Reducing waste at source is the single most important thing. Really, any bag becomes an eco-bag as long as you keep using it. You should also try to cut down on ordering takeaway and shopping online — if you truly have no time to cook, opt for a sit-down meal at the restaurant instead. And bubble tea comes with so much unnecessary packaging; have less of it, or bring your own cup.

Mao Da: Our message is zero waste, summed up in nine characters: buy well, buy less, use longer. Of course, waste is always going to be generated, and recycling can solve a great deal of the problem. Leaders of organisations or institutions can take the lead by trying a few things — setting up a small system that gets everyone involved. I know a company that provides municipal sanitation services; they’ve built a little vegetable garden on the roof of their office building to run a small composting loop. Organisations like Friends of Nature and many of our peers can offer technical support, so you don’t have to figure everything out from scratch. We also welcome your support for our environmental organisations: support Foodthink, Friends of Nature, and Shenzhen Zero Waste. Become a monthly donor, and we’ll help make things happen.

And ultimately, we need to build a connection between ourselves and our waste. Our most basic pain point has always been: “I don’t want rubbish piled up outside my front door.” But now waste gets cleared away so quickly that we overlook the value of sanitation workers. We need to recognise that waste is not someone else’s problem — it is intimately tied to each of us.

Yuyang: I agree with Teacher Mao Da that we need to build a connection between waste and daily life, but building that connection still faces real difficulties. Take “ordering takeaway”, for example — we’ve interviewed people whose takeaway orders aren’t impulsive decisions; they’re woven into the rhythm of their work and life. Many people have to work overtime after hours, are exhausted, and have no time to cook, so they simply tap through an order on the metro on the way home. If that rhythm of life doesn’t change, it’s very hard for behaviour to change.

The other thing I’ve been thinking about is reuse. Right now, reuse feels like a rather avant-garde lifestyle — for example, turning scraps of old cloth into a backpack is a form of reuse, and there are even collage artists in the art world who do this kind of thing. But when I was a child, my grandmother mended my clothes exactly this way. For traditional ways of life, this kind of reuse was simply life itself. So I think, if we can truly weave the idea of circular reuse into everyday life and make it an instinctive habit, then real changes in behaviour may come far more easily.

◉Pictured: a backpack made from discarded bicycle inner tubes. Environmental ideals find expression through art objects like this, yet they drift ever further from ordinary people’s daily lives. Photography: Yuyang

Compiled by: Li Ye

Edited by: Yuyang

Published by Foodthink