Review and Commentary on China's Major GMO Events in 2015
2015, year-end, the agricultural sector is celebrating the harvest and looking to the future. Picking up the media reports on China's top ten GMO events for commentary; perhaps these developments will be carried into 2016 and continue to ferment.
1. Central Document No. 1 mandates “GMO science popularization”
Central Document No. 1 mandates “strengthening research, safety management, and science popularization of agricultural genetically modified organism biotechnology”. As everyone knows, genetic modification is a technology, and it is controversial in the field of agricultural science and technology. Central Document No. 1 guides the major policies for national agricultural development; why would it loudly promote “science popularization” of a “GMO technology” that is highly controversial? Naturally, this made people across the country astonished and suspicious!
The front organization of the GMO interest group —— the Department of Science, Technology and Education of the Ministry of Agriculture acted quickly, organizing certain “commercial science and technology personnel” hired by multinational institutions to hold media training classes, expert lecture teams, science popularization grand lectures, and traveling report meetings. “Officials, business, academia, and media” jointly manufactured a powerful discourse power, forcibly “popularizing science” GMO lies to science and technology personnel regarded as “scientific hooligans”, grassroots cadres, the general public, and farming peasants, overwhelming them, even frantically instilling GMOs into the “flowers of the motherland”. But they deliberately concealed the experiments by French scientists, recognized worldwide, that confirmed over many years that genetically modified corn causes cancer; the fact that Chinese scientists exposed the deliberate falsification of the Ministry of Agriculture's GMO rice safety certificate; the fact that GMO crops are illegally planted in farmlands across north and south, harming human health; and they avoided the surging global protests against Monsanto's GMO seeds bundled with glyphosate causing cancer. “Officials, academia, business, and media” used national power, financial resources, and material resources to concentrate on “popularizing GMO science”; plainly speaking, their true purpose was to attempt to write GMO commercialization into the “National 13th Five-Year Plan”, ultimately allowing GMOs to completely cover China's crops. The intention is as obvious as Sima Zhao's!
2. The Ministry of Agriculture again waves the banner and summons the soul for GMO rice
On August 17, 2009, the Ministry of Agriculture's Agricultural Genetically Modified Organism Safety Committee issued a GMO rice “safety certificate”, valid for 5 years. Monsanto's boss highly praised it as a “milestone event”. But ultimately, because the falsification of the GMO rice safety certificate was exposed, it came to an end! In January 2015, Huazhong Agricultural University announced that two genetically modified insect-resistant rice varieties —— Huahui 1 and Bt Shanyou 63 —— had once again obtained a “safety certificate” issued by the Ministry of Agriculture. They worked hard to summon the soul and wave the banner for this GMO rice that neither increases yield nor is safe.
The so-called “GMO rice safety certificate” falsification reappears: 1. Zhang Qifa provided only a 90-day acute toxicity test feeding white mice, still lacking evidence from chronic toxicology experiments, and the genetically modified material used accounted for only 5%. In particular, the experiment used “bacterial protein” instead of “genetically modified rice”. 2. The sample used for the experiment was Huahui 1, but what was to be planted was Bt Shanyou 63 rice to be eaten by ordinary people. 3. The rice variety Shanyou 63 was bred 30 years ago by Academician Xie Hua'an of Fujian Province by crossing Minghui 63 with Zhenshan 97A, and the Ministry of Agriculture had long ago announced its retirement. Zhang Qifa picked up someone else's variety, “transferred in” the Bacillus thuringiensis toxic protein insect-resistant gene, and then said it was his own variety. At most, it is “borrowing a chicken to lay eggs”. 4. GMO rice has no “yield-increasing effect”; rather, it converts the cost of pest-control pesticides into a 6%-8% increase in rice yield, and on this basis claims that delaying promotion by one year would cause the whole country (440 million mu) to lose 20 billion! This is a substitution of concepts, deceiving the country and the people!
3. Clive James came to China for public relations very low-key
Who is Clive James? He was once the founder and board chairman of the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA), a backstage boss and promoter of GMOs, and for many consecutive years before China's “Two Sessions” he would come to lobby and release the so-called “Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops” report, offering strategies for China's GMO promoters. The purpose was very clear: to influence the Chinese government's GMO decisions and strive to advance the commercialization of GMO staple foods. (The Beijing News)
In 2015, Clive James came early, in late January, but this time his public relations visit to China was “especially low-key”, arranging only one “Industrialization of Crop Biotechnology Breeding Seminar” on January 29, with almost no reporting by official media. The reasons: First, Clive James had already had the “ISAAA” official hat removed, and was renamed “former chairman”. Therefore, he did not receive high-level courtesy. Second, in previous years Clive James had loudly proclaimed in China that by 2015 China would become the world leader in GMO rice. Times had changed, and the GMO rice safety certificate had “come to an end”. Third, the nationwide vigorous anti-corruption and anti-graft campaign was gradually deepening, and the huge GMO funding embezzler Li Ning had already been the first to enter prison; who knows how many others were trembling, wondering who would be next? Fourth, multinational companies advancing GMO seeds around the world were meeting obstacles everywhere, and the experiments conducted by scientists on genetically modified corn causing cancer provided solid evidence that GMOs are carcinogenic. GMO companies such as Monsanto, Syngenta, and BASF were driven out of Europe one by one. Clive James, in his low-key release of the 2014 global GMO planting status report, also admitted that European countries such as France, Germany, and Italy all refused to plant GMO crops.
4. The new Food Safety Law implements strict GMO labeling
The new version of the Food Safety Law of the People's Republic of China was officially adopted by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress on April 24. A new clause was added: “Production and operation of genetically modified foods shall be conspicuously labeled in accordance with regulations”, giving consumers the right to know. (May 1, China Business Journal)
China is the largest importer of genetically modified soybeans. These soybeans are mainly processed into blended oil and soybean oil, and their deep-processed products include soybean lecithin, soy milk powder, corn starch, corn syrup, etc., which are then added to biscuits, beverages, dairy products, cakes, instant foods and powdered drinks, puffed foods, rice noodles, and many other foods. Because there were no relevant legal norms requiring labeling, consumers lacked the right to choose and the right to know. More fundamentally, even if genetically modified edible oil is ordered to be labeled, in the catering and food industries, where its use accounts for about 70%-80%, no one is willing to voluntarily label the words “genetically modified raw materials”; the reason is self-evident. In the long run, clearer regulatory details should gradually be formulated and a risk prevention and management system for the hazards of genetically modified foods should be established. On November 30, relevant departments additionally issued the Supermarket Fresh Food Packaging and Labeling Management Specification (Draft for Solicitation of Comments), requiring that for genetically modified and imported fresh foods, labels should “be conspicuously marked, with prominent position, bright colors, and text font no smaller than other labeling text on the label”.
5. Longjiang soybeans “were genetically modified”! Is it true? Is it false?
On September 5, China Business Journal published the headline “Heilongjiang farmers plant genetically modified soybeans, seed source remains a mystery”, reporting that in the Suihua area “we saw a farmer's warehouse, filled with genetically modified soybeans planted that year”. On September 8, Agricultural Materials Herald followed up, reporting that the seed source might have two channels: one was that multinational companies bribed officials or businessmen, causing genetically modified soybean seeds to privately enter farmland; another possibility was that researchers deliberately expanded the area planted with genetically modified soybeans. “Secretly planting genetically modified soybeans is not merely an isolated case; large-scale planting may already exist, and the sown area may have reached 10%.” If calculated based on Heilongjiang Province's 2015 soybean planting area of 30 million mu, the genetically modified soybean area would be at least more than 3 million mu. A dangerous signal!
Soybeans produced in Heilongjiang are considered the world's finest non-genetically modified soybeans, with high protein content, and are the main raw material for processing soybean products, highly favored by merchants and ordinary people, with some exported to Japan and South Korea. If enterprises or researchers privately expand the genetically modified soybean area, Northeast soybeans will face a disaster, completely destroying the precious soybean resources originating in China. The Science and Technology Department of the Ministry of Agriculture should bear full responsibility for this incident, yet it raised a so-called “territorial management” sword of authority, meaning “it makes the decisions, the grassroots take the responsibility”. On September 22, the Heilongjiang Provincial Agricultural Commission announced that it had established an investigation team to investigate in relevant cities and counties and summoned the person in charge of Yihai Kerry (Heilongjiang) Grain and Oil Co., Ltd. After a comprehensive investigation, no farmers were found to have secretly planted genetically modified soybeans. Ha! Ha! There is a cause for the matter, but no evidence was found; make a big issue small, make a small issue nothing!
6. The Jiusan Society Central Committee held a “Symposium on GMO Issues”
In the report at the Third Session of the 12th National Committee of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference, Chairman Yu Zhengsheng discussed the 2015 work arrangements and required all democratic parties to carry out research and deliberation on the topic “Opportunities and Risks of Genetically Modified Agricultural Products”. The Central Committee of the Jiusan Society conscientiously practiced this and took the lead on April 2 in organizing a “Symposium on GMO Issues”, attended by Jiusan Central Committee Vice Chairman Cong Bin and others. Three agricultural experts spoke: Jiang Gaoming (Chinese Academy of Sciences), Xu Qifeng (China Agricultural University), and Tong Pingya (Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences).
The speakers systematically exposed from a scientific and technological perspective the harms of genetically modified crops and the lies of GMO promoters, and finally put forward two suggestions, requesting the Jiusan Society to transmit them to the CPC Central Committee: First, create a social environment for open and equal discussion. Genetically modified crops neither increase yield, nor endanger people's health, and also damage the ecological environment; this has already become the consensus of mainstream scientists worldwide. Why is it that the GMO fallacies published by certain mainstream media all come from one template and one tone? It is suggested that open and transparent discussions be carried out in newspapers, television, the internet, and other media, and that a democratic consultation mechanism be established to distinguish right from wrong and expose the harms of GMOs and their fraud. Second, science has degenerated into a right colluding with politics, a game run by money, a tool obeying consortia, and the chief culprit destroying nature. We appeal to the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection to thoroughly investigate Chinese officials, professors, and GMO spokespersons who have been employed or held positions as supervisors, directors, or consultants in international consortia, multinational companies, foundations, and other organizations, how much remuneration, salary, and bonuses they have obtained from foreign organizations, and the “preferential” treatment of their wives or children abroad. As the saying goes, where one sits determines what one thinks; look at where they sit and their true face is revealed.
7. The National Committee of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference discussed “GMO Opportunities and Risks”
On October 8, the National Committee of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference held a biweekly consultation symposium, offering suggestions and strategies around “Opportunities and Risks of Genetically Modified Agricultural Products”. Members of the National Committee of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference who “strongly support” and “oppose” the commercialization of GMO staple foods, as well as officials from the Ministry of Agriculture, attended. Chairman Yu Zhengsheng presided over the meeting and spoke.
CCTV's Xinwen Lianbo broadcast: Some members suggested that the research, promotion, and regulation of genetically modified agricultural products should be considered from the overall national situation and long-term development. First, conduct bold research. Focus on basic research, give play to enterprises' enthusiasm in applied research, and strengthen safety research. Second, promote cautiously. It is necessary to distinguish different situations between food and non-food uses, and between staple and non-staple foods; the application and promotion of staple foods must be very cautious. It is necessary to consider the degree of popularization of GMO scientific and technological knowledge, the degree of public acceptance, and the existing management level, and adhere to safety first and public trust first. Third, effectively regulate. Strictly enforce laws and regulations, establish clear mechanisms for division of labor, cooperation, and accountability, establish third-party testing institutions with no conflict of interest, and increase regulatory funding. Formulate and improve relevant standards, establish open and transparent mechanisms, and fully protect consumers' right to know and independent right to choose. Welcome supervision from all sides, using supervision to promote regulation.
8. High cancer incidence among Chinese people and dumping of genetically modified products
People's Daily reported that on October 16 at the “Capital International Cancer Forum”, the China Anti-Cancer Association released a report: “China has about 3.37 million new cancer cases each year and about 2.11 million deaths. New cases account for 22% of global new cases, and deaths account for 26%, exceeding one quarter of global cancer deaths. Cancer has become the number one killer of Chinese people!” Is there a relationship between the high incidence of cancer among Chinese people and the dumping of genetically modified products?
The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) recently released two examples proving the relationship between high cancer incidence and the spread of genetically modified products. One example is that in experimental animals “there is sufficient evidence proving that glyphosate is carcinogenic to experimental animals”; Monsanto's global dumping of genetically modified seeds bundled with glyphosate is a source of carcinogenicity. European countries have already strictly restricted the import of the pesticide glyphosate. The second example is that after experts analyzed 800 reports on the relationship between meat foods and cancer, there was “sufficient evidence” proving that processed meat products such as bacon, ham, and sausages are carcinogens. Eating 50 grams of processed meat products per day increases the probability of colon and rectal cancer by 18%. As soon as the report came out, public opinion was in an uproar, and industry figures declared it “nonsense”; while food and medical experts considered the “evidence conclusive”, with the conclusion being that meat products are only a matter of eating more or less.
China is the country importing the most genetically modified soybeans and is the biggest victim of Monsanto's genetically modified seeds bundled with glyphosate. Genetically modified soybeans are mainly processed into cooking oil, and soybean meal is used for livestock and poultry feed. Today, edible oil in supermarkets, as well as in hotels, restaurants, dining halls, and even street vendors, is genetically modified soybean oil, along with meat products such as hot dogs, ham, and sausages produced from livestock fed with genetically modified feed. China's Ministry of Agriculture, with unspoken difficulties, plays deaf and mute and keeps its mouth shut.
9. Beijing citizens sue the Ministry of Agriculture for shielding Monsanto
On November 16, the case of Beijing citizens suing the Ministry of Agriculture for shielding Monsanto was heard in the Beijing No. 3 Intermediate People's Court. The plaintiffs were three citizens, Yang Xiaolu, Li Xiangzhen, and Tian Xiangping; the defendant was the Ministry of Agriculture, with Monsanto added as an additional defendant. The focus of the trial: Does Monsanto's toxicological test report on glyphosate bundled with genetically modified seeds belong to commercial secrets? (December 7, China Food News)
The plaintiffs' attorney pointed out that Monsanto's glyphosate toxicological test report does not belong to commercial secrets. Monsanto had once published the pesticide formula on its website, and had applied for patent protection in the United States. Since even the formula is not a secret, can the product's safety assessment still be regarded as a commercial secret? The defendant Ministry of Agriculture's attorney admitted that glyphosate is toxic and has an impact on public interests, but that it can inhibit weed growth and is therefore beneficial to humans. “Of two harms, choose the lesser”, and “only when there is a major impact can disclosure be considered”. The safety assessment of Monsanto's products belongs to “commercial secrets, and Monsanto does not agree to disclosure”. The presiding judge repeatedly questioned the defendant: “Monsanto's reply letter states that because the test report contains important personal privacy and commercial secrets, it has never been disclosed. May I ask whether the reason the defendant refuses disclosure is that it is considered a commercial secret or personal privacy? Or both?” The defendant answered both. The court did not announce a final judgment.
The defendant Ministry of Agriculture's sophistry in court astonished the nation. Throughout the entire trial process, it did not provide any substantive evidence regarding the glyphosate toxicology report, but instead emphasized “commercial secrets”. It placed Monsanto's commercial interests above the public interests of Chinese people. Is it the Ministry of Agriculture representing the Chinese government? Or the Ministry of Agriculture representing Monsanto?
10. International organizations call on China to stop glyphosate production
After the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) under the World Health Organization (WHO) classified the highly toxic pesticide glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans”, ten international non-governmental organizations jointly published an Open Letter to the Chinese people, President Xi Jinping, and Premier Li Keqiang, earnestly requesting that the Chinese government play a global leadership role on this matter and immediately stop the production of the highly toxic pesticide glyphosate. (October 5, People's Food Sovereignty Network)
The Open Letter said: China is the world's largest producer and exporter of glyphosate, accounting for about 70% of global total glyphosate production capacity and holding more than 50% of the global glyphosate technical material market share. In 2014, China produced 450,000 tons of glyphosate technical material, the vast majority exported to Monsanto for producing glyphosate bundled with genetically modified seeds for sale worldwide; China is also the largest importer of glyphosate-resistant genetically modified soybeans and corn, which drives the United States, Argentina, and Brazil to continue producing genetically modified products, causing people in many countries to suffer serious health harm from the use of glyphosate bundled with genetically modified seeds. Monsanto reaps huge profits from the promotion of genetically modified seeds, and glyphosate demand has increased 10-fold. As long as genetically modified seeds are controlled, the pesticide consumption structure is controlled, and thus the pesticide market is controlled. It calls on the Chinese government to immediately stop the production of the highly toxic pesticide glyphosate, refuse to import genetically modified soybeans and genetically modified corn, and resolutely stop the harm caused to human health worldwide by Monsanto's genetically modified seeds bundled with glyphosate.