No. 1 document shows a change in the direction of GMO policy

The 2015 Central No. 1 document once again focused on the issues of “agriculture, rural areas and farmers”, and for the first time proposed “strengthening research on agricultural genetically modified organism technology, safety management, and science popularization”.

GMO science popularization being written into the No. 1 document, though only a few words, has been given high hopes by many. This is the sixth time in the past nine years that the Central No. 1 document has mentioned GMO technology. In 2007, it first proposed strictly enforcing the labeling system for GMO foods; in 2008, it emphasized launching a major science and technology project for breeding new GMO varieties; in 2009 and 2010, it proposed accelerating the major GMO science and technology project; and in 2012, it proposed “molecular breeding”, a term close to GMO. As for science popularization related to it, this was the first time.

For many years, the scientific community and industry have been explaining to the public the necessity of GMO technology. But for various reasons, GMOs have become a matter of endless argument. Many so-called “discussions” are, plainly put, a sheer waste of energy, with neither side able to convince the other. The people participating in the debate often change, and every time the debaters change, the discussion is pulled back to the starting line and starts over. After countless rounds of verbal battles, some GMO supporters no longer have the energy to repeat the reasoning they have already stated many times, while opponents fall into an instinctive skepticism of “I just don't believe it”. On top of that, the GMO debate is often mixed with other factors, such as political conspiracy theories, making the situation even more chaotic.

⟦NL> Because of the chaos at the level of public opinion, China has long been stagnant in the industrialization of GMO promotion, and the government's attitude toward GMOs has long remained at the stage of “supporting scientific research, promoting cautiously”. But the greater significance of GMO technology lies in commercial application, not in scientific papers. China's current GMO policy has some awkward situations, such as not allowing cultivation but allowing imports; not allowing imports of staple grains but allowing imports of raw materials…… These can only be described as temporary concessions, not long-term solutions.

⟦NL> To break the GMO deadlock, public understanding is the hardest link to solve and one that must be solved. Therefore, the No. 1 document's first mention of “strengthening science popularization” was heavily interpreted by all sides. The public interpretation also received an official response. Song Hongyuan, one of the drafters of the document and director of the Rural Economy Research Center of the Ministry of Agriculture, said that the government hopes to popularize GMO knowledge and form a consensus. Seeking public understanding first, rather than directly relying on experts to formulate policy and create a fait accompli, may still be seen by some as too conservative. But in fact, only in this way can the process be more prudent and avoid future reversals.

⟦NL> But the difficulties are also obvious. Public science popularization work on GMO technology has been carried out for many years, but the situation has never become clear, and some science popularizers themselves have even become objects of controversy. Strengthening science popularization of GMO technology at the national level certainly has obvious advantages, such as in funding and manpower, which individuals or civil society organizations cannot match. But in popularizing GMOs, the biggest difficulty is not resources, but the credibility of the organizers.

⟦NL> Therefore, GMO science popularization at the national level can, on the one hand, mobilize more forces, but on the other hand, it must be organized properly. First, it is necessary to absorb and make good use of professional talent. When doing science popularization work, it is also necessary to uphold openness and transparency, so that every step can withstand scrutiny and respond as fully as possible to doubts. At the same time, it is also necessary to avoid repeated discussion, advance steadily, and bring the discussion about GMOs out of the level of “verbal battles” as soon as possible. In short, in GMO science popularization, “valuing” it is only the beginning; the follow-up organizational work is where the difficulty lies.

⟦NL>