Comments on the important issues of genetically modified genes in China in 2015

2015, at the end of the year, the agricultural industry is celebrating a bumper harvest and showing the future. Pick up media reports on the top 10 important issues of GM in China for comments; perhaps these developments will be carried into 2016 to continue to ferment.

I. Central document No. 1 directive "genetically modified Science Popularization"

The Central Committee's No. 1 document directs "strengthening the research, safety management and science popularization of agricultural genetically modified biotechnology." As we all know, transgenic is a technology, which is controversial in the field of agricultural science and technology. The No. 1 document of the CPC Central Committee guides the major policies of agricultural development throughout the country, so why should we "popularize science" with great fanfare about a controversial "transgenic technology"? Naturally, people are surprised and suspicious!

The Department of Science, Technology and Education of the Ministry of Agriculture, the front desk of genetically modified interest groups, moved quickly to organize some "commercial science and technology personnel" employed by multinational institutions, and organized media workshops, expert lecture groups, science popularization lecture halls, and roving lecture meetings. The "government and business school media" jointly create a strong voice, and regard the scientific and technological personnel, grass-roots cadres, the broad masses of citizens, and land farmers who are regarded as "science hooligans" to force "popular science" genetically modified lies everywhere, and even instill genetically modified genes into the "flowers of the motherland." But it deliberately conceals the internationally recognized experiments of French scientists who have confirmed that GM corn causes cancer for many years, Chinese scientists have exposed the deliberate falsification of the safety certificate of GM rice of the Ministry of Agriculture, and the fact that the overplanting of GM crops in northern and southern farmland is harmful to human health. and avoid global protests against Monsanto's GM seeds bundled with glyphosate to cause cancer. The "government-educated commercial media" uses the state power, financial and material resources to concentrate on "popular science GM". Bluntly, its real purpose is to attempt to include GM commercialization in the National Thirteenth five-year Plan, and finally allow GM to completely cover Chinese crops. The heart of Sima Zhao!

Second, the Ministry of Agriculture evokes the soul of transgenic rice again.

On August 17, 2009, the Agricultural Security Association of the Ministry of Agriculture issued a "safety certificate" for genetically modified rice, valid for 5 years. Monsanto boss's high-profile evaluation is a "milestone event". But in the end, due to the falsification of the safety certificate of genetically modified rice was exposed, life came to an end! In January 2015, Huazhong Agricultural University announced that two transgenic insect-resistant rice-Huahui 1 and Bt Shanyou 63-had once again received "safety certificates" issued by the Ministry of Agriculture. Efforts should be made to evoke the soul of this genetically modified rice, which is neither increased nor safe.

The so-called "safety certificate of genetically modified rice" was falsified: 1. Zhang Kai only provided acute toxicity experiments on mice for 90 days, but also lacked evidence of chronic toxicological experiments, and only 5% of the genetically modified materials were used. In particular, the experiment is to use "bacterial protein" instead of "transgenic rice". 2. The sample for the experiment is Huahui No. 1, but the rice to be planted is Bt Shanyou 63 rice for the common people to eat. 3. Shanyou 63, a rice variety, was bred by Academician Xie Huaan of Fujian Province 30 years ago with Minghui 63 and Zhenshan 97A, and the Ministry of Agriculture has already announced its retirement. Zhang Kai picked up other varieties and "transferred" the insect-resistant gene of Bacillus thuringiensis toxin protein, so he said it was his own. At best, it is "borrowing chickens to lay eggs". 4. Genetically modified rice does not have an "yield-increasing effect", but converts the cost of pest control pesticides into rice production by 6% to 8%. Accordingly, it is claimed that the late promotion of rice in the whole country (440 million mu) will lose 20 billion! Change the concept secretly, deceive the country and deceive the people!

Clive James' public relations in China is very low-key.

Who is Clive James (CliveJames)? He was the founder and chairman of the board of directors of the International Agricultural Biotechnology Application Service Organization (ISAAA), GM backstage boss, and driving force, and for many years in a row, he had to come to tackle key problems on the eve of China's "two sessions," issuing the so-called "Global situation of genetically modified crop cultivation" and making suggestions for China's GM promoters. The purpose is very clear, that is, to influence the Chinese government's decision on genetically modified crops and strive to promote the commercialization of genetically modified staple grains. (Beijing News)

In 2015, Clive James arrived early in late January, but this time the public relations in China were "very low-key", arranging only a "seminar on the industrialization of crop biological breeding" on January 29, which was hardly reported by the state media. The reason: first, Clive James has been taken off the "ISAAA" cap and renamed as "former chairman". So I didn't get a high standard of courtesy. Second, a few years ago, Clive James made a high-profile statement in China that China would become a world leader in genetically modified rice in 2015. Times have changed, and the safety certificate of genetically modified rice has come to an end. Third, with the gradual deepening of the national campaign against corruption and corruption, Li Ning has already taken the lead in entering the prison cell because of the huge corruption of genetically modified funds. I do not know how many people are still scared who should be next? Fourth, multinational corporations have hit a brick wall everywhere in promoting genetically modified seeds all over the world, and scientists have done carcinogenic experiments on genetically modified corn to prove that genetically modified crops are carcinogenic. GM companies such as Monsanto, Syngenta and BASF were driven out of Europa one by one. Clive James' low-key report on the global situation of GM planting in 2014 also admitted that France, Germany, Italy and other countries in Europe have refused to grow GM crops.

IV. Strict genetically modified labeling in the new Food Safety Law

The new version of the Food Safety Law of the people's Republic of China was formally adopted by the standing Committee of the National people's Congress on April 24. A new clause entitled "the production and operation of genetically modified foods shall be marked in accordance with the regulations" is added to give consumers the right to know. (China Business Daily, May 1)

China is the largest importer of genetically modified soybeans, which mainly process blended oil and soybean oil, and their deeply processed products include soybean phospholipid, soybean milk powder, corn starch, corn syrup and so on. and then added to biscuits, beverages, dairy products, cakes, instant foods and mixed foods, expanded food, rice noodles and other foods. Because there is no relevant legal norms, consumers lack the right to choose and the right to know. Furthermore, even if genetically modified cooking oil is ordered to be labeled, no one in the catering and food industry, which accounts for about 70% and 80% of its consumption, is willing to actively label the word "genetically modified raw materials". The reason is self-evident. In the long run, we should gradually formulate more clear rules and regulations and establish a risk prevention and management system for GM food hazards. On November 30, the relevant departments supplemented and issued the "regulations for the Management of Packaging and labelling of fresh Food in supermarkets (draft for soliciting opinions)". Genetically modified and imported fresh food should be marked prominently on the label. The position is eye-catching, the color is bright, and the text font is not less than other words in the label.

Fifth, Longjiang soybean is "genetically modified"! Is it true? Is it fake?

On September 5, the China Business Daily headlined "Heilongjiang farmers grow genetically modified soybeans, the source of seeds is still a mystery", and reported that in Suihua area, "I saw farmers' warehouses full of genetically modified soybeans planted that year." According to a follow-up report by the Agricultural Materials Guide on September 8, there may be two sources of seeds: one is that multinational corporations bribe officials or businessmen to make GM soybean seeds enter farmland privately; another may be that researchers deliberately expand the planting area of GM soybeans. Illegal planting of genetically modified soybeans is not just an isolated case. It is possible to plant genetically modified soybeans on a large scale, and the sown area may have reached 10%. If the planting area of soybeans in Heilongjiang Province is 30 million mu in 2015, the area of genetically modified soybeans will at least exceed 3 million mu. A red flag!

Soybeans produced in Heilongjiang are considered to be the best non-GM soybeans in the world with high protein content and are the main raw materials for processing soybean products. They are favored by businessmen and people, and some of them are exported to Japan and South Korea. If enterprises or researchers privately expand the area of genetically modified soybeans, northeast soybeans will face a disaster, ruining the precious soybean resources originated in China. The Science and Technology Department of the Ministry of Agriculture should take full responsibility for this incident, but offered a sword of the so-called "territorial management," that is to say, "the idea comes from it, and the responsibility lies with the grass roots." On September 22, the Heilongjiang Provincial Committee of Agriculture informed that the Provincial Committee of Agriculture set up an investigation team to conduct an investigation in relevant cities and counties and interviewed the person in charge of Yihai Jiali (Heilongjiang) Grain and Oil Co., Ltd. After a comprehensive investigation, no farmers were found to have stolen genetically modified soybeans. Heh! Heh! Things happen for a reason, there is no evidence; big things become small, small things become nothing!

VI. The Central Committee held a "Symposium on transgenic issues" in 1993.

In the report of the third session of the 12th CPPCC National Committee, Yu Zhengsheng, chairman of the National Committee of the Chinese people's political Consultative Conference, talked about the work plan for 2015, requiring democratic parties to conduct research and discussion on the topic of "opportunities and risks of genetically modified agricultural products." The Central Committee of the Jiusan Society conscientiously put it into practice and took the lead in organizing a "symposium on transgenic issues" on April 2, which was attended by Cong Bin, vice chairman of the Central Committee of the Jiusan Society. Three agricultural experts spoke: Jiang Gaoming (Chinese Academy of Sciences), Xu Qifeng (China Agricultural University) and Tong Pingya (Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences).

The reporter systematically exposed the harm of GM crops and the lies of GM pushers from the perspective of science and technology, and finally put forward two suggestions for Jiusan Society to submit to the CPC Central Committee: first, to create a social environment for open and equal discussion. Genetically modified crops not only do not increase production, but also endanger people's health and destroy the ecological environment has become the consensus of the world's mainstream scientists, why the GM fallacy published by some mainstream media come from one template and one tune. It is suggested that we should carry out open and transparent discussions in newspapers, television, Internet and other media, establish a democratic negotiation mechanism, distinguish right from wrong, and expose the harm of genetically modified genes and their scams. Second, science has been reduced to the right of collusion with politics, the game of relying on money, the tool of taking orders from consortia and the culprit of destroying nature. Calls upon the Central Commission for discipline Inspection to investigate Chinese officials, professors, and GM spokesmen who have been employed as supervisors, directors, consultants in international consortia, multinational corporations, foundations, and other organizations, how much remuneration, salaries and bonuses they receive from foreign organizations, as well as the "preferential" status of their wives or children abroad. As the saying goes, the buttocks determine the head, look at the buttocks to reveal the true face.

VII. The CPPCC National Committee discussed "opportunities and risks of genetically modified genes".

The National Committee of the Chinese people's political Consultative Conference (CPPCC) held a biweekly consultation forum on October 8 to make suggestions on "the opportunities and risks of genetically modified agricultural products." Members of the CPPCC National Committee who "strongly support" and "oppose" the commercialization of genetically modified staple grains, as well as officials from the Ministry of Agriculture, attended. Yu Zhengsheng, chairman of the CPPCC National Committee, presided over the meeting and made a speech.

CCTV News broadcast: some members suggested that the research, promotion and supervision of genetically modified agricultural products should be considered in the light of the country's overall and long-term development. The first is bold research. Pay attention to basic research, give full play to the enthusiasm of enterprises in applied research, and strengthen safety research. The second is to promote cautiously. It is necessary to distinguish between edible and non-edible, staple grain and non-staple grain, and the application and promotion of staple grain should be very cautious. It is necessary to consider the popularity of genetically modified science and technology, the acceptance of the masses and the existing level of management, and insist that safety comes first and trust comes first. The third is practical supervision. Strictly implement laws and regulations, establish a clear division of labor and cooperation and accountability mechanisms, establish non-interest-related third-party testing institutions, and increase investment in regulatory funds. We will formulate and improve relevant norms and standards, establish an open and transparent mechanism, and fully protect consumers' right to know and their own choice. Welcome all aspects of supervision, supervision to promote supervision.

VIII. High incidence of Cancer and dumping of genetically modified products in Chinese

People's Daily reported that at the Capital International Cancer Forum on October 16, the China Anti-Cancer Association released a report: "China has about 3.37 million new cancer cases and about 2.11 million deaths every year. New cases account for 22% of the world's new cases and 26% of deaths, accounting for more than 1/4 of global cancer deaths. Cancer has become the number one killer of Chinese people! " Is there a relationship between the high incidence of cancer and the dumping of genetically modified products?

The International Center for Research on Cancer (CIRC) recently released two cases that demonstrate the relationship between the high incidence of cancer and the proliferation of genetically modified products. One example is that in laboratory animals, "there is sufficient evidence that glyphosate causes cancer in laboratory animals". The global dumping of GM seeds bundled with glyphosate by Monsanto is a source of cancer. European countries have strictly restricted the import of pesticide glyphosate. Two cases were analyzed by experts on the relationship between meat and cancer, and there was "sufficient evidence" to prove that processed meat products such as bacon, ham and sausage were carcinogens. Eating 50 grams of processed meat a day increased the risk of colorectal cancer by 18 percent. As soon as the report came out, there was a public outcry, and people in the industry declared "nonsense", while food and medical experts believed that "the evidence was conclusive" and concluded that meat products were only a matter of eating more or less.

China is the largest importer of genetically modified soybeans and the biggest victim of Monsanto's GM seeds bundled with glyphosate. Genetically modified soybeans mainly process cooking oil, and soybean meal is used in livestock and poultry feed. Today, cooking oil in supermarkets and hotels, restaurants, restaurants and even street vendors use genetically modified soybean oil, as well as genetically modified feed to produce hot dogs, ham and sausages for meat processing. China's Ministry of Agriculture, which has something difficult to say, pretends to be deaf and silent.

Beijing citizens sue the Ministry of Agriculture for sheltering Monsanto

On November 16, the case of Beijing citizens suing the Ministry of Agriculture for harboring Monsanto was heard in the Beijing No. 3 Intermediate people's Court. The plaintiffs, Yang Xiaolu, Li Xiangzhen, and Tian Xiangping, the defendant, the Ministry of Agriculture, and the additional defendant Monsanto Company. The focus of the trial: is the report of glyphosate toxicology test bundled with Monsanto GM seeds a trade secret? (December 7, China Food Daily)

Counsel for the plaintiff pointed out that the Monsanto glyphosate toxicology test report was not a trade secret. Monsanto has published pesticide formulations on its website and applied for patent protection in the United States. since the formulations are no secret, can the safety assessment of the product be regarded as a trade secret? Counsel for the defendant's Ministry of Agriculture admitted that glyphosate was toxic and had an impact on the public interest, but that it was good for humans to inhibit the growth of weeds. "the right to choose the lesser of the two evils" and "only when there is a significant impact can we consider publicity." Monsanto product safety assessment is a "trade secret, Monsanto does not agree to disclose". The presiding judge questioned the defendant several times: "Monsanto's reply said that because of the important personal privacy and trade secrets of the test report, it had never been made public." May I ask whether the defendant's reason for withholding disclosure is trade secret or personal privacy? Or both? " The defendant replied that there were both. The court did not deliver the final verdict.

The sophistry of the defendant's Ministry of Agriculture in court surprised the countrymen. During the whole trial, there was no substantive proof of the glyphosate toxicology report, but emphasized "trade secrets." Putting the commercial interests of Monsanto above the public interests of the Chinese people, is it the Ministry of Agriculture on behalf of the Chinese government? Or the Ministry of Agriculture on behalf of Monsanto?

International organizations call on China to stop glyphosate production

After the International Center for Cancer Research (CIRC) of the World Health Organization (WHO) released the highly toxic pesticide glyphosate as a "possible carcinogen to mankind", ten international non-governmental organizations jointly issued an "open letter" to the Chinese people, President Xi Jinping and Premier Li Keqiang, imploring the Chinese government to play a global leading role in this matter and immediately stop the production of glyphosate. (October 5, people's Food sovereignty Network)

China is the world's largest producer and exporter of glyphosate, accounting for about 70 percent of the world's total glyphosate production capacity and more than 50 percent of the global market share of glyphosate raw materials, the Open letter said. In 2014, China produced 450000 tons of glyphosate, most of which were exported to Monsanto to produce glyphosate bundled GM seeds for sale in the world. China is also the largest importer of glyphosate-resistant GM soybeans and corn. This has prompted the United States, Argentina and Brazil to continue to produce GM products, causing serious health harm to people in many countries by using glyphosate to bind GM seeds. Monsanto has made huge profits from the promotion of genetically modified seeds, and the demand for glyphosate has increased tenfold. As long as we control transgenic seeds, we can control the pesticide consumption structure and then control the pesticide market. Call on the Chinese government to immediately stop the production of highly toxic pesticide glyphosate, refuse to import genetically modified soybeans and genetically modified corn, and resolutely stop the harm to world health caused by the binding of glyphosate to Monsanto's genetically modified seeds.