China GMO Petition

Barbara H. Peterson

Farm Wars

The Chinese Ministry of Agriculture is in bed with Monsanto. This clandestine relationship is being exposed through the tireless efforts of “over six hundred individuals from different fields and locations in China,” who have submitted a petition to end the takeover.

GMOs (genetically modified/engineered organisms) in China are regulated by the Ministry of Agriculture, and the future that this department has in store for the people of China is anything but organic and healthy:

The agriculture biotech industry is supported by the central government of the People’s Republic of China (PRC or China) as an emerging sector of strategic importance.[1]  According to China’s 12th Five-Year Plan on National Economic and Social Development for 2011–2015 (12th Five-year Plan), the country will “speed up the innovation and application of biotechnology breeding in agriculture,” “develop new biological variety with important application value and independent intellectual property rights,” and “foster a large and strong modern seed industry.”[2] 

Based on the 12th Five-year Plan and other plans supplementing it, the Ministry of Agriculture (MOA) released the 12th Five-Year Plan for Development of Agricultural Science and Technology (Agricultural S&T Plan), which provides more details on the development of agricultural science and technology.  In this Plan, the MOA proposes to strengthen research involving genetically modified organisms (GMOs).[3]  Major research projects on breeding new varieties of GMOs will continue to be carried out in the 2011–2015 period, according to the Agricultural S&T Plan.[4]  The plans also incorporate biosafety assessment and management as focus areas of biotech industry development.[5]

The people’s response to this collusion of the government of China with the biotech industry:

The petition letter submitted by over six hundred individuals from different fields and locations in China to the State Council Legislative Affairs Office regarding revisions proposed by the Ministry of Agriculture to their “Agricultural GMOs Safety Evaluation Administration Methods”

Submitted on May 23, 2015


Petition Conclusion

1) The Ministry of Agriculture’s “Agricultural GMOs Safety Evaluation Administration Method” and implementation by the Ministry has not assured us that GMOs developed abroad or within China are safe. On the contrary, the “Safety Certificate” offered by the Ministry that states GMOs “do not present a danger to mankind, animals, plants, microbes and the ecological environment,” in fact has allowed Monsanto’s lyphosate-tolerant GM soy, maize and canola products, which do cause systematic harm “to mankind, animals, plants, microbes and the ecological environment,” to flood the Chinese market in large scale!

2) The Ministry of Agriculture and the China Disease Control & Prevention Center have both colluded with Monsanto, who has provided them with “fake samples, carried out false tests, and falsified safety conclusions.” The Ministry of Agriculture and the China Disease Control & Prevention Center, in partnership with Monsanto, have cheated the Chinese government and Chinese people, have seriously violated the State Council’s “Agricultural GMOs Safety Administration Regulation,”and are hereby alleged to have committed the “crime of endangering public security with dangerous methods”!

3) As a State Party to the United Nation’s Convention on Biodiversity and its Cartagena Biosafety Protocol, China should strictly implement these legally binding international documents. On the issue of GMO food safety, the Cartagena Biosafety Protocol stipulates, “Lack of scientific certainty due to insufficient relevant scientific information and knowledge regarding the extent of the potential adverse effects of a living modified organism on the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity in the Party of import, taking also into account risks to human health, shall not prevent that Party from taking a decision, as appropriate, with regard to the import of the living modified organism in question as referred to in paragraph 3 above, in order to avoid or minimize such potential adverse effects.” The above described facts prove that the Ministry of Agriculture has blatantly violated these stipulations of the Protocol.

4) We must therefore perform a cancer-like surgery: first, investigate the extent of the collusion between officials in the Ministry of Agricultureand Monsanto in cheating the Chinese government and the Chinese People; second, carry out a shakeup and reorganization of the leadership of the ministry; and third, establish new leadership with a clear understanding that ecological agriculture is the only correct sustainable development direction for China’s agriculture. Only after establishing such a new leadership, and not before, can we make the necessary revision to the ministry’s “Agricultural GMOs Safety Evaluation Administration Method” in accordance with the principle of giving top priority to the continuous safety, health, survival and reproduction of the Chinese nation!

5) Furthermore, we cannot exclude the possibility that GMOs could very likely be used by overseas evil forces as a means of bio-warfare, causing massive safety danger, therefore the agricultural GMO issue also is a major issue concerning bio-defense. Therefore, the agricultural GMO issue is no longer an issue that can be regulated, supervised and administrated by one government department, such as the Ministry of Agriculture, but must be regulated, supervised and administrated by a special agency of the National Security Council. This special agency should be formed by members of the National Security Council, military medical research institutions undertaking bio-defense tasks, biochemical warfare tasks, and specialists carrying out research in agricultural GMOs, inspection and quarantine, public health, environment protection etc.

6) After investigating the responsibility of the Ministry of Agriculture officials colluding internally and externally with Monsanto and cheating the Chinese government and Chinese people, we suggest that the “Agricultural GMO Biosafety Evaluation Administration Method” at least should be supplemented with the following clauses:

1) The classification of Agricultural GMOs “degree of danger to humans, animals and plants, microbes and the ecological environment,” must adhere to the principle of “practice is the eventual standard for verification of truth,” can only be judged after simultaneously carrying out the same type, overall, comprehensive, long-term, multiple-generation carcinogenic, teratogenic and mutagenic, endocrine disrupting, developmental disturbance toxicology animal testing, and not determined by any “specialists” group tapping on their heads!

2) All agricultural GMOs must carry out the same type, overall, comprehensive, long-term, multiple-generation carcinogenic, teratogenic and mutagenic, endocrine disrupting, developmental disturbance toxicology animal tests!

GM agricultural, forestry species are artificial species not existing before in nature, have not been verified over time by the human society and nature, thus the responsibility of presenting evidence to prove their safety completely falls on the developers and promoters. They have unshirkable responsibility through sufficiently rigorous experimental data to prove the absolute safety of GMO food to humans, animals and environment, and to prove that such safety is permanent and not only for any limited duration.

Towards the massive evidence and reports proving that GMO food is harmful, the developers and promoters have unshirkable responsibility to use sufficiently rigorous experimental data to prove that such evidence and reports are wrong, and to address all the suspicions on GMO food products. They need to use true and convincing evidence to prove that all evidence and reports showing harm of GMO food are false, wrong, otherwise they cannot prove the safety of GMO food.

3) All such toxicology animal test reports concern the public health interest. As such, scanned copies of the original test reports without any deletion must all be disclosed to the public, including the names of the testing institution and the names of the responsible persons!

4) Agricultural GMO development units that refuse to disclose all such toxicology animal test reports, must be refused their qualification of applying for “safety certificates”!

5) All agricultural GMOs, regardless of being developed by domestic or foreign units, if such units refuse to disclose any of their toxicology animal test reports, their “safety certificates” should be immediately canceled!

6) If the Ministry of Agriculture refuses to make such revisions to the “Agricultural GMO Biosafety Administration Method,” we will call to people of the whole nation: All agricultural GMOs must be banned, the responsibility of all officials and public position “scholars” who indulge in promotion of agricultural GMOs must be investigated!

7) All administration regulations must include clauses of punishment, otherwise, such regulations have no seriousness and feasibility. Especially the industrialization of agricultural and forestry GMOs, its safety consequences shall seriously threaten mankind life and health and the overall ecological environment. The punishment clauses of the original “Agricultural GMO Biosafety Administration Method” are all too light, at most a few hundred thousand RMB, some clauses even do not even include any fine, only stipulate to stop. The level of punishment does not correspond to the scale of harm consequences. This also enables the GMO interest group to disregard, using thuggery to promote the spreading of GMOs, paying no attention to the serious consequences caused to mankind, society and environment!

Therefore, we request: Much more severe punishment should be included by the revised “Agricultural GMO Biosafety Administration Method,” and those who purposely release GMOs into the environment and the market, without giving concern to the consequences, should be considered equivalent to thugs and charged with the crime of “using dangerous means to harm public safety.” Not only should criminal responsibility be investigated, but also apply massive severe economic punishment, therefore evil persons will not dare to act in such way!

Finally, regarding the revision process of the “Agricultural GMO Biosafety Evaluation Administration Method,” we request:

(1) The PRC Constitution Article 27 specifies: “All state government departments and state officers must rely on the support of the people, frequently maintain close contacts with the people, earnestly listen to the opinions and Suggestions of the people, receive supervision by the people, make efforts to serve the people.”

(2) “Agriculural GMO biosafety” concerns the health and safety of the 1.3 billion Chinese people, therefore, the National People’s Congress and the China Political Consultancy Committee must hold public hearings on the revision opinions proposed to the “Agricultural GMO Biosafety Evaluation Administration Method,” the Ministry of Agriculture officials should point by point listen and respond to inquiries by the People representatives.

(3) The Ministry of Agriculture should also learn from the EU, publicly disclose and list all the revision suggestions by the public to the “Agricultural GMO Biosafety Evaluation Administration Method,” and point by point explain the reason for accepting or refusing such revision suggestions.


Additional documentation

May the people of China be successful in their quest to end Monsanto’s push for domination and control of their country, as well as the rest of the world, in the guise of innovative technology.

©2015 Barbara H. Peterson

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

One Response to “Petition to End GMO Takeover of China”

  1. Irene says:

    Have you ever been to China? It’s huge, and lots of time zones and different nationalities of people. If Monsanto gets China they have won, succeeding in ruining the world and the human race. We need to tell the chineese people that it will take their independence and make them sick slaves to a corporate lie.
    The slow kill is not a regulation and can not be managed.