Recently, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has once again spoken out on genetically modified (GM) foods, claiming them to be “safe and reliable,” and harshly cracking down on internet users spreading doubts. However, there are still restrictions on the consumption of imported GM soybeans in actual policies, leading to criticisms of the contradiction between official statements and practical measures, with internet users demanding the rights to information and choice.
On October 1st, mainland Chinese media China Quality Report released a push alert, dismissing online claims such as “GM harm offspring” and “eating GM food causes infertility” as rumors.
The report cited information from the agricultural and rural departments in Yunnan province, stating that local agricultural, public security, and internet authorities had summoned and educated a netizen with the surname Shen. Shen proactively deleted relevant information, deactivated their Douyin account, and promised to be mindful of their speech in the future.
This clarification by the authorities once again demonstrates a strong stance on the GM topic.
The report debunked the misinformation about GM food being “safe and reliable” and criticized the information spread by netizen Shen, sparking heated discussions and questioning among netizens. A netizen from Zhejiang named Zhang Yongchang commented in the discussion section: “Those who like to eat it have their own judgment.” Within four hours, the comment received over six thousand likes.
Other netizens commented: “The canteen food is all pre-made with dollars.” Another netizen remarked: “Providing the public with information and choice is good enough. Let whoever wants to eat it eat it.”
Some netizens also demanded authorities to label whether food ingredients contain GM components.
Wang Xinhan, a food scholar from Beijing Agricultural and Forestry University, stated in an interview that there is still no definitive conclusion in the scientific community regarding the safety of GM foods. The consensus among most researchers is that under existing standards, commercially available GM foods “won’t kill people.” However, whether they are truly risk-free still remains a point of contention between science and society.
He said, “Commercial GM foods have been deemed safe for consumption based on current evidence, but there is no ultimate conclusion in science. The public’s mistrust more so stems from a lack of choice and asymmetrical information.”
Despite the authorities emphasizing that GM foods are “safe and reliable,” experts still hold diverging views on their long-term impacts, and public distrust has yet to dissipate.
Mr. Wang, a soybean professional grower from Heilongjiang, mentioned in an interview that the government strictly prohibits the entry of GM soybeans from the United States into the food chain, restricting them to be used only as feed. He said, “The soybeans we grow can be used for oil extraction and tofu making, but the US-imported soybeans are GM and banned for human consumption.”
Mr. Wang also remarked that labeling GM soybeans as “non-GM” would lead to severe consequences: “That would lead to imprisonment; we dare not pass off imported GM soybeans as non-GM.”
According to relevant CCP regulations, if businesses mislabel GM soybean products as “non-GM,” they will violate multiple laws. The penalties will include false labeling and violation of regulations such as the Food Safety Law, Advertising Law, GM Labeling Management Measures, etc. Additionally, they could face criminal charges, with the most severe cases punishable by over ten years in prison.
At the same time, there is circulating online a list of ingredients for handmade mooncakes supplied to the Great Hall of the People in Beijing, showing conventional flour, nuts, and fats without the term “GM.” Netizens mocked, “No advanced technology involved.”
Similar sentiments continue to arise ceaselessly on social platforms: “Why isn’t GM used in the Olympic Village?” “If it’s safe, let the government canteens try it first.” A netizen straightforwardly commented, “Safety is one thing, the right to choose is another.”
This controversy surrounding GM is not new. Twenty years ago, there were rumors about “Guangxi university students becoming infertile due to consuming GM soybean products,” which the CCP Ministry of Agriculture promptly denied.
However, such stories have not disappeared but are repeatedly cited and circulated, gradually solidifying as societal suspicions. While there may be clear scientific conclusions, public trust is increasingly thinning.
A professor from Beijing University of Technology focusing on agricultural issues told reporters that China should label GM foods. However, he understood that some bean oil uses American soybeans without appropriate labeling: “The US allows the free circulation of GM foods but requires labeling; the EU mandates labeling for any product exceeding 0.9% GM content; and Japan partially permits GM products but widely implements ‘non-GM’ labeling.”
In contrast, the CCP relies more on official debunking and mandatory narratives, with limited space at the policy level for the public’s rights to information and choice. The professor pointed out that when netizens’ doubts are labeled as “rumors” and different voices are forcibly silenced, summoned, or even penalized, the GM controversy seems to have been “resolved” through administrative means.
However, the unresolved question remains: why can leaders enjoy “non-GM” specially supplied food while ordinary people can only accept the unquestionable official conclusions?
As a highly liked comment on social media mentioned, “If it’s genuinely safe, let the leaders try it first.” Another sharp popular comment stated, “Science may not have an issue, but can we have the choice not to eat it?”