Over the past 30 years, China has made significant advances in GMO research and development, the importation and processing of GM food crops, and the commercialization of insect-resistant cotton and domestically developed GM crops. As a result, China has established a regulatory model to ensure the safe development and commercialization of agricultural biotechnology. However, challenges have emerged, highlighting the need for the ongoing optimization and improvement of the regulatory framework.
In the legal and regulatory framework, there are potential conflicts between existing regulations. For instance, the Administrative Rule for Genetic Engineering Safety, issued by the MST, contradicts the Regulation on the Safety Administration of Agricultural GMOs, issued by the SC, because of differing implementing authorities. The former assigns responsibility to the MST, whereas the latter designates the MARA. However, the Regulation on the Safety Administration of Agricultural GMOs is considered superior to the Administrative Rule for Genetic Engineering Safety in the legal hierarchy.
Additionally, current regulations fail to address all aspects of GMO safety management, leaving gaps in the framework. While the approval processes for intermediate trials, environmental releases, production trials, and safety certifications are well defined, there is insufficient regulatory coverage concerning laboratory research on GMOs. Both the Regulation on the Safety Administration of Agricultural GMOs and the Administrative Rule for Safety Evaluation of Agricultural GMOs merely state that research institutions can approve laboratory research for Level I and II GMOs independently, without oversight. This loophole has led to instances in which research institutions, after completing laboratory studies, bypassed legal approval and directly conducted intermediate trials, violating safety protocols.
Regarding information disclosure and public participation, China’s GMO safety management has been marked by a lack of proactivity and timely communication. Prior to 2010, public attitudes toward GMOs were generally positive. However, after 2010, a lack of proactive communication, coupled with negative publicity surrounding GMO food safety, led to a shift in public perception. The shift in the Chinese public’s attitude toward the application of GM technology around 2010 resulted from the complex interplay of multiple factors, including policy direction, media environment, public psychology, and international context.
Prior to 2010, public perceptions of GM biotechnology research and its commercial applications were generally positive. This optimism was largely driven by strong policy support, continuous technological progress, insights gained from international experience, and increasing market demand. Additionally, the relatively homogeneous media environment during the early stages helped reinforce a positive narrative. In 2008, the Chinese government approved the establishment of the Major Special Project for the Development of New GM Varieties, signaling strong support for GM research and innovation.
In 2009, the government officially proposed the commercialization of GM technology, conveying confidence in its future prospects. The successful adoption of insect-resistant cotton further strengthened public trust in the practical benefits of GM technologies. Additionally, large-scale GM crop cultivation in countries such as the United States offered valuable international reference points, and the fact that imported GM maize and soybean were used exclusively for feed and industrial processing, rather than for direct human consumption, helped avoid triggering strong public concern.
More importantly, prior to 2010, the limited penetration of digital technologies, such as the internet and smartphones, meant that GMO safety had yet to emerge as a mainstream public issue. Public understanding of GM technology was largely shaped by the official discourse from the scientific and policy communities, and negative controversies surrounding GMOs had not yet been amplified in the public sphere. After 2010, however, the rapid proliferation of internet access, smartphones, and social media platforms ushered in an era of “self-media” in China, in which rumors and negative narratives about GM technology could circulate widely and rapidly. In this context, negative information often spreads with greater intensity and reach.
At the same time, public science communication efforts related to GMO safety remained limited, and the government failed to respond promptly to counter misinformation. This lack of timely engagement was a key factor contributing to the post-2010 shift in public sentiment toward GM technology. Ultimately, this transformation in public attitude reflects a complex outcome shaped by evolving perceptions of technological risk, the transparency of policy processes, shifting social dynamics, and changing international influences. Although the Chinese government has since worked to strengthen regulatory oversight and expand science communication efforts, the delayed response and accumulation of negative public discourse have resulted in a growing “trust deficit.”
Share this article
Additionally, mechanisms for public participation in GMO safety management remain underdeveloped, and the regulatory framework lacks sufficient channels for public input, which has contributed to a lack of public trust in regulatory decision-making. To address these issues, China could learn from international best practices, such as the EU’s regulation on food risk assessment transparency and Japan’s disclosure standards for gene-edited organisms,to enhance transparency, improve public confidence, and refine GMO safety management.
Compared with the well-established agricultural biotechnology research and commercialization system in the United States, China’s efforts in GMO research and application are relatively recent, leading to a noticeable gap, particularly in the discovery and utilization of key functional genes, the development of GMOs, and the rate of commercial adoption. Additionally, the pace of GM staple crop commercialization in China has not yet met the expectations set by the Chinese government for accelerating the commercialization of crops produced by biotechnology breeding.
In GMO safety management, China has consistently adopted a cautious approach, drawing on international practices, focusing on both products and processes, and striving to ensure the safety of GMOs while advancing research and application. The design of China’s regulatory framework reflects policies tailored to national conditions that also align with international standards and safeguard national interests. Consistent with international organizations and the practices of most countries, China has enacted comprehensive regulations covering all aspects of GMO safety management, including research, testing, production, processing, and trade. These regulations, such as the Regulation on the Safety Administration of Agricultural GMOs and supporting rules, provide a robust legal framework for the continued development of China’s GMO industry.
Although the system is characterized by a rigorous regulatory design, a solid evaluation framework, and strong technical support, challenges remain, including regulatory conflicts, gaps in post-commercialization oversight, mismatches between labeling policies and commercial progress, and low levels of public engagement in GMO safety governance in China.
Nevertheless, by balancing the need to ensure human, animal, and environmental safety with the goal of fully harnessing the benefits of GMOs, China has developed a distinctive approach to GMO safety management. This approach is characterized by a tiered trial system, a stepwise approval process, and comprehensive, whole-process regulatory oversight that is specifically designed to align with China’s agricultural production structure and national conditions, thereby offering valuable insights to the international community.
This is an excerpt. Read the original post here
