1 For some typical scandals, see Peter Foster, “Top 10 Chinese Food Scandals”, The Telegraph, 27 April 2011, available on the Internet at: < http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/8476080/Top-10-Chinese-Food-Scandals.html> (last accessed on 31 October 2012). See also “Food Safety in China”, The New York Times, 2012, available on the Internet at: <http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/news/international/countriesandterritories/china/food-safety/index.html> (last accessed on 31 October 2012).

2 Mingsheng Gao, “Can Food Safety Standards Be Made to Accommodate Various Interests? (Shipin Anquan Biaozhun Keyi Bei Xietiao Ma?)”, China Youth Daily, 30 November 2011, at p. 02.

3 Duanduan Yuan and Haining He, “China's Food Safety Standards Are “Getting Old” (Zhongguo Shipin Anquan Biaozhun Laole)”, Nanfang Weekly, 5 May 2011.

4 Food Safety Law of People's Repulic of China, announced by the National People's Congress Standing Committee, promulgated on 28 Feburary 2009.

5 Food standards provide benchmarks, which food enforcement authorities can use as the basis for conducting food regulation activities. For food industries, food standards are the starting point for food safety compliance. See Ibid, Arts. 18–26.

6 World Trade Organization, World Trade Report 2012: Trade and Public Policies: A Closer Look at Non-tariff Measures in the 21st Century, (Geneva: World Trade Organization 2012), at p. 38.Google Scholar

7 The Standardization Law of the People's Republic of China introduced in 1988 lays down the blueprint for China's general standardization. This law covers the technical standardization of almost all kinds of industries including the food sector. See Standardization Law of the People's Republic of China, announced by the National People's Congress Standing Committee, promulgated on 29 December 1988.

8 Farrell, J and Saloner, G, “Standardization, Compatibility, and Innovation”, The Rand Journal of Economics (1985), pp. 70 et sqq., at pp. 70–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

9 International Organization for Standardization,”ISO Standard”, available on the internet at: <http://www.iso.org/iso/standards_development/processes_and_procedures/deliverables/iso_standard_deliverable.htm> (last accessed on 31 October 2012).

10 “IEC” is the abbreviation for the International Electrotechnical Commission, and please note hereinafter the same abbreviation will be used to illustrate that organization unless expressed otherwise. See International Organization for Standardization, ISO/IEC Guide 2 6th ed. (Geneva: International Organization for Standardization 1991)Google Scholar. It is noted, however, the 8^th edition of the ISO/IEC Guide 2, which is the most updated edition to date. See International Organization for Standardization, ISO/IEC Guide 2 8th ed. (Geneva: International Organization for Standardization 2004).Google Scholar

11 Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, Marrakesh, 15 April 1994, in force 1 January 1995, Annex 1A (“Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade”).

12 According to the Appellate Body, a technical regulation must be a document specifying product characteristics “in a binding or compulsory fashion” and “be applicable to an identifiable product, or group of products”. See European Communities – Measures Affecting Asbestos and Asbestos-containing Products, Report of Appellate Body, WTO Doc. WT/DS135/AB/R, 12 March 2001, at pp. 26–27.

13 Terminology used in the SPS Agreement is compatible with that in the TBT Agreement. Sanitary or phytosanitary regulations are interchangeable with sanitary or phytosanitary measures referring to those rules, which are ‘applicable generally’ whereas international standards are “developed by the relevant international organizations, including the Codex Alimentarius Commission, the International Office of Epizootics, and the relevant international and regional organizations operating within the framework of the International Plant Protection Convention, without requiring Members to change their appropriate level of protection of human, animal or plant life or health”. That generally means WTO members have certain autonomy in terms of compliance with international standards. See Marrakesh Agreement, supra note 11, Annex 1A (“Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures”).

14 Guide for Standardization – Part 1: Standardization and Related Activities – General Vocabulary (GB/T 20000.1–2002), announced by the AQSIQ, promulgated on 20 June 2002.

15 Ibid, Art. 2.3.2.

16 Ibid, Art. 2.1.1.

17 The author understands that though the approach to defining the standard is based on China's domestic laws, there is no substantial negative impact upon China's actual compliance with its WTO obligation, given the fact that Chinese standards, which are marked as mandatory, are treated as technical regulations within the scope of the WTO terminology. A WTO report stated that a standard was defined as non-mandatory in the WTO regime, but economists understood it as either mandatory or voluntary. Actually, instead of strictly following WTO legal terminology, the WTO Secretariat in its annual World Trade Report 2005 adopted an economic definition for the standard, which was considered either mandatory or voluntary. Hence, it is acceptable that standards are defined as including both mandatory and voluntary norms as long as they are consistently applied in legal practice in a given circumstance. The author adopts the approach similar to the WTO Secretariat's for the convenience of discussion. Also, the article is written to attract the attention of Chinese law scholars and policy makers at large. Hence, strictly sticking to Chinese legal terminology can produce coherence and consistency in analysing issues related to China. See World Trade Organization, World Trade Report 2005: Exploring the Links between Trade, Standards and the WTO, (Geneva: World Trade Organization 2005), at pp. 33–4Google Scholar. See also World Trade Organization, World Trade Report 2012, supra note 6, at p. 38.

18 Standardization Law, supra note 7, Art. 6.

19 Ibid.

20 Ibid, Art. 6.

21 The former serves as an umbrella ministry for quality and standard supervision, while the latter conducts day-to-day standardization administration. For information about the two government bodies, please visit respectively, <http://www.aqsiq.gov.cn> and <http://www.sac.gov.cn> (last accessed on 8 November 2012).

22 Implementing Regulation of Standardization Law of the People’s Republic of China, announced by State Council, promulgated on 6 April 1990, Art. 11.

23 Ibid, Art. 13.

24 Ibid, Art. 14.

25 See Management Methods for Professional Standards, announced by the National Technical Supervision Bureau, promulgated on 14 August 1990, Art. 16. For a general discussion of China's Professional Standardization, see Zhao, C and Graham, J M, “The PRC's Evolving Standards System: Institutions and Strategy”, 2, Asia Policy (2006), pp. 63 et sqq CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Pinghui Xiao, “A comparative Study of Sino-Australian Food Safety Regulation (Zhongao Shipin Anquan Zhengfu Jiangguan Bijao Yanjiu)”, (Master of Managament Thesis on file at Shantou University, 2008), Table 4–2.

26 Implementing Regulation of Standardization Law, supra note 22, Art. 15.

27 Ibid, Art. 16.

28 For instance, in Guangdong Province, it is the Administration of Quality and Technology Supervision of Guangdong Province that formulates relevant Local Standards, which are applied within the Province. This Administration is the provincial counterpart of the AQSIQ.

29 Implementing Regulation of Standardization Law, supra note 22, Art. 17; Management Methods for Enterprise Standards, announced by the National Technical Supervision Bureau, promulgated on 24 August 1990, Art. 12.

30 See e.g., Standardization Law, supra note 7, Arts. 3 and 7; Management Methods for Local Standardization, announced by the National Technical Supervision Bureau, promulgated on 6 September 1990.

31 See e.g., Management Methods for National Standards, supra note 21, Art. 4; Management Methods for Professional Standards, announced by the National Technical Bureau, promulgated on 24 August 1990, Art. 4; Management Methods for Professional Standards, supra note 25, Art. 16; Management Methods for Local Standardization, supra note 30, Art. 10.

32 Management Methods for National Standardization Guiding Technical Documents, announced by the National Quality & Technical Supervision Bureau, promulgated on 24 December 1998, Art. 2.

33 Ibid, Art. 6.

34 Ibid, Art. 3.

35 For instance, a certain technology might be so advanced that China is not able to apply it to the whole industry nationally at the time of raising the technology standard proposal.

36 Management Methods for Professional Standards, supra note 25, Art. 11; Management Methods for Local Standardization supra note 30, Art. 7.

37 Management Methods for Enterprise Standards, supra note 29, Art. 14.

38 Lei Zhao, “Food Safety Standardization in China” (Paper presented at the Regional Workshop on the Trade and Environment Dimensions in the Food and Food Processing Industries in Asia and the Pacific Bangkok, Thailand 2006) , available on the Internet at < http://www.unescap.org/esd/environment/cap/meeting/regional/documents/Session_05_2.pdf > (last assessed on 31 October 2012).

39 See Management Methods for Professional Standards, supra note 25, Art. 16. See also Xiao, “A Comparative Study of Sino-Australian Food Safety Regulation”, supra note 25, at p. 42.

40 Xiao, “A Comparative Study of Sino-Australian Food Safety Regulation”, supra note 25, Figure 4–1.

41 See in particular Zhao and Graham, “The PRC's Evolving Standards System: Institutions and Strategy”, supra note 25, at pp. 84–87. See also Shantou University Food Safety Research Committee, Reports of Food Safety Project Prepared by Law School, Shantou University (Shantou Daxue Faxueyuan Shipin Anquan Keti Zong Baogao) (Shantou: Shantou University, 2006), at p. 18 Google Scholar. See further Xiao, “A Comparative Study of Sino-Australian Food Safety Regulation”, supra note 25, at p. 42.

42 Tam, W and Yang, D, “Food Safety and the Development of Regulatory Institutions in China”, 29, Asian Perspective – Seoul (2005), pp. 5 et sqq.Google Scholar

43 Xingwen Li, Yi Wang and Jing Wu, “Food Standards are in Conflict with Each Other and Who Will the Public Trust in? (Shipin Biaozhun Dajia Xiaofeizhe Xin Shui?)”, 15 March 2007, available on the Internet at <http://www.sd.xinhuanet.com/qlys05/2007–03/15/content_9518409.htm> (last accessed on 31 October 2012).

44 Yuan and He, “China's Food Safety Standards Are ‘Getting Old’”, supra note 3.

45 Some species of the daylilies are edible and are quite popular in chinese cuisine. They are quite often sold as dried yellow Flowerlike ingredients in china's market so chinese people literally call them Yellow flower Vegetables. They are quite often used to make soup. see e.g., Tai, C Y and Chen, B H, “Analysis and Stability of Carotenoids in the Flowers of Daylily (Hemerocallis Disticha) as Affected by Various Treatments”, 48, Journal of agricultural and food chemistry (2000), pp. 5962 et sqq.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; Fu, Maorun and Mao, Linchun, “Research Development of Daylilies: Its Health and Nutritional Benefits (Huanghuacai De Baojian Gongxiao Ji Huaxue Chengfen Yanjiu Jinzhan)”, 32, Food and Fermentation Industry (2007), pp. 108 et sqq.Google Scholar

46 Hygienic Standards for Uses of Food Additives (GB2760–1996), announced by the MoH and the Standardization Administration of China, promulgated in December 1996.

47 Pollution Free Food Daylily (NY5186–2002), announced by the MoA, promulgated on 25 July 2002.

48 Zhe Tang, “New Standards Are Established for Daylily Products (Xinbiaozhun Jiedu Huanghuacai)”, 10/2004, China Quality Report (2004), pp. 36 et sqq.

49 Shaolong Liu and Yiping Hang, “Daily Suspected to Be Poisonous Has Been Cleared (Youdu Huanghuacai Shiji Wudu)”, Xiaoxiang Daily, 12 August 2004, at p. A5.

50 Hunan Statistics Bureau,”The Year of 2004 Saw an Increase of 305 RMB in Terms of Per Capita Income of Rural Households (2004 Nian Hunan Nongmin Renjun Chunshouru Zengjia 305 Yuan)”, available on the internet at: <http://www.hntj.gov.cn/fxbg/2005fxbg/2005tjxx/200502040010.htm> (last accessed on 31 October 2012).

51 Xiuwei Song, “Further Strengthening the Daylily Farming (Jinyibu Guifan Huanghuacai Shengchan Jingying Huodong)”, Farming Daily, 18 April 2005.

52 Plan for Developing Food Standards 2004–05, announced by the Standardization Administration of the People's Republic of China, the National Reform and Development Commission, the MoA, the Ministry of Commerce, the MoH, the AQSIQ, the State Food and Drug Administration, the China National Light Industry Council, the China General Chamber of Commerce, promulgated in 2005.

53 Guangzhou Daily,”The Plan for Developing Food Standards 2004–05 has been announced (‘Quanguo Shipin Biaozhun 2004–2005 Nian Fazhan Jihua’ Yi Yinfa Xuangao)”, available on the internet at: <http://news.sina.com.cn/o/2004–12–08/09144465913s.shtml> (last accessed on 31 October 2012).

54 Sanlu or “Three Deer” literally in English was one of the most attacked milk brands in China caught in the notorious milk scandal relating to melamine. See e.g., Pinghui Xiao, “China's Milk Scandals and Its Food Risk Assessment Institutional Framework”, 2 European Journal of Risk Regulation (2011), pp. 397 et sqq; Quentin Sommerville, “Little Comfort in Milk Scandal Verdicts”, available on the internet at: <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7845545.stm> (last accessed on 31 October 2012).

55 See e.g., Yuan and He, “China's Food Safety Standards Are ‘Getting Old’”, supra note 3; Hao Hu, “MoH has promulgated 269 National Standards for food safety since 2009 (Wushengbu: Sannian Lai Zhiding Bing Gongbu 269 Xiang Xinshiping Anquan Guobiao)”, available on the internet at: <http://food.china.com.cn/2012–07/28/content_26043803.htm> (last accessed on 31 October 2012).

56 Food Safety Law, supra note 4, Art. 1.

57 Ibid, Art. 21.

58 Grunert, K G, “Food Quality and Safety: Consumer Perception and Demand”, 32, European Review of Agricultural Economics (2005), pp. 369 et sqq CrossRefGoogle Scholar. However, some holds a holistic approach to understanding of the food safety and quality and considers the former to be part of the latter. See Hamilton, S F, Sunding, D L and Zilberman, D, “Public Goods and the Value of Product Quality Regulations: The Case of Food Safety”, 87, Journal of Public Economics (2003), pp. 799 et sqq.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

59 Ren, Duanping, Pan, Siyi, He, Hui, et al., “Food Safety, Food Sanitary and Food Quality and Their Interaction (Shipin Anquan, Shipin Weisheng He Shipin Zhiliang Gainian Bianxi)”, 27, Food Science (2006), pp. 256 et sqq.Google Scholar

60 Article 22 of the Food Safety Law provides that the MoH will have to incorporate among others, those mandatory National Standards for food and compulsory Professional Standards for food quality into a unifi ed system of National Standards for food safety. See Food Safety Law, supra note 4, Art. 22.

61 Ibid, Arts. 19, 24 and 25.

62 See e.g., “Shanghai Government Officer Said that Some China’s Professional Standards for Foods Are Out of Date (Shanghai Guanyuan Chen Zhongguo Bufeng Shipin Hangye Biaozhun Chaoqi Fuyi)”, available on the internet at: <http://news.sohu.com/20120503/n342266206.shtml> (last accessed on 31 October 2012); Hua Qu, “How to Strengthen Food Safety Standardization (Ruhe Jianquan Shipin Anquan Biaozhun Tixi Jianshe)”, available on the internet at: <http://www.cqn.com.cn/news/zgzljsjd/316062.html> (last accessed on 31 October 2012).

63 Food Safety Law, supra note 4, Arts. 18–26.

64 Paull, J, “Green Food in China”, Elementals: Journal of Bio-Dynamics Tasmania (2008), pp. 48 et sqq. at p. 48.Google Scholar

65 The above quality food schemes still largely rely on China's food quality standards, which are still primarily established through the mechanism of Professional Standards and the Food Safety Law does not specifi cally deal with this issue. Sanders, R, “A Market Road to Sustainable Agriculture? Ecological Agriculture, Green Food and Organic Agriculture in China”, 37, Development and Change (2006), pp. 201 et sqq., at pp. 210–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

66 However, food standards relating to biosafety are made by the MoA. See Section VI of this article.

67 For instance, there are still quite a few ministries getting involved in creating food quality standards, which is a legacy of China's general standardization system.

68 Food Hygiene Law of the People's Republic of China, announced by the National People's Congress Standing Committee, promulgated on 30 October 1995.

69 Law on the Quality and Safety of Agricultural Products of the People’s Republic of China, announced by the National People's Congress Standing Committee, promulgated on 29 April 2006.

70 Ibid, Art. 11.

71 Teng Liu,”There Is an Impediment to Approach to a Unifi ed National Food Safety Standization System (Shipin Anquan Guojia Biaozhun Jiquan Yuzu)”, available on the internet at: <http://www.cb.com.cn/1634427/20120218/337471.html> (last accessed on 31 October 2012).

72 Management Methods for Pollution Free Agricultural Products, Infra note 107.

73 Agricultural Genetically Modified Organism Safety Regulations, Infra note 100.

74 Wang and Kireeva examined China's dual system for geographical indications protection, namely, geographical names as certification and collective trademarks administrated by State Administration for Industry and Commerce and sui generis protection of the geographical names handled by AQSIQ. However, the system of the geographical indications run by the AQSIQ is supported by all kinds of technical standards. For instance, the AQSIQ has established some wine geographical indications through a voluntary national standardization mechanism. See Wang, Xiaobing and Kireeva, Irina, “Protection of Geographical Indications in China: Conflicts, Causes and Solutions”, 10 The Journal of World Intellectual Property (2007), pp. 79 et sqq., at p. 79Google Scholar. For an overview of China’s geographical indications standards created by the AQSIQ, see e.g., General Requirements for Standards on Products of Geographical Indications (GB/T 17924-2008), announced by the AQSIQ and the SAC, promulgated on 27 June 2008; Product of Geographical Indication - Yantai Wines (GB/T 18966-2008), announced by the AQSIQ and the SAC, promulgated on 25 June 2008; Product of Geographical Indication - Helan Moutain East Region Wines (GB/T 19504-2008), announced by the AQSIQ and the SAC, promulgated on 31 July 2008.

75 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on Agricultural Product Quality Policy, COM(2009) 234 fi nal.

76 White Paper on Food Safety, COM (1999) 719 final.

77 The CAP towards 2020: Meeting the Food, Natural Resources and Territorial Challenges of the Future, COM(2010) 672 final, at p. 4.

78 Will, M and Guenther, D, Food Quality and Safety Standards, 2nd ed. (Eschborn: Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH 2007), at p. 1.Google Scholar

79 Ibid.

80 For instance, the Regulation (EC) No. 852/2004 on the Hygiene of Foodstuffs and the Regulation (EC) No. 853/2004 Laying down specific Hygiene Rules for Food of Animal Origin in Order to Guarantee a High Level of Food Safety and Public Health. See Blaha, T., “Animal health, animal welfare, pre-harvest food safety and protecting the environment as key elements of animal production”, Proceedings of the International Society for Animal Hygiene (ISAH) (2005), pp. 17 et sqq., at p. 17.Google Scholar

81 See Will and Guenther, Food Quality and Safety Standards, supra note 78, at pp. 4 et sqq. See also Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on Agricultural Product Quality Policy, supra note 75, at p. 7.

82 In 2011, the EU proposed a piece of food labelling legislation, which will generally apply from 13 December 2014 and in which the nutrition information requirements will apply from 13 December 2016. See Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on the provision of food information to consumers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1924/2006 and (EC) No 1925/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Commission Directive 87/250/EEC, Council Directive 90/496/EEC, Commission Directive 1999/10/EC, Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, Commission Directives 2002/67/EC and 2008/5/ EC and Commission Regulation (EC) No 608/2004 Text with EEA relevance, OJ 2011 L 304/18.

83 Hence, it is an important platform for the EU and China to launch the EUCTP II to increase mutual understanding. However, from the EU side, it is only an initial step to enter into China's food market.

84 MoH, “Twelfth Five-Year Plan for the National Standards for Food Safety (Shipin Anquan Guojia Biaozhun Shierwu Guihua)”, 15 June 2012, available on the internet at: <http://www.gov.cn/zwgk/2012–06/15/content_2161656.htm> (last accessed on 31 October 2012).

85 In the past, China's food standards were developed by quite a few ministries without due care or a lack of communication between institutions before standard setting occurred, resulting in inconsistency. Past experience showed that cooperation between ministries having the same level of authority was diffi cult if not impossible. See Section III.1.c of this article.

86 To date, there is no such overlapping case in practice, but the Twelfth Five-Year Plan for the National Standards for Food Safety directs the MoH to constantly keep abreast of Professional Standards for foods created by the other six agencies, which still work independently from each other. See MoH, “Twelfth Five-Year Plan for the National Standards for Food Safety”, supra note 84.

87 According to the Twelfth Five-Year Plan for the National Standards for Food Safety, the MoH will have to do the consolidation in cooperation with the other six institutions, which still have authority to create Professional Standards for the purpose of industry compliance requirements other than safety. Nevertheless, in terms of food quality standardization, unlike food safety quality, there is a lack of strong leadership. Because the Food Safety Law is silent in this regard, we have to go back to the Standardization Law and we fi nd accordingly the SAC is the agency leading the way of coordinating the food quality standardization. However, given the fact the SAC is an agency affi liated with the AQSIQ and hence has an administrative level lower than any ministry, it looks likely that the coordinating leadership will be weak. See Ibid. See also supra note 21.

88 “Second Phase of EU-China Trade Project Kicks off in Beijing”, available on the internet at: <http://english.people.com.cn/90001/90776/90883/7330719.html> (last accessed on 31 October 2012).

89 EU-China Trade Project (Phase II), Introduction to EUCTP Components, (Beijing: European Union 2011).

90 Gideon Lack, Clinical risk assessment of GM foods, 127 Toxicology Letters (2002), pp. 337 et sqq.

91 Management Methods for Novel Foods Hygiene, announced by the MoH, promulgated on 28 July 1990.

92 Ibid, Art. 1.

93 Management Methods for the Genetically Modified Foods Hygiene, announced by the MoH, promulgated on 11 December 2001.

94 The 2001 Management Methods for the Genetically Modifi ed Foods Hygiene and the 1990 Management Methods for Novel Foods Hygiene were complementary to each other with the former elaborating on the latter with regard to a specific type of novel foods, namely, GM foods. See Ibid, Art. 3.

95 Agricultural Genetically Modified Organism Safety Regulations of the People's Republic of China, announced by the State Council, promulgated on 23 May 2001 and revised in 2011.

96 Management Methods for Novel Foods, announced by the MoH, promulgated on 26 December 2006.

97 The Food Safety Law articulates that GM foods are subject to special rules. See Food Safety Law, supra note 4, Art. 101.

98 Even in the US, a staunch supporter of GM technology, there are at least three agencies heavily involved in assessing and standardizing GM foods, namely, the United States Food and Drug Administration, Department of Agriculture and Environmental Protection Agency. See e.g., Marden, Emily, “Risk and Regulation: U.S. Regulatory Policy on Genetically Modified Food and Agriculture”, 44 Boston College Law Review (2003), pp. 733 et sqq.Google Scholar; Lang, John and Hallman, William, “Who does the public trust? The case of genetically modified food in the United States” 25 Risk Analysis (2005), pp. 1241 et sqq.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

99 The 2007 Management Methods for Novel Foods explicitly excludes its application to GM foods. It also mandates that it is the MoH that makes standards relating to novel foods. According to the 2001 Agricultural Genetically Modifi ed Organism Safety Regulations, it is the MoA that formulates all kinds of standards associated with genetically modifi ed organisms including GM foods. See e.g., Management Methods for Novel Foods, supra note 96, Arts. 8 and 27; Agricultural Genetically Modifi ed Organism Safety Regulations, supra note 95, Art. 7.

100 For instance, there is a notification procedure for novel foods which are substantially equivalent to existing foods. This notification procedure however, is abandoned with regard to genetically modified foods. See e.g., Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on Genetically Modified Food and Feed, OJ 2003 L 268/1; Regulation (EC) No 258/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 1997 concerning Novel Foods and Novel Food Ingredients, OJ 1997 L 43/1.

101 Xiao, “China's Milk Scandals and Its Food Risk Assessment Institutional Framework”, supra note 54.

102 Actually, the MoA's marketing role to promote agri-businesses is very ambitious and much more inclusive than before. Apart from the Green Food Scheme, the MoA is also the guardian of the Pollution Free Agriculture Product Scheme including a sub-scheme of Pollution Free Foods. In addition, it competes with other ministries like the MEP to promote its Organic Food Scheme. The MEP established the Organic Food Development Centre to administer a system of organic farming. In 1995, the MEP promulgated the Management Constitution of Organic/Natural Food Marks (for Trial) to institutionalize its organic food scheme. However, The MoA expands its Green Food Scheme to include AA Grade Green Foods, which are claimed to be equivalent to organic foods. So, at present, the MoA is also involved in promoting organic farming in China. Recently the MoA proposed an agriculture geographical indication brand scheme, although it is criticised for adding more complexity to the existing geographical indication system. The MoA's Agriculture Geographical Indication Brand is introduced as a brand scheme to promote overall brand image of China’s agriculture. Consequently, all the above schemes contribute to the so-called “Three Products and One Brand” Program, which is comprehensive marketing propaganda to promote the above-mentioned Pollution Free Agriculture Product Scheme, Green Food Scheme, Organic Food Scheme and the Agriculture Geographical Indication Brand. See e.g., Management Methods for Pollution Free Agricultural Products, announced by the MoA, promulgated on 29 April 2002; Management Constitution of Organic/Natural Food Marks (for Trial), announced by the MEP, promulgated on 1 October 1995; Announcement on Speeding up the Development of Green Foods by MoA, announced by the MoA, promulgated on 18 January 2002; Management Methods for the Organic Product Certification, announced by the AQSIQ, promulgated on 27 September 2004; Management Methods for Geographical Indications of Agricultural Products, announced by the MoA, promulgated on 6 December 2007; Yuying Guan, “Overview of China's Geographical Indication Protection”, available on the Internet at <http://www.iolaw.org.cn/showArticle.asp?id=2771> (last accessed on 31 October 2012); Announcement on 2012 Action Plan of Speeding up “Three Products and One Brand” Program, announced by the MoA, promulgated on 14 March 2012.

103 For instance, Green Foods are largely based on voluntary Professional Standards formulated by the MoA.

104 The distrust in the government agriculture portfolio in Europe is by no means out of the blue, partially because during the BSE crisis, British Minister of Agriculture Mr Gummer tried to whitewash the safety incident to protect the beef industry. See Xiao, “China's Milk Scandals and Its Food Risk Assessment Institutional Framework”, supra note 54, at p. 400.

105 For instance, Prof Xiulin Gu of Yunnan University, who has conducted research on the impact of modified crops for years in China, recently found that the MoA had approved the US GM soybean products, though there was no sound scientific evidence to support the safety of these products. She also argued that the MoA did not strictly follow Chinese laws and procedures governing GM foods for the benefits of some GM crop multinationals. Her research elicited heated public debate on the current approach to GM food regulation in China in national mainstream media like Xinhua and People's Daily. See “The Imported GM Soybeans from Monsanto, the United States Were not Legally Approved and Scientific Testing of Them Was not Strict Enough (Meiguo Mengshandu Gongsi Jinkou Zhuanjiyin Dadou Beizhi Cun Shenpi Jiance Quexian)” available on the Internet at <http://news.xinhuanet.com/fortune/2012–05/26/c_112042158.htm> (last accessed on 31 October 2012).

106 For instance, it has announced testing and analytical standards relating to GM edible products like rice, soybean, oilseed rape and maize, to name a few. See e.g., Detection of Genetically Modified Plants and Their Derived Products—Qualitative PCR Methods for Bt Rice to Control Insect Pests (MoA Announcement No. 953–6–2007) announced by the MoA, promulgated on 18 December 2007; Environmental Impact Testing of Genetically Modified Soybean (NY/T 719.1∼719.3—2003), announced by the MoA, promulgated on 1 December 2003; Environmental Impact Testing of Genetically Modifi ed Oilseed Rape (NY/T721.1∼721.3–2003), announced by the MoA, promulgated on 1 December 2003; Environmental Impact Testing of Genetically Modifi ed Maize (NY/ T720.1∼720.3–2003), announced by the MoA, promulgated on 1 December 2003.