The truth is out there somewhere

A public debate on the safety of genetically modified food between two Chinese celebrities has turned into a drama set in three countries

Arguably the fiercest fight in China for the past five months has been between a television personality and a science writer. The topic, however, is not trivial, but concerns public acceptance of genetically modified food.

Cui Yongyuan made his name as host of the wildly popular talk show, Tell It Like It Is. Though the show was discontinued long ago, his reputation as a no-nonsense presenter who dares to confront people in power with frankness - sometimes couched in humor - is firmly established. Amid bouquets of bombastic officialese, Cui's remarks often sound as refreshing as common sense.

Fang Zhouzi is on a one-man crusade against academic fraud. A PhD graduate from Michigan State University, he has uncovered legions of professors and businessmen with fake or spruced-up diplomas - to the point that he was physically assaulted by a hatchet man hired by one of them. He may also be China's best-known assailant against religion and traditional Chinese medicine.

On Sept 7, 2013, Fang tweeted about a field trip he organized in which he and 20 volunteers harvested GM corn and then had a cooking and tasting fest. "It may not have research value, but it can promote science," he said. "We should create an environment for every Chinese to have a daily diet of GM food."

This riled Cui, who responded by saying: "You can choose to eat GM food and I can choose not to. You say you know science, but I can question whether the 'science' you know is scientific or not."

This exchange focused on rights - the right to question the authority of science. Fang said GM food has been authorized by all authoritative agencies around the world and a television personality with no science background has no right to question its validity. Cui, on the other hand, insisted on his right to raise questions whether his opinion is in the majority or minority.

The online tug-of-war later escalated to vituperation. Cui, meanwhile, used his own money for two trips to the US and one to Japan to investigate how GM food fares in these more scientifically advanced nations. This, however, ran foul of China Central Television's rules and partly accounted for his hasty departure from the powerful news organization where he had made his name and worked for decades.

Fang, in a post in early January, revealed he had filed a lawsuit against Cui for rumor mongering and slander. Cui responded: "That's great! We'll see each other in court." And he added: "I hope Fang lists more of my 'crimes' because that'll give me a chance to use more of the evidence I have collected."

No date for a court hearing has been announced yet.

On their micro blogs, Cui and Fang have 20 million followers between them. Through reposting and extensive media coverage, as many as hundreds of millions have been alerted to the incident and, through it, to the issue of GM food. Many have joined the fray as supporters of one or the other, sometimes turning what could have been a rational discussion into a bloody circus.

On the front of public opinion, Cui clearly has the upper hand. In an early informal poll, only 4.63 percent of participants stood at Fang's side. But he was unfazed. He said: "Only 3 percent of the Chinese population has basic science proficiency, and that's according to a survey conducted by China Association for Science and Technology using international standardized questions. But I believe the result is still too optimistic."

Fang is no Mr Congeniality. A couple of years ago, he ridiculed Buddhism when Faye Wong, perhaps China's most popular singer, associated the power of religion with the survival of a Buddhist object in a fire. He also "proved" - not necessarily beyond doubt - that best-selling writer Han Han was not the real author of his early work but had his father serve as his ghostwriter - this despite Han presenting tons of evidence to show otherwise, including his original hand-written manuscripts. In recent years, the targets of Fang's unflattering scrutiny shared a liberal political leaning, which made many suspect his motives.

Stripped of all the hoopla, Fang Zhouzi is deeply committed to science. Trained in biology, he believes in only those things that can be proved scientifically. In a 2011 video interview, he told me that while he strongly opposes the traditional Chinese approach to the world, such as yin and yang, he embraces tai chi as a fitness regimen.

For Fang, all the tests conducted by the US Food and Drug Administration, the WHO etc are enough to prove that GM food is safe. People who want to prove otherwise have to equip themselves with deeper knowledge of all the science concerned and a television celebrity is blocking the advance of science by raising a veil of suspicion around an important issue.

For Cui, truth is what he seeks as a journalist. He said he had learned not to take what others say at face value. Whether you're a politician or a scientist, as long as the issue concerns the public interest he'll press ahead with a barrage of questions, not all of which may sound reasonable. When he approaches a pro-GM specialist, he'll fire volleys of questions from the anti-GM perspective, which is to be expected. But he uses the same tactic and faces an anti-GM expert from the point of view of a GM advocate.

Cui is editing footage from his investigative trips into two documentaries - one arguing for and the other against GM food. "As a professional reporter, I have always presented both voices, even on my micro blog. The public can draw its own conclusion."

The truth, as Cui found out from his trips to the US and Japan, is much more complicated than Fang's claim. For example, not all scientists fully endorse GM food. Even scientists who totally embrace it, such as Martina Newell-McGloughlin of the University of California at Davis, impressed him when she said she felt it unethical to have 25 unsuspecting Chinese children, aged 6-8, acting as guinea pigs for "golden rice", a GM rice trial commissioned by Tufts University and brokered through a Chinese agency but without the knowledge or approval of the children or their parents in 2008.

Cui learned from his trips that a multitude of opinions exist in Western countries and some come with agendas. The move toward labeling in the US showed that things are changing and consumers are demanding more transparency.

The spectrum of opinions in China is even broader. On both ends are arguments from the standpoint of national security: pro-GM voices contend that China should not be sidetracked by forces of opposition because this represents a major leap forward in human progress and lagging behind could mean that down the road China has to pay a hefty price in royalty fees to foreign countries. GM opponents have an easier time framing the debate in US vs China terms, i.e. GM food is a conspiracy by the US to poison the Chinese population by potentially sterilizing it.

What Cui got from his investigation could have unsettled both sides: The US produces an abundance of GM food, and 40 percent of its GM soybeans is for domestic consumption while the rest is for export, of which 30-35 percent goes to China.

Amid the commotion, many Chinese scientists have stepped forward to offer their takes on the issue. They may not be as loud and influential as Cui or Fang, but they are certainly rational and educational. We may never reach a stage when things like this turn black and white, which is not necessarily a bad thing because this forces people to think and learn rather than be handed down cut-and-dried conclusions.

Contact the writer at raymondzhou@chinadaily.com.cn

(China Daily Africa Weekly 01/31/2014 page30)