China's Agriculture Ministry for refusing to open GM oil official letters being sued
The afternoon of August 17, Xian, Beijing citizens United sued the Department of agriculture in the third intermediate people's Court in Beijing heard in public, refused to open a case is Department of agriculture involving genetically modified food oil contents of the letter.
People of Xian Meng Zhenrong, Beijing resident Shen Meili has submitted information to the Department of agriculture public applications require the Agriculture Ministry open an on September 28, 2011 letter of the General Office of the Ministry of education, the letter requested the Ministry of education "correct" local education departments prohibits the school canteen purchases, using GM oil below. Department of agriculture to the letter belongs to the State "secret" files by not disclosing.
Plaintiffs claim revoked according to law the Ministry of agriculture to the two plaintiffs (open (section) [2016]2, 3rd) of the Ministry of agriculture information disclosure request reply, and ordered the defendant to the plaintiff open to the Ministry of education's "letters."
Department at the Ministry of agriculture science and technology (hereinafter "Science and Education Division") and safety management of genetically modified organisms and intellectual property protection Director Lin Xiangming, Qualcomm, Beijing law firm lawyers and lawyer jingyunchuan court action, said the powers of the Ministry of agriculture to define State secrets, finds the letter is legitimate for the State secrets program, asked the Court to dismiss his claims.
No pronouncement in the case. The plaintiffs asked the Court to continue to review the submitted to the Ministry of agriculture the Court but were not submitted to the legitimacy of the plaintiff a copy of the regulations, as well as the review of the Ministry of agriculture information disclosure application to Meng Zhenrong replies whether the national provisions of the information disclosure regulations within the time limits specified.
A matter of "State secrets"
The plaintiffs told reporters that they apply and the Court heard in public, 18 to sit in seats invite applications for the masses and the media to attend. Due to the Department of agriculture found that his letter to the Ministry of education for "secret" document, according to the provisions of China's Supreme People's Court, the judge said the "State secret" evidence is not cross-examination in court.
Attorney jingyunchuan said the Ministry of agriculture, the letter for the "secret" files are recognized by the Ministry of agriculture with science and Education Division and the Executive Office of the.
Jingyunchuan said the Department of agriculture found that this letter is "secret" document, is based on four legal basis: the law on guarding State secrets, the Government information disclosure Ordinance, the administration of agricultural genetically modified organism safety regulations, as well as the Ministry of agriculture and the State secrecy Bureau issued in 2011 on the agricultural work of State secret provisions of notice on file. In accordance with the relevant provisions of the law on guarding State secrets, the Ministry of agriculture enjoy the right to the definition of State secrets.
Article sixth, Central State organs within the framework of its terms of reference, manage or direct the security of this system. Nineth provides that matters concerning national security and interests, after the leak could harm countries in the political, economic, security and interests in the areas of defence and Foreign Affairs, should be established as a State secret. Tenth provides that State secrets classified as top secret, secret, secret levels. Among them, the classified State secrets are usually State secrets, leaks may cause damage to the national security and interests. 11th article, the scope of State secrets and classified, by departments of State secrecy administration jointly with Foreign Affairs, public security, national security and other relevant Central Government authorities. Article 12th, organs, heads of unit and its designated personnel responsible for key, this unit is responsible for the Agency, state identification, modification and dissolution.
Jingyunchuan, finds the letter for "secret" files are based on the Department of agriculture and the State secrecy Bureau issued in 2011 on the agricultural work of State secret provisions of notice (option 2010 10th) 2nd 2nd "agricultural work scope of State secrets" 1th "leak will have on the agricultural and rural economic development, social stability, causing damage. ”
Plaintiffs lawyer with Guangdong into lawyers, Guan Yang song says, "I understood the meaning of this is that once the so-called secrets are known to the public, raising public awareness, social mood swings. ”
Yang song believes that references this section finds that the Ministry of Agriculture of the letter as "secret" file is not valid. "If the official letter from the educational authorities justified, will not harm the social stability. ”
Plaintiff Meng Zhenrong applications, after a trial, the Court of this Ministry of agriculture and confidential review of the validity of documents issued jointly by the Bureau.
Cooking oil saw
In November 2010, Beijing, many parents find the school cafeteria using genetically modified soybean as raw material to manufacture soy oil.
Despite the Ministry's science and Education Department officials and agricultural transgenic researcher stressed that so far, there is no evidence to prove that GM foods are not safe, but doubts persist.
Out of consideration for child health, early in 2011, some student-parent "oil change Coalition", calling for Beijing in the school canteen transgenic soybean oil into non-GM.
On March 12, 2012, requires "oil change" parent representative to the Ministry of education, to development planning Division Chief in charge of logistic management in colleges and universities petitioned and requested the Ministry to take measures to promote the schools cafeteria to use non-GM food oil.
Parents said Yang Xiaolu, the Ministry took out the letter of the General Office of the Ministry of agriculture on September 28, 2011 Office of the Ministry of education. Yang Xiaolu had seen the document said the letter requested the Ministry of education "correct" local education authorities ban school cafeterias for children to eat genetically modified oil below the so-called "errors".
In July 2012, Beijing residents to apply to the Ministry of agriculture to make public the letter. Reply to the Ministry of agriculture said: "I dated September 28, 2011 Ministry of education letter for ' secret ' documents, in accordance with the People's Republic of China Government and other related provisions of the information disclosure regulations, will not be made public. ”
Meng Zhenrong on December 19, 2015, Shen Meili in January 6, 2016, respectively submitted applications for disclosure of Government information to the Department of agriculture again, requested the Ministry of agriculture is exposed to the letter of the Ministry of education, the Ministry of agriculture is also the same reply.
Plaintiffs lawyer Yang song was presented in court 5 evidence that some local education authorities prohibited the school cafeteria using GM oil, recommend the use of non-GMO oil, er even Department of agriculture also uses non-GMO oil.
In August 2006, Hangzhou City Bureau first demanded to "check whether the unit canteen area primary and secondary schools, kindergartens with GM oil, such as immediate deactivation."
May 6, 2010, the Education Bureau of Urumqi, the Urumqi City Health Bureau, Urumqi Urumqi, food and Drug Administration jointly issued the standardized management of school canteens food safety regulations "no purchase ... ... Genetically modified food oils. "
Disclosed in December 2010 Department of agriculture er "cooking oil using non-GMO oil."
Released on February 21, 2011, anqiu city, Shandong province, education, promulgated in January 2011, the food and drug administration, anqiu anqiu city school canteen management practices "prohibited procurement ... ... Genetically modified food oils. "
In August 2011, the Qingdao municipal food and drug supervision Bureau "school canteen, student catering company ... ... Recommend the use of non-genetically modified vegetable oil. "
Yang song said Agriculture Department officials asked the Education Department can be banned from the school cafeteria using GM oil, and let the ER using non-GMO oil, paradoxically, calls upon the Department of agriculture for the sake of adolescent health.
Science and Education Division of the Ministry of agriculture transgenic biological safety management and Director of intellectual property protection, Lin Xiang-Ming and Attorney jingyunchuan said the evidence provided by the plaintiff "and has no relevance to the case", and some of the evidence is, "site screenshots", red herring, the defendant "does not recognize" the evidence.
Jingyunchuan said the letter at issue in this case as a "secret" document, still in secrecy, of the Agriculture Department's reply "is withheld by law" in accordance with the law on guarding State secrets and the relevant provisions of the regulations on disclosure of Government information.
No pronouncement in the present case.
(Editors: Liu Cheng UN649)
2016-08-20 14:23:48
China business network
中国农业部因拒绝公开转基因食用油公函被起诉
8月17日下午，西安、北京市民联合起诉农业部案在北京市第三中级法院进行公开审理，案由是农业部拒绝公开一份涉及到转基因食用油内容的公函。
西安市民孟振荣、北京市民沈美丽先后向农业部提交信息公开申请，要求农业部公开一份其2011年9月28日发给教育部办公厅的公函，该公函要求教育部“纠正”各地教育部门下文禁止学校食堂采购、使用转基因油的行为。农业部以该公函属于国家“秘密”文件为由，拒绝公开。
原告要求依法撤销农业部给两位原告的（农公开（科）[2016]2号、3号）《农业部信息公开申请答复书》，并判令被告向原告公开其给教育部的“公函”。
农业部科技教育司（以下简称“科教司”）转基因生物安全管理与知识产权保护处处长林祥明和代理律师、北京市高通律师事务所律师敬云川出庭应诉，称农业部享有定义国家秘密的权力，认定该公函为国家秘密的程序也合法，要求法庭驳回原告诉讼请求。
该案没有当庭宣判。原告要求法庭继续审查农业部提交给法院但没有提交给原告的一份法规依据的合法性，以及审查农业部对孟振荣做出的信息公开申请答复是否在《国家信息公开条例》规定的时限之内。
事涉“国家秘密”
原告方告诉记者，他们和法庭申请了公开审理，申请到18个旁听席位邀请群众和媒体旁听。由于农业部认定其给教育部的公函为“秘密”文件，根据中国最高人民法院规定，法官表示对“国家秘密”证据不进行当庭质证。
农业部代理律师敬云川称，该公函为“秘密”文件是由农业部科教司和办公厅一起认定的。
敬云川称，农业部认定此公函为“秘密”文件，是依据四个法律依据：《保守国家秘密法》，《政府信息公开条例》，《农业转基因生物安全管理条例》，以及农业部和国家保密局2011年《关于印发农业工作国家秘密范围的规定的通知》的文件。依据《保守国家秘密法》相关条款，农业部享有对国家秘密的定义权。
第六条规定，中央国家机关在其职权范围内，管理或者指导本系统的保密工作。第九条规定，涉及国家安全和利益的事项，泄露后可能损害国家在政治、经济、国防、外交等领域的安全和利益的，应当确定为国家秘密。第十条规定，国家秘密的密级分为绝密、机密、秘密三级。其中，秘密级国家秘密是一般的国家秘密，泄露会使国家安全和利益遭受损害。第十一条规定，国家秘密及其密级的具体范围，由国家保密行政管理部门分别会同外交、公安、国家安全和其他中央有关机关规定。第十二条规定，机关、单位负责人及其指定的人员为定密责任人，负责本机关、本单位的国家秘密确定、变更和解除工作。
敬云川表示，认定该公函为“秘密”文件的依据是，农业部和国家保密局2011年《关于印发农业工作国家秘密范围的规定的通知》（农办法2010第10号）第2条第2项“农业工作国家秘密范围”第1目“泄密后会对农业、农村经济发展全局、社会稳定造成损害的。”
原告代理律师、广东融关律师事务所律师杨松表示，“我理解这条的意思是，一旦所谓秘密被公众知晓，会引起公众、社会情绪波动。”
杨松认为，农业部引用此条文认定该公函为“秘密”文件不合法。“如果给教育局的公函理由正当，不会对社会稳定造成损害。”
原告孟振荣申请，法院在庭审后对这份农业部和保密局联合下发的文件的合法性进行审查。
食用油拉锯
2010年11月，有学生家长发现北京诸多学校食堂采用转基因大豆为原料制造的豆油。
尽管农业部科教司的官员和农业转基因科研人员一直强调，到目前为止，没有证据证明转基因食品不安全，但公众的疑虑一直存在。
出于为孩子健康的考虑，2011年年初，一些学生家长组成“换油联盟”，呼吁将北京学校食堂里的转基因大豆油换成非转基因油。
2012年3月12日，一些要求“换油”的学生家长代表到教育部，向主管高校后勤管理的发展规划司领导陈情，要求教育部采取措施推动大中小学食堂使用非转基因食用油。
家长代表杨晓陆称，教育部拿出了农业部办公厅2011年9月28日发给教育部办公厅的公函。曾看过这份文件的杨晓陆表示，该公函要求教育部“纠正”各地教育部门下文禁止学校食堂给孩子吃转基因油的所谓“错误”。
2012年7月，北京市民向农业部申请公开该公函。农业部回复称：“我部2011年9月28日致教育部的公函为‘秘密’文件，根据《中华人民共和国政府信息公开条例》等相关规定，不予公开。”
孟振荣于2015年12月19日，沈美丽于2016年1月6日，再次分别向农业部提交政府信息公开申请，要求农业部公开给教育部的该公函，农业部还是同样的答复。
原告代理律师杨松当庭提交了5份证据显示一些地方教育部门禁止学校食堂使用转基因油、建议使用非转基因油，甚至农业部机关幼儿园也采用非转基因油。
2006年8月杭州市教育局率先发文要求“检查辖区内中小学、幼儿园单位食堂是否使用转基因油，如有立即停用”。
2010年5月6日，乌鲁木齐市教育局、乌鲁木齐市卫生局、乌鲁木齐市食品药品监督管理局联合发文《乌鲁木齐市中小学校食堂食品安全规范化管理规定》“禁止采购……转基因食用油”。
2010年12月披露农业部机关幼儿园“食用油采用非转基因油”。
2011年2月21日发布山东省安丘市教育局、安丘市食品药品监督管理局2011年1月颁布的《安丘市学校食堂管理规范》“禁止采购……转基因食用油”。
2011年8月，青岛市食品药品监管局“学校食堂、学生配餐公司……建议使用非转基因植物油”。
杨松表示，农业部官员要求教育部门不能禁止学校食堂使用转基因油、又让自己的机关幼儿园使用非转基因油，态度自相矛盾，呼吁农业部为青少年健康着想。
农业部科教司转基因生物安全管理与知识产权保护处处长林祥明和代理律师敬云川表示，原告提供的这些证据“与本案没有关联性”，且一些证据内容是“网站截屏”，真实性存疑，被告“不认可”这些证据。
敬云川称，本案涉及的公函为“秘密”文件，仍在保密期，农业部答复的“依法不予公开”，符合《保守国家秘密法》和《政府信息公开条例》的有关规定。
本案没有当庭宣判。
(责任编辑：刘盛钱 UN649)
2016-08-20 14:23:48
中国经营网