US Adds Three Chinese Biotech Firms to Forced-Labor List, Beijing Vows Countermeasures

The United States has added three Chinese biotechnology companies to its list of entities linked to alleged forced labor in Xinjiang, prompting Beijing to condemn the move and threaten countermeasures as trade tensions between the world's two largest economies remain sensitive.

The US Department of Homeland Security announced the addition of MGI Tech, BGI Genomics and Shenzhen BGI Technology, also known as BGI Group, to the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List. Under the law, goods produced by listed entities are subject to restrictions on entry into the United States unless importers can rebut the presumption that the goods involve forced labor.

According to Reuters' report on October 29, the US government alleges that the companies use or facilitate forced labor involving Uyghurs and other minority groups, or source materials from Xinjiang. The restrictions could affect the companies' access to the US market and complicate international supply chains involving genomic technology and related products.

China's Ministry of Commerce strongly opposed the decision, arguing that the US action lacked a factual basis and amounted to political pressure on Chinese businesses. In its official response published on October 29, the ministry rejected allegations of forced labor in China and said the United States should stop what Beijing described as political manipulation and the suppression of Chinese companies. It also said China would take necessary measures to safeguard its interests.

The ministry further argued that the US decision ran counter to understandings reached by the two countries' leaders and could undermine efforts to stabilize bilateral economic and trade relations. The statement did not specify what countermeasures China might introduce.

The companies have also rejected the allegations. Reuters reported that MGI Tech said it had zero tolerance for forced labor, while BGI Genomics and BGI Group have denied engaging in such practices.

The US law establishes a rebuttable presumption that goods made wholly or partly in Xinjiang, or by entities included on the relevant list, are linked to forced labor. Importers seeking to bring affected goods into the US must satisfy the applicable evidentiary requirements. The latest listing therefore has implications beyond the companies themselves, potentially requiring customers, distributors and logistics providers to review their sourcing and compliance procedures.

The dispute also highlights the strategic sensitivity of biotechnology. Genomic sequencing and related technologies are used in medical research, clinical testing, agriculture and other fields. Chinese companies have become important participants in global biotechnology markets, while US authorities have raised concerns about human rights, data security and the potential military or surveillance applications of some technologies.

A group of United Nations experts reported in January that there was a persistent pattern of alleged forced labor affecting Uyghurs, Kazakhs, Kyrgyz and Tibetans in Xinjiang and other parts of China, according to Reuters. Beijing has rejected allegations of widespread forced labor as groundless.

The latest US action comes against a wider backdrop of technology and trade restrictions affecting Chinese firms. Washington has taken steps in several strategic sectors to limit perceived supply-chain and national-security risks, while Beijing has repeatedly accused the United States of using national security and human rights concerns to restrict Chinese businesses.

For companies operating internationally, the immediate issue is whether products or materials connected to the listed entities will be affected by US import rules. Businesses may need to assess supplier relationships, documentation and the origin of goods to determine their exposure.

The dispute does not automatically mean that all products from China's biotechnology sector are prohibited from entering the United States. The restrictions concern the listed entities and the applicable legal requirements. However, the decision could increase compliance costs and uncertainty for companies that depend on cross-border supply chains.

Beijing's response suggests that the case could become another point of friction in bilateral trade relations. Whether the two sides can prevent the dispute from spreading to additional sectors will depend on their subsequent policy decisions and diplomatic engagement.