US lists three Chinese genomics firms under forced labour import law
Updated: 50 minutes ago
WASHINGTON, 28 October 2026 | Sources checked to 20.04 UTC
The US Department of Homeland Security on 28 October announced import restrictions targeting three Chinese genomics companies, alleging that their genetic-testing activities or technological support were connected to Xinjiang government arrangements involving forced labour. BGI Genomics, MGI Tech and Shenzhen BGI Technology were added to the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List. MGI and BGI Group rejected the allegations. The action brings the dispute over labour rights in Xinjiang into the supply chains for genetic testing and life-science equipment. [1] [2] [3]
The additions are corroborated by the official US document and reporting published that day by Reuters and Bloomberg. The timing of disclosure and formal publication must nevertheless be distinguished. Public-inspection document 2026-22094 records its filing at 8.45 am on 28 October and scheduled Federal Register publication on 29 October. Its operative date field still contains a placeholder for the publication date. The action and the names were publicly available on the 28th; media headlines alone do not establish when any individual shipment would first be detained. [1] [3] [6]
The notice, issued by DHS on behalf of the Forced Labor Enforcement Task Force, applies a rebuttable presumption under existing legislation. It explains that, since 21 June 2022, goods mined, produced or manufactured by listed entities have been presumed to involve forced labour and consequently prohibited from US importation. This is neither a new tariff nor a criminal judgment against company executives. Its immediate legal function concerns the admission of goods to the United States. [1]
Although all three companies are based in Shenzhen, the notice describes different businesses and allegations. It identifies BGI Genomics as a provider of services including genetic testing, precision-medicine testing and health management, with Shenzhen BGI Technology as its controlling shareholder. The latter is listed under the aliases BGI Group and BGI Holdings. For MGI, the document emphasises research, manufacture and sales of life-science instruments, reagents and related products. [1]
For BGI Genomics, the US government states that specific, articulable information gives it reasonable cause to believe the company conducts genetic testing alongside the Xinjiang government and within government initiatives. It alleges that such testing facilitates recruitment, transport, transfer, harbouring or receipt of forced labour, or the movement out of Xinjiang of Uyghurs, Kazakhs, Kyrgyz and other persecuted groups. The notice makes a similar determination concerning BGI Group. These are the US government’s stated administrative grounds; the alleged causal connections remain disputed. [1]
For MGI, the notice alleges that it supplied genetic-testing capacity to the Xinjiang government and that this capacity was used for the same purposes. The distinction matters: the US action addresses both companies performing tests and a supplier enabling government testing programmes. The document does not thereby allege that every medical or research institution purchasing these products participates in abuses, nor does it establish the actual use of every instrument. [1]
All three were added to the sub-list corresponding to section 2(d)(2)(B)(ii), concerning cooperation with Xinjiang’s government in recruiting, transporting, transferring or receiving the relevant people. BGI Genomics and BGI Group were also added under clause (v), covering entities sourcing materials from Xinjiang or from people connected with specified government labour schemes. Their appearance in two categories does not mean five companies were added: the notice explicitly identifies three new entities. [1]
On sourcing, the notice refers to BGI Genomics testing genetic material associated with plants, animals and bacterial diseases from Xinjiang. For BGI Group, it refers to human genetic material from the region and planned testing of plant and animal material. The stated grounds thus extend beyond a single category of human samples. The published text does not provide sample totals, collection sites, consent documents or records linking individual samples to affected workers, preventing an assessment of the number of people affected. [1]
In an English statement dated 28 October, MGI rejected the allegations as unfounded and inconsistent with the facts, and said it did not tolerate forced labour. It described its US business as a limited part of its operations, said other markets continued normally, and announced plans to assess legal remedies and seek removal through engagement with US authorities. The website’s news listing displays the 29th, while the statement is signed on the 28th; the date used here is the signed date, without treating that discrepancy as a separate development. [2]
Reuters reported in its updated account that BGI Group also denied involvement in forced labour and expected no material operational impact because US business represented only a small share. Reuters said BGI Genomics and the Chinese embassy in Washington had not responded to its requests for comment. The group’s response should not automatically be treated as a separate response by listed company BGI Genomics; no verifiable English statement from the latter on this notice was located for this report. [3]
China’s established position is to oppose forced labour and reject allegations directed at its policies. Responding to a different US trade measure on 31 July, the commerce ministry said China had a system of labour laws to prevent and combat forced labour, and accused Washington of using the issue for unilateralism and protectionism. That explains its broader position, rather than answering today’s company-specific grounds. The foreign ministry’s English transcript for 28 October does not address this listing; no dedicated public Chinese government response was located by the reporting cut-off. [4] [5]
The listing system provides an administrative route for removal. An entity may submit information showing that it does not, or no longer, meet the applicable statutory criteria; member agencies then decide by majority vote. An entity may also request a meeting after submitting its written application. The notice says removal decisions are not appealable but permits new requests supported by new information. This describes the procedure in the notice and does not establish that other legal remedies are necessarily unavailable. [1]
The task force comprises DHS, the Office of the US Trade Representative and the departments of Labor, State, Justice, Treasury and Commerce. Additions likewise require agency review and a majority vote. A listing therefore represents an enforcement determination by the US executive under the statute, not independent proof supplied by this report that a company used forced labour. Corporate denials set out the opposing position but do not, by themselves, resolve the questions raised in the notice. [1] [2]
The new public developments are the expanded list and the companies’ responses, rather than new independent proof of every underlying allegation. The official notice verifies the names, categories and stated grounds; news reporting corroborates the announcement. Multiple outlets citing the same government document do not constitute independent verification of the alleged abuses. The notice does not attach a complete investigative record, and this report could not independently establish how genetic testing was used in particular labour-transfer programmes. [1] [2] [3] [6]
The next verifiable developments will include the date in the formally published version, any removal applications, disclosure of more specific evidence and demonstrable effects of import enforcement. Statements that US exposure is limited remain corporate assessments, not verified measures or ceilings of losses. The import restriction should therefore not be equated with conclusively established responsibility for rights violations or a fully measured commercial impact. [1] [2] [3]
Sources
Comments