British authoritative media BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation) recently released a review of “GM even safer than conventional food, says environment secretary” by Environment Minister Irving Paterson’s “Safer than traditional foods” comment. Once the information was issued, GM foods were once again pushed to the cusp. The supporters were excited because this powerful comment came from a senior government official in the most conservative country in Europe, known as the Conservative; at the same time, critics responded quickly and severely criticized the genetically modified food. Destruction of the normal operation of the traditional agricultural food system, there are bad currencies to drive away the benefits of good money.

In China, GM technology and its products are also triggering a fierce debate. China’s agricultural decision-making authorities recently approved the import of three kinds of genetically modified soybeans, exacerbating this controversy. From official to private, from academia to industry, intensive authors have been vocal about the matter. The collision of supporting voices and opposing voices has never been so intense. So which kind of voice is more convincing, or what kind of food is safer? Let us try to analyze this with scientific language and common sense logic.

To explore this issue, we must first understand the meaning of food safety. According to the interpretation of the World Health Organization and the author's comprehensive analysis, food safety has two levels of significance: First, refers to the hazards of food, including explicit and implicit, potential and long-term; Second, refers to the nutritional function of food . Obviously, the current public opinion environment concerns about genetically modified foods are more concerned with the hazards of the first level. In other words, people tend to think that genetically modified foods are more harmful than traditional foods.

Is it really like this?

The assessment system for the safety of genetically modified foods has already been discussed in detail by academics and regulators. Southern Weekly has detailed the World Health Organization, FAO, and its “Deliminating Chinese-style Genetic Errors and Proverbs”. The authoritative arguments of the European Commission, the US FDA, and the Japanese Ministry of Health both agree with the safety of genetically modified foods, and also mention that there is no scientific research that can prove that GM foods are harmful.

Of course, the authority can not be shown to be correct. The above statement does not seem to logically prove that GM foods are safer. Comparing a food is safer than another food. Sometimes it is like comparing eggs and milk, which has higher nutritional value. In a multi-standard, multi-dimensional system, this must be a public statement and a reasonable statement. rational. So, can we change our mind and compare the level of technology and knowledge we have to compare GM food with traditional food? Who is more insecure?

First, let us try to analyze this issue from the perspective of micro-molecular genetics.

Both genetically modified breeding and traditional breeding methods will cause changes in genetic material. The difference is that traditional breeding methods will unambiguously result in the undirected combination of multiple genes, while transgenic breeding is designed and adapted to specific genes to achieve The specific requirements for a trait. In this process of genetic modification, we have a very clear understanding of the genetic background of the study subjects. We clearly know which genes were introduced at what position on the chromosome of the subject. The famous American ecologist and writer Stewart Brand once elaborated on this issue in the book “Whole Earth Discipline” and cited an organic vegetable farmer. s story. According to the book, the farmer uses only natural means to grow crops, but only when it is selected during breeding, the traits will eventually accumulate, and even strange varieties will be obtained that differ greatly from traditional varieties. Therefore, the traditional breeding that we acquiesced to be safe can actually cause a tremendous change in genetic material. The transgene has a very strong purpose and is also very controllable for change. Obviously, at least from this point of view, transgenic breeding is no less safe than traditional breeding.

Micro-professional analysis may be too obscure for the general public, and practice and experience may be the most direct. Since the day when genetically modified foods began to appear on people's tables, there have been reports that people have eaten nearly 3 trillion tons of meals containing genetically modified ingredients, but none have reported that they have caused health problems due to the consumption of genetically modified foods; on the contrary, they Worshipped organic foods had caused food poisoning due to hemolytic E. coli (EHEC) contamination that caused 50 deaths and over 3,400 infections. From this perspective, genetically modified foods are by no means more insecure than traditional foods.

In fact, GM foods have undergone a rather rigorous regulatory process from R&D to approval, commercialization, and promotion. Just as the British Minister of the Environment stated in his opinion, the more accurate scientific and technological means of GM foods in its R&D process and the more rigorous censorship in the process of production promotion make GM foods safer than traditional foods. Looking back at the domestic situation, the traditional food production and processing situation is not optimistic. From the seed production at the source to all aspects of species breeding, processing, storage and transportation, counterfeiting and shoddy and other commercial frauds, consumers' confidence is constantly impaired. The occurrence of these phenomena is inseparable from the lax supervision and accountability mechanism. of.

From this, we can safely draw a conclusion that GM foods are not at least as safe as traditional foods, and the safety of GM foods is more controllable than traditional foods. Of course, the panic that people face when faced with unknown and uncertain issues is completely understandable. Rejecting uncertainty is more like an instinct for human beings. People fear that the "agricultural revolution" is like fearing a "steam revolution."

Unfounded fears come from ignorance. On the issue of genetic safety, Stewart said, "The more you know, the less fear you have." The elimination of panic requires more popular science. It requires regulators to make information more open and transparent. It requires the academic circle to publicize research findings and academic debates in a more general language. It requires more strict self-discipline and heteronomy by the industry and acceptance of government censorship. Public supervision requires more people to rationally think, debate and actively participate in it. In a system in which information can be freely transmitted, the truth is always better and clearer. Only in this way can people clear the fog and find directions in this ever-increasing GM debate.