Genetically modified food consumption in the world for 22 years without accidents, GM in principle is safe and controllable.

For tens of thousands of years, humans have been domesticating and improving crops.
, red willow green, genetic decisive, every time the emergence of new crop varieties, the essence is a genetic change.
hybrid breeding changes hundreds of genes at a time, and GM breeding is nothing more than accurate identification and use of good genes, greatly improving breeding efficiency, but also expanding the agricultural breeding resource pool, these advantages ultimately give GM crops the benefits of increasing yield, protecting the environment, improving food nutrition and safety.
genetic engineering is not a "new thing", as early as 1972, scientists made the first case of genetic engineering in human history, a year before the birth of a mobile phone.
, GM technology was applied to the field of medicine in 1982 and to the food industry in 1989.
the widely used human insulin, recombinant vaccines, antibiotics, beer yeast, food enzymes are used in genetically modified technology.
so, genetically modified agriculture is the life science saveted after important progress, not a few scientists fanciful.
since the commercial cultivation of GM crops in 1996, in the past 22 years, a total of 67 countries and regions around the world have applied GM crops, a total of 2.3 billion hectares of cultivation, there are currently corn, soybeans, rape, potatoes, eggplant, apples and other more than 10 kinds of GM crops commercial applications, the world's billions of people consume GM food.
but in China, the current edible genetically modified products only papaya, as well as imported soybeans, corn, rape oil, folk spread of purple potatoes, sacred fruit, color peppers, etc. are not genetically modified varieties.
the United States is the world's largest genetically modified growing and consuming country, 92% of corn, 94% of soybeans are gmavariet varieties, in 2016 the total u.S. corn production of 385 million tons, of which 75% of corn domestic consumption, soybean production of 117 million tons, of which 42% domestic consumption.
socially popular "Americans do not eat genetically modified food, all to Chinese eat" is completely out of line.
in addition, in 2016, the EU imported about 12 million tons of genetically modified agricultural products and Japan imported more than 19 million tons of genetically modified products.
the World Health Organization made it clear in official documents that there was no immediate safety problem with the consumption of genetically modified foods.
, the feed of genetically modified crops is widely used in the global aquaculture industry, breeding pigs and cattle have been eating GENETICally modified feed for dozens of generations, also found no safety problems.
of course, we must respect the right of citizens to choose food, anyone can choose not to eat GM food, the same, anyone has the right to choose to eat GM food, farmers should also have the right to grow crops through safety evaluation.
at present, China implements a qualitative and mandatory labeling system for genetically modified foods, that is, no matter how much genetically modified ingredients in food, as long as there is a need to be identified, and the European Union, Japan, South Korea, etc. are "quantitative identification", that is, to achieve a certain amount of identification;
the scientific community has a consensus on GM safety There are some experts who have expressed opposition to GM safety, but these experts are not experts in molecular biology or even biological sciences, on the contrary, mainstream scientists in the field of molecular biology, which are most closely related to GM safety, have a consensus on their safety.
and ordinary people", if scientists have different views on a problem, not through "war of mouth" or media interviews, but only by doing experiments, publishing papers.
However, there is no article in the world that has been recognized by the academic community to prove that there is a safety problem with GM.
after years of follow-up research, the European Commission concluded that "biotechnology, especially genetically modified technologies, is no more risky than traditional breeding techniques" based on more than 130 scientific projects carried out over a 25-year period by more than 500 independent scientific groups.
the National Academy of Sciences, the Academy of Engineering, and the Faculty of Medicine analyzed 900 genetic engineering studies over 30 years, and published a 2016 report that found no difference in safety between GM crops currently grown commercially and traditionally cultivated.
2016, more than 130 Nobel Prize-winning scientists around the world have signed an open letter supporting GM technology, including several biology pioneers and Thai-doo figures, calling for respect for scientific judgments and conclusions on GM safety.
June 2018, the European Union published the results of three new GM trials costing 15 million euros - including a two-year feeding trial in rats - which found no potential risks to GM foods or toxicological effects associated with chronic toxicity and carcinogenicity.
China has conducted more than 190 experimental assessments of genetically modified foods to date and has found no safety problems.
the systematic consumption and environmental safety evaluation of agricultural GM technology, like other science and technology, is neutral in itself, the key lies in how to use it.
because of this, the world's major countries are the safety evaluation of GM, but this is not to say that GM technology must be harmful, but to eliminate the risk in advance.
as early as 2003, the International Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) developed and adopted a series of gmogenic biosecurity safety evaluation criteria, which are used by countries.
on the basis of THE CAC guidelines, combined with China's practice, we have established a set of perfect GM safety evaluation system.
at present, the contents of GM safety evaluation include nutrition evaluation, toxicology evaluation, allergy evaluation and evaluation of non-expected effect.
has proven that, through scientific evaluation methods, security risks can be eliminated at the laboratory development and review stage.
, for example, in 1994, Pioneer wanted to transfer a gene to Brazil nuts in soy, but found that people who had allergies to Brazil nuts were also allergic to the soy, and stopped developing the product in time.
the market of genetically modified foods for more than 20 years has not found any adverse effects, which fully shows that the existing safety evaluation system is reliable.
many people are also worried about the impact of GENETICaist on the "natural ecology".
one of the misconceptions is that the essence of agriculture is a single intensive cultivation, is an artificial ecology, it is naturally "contrary to nature", the real natural ecology is tens of thousands of years ago the human wild fruit of that jungle.
crops themselves are not a member of the natural ecology, without human care, any crops thrown into the "natural ecology" will die, they do not have the ability to survive. Another important problem
is that there is genetic drift in nature, and that the evolution of organisms is not far from gene drift, which is not a big surprise.
GM crops are essentially the same as hybrids and traditional crops, but there has never been any concern that hybridization and traditional crops will contaminate wild crops - and that has not actually happened.
know that gm crops around the world have been planted on hundreds of millions of hectares each year for more than 20 years, and that nothing has been found to change the ecological environment.
humans to reduce the impact of this artificial ecology of agriculture on nature, should be reflected in the reclamation of forests, less use of pesticides and fertilizers, but strangely, GM in increasing production (indirectly reducing land reclamation), reduce pesticide use, reduce carbon emissions of many people have turned a blind eye.
genetically modified in principle is safe and controllable GM safety is "multi-protection", not only the follow-up test can prove that it is safe, more importantly, it is safe and controllable in scientific principles.
GM technology does involve complex operational steps, the "difficult" of GM, difficult to find stable and effective functional genes, and then through the appropriate methods to let the gene in the target crop "ground rooting", and after transferring the gene from a large number of materials to screen out a large number of better expression of the plant.
sometimes it takes luck and vision, sometimes a lot of repetitive work.
the essence of genetically modified breeding is that scientists, after understanding the function of one or more genes, transfer them to the target crop, allowing the target crop to produce the traits needed for agriculture, a process that is predictable and controllable.
GENETICally modified breeding does have unique advantages, but it's not magic, and scientists can't use GM technology to let chickens grow four wings and six legs, nor can they let the fish live on land, because it's not something that genes can decide.
the most widely used "insect-resistant gene" today, for example, comes from a bacterium called Suyun golden spore (BT), which has been used in organic agriculture as a safe biopesticide for more than 70 years.
because humans and insects have different digestive systems, insect-resistant genes are only effective at specific insects and are harmless to humans, livestock and even other insects.
it's like a dog can't eat chocolate (can't metabolize cocoa base), but people can eat chocolate.
from the principle of food digestion, no matter what gene transferred, transferred genes from which kind of organism, the product of the gene is a protein, and proteins can be digested and absorbed by the human body (the allergenic protein will be eliminated during the development or evaluation phase), the human body will not recognize the food has any genes, are "equally" treated as nutrients.
for example, the various genes in food like white paper printed on a variety of words, these words are indeed very important information, but the human digestive system is like a "shredder", any paper can be twisted when it goes in, what words printed on the paper have no effect on it, not to mention because of the printed words and damage the shredder.
genes are broken down, neither integrated into human genes, nor "accumulation" in the human body, so there is no "eat two generations and three generations to see" the problem.
in fact, there are thousands of biological genes in nature, and cabbage, radish, pig and cattle all have genes, but humans never worry about being "genetically modified" by them.
according to the source of public opinion, "gMO food may affect fertility" is a rumor only in China, is some people use the traditional Chinese culture has the concept of "no filial piety three, no after big", after 2004, it is like the spread of "GMO can lead to AIDS" rumors as absurd.
transgenic simply a "small advance" in human civilization for the general public, it is difficult to understand the principles of GM technology in detail, and it is not necessary for the public.
but the problem is that, on the one hand, China's public opinion field has been deliberately spreading rumours (including misleading and manipulating the media) by some extremists since 2004, many of which have been forced into it.
these rumors even affected high-level decision-makers, and led to China's GM industrialization shelved, and GM failed to commercialize, resulting in the public not seeing the benefits of GM in enhancing agricultural competitiveness, reducing the cost of living, protecting the environment, improving food nutrition and safety, and so on, but also feel that GM can be available, thus forming a vicious circle.
for individuals, in addition to more than the information from different sources, but also to give up the "scientists are not as smart as I am, I also scientists more moral" self-feeling.
cannot be denied the fact that scientists may have moral problems, but as a group, their moral standards are not only lower than that of the general population, but also highly likely to be higher than the general population.
more than 30 years since the introduction of genetically modified plants, tens of thousands of scientists around the world are thinking about and studying this aspect of the problem, they are living on this, there is no problem is ordinary people think of and they did not think of.
sure, we should be "in awe of nature" and admit that technology is imperfect.
look at the history of human science, genetically modified technology is only a "small advance" in human civilization, this small progress, far from offending nature.
GENETICally modified technology is not omnipotent and should not be demonized.
Source: Transgenic Dialogue, author Hong Guangyu.