Author: Bao Zhen
Recently, the Beijing Science and Technology News attracted a lot of attention: the Ministry of Environmental Protection is organizing the drafting of the Law on the Safety of Genetically Modified Organisms, and the Ministry of Science and Technology is making preliminary preparations for the initiation of legislation on the safety of genetically modified organisms. The Ministry of Commerce proposes to combine the drafting of the Food Law to strengthen the Research on legislative issues.
Associating with the previous Central Document No. 1 proposed accelerating the innovation and application system of agricultural biological breeding, it can be seen that the attitude of the national level for genetically modified technology and commercial operation has been very clear, just as the basic position followed by the GM legislation: unless Prove that GM foods are at risk, otherwise they are deemed to be equivalent to traditional foods in nature and there is no risk.
The debate over the safety of genetically modified foods has continued throughout the years. The relevant authorities in the country have also been very cautious about the development and application of genetically modified technology. Security certificates from genetically modified maize and rice, imports of U.S. genetically modified corn, and Fujian GM rice inflows into the market. All of this caused an uproar in the public opinion. Even before this, he even exposed the incitement of Zhang Jianwei, the “first person†of the domestic GM rice, who was opposed by opponents who protested at the university. In the face of public doubts, the authorities in charge often stop talking and saying, and the policy goes one step at a time. The intention of testing and watching public sentiments is very obvious.
Looking at the focus of the debate between the "very transfer school" and the "reverse school" is actually a dispute between the EU model and the US model. The U.S. treats transgenes as "presumption of innocence", that is, it cannot prove that it is insecure, which means that it has no risk. The EU, on the contrary, must take the necessary preventive measures without ensuring its absolute safety. The United States is the most advanced country in research on genetic safety, but it has not yet discovered that there are special risks in transgenes. However, human exposure to genetically modified foods for decades is still lacking in long-term follow-up studies on the safety of genetically modified organisms. What's more, sporadic cases indicate that there are potential safety concerns for animals. Judging from the current level of scientific research, both sides have offensive and defensive, but they cannot grasp absolute grounds to refute each other. The dispute over the attitude towards genetic modification is not so much a dispute of science. It is better to say that disputes over interests and values ​​are more appropriate.
For the general public, GM foods are related to life and are closely related to their own health and the safety of all human beings. However, for producers and researchers, GM is actually a business, and the most basic principle for business is the analysis of cost-benefit. What's more, from the current point of view, the role of GM as a biotechnology in promoting production is unquestionable. To impede the development and application of advanced technologies with unwarranted charges, in their view, this seems to lack a bit of scientific reason. It is precisely because of this that once the policy information on genetic modification has been introduced, although it is bound to be challenged by public opinion, the enterprises that have mastered genetically modified technologies have won treasures, and these policies can often pull up the stock index of bio-listing listed companies.
From the perspective of pragmatists, with the current expansive rate of the Earth's population and the human need for abundant material life, traditional biotechnology alone cannot be satisfied. It can be said that it will be a matter of time to seek related technological means. If we say that the development and application of GM technology is unavoidable, starting from the national competitive strategy, of course, it will be an early move and an advantage. At present, the overall collapse of China's soybean industry is obviously linked to the backwardness of transgenic technology.
However, this is only one side of the "transmitting". Standing on the most basic standpoint of bioethics and the natural law of human development, the commercial application of genetically modified technology is clearly unable to withstand the deepest questions of public safety and the future well-being of humanity. On the issue of genetic transformation, mankind is like an ignorant child. Facing the river with unknown depths, it is either wading in water or thinking twice. This cannot be judged by simple right or wrong. Behind the path selection, there are many issues involving individual interests, national competition, and attitude towards life. Reviewing the history of scientific development, faced with such new arguments in the face of new technologies and new theories, and in the context of globalization, the focus of debate and the factors to be considered are undoubtedly more diverse.
At present, China's legislation on genetically modified safety is based on the premise of orderly development and application and standardizes management as much as possible. The normative measures are mainly based on two aspects. On the one hand, it guarantees the public's right to know, improves the system of labeling for genetically modified genes, and gives the public the freedom to choose their rights. On the other hand, it regulates the activities of genetically modified technology to make the development and use of genetically modified technologies in all fields strictly controlled. Inside. However, what is worrying is that, not to mention that GM soybeans have been placed on the table of each household through livestock feed. With the extensive management model of China's current agricultural decentralized production, it is difficult to truly regulate management.
On the issue of genetic transformation, we have actually lost the right to freedom of choice. Whether you go left or right, I am afraid you can only passively be carried away.