In recent days, the dispute over whether GM rice can be commercialized has become increasingly fierce. Especially in the recently held "two sessions" in the country, GM foods have once again received eager attention. In these two days, more media reports said that there are GM rice sold in supermarkets in Hunan and Hubei.
Transgenic crops have entered the market and there is no basis for the law. The country has not yet liberalized the commercialization of genetically modified rice. It has been alleged that the agricultural sector has been involved in the investigation and some supermarkets have also unloaded the genetically modified rice. Obviously, because the genetically modified staple food itself is full of controversy, this matter will not be immediately settled because of the unloading of genetically modified rice.
According to the current definition, the transgenic technology is to extract the desired gene from an organism, transfer it to another organism, and recombine with the gene of another organism to produce a specific substance with a good genetic shape. . From a research point of view, the technology of GM has been advanced for a short period of time.
For humans, transgenic technology is either an angel or a devil, which may bring a gospel to the development of human society, and may also cause damage to human health. The key issue is that the scientific community has so far failed to confirm whether genetically modified foods may cause serious harm to the ecological environment and human health. In this context, the commercialization of GM foods, especially the commercialization of staple foods, appears to be somewhat sensitive.
In our opinion, the controversy caused by genetically modified foods in China today seems quite complicated, but in the end, it is the result of the combination of scientific logic and business logic. From a scientific point of view, this matter is very troublesome because the safety of genetically modified foods cannot be clearly certified in the short term.
On March 5, the rice expert Yuan Longping said in an interview during the “two sessions†that he is willing to volunteer as a “try-to-eat†meal. If two generations have no problem, genetically modified (rice) is safe. Academician Yuan Longping’s opinion actually shows that it takes quite a long period of time to verify the safety of genetically modified staple food at the scientific level. However, such a long test cycle conflicts with the commercial interests of some of the current population.
There is no problem with the safety of GM rice, and it is advocated that GM rice should be properly commercialized to benefit the general public. Those who hold these opinions are mostly researchers in genetically modified technology and people in the genetically modified food industry. At the government level, the agricultural sector also believes that GM technology has advantages in many aspects such as high yield, resistance to stress, resistance to pests, and improvement of nutritional quality.
This also shows that if there is no safety issue for genetically modified rice, then the relevant researchers and industrialists are really doing things for the benefit of society. Although behind the social service, there is obviously a business logic at work. However, the business logic itself is indisputable, and it is not necessary to deliberately paint it on the level of value judgment.
What is to be seen is that when scientific logic and business logic cannot be fully integrated and even conflict occurs, the government authorities must come up with their own opinions. Following the necessary policy logic and adhering to the justice of the decision-making process, this is the key to the decisions made by the agricultural authorities to convince the public and not to leave the hidden dangers for the future.
Given that the research on the safety of genetically modified foods, especially staple foods, needs a long period of time, the competent authorities must not rush to announce the safety of genetically modified staple foods. It is true that due to the fact that the proportion of different genetically modified foods in people's food consumption is not the same, their likely harmful nature will not be the same. However, as a matter of principle, before any clear scientific conclusion is reached, it is not a wise move to cheer for the great significance of genetically modified foods in areas other than safety.
In other words, the commercialization of genetically modified staple foods is even less radical. There is no doubt that taking more caution is more reasonable than moving forward. After all, at least so far, relying on traditional food production methods, there are no major problems in ensuring food security. From the perspective of the international community, the commercialization of genetically modified crops, especially staple crops, is controversial all over the world. Many countries currently choose to temporarily stop commercial planting to cope with the dispute. We may also take this attitude.
It can be seen that, when commercial sales of genetically modified staple foods cannot be rushed forward, large-scale commercial planting on Chinese land must also be cautious. The replacement of commercial planting with experimental planting remains the rational choice of the moment. Genetically modified rice on the shelves of supermarkets in Hunan and other places warns people that if this matter is not well-monitored and the attitude is ambiguous, it is likely to cause major problems for future management. Once there is a safety issue in GM rice, the aftermath is even more difficult to deal with. However, within the scope of the current policy permit, some foods that have been added with genetically modified raw materials should also be properly marked to respect consumer choice.
After all, this matter is fundamentally a scientific issue, not a democratic one. Some scholars have suggested that whether or not genetically modified staple foods are popularized should be heard by the public rather than by a few scholars. Such an opinion is also worth discussing. Assuming that the genetically modified staple food has potential safety problems, even if 99% of the people are in favour of large-scale application, how can the opinion of the majority of the people be? The so-called procedural justice is procedural justice on the premise of respecting science.