Human survival, development and evolution cannot be separated from food. For any food, traditional or genetically modified, health and safety are the top issues. Without security, the others are meaningless.
The identification of human food safety has been based on experience for thousands of years. This simple and empirical method is used to prove and judge the safety of food from the ancestors of the older generation. Therefore, toxic food is abandoned, non-toxic and nutritious, cultivated, preserved and preserved.
Of course, even if some foods themselves are poisonous, they will not be dangerous to people if they are handled properly. For example, if the beans in traditional foods are not thoroughly cooked and the potatoes germinate, they may cause poisoning. Food allergies are even more common. For these foods containing natural toxins and allergens, people never make a fuss and no one calls for their cancellation. Most of them are still important foods for humans on a day-to-day basis. They only use safe cooking methods.
However, looking back at the history of genetic engineering, we can find an interesting phenomenon. So far, dozens of drug proteins, including insulin, have been genetically engineered in microbial fermentation tanks and have been widely used clinically for many years. People have never objected to this. However, the use of the same principles of genetic engineering to reconstruct the food produced by crops has caused questions and opposition from a considerable number of people, certain civil society organizations, and some national governments. There are also different views in the academic community.
Apart from the scientific issues themselves, these differences also involve political, economic, trade, social, and ethical issues. Moreover, not only politicians, government and international organizations officials, scientists, entrepreneurs, financiers, and social activists have expressed their opinions, even the ordinary people have paid attention to it. why?
Food itself has deep social, cultural and historical connotations, and in some cases it is also linked to religious beliefs. Obviously, food is a very special type of consumer product that all people on Earth must consume and continue for life. Food approval procedures are not as strict as medicines. For food, consumers have absolute freedom of choice. Consumers have made irresponsible remarks about what they don’t know or like, and they even refuse and oppose it. They have this right and it is beyond dispute. Consumers also have the right to know. If they want to understand the nutrient content, source of raw materials, manufacturing methods, and additive content of a certain food, manufacturers must provide it unconditionally. Therefore, it is entirely normal that there are different views on GM foods and controversy, all of which originate from the particularity of this product.
The focus of the debate
What are the focuses of the GM dispute, especially the food GM dispute? The main concerns about GM food safety issues are the following:
1. Is there a difference between genetic engineering breeding and traditional breeding?
2. Is the cauliflower mosaic virus 35S promoter harmful to humans?
3. Is the inserted foreign transgene stable for a long period of time with "unexpected effects"?
4. Is it safe for human health if GM foods are consumed for a long period of time?
5. Is the safety of the GM food as a staple food and as an additive the same?
6. Does GM food cause allergic reactions?
7. Does the antibiotic resistance marker gene transfer to human intestinal bacteria?
8. Is it dangerous to eat genetically modified DNA in food?
So are these issues worth worrying about us? Are there any scientific basis for these concerns?
It can be seen that it is these issues that have caused diametrically opposed arguments. On the one hand, this situation has aggravated people's attention. On the other hand, it has also increased people's incompetence. Because people can often hear some experts, scholars and even authoritative people answer differently.
Who should listen to the public? A simple principle is that independent organizations that do not represent the interests of any group may have more objective opinions. The relevant organizations of the United Nations, such as the World Food Organization (FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO), are such institutions.
Here is an example of the first question. If you are a consumer, you may have a relatively clear understanding of genetically modified foods after listening to the opinions of all parties.
The difference between genetic engineering breeding and traditional breeding
The difference between genetic engineering (transgenic) breeding and traditional breeding is the core issue of genetically modified foods. There has been controversy. Let us now look at the experts' different opinions: “Far squaresâ€: The traditional breeding methods produce new crops through crosses and spontaneous mutations. Varieties and genes have also been transformed, so genetically modified organisms (GMOs) produced by genetic engineering breeding methods are essentially no different from traditional breeding methods and are a continuation of traditional breeding methods. In appearance, tomatoes or tomatoes, potatoes or potatoes. The tomatoes that transferred the fish genes did not grow fish scales or tails. If the inspection is conducted in accordance with the traditional food testing standards, for example, in terms of nutrients, health standards, etc., the genetically modified crops are not significantly different from the general crops. To say that genes have changed, the number of genetic changes caused by traditional breeding is much greater than genetic engineering breeding methods. The genetically modified foods undergo more stringent safety tests than traditional foods, which proves to be harmless to the human body and conforms to the principle of “substantive equivalenceâ€.
"Anti-side": The crops cultivated through genetically modified technology are fundamentally different from the crops produced by traditional methods of breeding, using entirely new and creative technologies. All inventors of genetically modified crops must prove to patent offices that their genetically modified organisms are novel when they apply for patents. It is precisely this that allows them to obtain patented invention rights. But how do you explain that on the one hand this organism is a new invention, and on the other hand there is no difference with the existing organism. Is this not self-contradictory? Therefore, the crops produced by transgenic technology and the crops produced by traditional breeding methods are not “substantially equivalentâ€.
The United Nations Group of Experts: "Substantial Equivalence" was proposed by the United Nations Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) in the early 1990s. The concept is: "If a new food or food ingredient and an existing food or ingredient In essence, they should also be the same in terms of safety.†“Material equivalence†is an important component in the evaluation of genetically engineered foods and food ingredients. This concept is scientifically reasonable and practical, which means that the principle is only operative. The concept of "substantive equivalence" can indeed establish an effective safety assessment framework. People criticize the concept of “substantive equivalence†in part because they misunderstand that “substantial equivalence†is the end point of security assessment rather than the starting point. However, it should be emphasized that the change of composition cannot be used as the sole basis for determining food safety. Must comprehensively compare the test results in all aspects to determine the safety of food.
How to assess and ensure the safety of genetically modified foods?
What kind of genetically modified food can be regarded as safe? It is generally believed that the process of transgenic technology itself will not produce toxicity or allergens, and the key is the product protein expressed by the transgene.
Therefore, if the genetically modified protein meets the following conditions, it should be considered safe: they come from organisms that have no toxic or allergic history; they have no structural similarity to known toxin proteins or allergens; their function is already It is well-understood; they are not expressed at high levels in the edible parts of GM crops (because allergens are usually abundant in allergic foods); they break down rapidly (in minutes) in the stomach; they are Can be decomposed under heating or normal cooking conditions; there are no obvious side effects from acute toxicity tests (using them in large doses of experimental mice); chronic toxicity tests (feeding them with chicks for 42 days) also do not have any negative effects.
However, in the face of the increasing number of genetically modified foods in the future and more profound genetic modification, the safety assessment of genetically modified foods will be more complicated. In this case, the experts of FAO and WHO support the concept of “substantive equivalenceâ€, which is the first principle of GM food safety assessment.
The second principle of GM food safety assessment is that it must be “case-by-caseâ€. The so-called "case" means that each type of genetically modified food should be carried out one by one without exception, and cannot be inferred, interpreted, or replaced. It cannot be concluded universally, that is, it cannot be said in general terms that "genetically modified foods are safe for health." Even if the same crop is transferred to the same gene, the safety of the different transgenic individuals obtained in the same batch of experiments will be different because different genetically modified species may result in different transgenic varieties. For example, the Bt genetically modified corn developed by Company A has been tested safely, but it cannot be inferred that another batch of Bt genetically modified corn or B company must be safe to develop the same Bt genetically modified corn.
In addition, in the evaluation of the safety of genetically modified foods, the WHO issued "20 Questions on Genetically Modified Foods" in 2000. Among them, the health and safety assessment of genetically modified foods should usually include the following aspects: direct impact on health (toxicity); tendency to cause allergic reactions (allergenicity); specific components that are considered to be nutritional or toxic; stability of inserted genes Because of the nutritional properties affected by genetic modification; and any "unexpected effects" resulting from gene insertion.
Therefore, the author believes that if these tests are carried out earnestly and reliably, and no problems are found, the genetically modified food that is tested is certainly safe. The problem is that not all countries have these testing capabilities, or they are able to perform inspections meticulously according to the above requirements. What's more, some testing projects themselves are very difficult to implement, such as "allergenicity" and "unexpected effects". Big problem. This will depend on the unremitting efforts of governments and scientists from all over the world to solve the passive situation in which GM food safety assessment methods lag behind the rapid development of GM foods.
Media Facade Lighting,Led Grid Screen Lighting,Flexible Transparent Mesh Lighting,Building Lighting
Shen zhen SH LED Technology Co.,Ltd , https://www.pixellightsolutions.com