The Chinese people have always eaten safe food that has been tested by ancestors for thousands of years, but 20-year-old genetically modified foods are increasingly permeating our lives. Thirty is not confused, twenty years is still immature. How many years does it take for the safety inspection of genetically modified crops, and how many biological species can be used for experiments to support the word "safety"? Some people say that it is a matter of ethnic safety in the Chinese nation. Prof Yuan Longping once said: “I have no problem with eating, but this is not enough. Old people like me have no problem now, but will the next generation have no problem? Some people also joke that my son will never marry the baby girl who eats genetically modified food. Maybe after the next generation of marriage, in addition to proof that the car has money in the room, there is one more proof of not eating GM food."
To be honest, food must be tested in practice like truth and it can be assured. Many people are asking: How can our people participate in scientific policy discussions and formulation that are closely related to their own? Japan's national "Consensus Conference" deserves China's thinking and reference.
Japan's "Consensus Conference" is worth learning from China
In Japan, people have raised many doubts and even frequent opposition movements around scientific and technological issues such as biotechnology represented by transgenic technology, brain death problems, cloning techniques, treatment of cancer cells, and mad cow disease. In response to the reaction of the Japanese public, Japan has held a national "consensus conference" in order to allow the public to participate in the formulation of scientific issues such as genetically modified crops.
Japan’s “consensus conference†was convened four times. First, two preparations meetings were held to introduce the basic knowledge of the interests and risks of genetically modified crops to the representatives of the general public. According to the discussion at the consensus meeting, the key to the public’s heart and people’s concerns was sorted out. "Problems," and then at the third meeting, experts responded to the previous "critical issues" and let the public and the experts conduct interactive discussions. At the fourth meeting, the public scrutinized the proposal for public opinions.
In 1998, Japan held a tentative consensus conference on "Transgenic Treatment". In 2000, the third meeting of the Executive Committee of the "Consensus Conference on Genetically Modified Agricultural Products (000061)" was held. The entire process of this formal meeting was open to the outside world. Outside the public also participate in the audit. At the meeting, the experts first answered, explained and explained the key issues most concerned and concerned by the public representatives according to the “Key Issues†report sorted out at the second preparatory meeting. Then the experts and the public could fully discuss each other. The meeting at this stage is the first time to realize face-to-face exchanges and discussions between experts and the public, which truly embodies the spirit of the consensus conference - "dialogue between experts and the public."
The fourth formal meeting was based on the explanations, answers, and discussion results of the previous three meetings. The public representatives drafted the “public comment proposal†on genetically modified crops. The document "Committee Meeting Report" written by the public body has a very high level, so that the experts participating in the meeting are also very shocked. It is worth emphasizing that this document, which is the final summary report of the consensus meeting, is entirely responsible for the entire process from writing to completion. Experts and government agencies have no right to intervene. It is this link that truly reflects consensus. The public’s dominance during the meeting. Based on Japan’s model of national participation, it also expects that the issue of genetically modified foods and other scientific and technological issues in China will receive more public participation.
Genetically modified food does not meet China's national conditions
In addition, genetically modified foods do not meet China's national conditions. The United States is the birthplace of genetically modified foods. The United States is a farming method for large farms. When there are few people, it is impossible to weed and kill insects on farms. With insecticides, there will be higher costs and pollution residues. In this context, the United States has developed varieties of genetically modified crops. Many GM functions are used to kill insects or weeds, causing damage to other vegetation.
China's national conditions are different from those of the United States. China is a country with many people and more land and less land. Including weeding, insecticides, and increase in grain yields are due to labor input, and large-scale genetic modification is not required to solve this problem.
As a non-transgenic country, China will also enjoy considerable advantages in the future. At present, many people who care about the health of environmental protection people are all interested in eating non-genetically modified foods. China can fully use its own "non-transgenic" brand to promote the world, does not rule out the enjoyment of the "bargaining" right, to sell the high price to make up for China's non-genetically modified crop yields than the low yield of foreign genetically modified crops. In other words, despite the large area per unit area of ​​GM crops, our non-genetically modified crops are not necessarily worse from a yield perspective. Therefore, there is absolutely no need for China to blindly engage in genetically modified foods or genetically modified foods.
Regulatory vacuum
The reality is worrying. The Ministry of Agriculture has stated on more than one occasion that China currently does not permit the commercial cultivation and production of any genetically modified rice, but illegal GMO rice varieties are being sold to farmers and have been or are about to be sown. According to a survey conducted by Greenpeace, the illegally sold and planted transgenic rice was discovered in Hubei in 2005. The organization recently released the "Report on Investigation of Genetically Modified Rice, Rice Products and Genetically Modified Rice in the Circulation of China's Nine Areas." It continues to disclose that the illegal GM rice and rice flour have entered the four provinces of Guangdong, Fujian, Hunan, and Hubei. This report also fully demonstrates from another perspective that there is a regulatory vacuum in the cultivation and circulation of illegal transgenes from 2005 to 2010.