The survival, development, and evolution of humanity are inseparable from food. For any food, whether traditional or genetically modified, health and safety are the primary concerns. Without safety, everything else is meaningless.
For thousands of years, human judgment on food safety has relied entirely on experience. This simple and empirical method, passed down from generation to generation, has been used to prove and judge the safety of food. Therefore, poisonous foods were discarded, while non-poisonous and nutritious ones were cultivated, their seeds preserved, and the food stored.
Of course, some foods are inherently toxic, but if handled properly, they do not pose a danger to humans. For example, undercooked traditional beans like green beans or sprouted potatoes can cause poisoning. Food allergies are even more common. For these foods containing natural toxins and allergens, people rarely overreact, and no one calls for their elimination. Most of them remain indispensable foods in the human diet, as long as they are prepared using safe cooking methods.
However, looking back at the history of genetic engineering, we can find a very interesting phenomenon. To date, dozens of therapeutic proteins, including insulin, have been produced using genetic engineering methods in microbial fermentation tanks and are widely used in clinical practice. People have never raised objections to this for many years. Yet, grains produced by modifying crops using the same genetic engineering principles have caused doubts and opposition from a portion of the population, certain non-governmental organizations, and the governments of some countries. Different views also exist in the academic community.
These differences, in addition to the scientific issues themselves, also involve political, economic, trade, social, ethical, and many other levels. Moreover, not only politicians, government and international organization officials, scientists, entrepreneurs, financiers, and social activists have expressed their views, but even ordinary people are paying close attention to this. Why?
Food itself has profound social, cultural, and historical connotations, and in some cases, it is linked to religious beliefs. It is obvious that food is a very special type of consumer good that all people on Earth must consume continuously throughout their lives. The approval process for food is not as strict as for drugs. Consumers have absolute freedom of choice when it comes to food. If consumers do not understand or dislike a certain food, they are free to comment, be picky, or even refuse and oppose it; they have this right, and there is no room for blame. Consumers also have the right to know. If they want to understand the nutritional content, source of ingredients, production methods, or additive content of a certain food, the manufacturer must provide this information unconditionally. Therefore, it is completely normal that different views on genetically modified foods lead to debate, as this stems from the special nature of this product. The focus of the debate
What is the focus of the debate on genetic modification, especially on genetically modified food? Regarding the safety of genetically modified food, people's main concerns and debates are as follows:
1. Is there a difference between genetic engineering breeding and traditional breeding?
2. Is the Cauliflower Mosaic Virus 35S promoter gene harmful to the human body?
3. Is the inserted foreign transgene stable in the long term, leading to "unintended effects"?
4. Is it safe for human health to consume genetically modified food in the long term?
5. Are genetically modified foods that are staples and those used as additives the same in terms of safety?
6. Can genetically modified foods cause allergic reactions?
7. Can the antibiotic resistance marker gene be transferred to human intestinal bacteria?
8. Is the genetically modified DNA ingested in food dangerous?
So, are these concerns worth worrying about? Do these concerns have a scientific basis?
As can be seen, it is precisely these issues that have led to confrontational debates. On one hand, this situation has intensified public attention, and on the other, it has increased people's confusion. This is because people often hear vastly different answers from some experts, scholars, and even authorities.
Whose opinion should the public listen to? A simple principle is that the views of independent institutions that do not represent any group's interests may be more objective. United Nations organizations such as the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO) are such institutions.
Below, the first question can be used as an example. If you are a consumer, after hearing various opinions, you may gain a relatively clear understanding of genetically modified food. 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 food and has always been controversial. Now, let's look at the different opinions of experts.
"Pro side": The new crop varieties produced by traditional breeding methods through hybridization and spontaneous mutation also involve genetic modification. Therefore, the genetically modified organisms (GMOs) produced by genetic engineering breeding methods are essentially no different from those produced by traditional breeding methods; they are a continuation of traditional breeding methods. In appearance, a tomato is still a tomato, and a potato is still a potato. A tomato that has been transferred with a fish gene has not grown fish scales or a tail. If tested according to traditional food inspection standards, such as in terms of nutritional content and hygiene standards, there is no significant difference between genetically modified crops and ordinary crops. In terms of genetic changes, the number of genetic changes caused by traditional breeding is far greater than that caused by genetic engineering breeding. Genetically modified foods have undergone stricter safety testing than traditional foods, proving they are harmless to humans and comply with the "substantial equivalence" principle.
"Con side": Crops cultivated through genetic modification technology are essentially different from those produced by traditional breeding methods; they use a completely new and creative technology. All inventors of genetically modified crops must prove to the patent office that their genetically modified organisms are novel when applying for a patent, and it is this very point that grants them patent rights. But how can you explain that on one hand, this organism is a new invention, and on the other hand, it is no different from an existing organism? Isn't this a contradiction? Therefore, crops cultivated through genetic modification technology are not "substantially equivalent" to those produced by traditional breeding methods.
UN Expert Group: The concept of "substantial equivalence" was proposed by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) in the early 1990s. Its definition is: "If a new food or food component is substantially the same as an existing food or component, then they should also be the same in terms of safety." In assessing genetically engineered foods and food components, "substantial equivalence" is an important part. This concept is scientifically sound and practical, meaning this principle is the only one that is operational. Applying the concept of "substantial equivalence" can indeed establish an effective safety assessment framework. Some criticisms of the "substantial equivalence" concept are due to a misunderstanding that it is the end point of safety assessment rather than the starting point. But it must be emphasized that considering changes in ingredients cannot be the sole basis for determining food safety. A comprehensive comparison of test results from all aspects is necessary to judge the safety of a food. How to assess and ensure the safety of genetically modified food?
What kind of genetically modified food can be considered safe? It is generally believed that the genetic modification process itself does not produce toxins or allergens; the key lies in the protein product expressed by the transgene.
Therefore, if the transgenic protein meets the following conditions, it should be considered safe: it comes from an organism with no history of toxicity or allergy; it has no structural similarity to known toxin proteins or allergens; its function is well understood; its expression level in the edible part of the genetically modified crop is not high (because allergens are usually present in large quantities in allergenic foods); it can be rapidly decomposed in the stomach (within minutes); it can be broken down under heating or normal cooking conditions; no obvious side effects appear in acute toxicity tests (by feeding it to experimental mice in large quantities); and there are no negative effects in chronic toxicity tests (by feeding it to chicks for 42 days).
However, facing the increasing number of genetically modified varieties in food and more profound genetic modifications in the future, the safety assessment of genetically modified food will become more complex. In this situation, experts from FAO and WHO support the "substantial equivalence" concept, which is the first principle for the safety assessment of genetically modified food.
The second principle for the safety assessment of genetically modified food is that it must be assessed on a "case-by-case" basis. The term "case" means that every genetically modified food must be evaluated individually without exception. It cannot be inferred, deduced, or substituted, and general conclusions cannot be made. In other words, one cannot make a blanket statement that "genetically modified foods are safe for health." Even for the same crop with the same gene inserted, different genetically modified individuals from the same batch of experiments may have different levels of safety because the state of the genetic modification can lead to different genetically modified varieties. For example, this batch of Bt genetically modified corn developed by Company A has been tested and is safe, but it cannot be inferred that another batch of Bt genetically modified corn or the Bt genetically modified corn developed by Company B is necessarily safe.
In addition, regarding the safety assessment of genetically modified food, WHO published "20 Questions on Genetically Modified Foods" in 2000. The health safety assessment of genetically modified food should generally include the following aspects: direct effects on health (toxicity); potential to cause allergic reactions (allergenicity); specific components considered to have nutritional or toxic properties; stability of the inserted gene; nutritional properties affected by genetic modification; and any "unintended effects" caused by the insertion of the gene.
Therefore, the author believes that if the above aspects have been seriously and practically tested and no problems are found, then the tested genetically modified food is certainly safe. The problem is that not all countries have the testing capabilities, or can conduct tests in strict accordance with the above requirements. Moreover, some testing items are very difficult to implement, such as the two major issues of "allergenicity" and "unintended effects." This requires the unremitting efforts of governments and scientists worldwide to solve the passive situation where the safety assessment methods for genetically modified food lag behind their rapid development.