Transgenic acceleration
Turn on the computer and enter the word "transgene" in the search. All kinds of concerns will be vivid on paper. In today's world, I am afraid that there are no more scientific and technical vocabularies. Such as genetic modification has provoked the public to talk about it. However, argumentative arguments, the development of transgenes remains unstoppable.
According to estimates by ISAAA, the global acreage of genetically modified crops increased by 8% (12 million hectares) in 2011, reaching a record 160 million hectares. 2012 was the 16th year of commercialization of GM crops. After 15 years of continuous growth (1996-2011), the area under cultivation of GM crops continued to increase in 2012.
The rapid development of genetic transformation is ultimately driven by economic factors. For example, the cultivation of transgenic insect-resistant cotton has brought tremendous benefits to Chinese farmers. If China approves insect-resistant transgenic Bt rice, Bt rice will bring about 4 billion US dollars in annual revenue for Chinese rice growers.
In fact, GM crops have brought great benefits to human health and the environment. Its main impact on human health is to reduce the use of pesticides on a large scale, significantly improve the health of farmers, and reduce the potential risks consumers face in food consumption. According to a study published in the journal Eco-Economy by scientists from the University of Göttingen in Germany, India has reduced the use of chemical pesticides by 50% since the introduction of genetically modified cotton seven years ago. The amount of toxic pesticides is even reduced by 70%. As a result, millions of pesticide poisoning accidents have been reduced each year.
The environmental benefits of GM crops are mainly reflected in reduced cropland use through increased crop yields, reduced use of pesticides, and the use of more efficient and less toxic herbicides. US scientists published a review in 2011 that evaluated more than 150 peer-reviewed papers over the past 15 years and found that, overall, genetically modified crops that have been approved for commercial cultivation have increased the number of no-tillage operations and reduced The use of pesticides, the use of more environmentally friendly herbicides and increased yields have reduced land pressure and significantly reduced the impact of agriculture on biodiversity.
Of course, as a new breed, transgenes may have various potential risks, including that insect-resistant varieties may cause gradual emergence of resistance to target pests, and herbicide-resistant varieties may cause a large increase in herbicide use, which may lead to herbicide-resistance. The emergence of so-called super weeds. Fortunately, scientists and government departments have long been aware of this problem and took measures that have so far proven effective at the time of planting genetically modified organisms, including the application of refuge—that is, the requirement for cultivation of genetically modified land. Ratios (usually 20%) plant non-transgenic crops to prevent the emergence of resistance in target pests - and the use of diversified herbicides.
It is worth mentioning that, despite allegations raised by some organizations opposed to genetic modification, so far there is no scientific evidence that genetically modified foods pose any potential and real threat to human and animal health. It is precisely for this reason that European Food Safety Authority, the official body of the EU, which is the most conservative in terms of genetically modified issues, points out in previous assessment reports that “there is no evidence that GM crops that have been approved for marketing will give humans more than conventional crops. Health and the environment bring more potential and real-world risks."
Academic and public understanding of misplacement
Although the scientific and government administrations have done a lot of research on genetic technology and crop safety, due to the lack of communication between the scientific community and the public and the media, a gene reversal force has been formed in some environmental organizations and media.
According to the media monitoring of the Biotechnology Communication Center of Huazhong Agricultural University, most media reports on GM are based on negative news.
Under the guidance of the long-term negative public opinion, the public has a deeper misunderstanding of genetic modification or even exclusion. For example, People's Daily released a survey on November 28, 2008, “Do you think “genetically modified†foods are safe? †A total of 6205 people participated in the survey. Among them, a total of 2,841 votes were selected for “safety, a breeding methodâ€, accounting for 45.8% of the total number of votes; 3,175 votes were selected for “unsafe, potentially harmful to humanity,†accounting for 51.2% of the total.
However, if farmers are included in a wider range and can benefit from genetically modified technology, the public can still be positive about GMOs. In 2002, 2003 and 2009, the surveys of Hu Ruifa and Huang Jijun of the Agricultural Policy Research Center of the Chinese Academy of Sciences found that consumers who can accept GM foods through surveys in Beijing, Shanghai, Shandong, Jiangsu, and Zhejiang, including rural trade markets, found that 61% of consumers opposed to genetically modified food accounted for 8%, and 31% did not know or knew it.
The survey of more than 4,000 audiences carried out by the research team of the China Agricultural University's GMO risk communication mechanism and model in 2010 also showed that the unclear people accounted for 38.21% of the impact of genetically modified foods on humans, and that the benefits outweigh the disadvantages. The proportion is 27.7%, and the proportion of the pros and cons is 23.6%, and the ratio of the pros and cons is 10.46%.
Saliva drowning evidence
In the report on genetically modified issues, scientists and communication experts emphasized that the media reports and some rumors on the website cannot be evidenced in terms of genetic modification or other scientific issues unless they are from peer-reviewed professional scientific journals. Officially published papers. Of course, not all issues need scientific evidence, but on the issue of whether or not genetically modified organisms are safe, this can only be a question that requires science and scientific methods to answer.
Some organizations and individuals who oppose genetic modification do not rely strictly on scientific evidence. As early as the late 1990s, when accepting the British House of Lords inquiry, an active member of the reverse genetic organization under repeated questioning by the House of Lords pointed out that scientific redevelopment cannot guarantee the harm of genetically modified plants.
It is estimated that scientists can only laugh at this. But for the general public, demonizing transgenes does not actually have to go up to the metaphysical philosophical level. As long as one of the hotspot incidents “experts believe that genetically modified is harmful†is enough to inspire public rejection of strangers. In contrast, the “camps†of scientists engaged in genetic research and safety assessments are cited as examples, for fear that they have been misrepresented and have not yet confronted each other. They have lost their “fightersâ€.
In some cases, some rigorous statements made by scientists in the scientific community that are not of their own profession, even some well-known scientists, will quickly become the basis for opposing GMs. For example, a reputable scientist described the genetically modified rice during the two sessions as saying: “For example, some genetically modified foods that are resistant to insects and diseases, where the insect-resistant gene and disease-resistant gene worm is dying, what happens when people eat it? It’s hard to say. ". Here, there is no need to avoid the potential risk of genetically modified insect-resistant rice, but it is scientifically sufficient to prove that there is no connection between the phrase “eat dying for dying†and “people ate hard to sayâ€. Together, it will still play a large misleading role.
As the most mature food and drug safety regulatory agency in the world, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has repeatedly stressed that genetically modified foods are essentially equivalent to conventional foods and there is no need for clinical trials.
Conspiracy theory shadow
Readers may want to ask: The U.S. government’s support for genetic modification provides evidence for its safety. Does the European Union's conservative attitude toward genetic modification indicate that it is not safe?
In fact, the EU’s decision-making is based more on this judgment: “The existing evidence is not sufficient to dispel all concernsâ€. This actually reflects a kind of bureaucratic rationality in rich countries. "The people are opposed to it. I have to endorse it. There is always reason to say that it may be potentially unsafe in the future."
This is in line with the classic expressions of some humanities and social sciences: “Can harmlessness prove that tomorrow is harmless?†“This generation (in fact, at least two generations of human history) has proved harmless for decades to come. Is it harm?"
This argument is almost irrefutable, but it does not make any sense. Because of everything, including the rice and steamed bread that we eat daily, we cannot prove that today's harmlessness can represent decades later without harm. Absolutely zero-risk foods do not exist.
It is worth pondering that some voices opposed to genetic modification can easily use the “conspiracy theory†to describe some statements that we cannot prove that can overturn the conclusions of the scientific community, such as the famous Pusztai incident.
Arpad Pusztai, a researcher at the Rowett Institute in Scotland, announced on television in the fall of 1998 that he fed rats with a potato lectin gene, which caused severe weight and organ weight loss and damaged the immune system. This incident caused a sensation and triggered an international dispute over the safety of genetically modified crops. The Royal Society of the United Kingdom issued a peer review report in May 1999, pointing out the serious mistakes and deficiencies in the study of Pusztai. Pusztai has been severely criticized in the international scientific community.
This case was described in a reverse gene book as follows:
The director of the Rowett Institute received a phone call from British Prime Minister Tony Blair demanding that he expel Pusztai while Blair was under pressure from Clinton.
There is almost no way to verify this statement.
In fact, this conspiracy theory has been further amplified in China. It is said that Americans plant genetically modified plants only for export, and even some people vowed that they are mainly prepared for the Chinese people. The public's dissatisfaction with the transparency of the government is also inextricably intertwined with the issue of genetic modification, which has caused some public concerns about conspiracy theories to worsen. Many of the public have linked GM research and development and approval to opaque government work, and the relative lag of some government departments has become an excuse.
In fact, this seemingly grim conspiracy theory can be easily solved by going to the US market. The corn and soybeans produced in the United States are all about 90% of the genetically modified varieties. The FDA is forbidden to label consumers in order to prevent consumers from doubting about genetic modification. Under such circumstances, the market is naturally flooded with a large number of inexpensive genetically modified products, including direct consumption of waxy corn.
However, conspiracy theorists do not believe this evil and there is no way. After all, everyone has the freedom to plot themselves to death. (The author is the author of Science, the Knight Science News Researcher of MIT, USA)
Concrete Pump Rubber Hose Schwing/PM/Kyokuto/Sany
Concrete Pump Rubber Hose Schwing,Cement Pump ,Portable Concrete Pump ,Concrete Pump Truck
Iron Pipe & Tube Co., Ltd. , http://www.nbpumpclamp.com