1. Overview of GMF development In 1994, the first GMF (genetically modified tomato) to enter the market was born in the United States. At least 13 countries now plant GMF, of which the United States has the largest planting area, reaching 30.3 million hectares, 68%; followed by Argentina with 10 million hectares, 23%; Canada with 3 million hectares, 7%; and my country with 500,000 hectares, accounting for 1 %. There are 43 GMF varieties identified by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), more than 60% of processed foods contain genetically modified ingredients, and GMF sales reach tens of billions of dollars; surveys show that consumers in the United States and Canada Most consumers accept GMF, and only 27% of consumers believe that consuming GMF may cause harm to health. my country has approved the commercialization of 6 types of GMF, including 3 food types: anti-virus bell pepper, anti-virus tomato, and delayed ripening tomato. With the research and development of GMF in our country, there will be more and more varieties of GMF in our country. Currently, research focuses on the development of genetically modified rice, genetically modified fish and other foods. According to the source of GMF, GMF can be divided into plant-derived GMF, animal-derived GMFH and microbial-derived GMF. At this stage, the main ones are plant-derived GMF, and the foods or food raw materials involved include: genetically modified soybeans, genetically modified corn, genetically modified tomatoes, genetically modified rape, genetically modified potatoes, etc. Among global genetically modified crops, genetically modified soybeans have the largest planting area of ??258 billion hectares, accounting for 58% of global GMF. 2. Characteristics of genetically modified foods Comparison between GMF and traditional foods: Traditional foods are produced through natural selection or artificial cross-breeding. Although there is no substantial difference in basic principles between transgenic technology and traditional and newly developed inter-subspecies hybridization technologies, transgenic technology for producing GMF focuses on genetic manipulation at the molecular level (gene manipulation through recombinant DNA technology). modification or transfer), making it more refined, tighter and more controllable. People can use modern biotechnology to change the genetic traits of organisms and create new species that do not exist in nature. For example, food plants that can kill pests, food plants that are resistant to herbicides, food plants that can produce human vaccines, etc. It has the following characteristics: (1) Low cost and high output. The cost is 40% to 60% of traditional products, and the output increases by at least 20%, and in some cases it increases several times or even dozens of times. (2) It has characteristics such as resistance to weeds, insects, and stress. One can reduce agricultural production costs; the other can increase crop yields. The GMC in 2000 reached 44.2 million hectares, of which 32.8 million hectares were herbicide-resistant, accounting for 74%; 8.3 million hectares were insect-resistant, accounting for 19%; and insect-resistant and herbicide-resistant accounted for 7%. (3) The quality and nutritional value of food are improved. For example, the lysine content of cereal foods can be increased through genetically modified technology to increase their nutritional value. Research on improving the gluten content ratio in wheat through genetically modified technology to improve baking (bei) performance has also achieved certain results. (4) Enhanced freshness preservation performance. For example, antisense DNA technology is used to inhibit enzyme activity to delay ripening and softening of antisense RAN transgenic tomatoes, extending storage and freshness time. 3. Safety of genetically modified foods In 1998, Professor Arpad Pusztiai from the Scottish Research Institute in the United Kingdom fed mice genetically modified potatoes. In the autumn of 1998, he announced on TV that after the rats ate them, they caused abnormal organ growth, reduced body weight and organ weight, and damaged the immune system. . The incident caused an international sensation. This was the earliest scientifically proven question about genetically modified foods, and triggered a great discussion about the safety of genetically modified foods in the UK and around the world. Although the Royal Society announced in May 1999 that the study was "full of loopholes," it could not be concluded that genetically modified potatoes were biologically healthy. In March 1998, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office approved a patent for the so-called "terminator technology" jointly applied by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and DPL (Delta and Pine Land). Aroused strong response from the international community. Because this technology is not a general technology, it can make the seeds obtained by planting the crops in the first year sterile. When planting in the second year, the seeds will automatically die.

"Terminator" technology inserts a terminator gene into the crop genome to obtain genetically modified crop seeds. The seed company sprays an inducer on the surface of the seeds before they are sold. After farmers sow the seeds, the seeds can grow into normal plants. , produces mature seeds. However, under the action of inducers, the inserted terminator gene will be activated when the seeds mature, producing toxins that kill the seed embryos. Therefore, the harvested seeds will not germinate normally when replanted in the second year, but these seeds will not germinate normally when the seeds are mature. etc. are completely normal. A spokesman for the United States Department of Agriculture claimed that the "Terminator" technology is to protect the intellectual property rights of genetic engineering technology. In October 1998, the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) held a meeting in Washington and clearly proposed a ban on "Terminator" technology. The main reasons are: seeds produced by Terminator technology cannot be identified in appearance and may easily cause irreparable losses; through Unintentional spread of pollen poses biosecurity risks. In May 1999, a Cornell University research team reported that 44% of a monarch butterfly died after eating corn pollen transformed with the insecticidal protein gene (bt) of Bacillus thuringiensis, indicating that GMF may have safety hazards. This incident caused widespread controversy among scientists about GMF. The insecticidal crystal protein CryLA in Bt corn is specifically poisonous to kill Lepidoptera pests. Mongolian butterflies belong to the Lepidoptera order and will naturally be affected by bt protein. In fact, Science and Nature rejected the article on the spotted butterfly because the reviewers believed that it did not reflect the situation in the field, so it was finally reported in Nature in the form of a newsletter. However, the incident became front-page news in the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, USA Today and other newspapers. In the end, the incident was rejected by the scientific community. On July 9, 2001, the United Nations Development Program admitted that GMF may disrupt the ecological balance. They may transfer their genes to related species, creating super weeds, and may also have unexpected harmful effects on other plants or animals. Many questions regarding the potential dangers and safety of GMF and GMC require further research before conclusions can be drawn. Therefore, we must be cautious about the commercialization of GMC and GMF cultivation, otherwise it may cause immeasurable losses to human health and the ecological environment. Although no cases of GMF being harmful to human health have been found so far, it does not mean that there is no harm, because the time it has entered humans is too short, and its potential harm will not be manifested in a short period of time. Until now, the safety of long-term consumption by humans is still doubtful, and the scientific community has no complete knowledge on whether these foods are safe. International authoritative organizations such as the Food and Agriculture Organization, the World Health Organization and the Economic Cooperation Organization have stated that artificial transplantation of foreign genes may have "unintended consequences" on organisms. That is to say, we still do not have enough scientific methods to assess the risks of genetically modified organisms and food. Consumers International (members include 250 consumer organizations in 115 countries around the world) stated that "no government or United Nations organization will claim that genetically modified foods are completely safe." The current application of a large number of genetically modified technologies has brought us Although it has brought huge benefits, we can still see from the above analysis that the safety of genetically modified foods cannot yet be evaluated. Whether genetically modified foods are safe still needs further research and verification over time. References: [1] Xu Zongliang, Liu Xueli, Zhai Xiaomei. Bioethics [M]. Shanghai People's Publishing House, 2002. [2] Shen Mingxian. Bioethics [M]. Higher Education Press, 2003. Exclusive to Civil Servant Home The first 2010 paper on the safety of genetically modified foods, the most common place for civil servants across the country - all in the home of civil servants. When reprinting the 2010 paper on the safety of genetically modified foods, please be sure to indicate that it is from Civil Servants Home. Detailed

Reference materials: /lunwen/shys/hxshlw/200911/298120.html

Please adopt, thank you!