Go homepage(回首页) Upload pictures (上传图片) Write articles (发文字帖)
The author:(作者)delvpublished in(发表于) 2014/1/16 12:23:38 Professor NPC： genetically modified two focus of controversy-free， are non-rational
Genetically modified food you eat?
Recently, the Vice Minister of agriculture Chen Xiaohua said at a news conference, GM developed to actively promote caution. GM--the controversial new agricultural technology: on the one hand in the relevant researchers and agro-industry insiders, is the technology can improve the quality of agricultural products, increase production. And on the other hand, and opponents in some doubt in the public's eyes, the risks it is hard to judge, security testing technologies. So, what GM is about? What security does not secure it? Why it attracted so much controversy? CCTV financial channel moderator contributing commentator Shen Zhu and College of agriculture and rural development, Renmin University Professor Zheng Fengtian, Hong Zhang common prominent commentators commented.
GM brings together food and farm safety, differences between apparent cognitive judgments about the public? What happens to GM's fate in the future?
Zheng Fengtian: GM's core technology in the hands of the Americans ahead of us on the staple food is a little too
(The financial review special commentator of CCTV)
From GM technology, our country is actually just beginning, compared with the developed countries, we still lag behind a lot, but GM technology does have a lot of potential in the future, so China should step up research and development in this area. On transgenic technology promotion, however, there are still many doubts in many countries, including Europe, Japan, and are very careful. So in this regard is necessary when the vanguard of our country, in fact I think they should send two views together. Biology of these people think that genetically modified without any problems, should be promoted, but now the State wants you to do research. The other hand, market participants or ordinary people may feel that since GM we have doubts, there is controversy and circumspection. So from this perspective, should be responsive to an outcome. Transgenic technology one of the biggest problems is that we can bring some unique information extracted DNA, put it in some crops we need to go and make it produce what we need. They are artificial changes in molecular structure, this is the heart of genetically modified stuff.
Two of our country on the international and domestic institutions also had a point. For most simple example, I think we should import of genetically modified soybeans, there was no problem, came in from the country, these soybeans must enter the refinery, without access to the common bean germplasm. Homemade basically have to insist that we retain a non-GMO soybeans, used by the Chinese to drink soy milk, bean curd, tofu, which is a very good control. If you want to allow domestic GM, we identified small farmers of the country and unlikely to be genetically modified so that you can find non-GMO soybeans and tofu.
Our GM technology compared with the world's most advanced biotechnology, or behind a lot, now many transgenic core technology in the hands of the Americans. On staple food but we were a little ahead of, commercialization of advanced, technically they go way back. United States GM rice, GM maize, genetically modified technology of wheat go way back.
Zhang Hong: no entry of transgenic crops can be promoted
(The financial review CCTV commentator)
Promotion to be more cautious, is developing actively, which is said to these people, as well as scientists in molecular biology. We carefully research and development, which is a technology of the future, we are going to be leading. The promotion aimed at the public, now that the public are in doubt, we need careful promotion. GM technology is not to say that all the dishes were all back in and it can actually be down to one technology. This plant was transferred, it is not bugs, and then through a series of experiments found it is very safe indeed.
Such as cotton, cotton, many of which are genetically modified in China now, okay, don't eat into the belly, well, you get promoted. It should be possible to staple foods, for example, may involve everyone concerned, may not have a complete series of experiments proved to be completely safe, that would be a little cautious. But there is one point I disagree. Is the Ministry of agriculture said was at the same time, said China has clear rules on importing genetically modified agricultural products, provided that they meet China's trade demand, complies with the relevant safety standards for imports will not be a problem, which is equal to our domestic and import are two standards.
Zheng Fengtian: the disputed cases to enable members of the public can have a choice
(The CCTV financial review special commentator)
Hybrid is a combination of nature between the two crops, it is an evolution of rice for thousands of years, natural thing after many years of evolution, humans have adapted to it. GM is artificially insert something, when we don't know if it's going to produce some new things there are side effects to the human body, which is about the problem. I think that the two are not very rational, to an extreme. Turn would generally be of biological origin, and these people have a preference, believe it has no any problems. Reverse this thing came up again, to pieces, so this argument does not have the focus of the two largest, are incompatible, are irrational.
As the general public, we hope to be able to give us the benefits of GM will be made use of, to the maximum extent possible to avoid side effects. Is genetically modified food should be banned. When I buy things, if you really see the label, I try not to buy it, as in contentious cases, I have a choice. When I have a choice, I may tend to be more conservative. Young men like bold, generally older men or lesbians may be more conservative, especially lesbians have children, have a knowledge of Basic.
Genetically modified food security in tied together, future food security all rely on GM, and even agricultural technology on a par with GM as a whole, these are very dangerous. Transgenic technology is very broad, I think we must make no mistake, you don't give it to kidnap the wrong. Say you get genetically engineered pharmaceutical, cotton genetically modified something that we don't eat, these are no problem. Of course once in a while a little, like corn, soybean, soybean oil, it don't matter. But you have to kidnap transgenic rice with us, with kidnapping of wheat, is actually man-made GM introduced to a dead end, there is no need.
Hong Zhang: if GM is the future direction of development that we today be quick development
(The CCTV financial review commentator)
I also puzzled at first, because I'm a liberal arts students, this year genetically modified arguments are too strong for me, so I've been to catch up, here a few times quite turn and reverse activity. I think such activities are particularly good, the Government should encourage such activities, including on television should be more universal sense.
I took part in the activities of the GM try to eat, I've ever had, but according to comrade Fang zhouzi, that there isn't really a genetically modified, but it does at least show you I'm just eat, you know? At least when I eat, I thought it was genetically modified.
Also mentioned by some experts, one which we ordinary people concerned about food safety issues, associates say, but he has a layer on the root is not trusted. Secondly, environmental issues, environmental safety. Objections from some of the EU is actually very large environments, they feel that gene, may have implications for the soil. Third, industrial security, is to assume that GM really are the future development direction, that today we are going to get the development, study, be sure to catch as much as possible, at the time when we should at least keep up. Otherwise, we said today against others, we do not develop in the future, we reject, really came to that era when we're not unprepared it? So it comes to China, for example food industry issues. Now, like soybeans, we have a large number of United States imports, and are all genetically modified imports.
Zheng Fengtian: the two camps with no contention is irrational
Actually I see Americans lately a lot of science in conducting an interpretation, science as we think, it is not necessarily completely scientific? In fact, I think the debate more sounds, more transparent, it's the best.
Why GM of Europe with great care, he used to put in a lot of things, like mad cow disease and so on, so he's very cautious. Americans now have two objections in the country, including the recent United States States argue or not to this label. In fact, you generally say that Americans are eating genetically modified, or Europe people don't eat, this is not serious. In addition, this irrational view of our country, I think it might tend to lose a lot of opportunities, and GM can bring great benefits in the future, especially genetically modified pharmaceutical, human disease, they were not the rule of law. You have a lot of GM technology, pharmaceutical good cotton crops, non-food, don't eat it. But if you want to equate genetically modified us, GM is GM rice, do you object to genetically modified rice, think you're anti-GMO, which seems a bit wrong, right?
I think GM is really one of food production, in fact, our country's reform and opening up to now, there have been no famine. Because the core is the price, like many in the South can grow three rice man, he began to grow two rice can grow two rice, he grows rice, some hillside agricultural equipment can't go, he won't be a kind, so prices are the core. If the price is right we should solve the food problem, that's more than most of GM technology to. You're not a single-minded, all about food security, that is genetically modified, it's gone whole everyone into a dead end.
Zhang Hong: we believe in science, but do not underestimate the public
For regular people, especially for liberal arts students to understand that things are too difficult. It has a threshold, information asymmetry. Just like you go to see a doctor, you have to believe the doctor. Although he opened a drug, you think antibiotics, you can ask questions, but he explained it to you probably know, you can go ahead. Threshold for solve this problem there are a variety of ways, for example if you go to the United States to explore, you'll find, though ordinary people feel that GM may be a lot of people feel that there is no security problem, but he probably believed FBI, government departments, is the Bureau of food and drug safety, they say promote, ripe, says GM, marketing, he probably can. So he is not blind in fact, behind the system supports. This one is for you take this threshold, making it a little lower.
Second, when you express yourself, you also create a, so it this threshold will probably be worn away. So I go to the event, I get the most important information, and me has a bit of assurance is a scientist faced with such a question to answer, questions are harmless says there is no proof genetically modified, that is completely proved, because you eat a dozen years, 20 years, harmful to do in the future? Scientists say, says science has confirmed that, if it proved harmful, then it's bad. There is also a way to falsify, if we exhaust all means of science, no way to prove it is harmful, then we'll consider it to be harmless. I think I understand this as a liberal arts students, I believe. My conclusion of a fence is a man of science, but do not underestimate public opinion.
转基因食品 你吃吗？
日前，农业部副部长陈晓华在新闻发布会上表示，转基因研发要积极，推广要慎重。转基因——这个饱受争议的农业新技术：一方面在相关的科研人员和农业行业的业内人士看来，是可以改善农产品质量、提高产量的技术。而另一方面，在部分存疑虑的公众和反对者的眼中，它则是风险难以判断，安全有待检验的技术。那么，转基因到底是什么？它到底安全不安全？为什么会招来如此多的争议？央视财经频道主持人沈竹和特约评论员中国人民大学农业与农村发展学院教授郑风田、著名财经评论员张鸿共同评论。
转基因汇集了食品和农业安全，如何看待公众间分歧明显的认知判断？转基因今后的命运又会怎样？
郑风田：转基因的核心技术在美国人手里 我们在主粮上有点太超前
(《央视财经评论》特约评论员)
从转基因技术来讲，我们国家实际上是刚刚开始，和发达国家相比我们还落后很多，但未来转基因技术确实有很大的潜力，所以中国应该加强这方面的研发。但是在转基因技术的推广方面，不少国家还是有很多疑虑，包括欧洲，日本，都是很慎重的。所以在这方面我们国家也没有必要当急先锋，实际上我觉得应该把两派的意见都综合起来。学生物学的这些人都认为转基因没有任何问题，应该大力推广，但现在国家说要你好好做好研究。另外一方面，市场人士或者普通百姓可能觉得，既然转基因大家有疑虑、有争论，还是慎重一点儿。所以从这方面来讲，应该是顺应民意的一个结果。转基因技术一个最大的问题是，我们可以把一些有特殊信息的基因提炼出来，放到我们需要的一些作物中去，让它产生我们需要的东西。它是人为的改变分子结构，这是转基因核心的东西。
我们国家对国际、国内的两个体制也有它一定的道理。举个最简单例子，我认为我们进口的转基因大豆应该是没有任何问题的，从国门进来，这些大豆就必须进入炼油厂，不能够进入到普通的豆质品区。国产的基本上要坚持我们保留一块非转基因大豆，用中国的来喝豆浆、做豆腐脑、豆腐，这是一个很好的控制。如果要允许国内种植转基因，我们国家的小农户又不可能去进行转基因标识，这样你再也找不到非转基因的大豆和豆腐了。
我们的转基因技术跟世界先进的转基因技术相比，还是落后很多的，现在很多转基因的核心技术还在美国人手里。但是我们在主粮上有点儿太超前了，商业化想超前，技术上人家早就有了。美国转基因大米，转基因玉米，转基因小麦技术早就有了。
张鸿：不入口的转基因作物可以进行推广
(《央视财经评论》评论员)
推广要越来越谨慎，就是研发要积极，这是说给分子生物学这些人以及科学家的。咱们认真研发，这可能未来是一个技术，咱们要领先。那推广其实面向公众的，那公众现在既然有疑虑，我们推广起来就需要谨慎。而且转基因这个技术并不是说，一下一整盘子就全都拿过来，它其实可以细化到一个一个的技术。就是这个植物被转了，它不生虫子，然后通过一系列实验觉得它确实是非常安全了。
比如棉花，现在中国的棉花很多都是转基因的，觉得没问题，又不吃到肚子里，好，那咱们就推广。但是有可能比如说主粮，可能会涉及到大家又担忧，可能还没有完整的系列实验完全证明它是安全的，那就谨慎一点儿。但是有一点我有异议。就是农业部同时说的是，说我国对进口转基因农产品有明确的规定，只要符合我国的贸易需求，符合有关安全标准进口就没有问题，这是等于是对我们国内的和对进口的是两个标准。
郑风田：在有争议的情况下 要让公众能有所选择
杂交是两个作物之间自然的一种结合，它是稻米几千年的一种演化，自然的东西经过长年的进化，人已经适应它了。而转基因是人为的插入一个东西，插入后我们不知道它是不是会产生一些新的对人体有副作用的东西，这就是大家担心的问题。我觉得这两个派都不太理性，都走向了一个极端。挺转派一般都是学生物学出身的人，这些人本身就有偏好，认为这个东西没有任何问题。反转派又把这个东西妖魔化，说得一无是处，所以这两派最大的争论没有焦点，就是水火不相容，都是非理性的。
作为普通的公众，我们希望能够把转基因给我们的好处都利用上，但要最大限度的把副作用避免掉。转基因是吃的应该禁止。我平常在买东西的时候，如果真见着标签了，我尽量不买它，因为在有争议的情况下，我能有别的选择。当我有选择的时候，我一定可能都倾向于比较保守。可能年轻人喜欢大胆一点儿，一般年纪越大的人，或者是女同志可能更保守一点，尤其有孩子的女同志，都有这样基本的一个常识。
把转基因跟粮食安全绑到一块，未来粮食安全就全部靠转基因，甚至把整个农业技术就等同于转基因，这些都是很危险的。转基因技术是很广泛的，我觉得我们研究方向一定不要搞错，你不要把它给绑架错。比如说你搞转基因制药，转基因一些我们不吃的棉花，这些都没问题。当然偶尔吃一点儿，像玉米、大豆、大豆油，也没问题。但是你非要把转基因跟我们大米绑架起来，跟小麦绑架起来，实际上就是人为的把转基因引入到一个死胡同去，没有必要。
张鸿：如果转基因是未来发展的方向 那我们今天就要赶紧发展
一开始我也有困惑，因为我是个文科生，这一年多来转基因的争论太厉害了，所以我一直在补课，也参加过好多次挺转派和反转派的活动。我觉得这种活动其实特别好，政府应该鼓励多有这样的活动，包括在电视上应该多普及一些常识。
我参加过转基因试吃的活动，我吃过，但是据方舟子同志说，那个里边不是真正的转基因，但是它起码说明我是放心大胆吃的，你知道吗？最起码我吃的时候，我以为它是转基因的。
其实也有专家提到，一个是我们普通老百姓关注的食品安全的问题，要就相关人等说清楚，但是他在根上有一层是不信任的。第二，是环境的问题，就是环境安全。欧盟其实很大的反对意见来自于一些环境派，他们觉得基因转了，对土壤可能会有影响。第三，是产业安全，就是如果假定转基因真的是未来发展的方向，那我们今天就要赶紧发展，要研究，一定要尽量追上，在那个时代来的时候，我们起码不落后。否则，我们今天说反对人家来，未来我们不发展，我们拒绝，真的来到那个时代的时候，我们不是措手不及吗？所以它也涉及到中国，比如说粮食产业的问题。现在比如说大豆，我们就大量从美国进口，而且进口的全都是转基因的。
郑风田：国内两大派的争论没有焦点 都是非理性的
实际上我最近看美国人很多对科学在进行反释，我们想象中的科学，它是不是一定是完全科学的？所以实际上，我觉得更多的声音、更透明的争论，这才是最好的。
比如欧洲为什么对转基因很慎重，他过去就出过很多事，像疯牛病等等，所以他很慎重。美国人现在国内有两派反对意见，包括最近美国各个州在争论要不要搞这个标签。实际上，你泛泛的说美国人都吃转基因，或者欧洲人都不吃，这都是不慎重的。另外，我们国家这几派不理性的观点，我觉得可能容易丧失很多机会，转基因确实在未来能够带来很大的益处，尤其是转基因的制药，人类有很多疾病，确实没法治。你搞一些转基因的技术，搞这些制药很好，棉花这些作物可以，就是非食品类的，不吃的。但是你如果要把转基因等同于我们，一搞转基因就是转基因大米，你反对转基因大米，就认为你反转基因，这好像有点儿错误了，对吧？
我觉得，转基因真的是粮食增产的其中之一，事实上我们国家改革开放到现在，基本上没有发生任何饥荒问题。那么就是因为核心是价格，像南方的有不少能种三季稻的人，他开始种两季稻，能种两季稻的，他种一季稻，有些山坡的农机设备进不去，他很多就不种了，所以价格是核心。我们如果价格好的话，应该解决粮食问题，那比搞转基因技术要大多了。你现在不能一根筋，所有人一说粮食安全，就是转基因，这就把整个所有人都进入到一个死胡同去了。
张鸿：我们要相信科学 但是不要轻视民意
对普通百姓，尤其文科生来说，了解这个事确实太难了。它有门槛，信息不对称。就像你去看病，你就得相信医生的。虽然他开个药，你觉得是抗生素，你可以提问，但是他给你解释的大概清楚了，你说能用就用吧。解决这个门槛问题其实有很多种办法，比如说如果你去美国去考察，你会发现，虽然普通老百姓觉得，转基因可能很多人觉得有没有安全问题，但是他大概相信FBI，政府专门的部门，就是食品药品安全局，人家说推广，说转基因成熟了，可以市场推广了，他大概就是可以。所以他其实是不盲目，背后有制度支撑。这样一个是有人替你把这个门槛把握住，让它稍微降低一点儿。
第二，你自己有表达的时候，你自己也提升了，这样它这门槛就大概被磨平了。所以我参加那个活动，我得到的最重要一个信息，以及让我有点儿定心丸的是一个科学家面对这样的提问的回答，提问是说现在还没有证明转基因无害，就是说彻底证明，因为你才吃十几年、二十年，未来要有害怎么办？科学家是这么回答的，说科学上有证实，如果证明有害，那它就有害。还有一个办法叫证伪，就是如果我们穷尽现在所有的科学手段，没法证明它有害，那我们大概就认为它是无害的。我觉得这个作为一个文科生我听懂了，我大概相信了。我一个骑墙的结论就是相信科学，但是不要轻视民意。
赞