How Exactly Was the GM Consensus Formed
Building consensus around GM technology is inseparable from scientific thinking, and even more so from social thinking.
Recently, the Central “Document No. 1” proposed strengthening research, safety management and science popularization of agricultural genetically modified organisms. Although this is the sixth time in the past 9 years that the Central “Document No. 1” has mentioned GM technology, it still drew attention.
In recent years, GM has always been a hot topic, and the debate over this issue has struggled to reach consensus, the reasons for which are thought-provoking. Fundamentally, when GM technology moved from the laboratory into people's lives, it was not just a scientific and technological issue but also became a social issue. Solving social issues well is inseparable from scientific thinking, and even more so from social thinking.
Food is the first necessity of the people, and the basic requirement of this “necessity” is safety. When people do not have enough to eat, they rarely think about eating well. Now the situation has changed, and eating well has become the primary issue. Repeated food safety incidents have kept people's nerves tightly strung. The slightest sign of trouble can make people suspicious. From the “golden rice” incident exposed in Hunan, to the Sinograin “GM oil entering storage” controversy, and then to reports from Hubei of illegal planting of GM crops, these GM violation incidents in recent years have also intensified people's concerns.
⟦NL> In fact, the lack of consensus on GM technology mainly hinges on safety, which highlights the importance of science popularization. Rigorous and professional scientific language needs to connect with the public's way of thinking. Science popularization that is down to earth means using ordinary people's language and adapting to the public's way of receiving information, explaining things clearly and making them understandable. To strengthen the effectiveness of science popularization, it is also necessary to foster an open atmosphere of public discussion at the level of public opinion guidance and ideological understanding. More and more professionals have realized that knowledge about GM should be popularized and discussed throughout society, so that the public can understand and distinguish GM agricultural products, “it should be open, with more discussion; scientists cannot make decisions for ordinary people, and discussion should be based on rationality.”
To this day, searching for false reports about GM still turns up many. Domestically, there are claims such as “GM corn causes fewer rats and miscarriages in sows”; abroad, there are claims such as “GM potato experiment poisoned rats” and “GM corn causes cancer.” Although these claims have been rejected and disproven by the scientific community and the biosafety management agencies of relevant countries, many people still believe they are true. This also shows that GM science popularization still needs to form a joint force, and scientific institutions, management agencies, the media and society all still have much work to do.
People need time to accept new things. Turning pale at the mention of GM is certainly unscientific, but expecting everyone to happily accept it overnight is also unrealistic. Science popularization can only solve the problem of understanding; the power to choose in action should still rest in the hands of ordinary people. Whether something is a GM food should at least be clearly labeled, safeguarding the public's right to know. Some countries not only require GM foods to be clearly labeled, but also prohibit misleading abuse of non-GMO labels. This also suggests to us that standards should be set and strictly regulated at the legal level. Faced with a dazzling array of foods, most people still prefer to have the right to know and the right to choose, hoping to see clearly and eat with understanding. This is also a basic prerequisite for making the public accept GM.
In the final analysis, what ordinary people fear is not GM itself, but GM that causes disease and harms ecosystems. Everything has two sides, and GM technology is no exception. Railways bring convenience, but also accidents; the discovery of nuclear elements can bring both atomic bombs and nuclear power plants. This shows that at the technical level, research should be strengthened to seize the high ground; at the national level, management should be strengthened to ensure safety; and at the public level, science popularization should be strengthened to guarantee people's right to know and right to choose. Promoting the benefits, eliminating the drawbacks and preventing the risks, and moving forward step by step, we will eventually reach the ideal state.