What signal does the first inclusion of GMO science popularization in the No. 1 Central Document send?
As a technology, genetic modification is neutral; the evaluation of a technology depends on its specific application, and the assessment of its benefits and risks must also be based on evidence and logic. Setting aside “preconceptions” and viewing GMOs rationally may be more beneficial.
On February 1, the 2015 No. 1 Central Document was released. In the long text of more than 10,000 characters, the 21 characters “strengthen research on agricultural genetically modified organism technology, safety management, and science popularization” attracted attention. It is not surprising that the “No. 1 Document” discusses GMOs. From 2007 to 2014, it mentioned the GMO issue at least 6 times, making it an unavoidable topic in issues concerning agriculture, rural areas, and farmers. What is truly worth observing is that each year's wording “hides mysteries.”
For example, in 2007 it first proposed strictly enforcing the labeling system for genetically modified foods; in 2008 it emphasized launching the major science and technology project for cultivating new genetically modified organism varieties; in 2009 and 2010 it proposed accelerating the major GMO science and technology project and cultivating the industrialization of new varieties; by 2012, as public opinion surged, it emphasized further implementing the major project and proposed “molecular breeding,” a term similar to genetic modification; in 2013, the public became more emotional about the GMO issue, so the wording in 2014 became “strengthen basic research and biotechnology development focused on molecular breeding,” avoiding the term “GMO” to avoid touching the public's nerves, while also using the word “strengthen” to reassure the camp of scientists.
This year's wording likewise balanced the concerns of all sides, and the first mention of GMO “science popularization” is significant. After years of “turmoil” in China's GMO field, both the government and the industry have seen that because past emphasis was placed on scientific research while neglecting science popularization, a vacuum appeared in GMO knowledge, GMOs were demonized, and the resulting public opinion pressure caused GMO industrialization to stall.
In the past year, GMO science popularization began to “warm up” again, as many scientists stepped forward to respond to and gradually dispel public doubts. With the publication of “Xi Jinping's discussion of GMOs,” discussion of GMOs became broader. Therefore, adding GMO science popularization to this year's No. 1 Document can also be considered a natural development.
The inclusion of GMO science popularization in the No. 1 Document means that the central government level has recognized the importance and urgency of popularizing GMO knowledge, and GMO science popularization has thus risen to the “national” level. By comparison, in the past GMO science popularization was more a matter for the public, spontaneous, and a small number of experts, or it concerned only the Ministry of Agriculture, but from this year on, the Ministry of Agriculture is no longer fighting alone. For example, last year the Ministry of Agriculture kept trying to coordinate with other ministries and commissions to halt “non-GMO advertisements,” but the effect was less than ideal. Now it can be fully justified, because non-GMO advertisements are not scientific.
Of course, proposing GMO science popularization also requires “courage.” At present, the public that doubts GMOs still makes up the majority. In the view of some opponents, the central government's proposal of GMO science popularization seems to serve GMO industrialization. In particular, after the central government determined the three-step strategy for GMO industrialization from peripheral crops and non-staple grains to staple grains, will science popularization avoid the important and dwell on the trivial, emphasizing only the benefits of GMOs while ignoring the risks?
Such doubts are not surprising, but there is no need to worry excessively. China's GMO science popularization should, more than anything, be a correction of the past “demonization of GMOs.” As a technology, genetic modification is neutral; the evaluation of a technology depends on its specific application, and the assessment of its benefits and risks must also be based on evidence and logic. There is nothing to “cheat” about.
For the public, setting aside “preconceptions” and viewing GMOs rationally may be more beneficial. Besides, even without discussing industrialization, as a frontier technology, the various analyses and reflections surrounding GMOs are also very interesting; at the very least, they can broaden thinking and enlighten wisdom.