Genetically modified crops and food are enduring topics in the British media. Major events such as the Iraq war only occupy a temporary scenery, and when the war is over, it will gradually die out. The problem of genetically modified crops can go on endlessly. When I lived in London, I often felt that it would be an unexpected calm if there were few news about genetically modified crops in newspapers, TV or the Internet every week. All major supermarket chains claim that their branded products do not use genetically modified agricultural products as raw materials, and even KFC fast food restaurants in Backstreet have specially posted notices to ensure that our products never contain genetically modified ingredients. Considering that KFC comes from the United States, the world's largest genetically modified food country, it may be necessary to add this sentence, although every time I see this notice, I feel "nothing, I don't care at all"-in contrast, I am more worried about the adverse effects of high-fat fried food on health.
Is everyone satisfied now?
However, I don't care. Americans don't seem to care, but many British people care. When buying food in the supermarket and chatting with people, I once heard an old British lady criticize this "unnatural thing" and praise "organic food" (the British call agricultural products without chemical fertilizers and pesticides organic food, which is much more expensive than ordinary food. I always thought that this name really didn't mean anything in the original meaning of the word "organic". Although I have always been inclined to support genetically modified foods since I wrote the article, even my friends joked that I have "media bias". In this case, I really don't have the courage to explain the principle of genetically modified food to the old lady at the beginning or deny the authority of God. I just barely defended myself. At best, I carefully argued that "there is no evidence that genetically modified food is harmful to human body ...". Faced with such a public, Blair's government, which is bent on promoting the commercial cultivation of genetically modified crops, naturally feels more trouble and headache.
Both sides of the Atlantic
The first transgenic plant in the world was born in 1983, which is an antibiotic-resistant tobacco. From 65438 to 0993, a tomato with slow softening and long shelf life became the first transgenic crop in the United States and even the world. 1996, genetically modified tomato sauce first appeared on the shelves of British supermarkets. Also in this year, Monsanto put herbicide-resistant soybeans on the market, and Europe approved the import. Soon, genetically modified ingredients appeared in many foods on the British market, from potato chips to pasta. If you count the meat products of animals whose feed contains genetically modified corn or soybeans, there are more kinds of genetically modified foods. Some cheeses that British people like to eat also use genetically modified chymosin.
Lord Melchett, the leader of Greenpeace, was arrested during a GM protest in 1999.
With the arrival of genetically modified food, there have been voices and ideas against genetically modified food. The European public suddenly found that genetically modified food is no longer something that has nothing to do with itself, such as "green peace protest in a distant country". 1998, the European Union suspended the approval of the listing of new genetically modified agricultural products, forming a de facto "genetically modified ban", which deepened the impression that "genetically modified food has problems" in the public mind (although, considering that the agricultural competitiveness of the European Union is weaker than that of the United States and the annual agricultural subsidies are huge, the grievances between Europe and the United States in the trade of genetically modified products are not as simple as "nature", "environmental protection" and "health". There is a lot of resistance, especially in Britain.
A volunteer protested in the genetically modified experimental field in Cheshire, England.
At present, the planting area of genetically modified crops in the United States is 39 million hectares, ranking first in the world, followed by 6.5438+03.5 million hectares in Argentina, 3.5 million hectares in Canada and 265.438+10,000 hectares in China, with sporadic planting in European countries such as Latin America, Australia and Asia. The crop with the highest "transgenic degree" is soybean, accounting for more than half of the total soybean planting area in the world, followed by cotton, corn and rape. However, the commercial cultivation of genetically modified crops has not developed in Europe, and only Germany and Spain have made some attempts so far. In Britain, the government has worked hard for several years, but the domestic public opinion environment has not improved, and the only experimental fields are often attacked and destroyed by opponents.
Hot political potato
The British Labor Party 1997 won the general election and came to power with a fresh and energetic image. My senior colleague once interviewed the annual meeting of the two parties before the election and said that the atmosphere was really different. The Conservative Party has a feeling of dying, while the Labour Party is eager to win, and it is clear who will win. After Blair took office, he did make some achievements in maintaining economic stability, enhancing international influence and developing scientific research and education, and was re-elected in 2002. Compared with the conservative attitude of the Conservative Party, the Labour Party is indeed more open and pragmatic on the two typical issues of biotechnology and the euro. The government has never concealed its support and attention to biotechnology, hoping that it will become an important means to enhance Britain's technological and economic competitiveness. However, the efforts to develop transgenic agriculture are particularly unsatisfactory.
Putty, a scientist who is considered to be lacking in scientific research ethics.
The first wave of "transgenic frenzy" in Britain appeared in 1998. In the autumn of that year, Pusztai, a scientist who worked at the Scottish Reuters Institute at that time, claimed in a TV documentary that his unpublished research showed that after eating genetically modified potatoes 10, the kidneys, spleen and digestive tract of young rats were damaged, and the immune system was also destroyed, and it was the genetically modified ingredients that destroyed the immune system. The European public, which is already quite nervous about the genetically modified problem, feels that the predicted disaster has finally arrived, and the British public opinion is even more sensational. When the EU decided to restrict genetically modified products, it was related to this matter. 48 hours after the disclosure, Putztai was temporarily suspended from the institute because of the "insufficient evidence" of this research, and was forced to retire soon. 1February 1999, 20 scientists from 14 countries, including genetic engineering experts, toxicologists and medical scientists, issued a joint statement in support of Platts. This makes Platts, as a victim of conspiracy, set up a tragic and heroic image and become the object of special coal speculation, and the government's genetically modified policy has been under unprecedented pressure.
At the same time, Lord sainz Burry, Minister of Science, was involved in another genetically modified dispute, which also cast a shadow over the government. Sainz Berry was accused of holding shares in biotechnology enterprises, which conflicted with the public and private interests of government officials. Sainz Berry immediately issued a statement saying that the company did own a patent related to the key gene of genetically modified food, but his interests in it, together with his shares in sainsbury, a large British supermarket chain, were given to a secret independent trustee when he entered the government, and he could not ask himself. In addition, although he is a member of the Biotechnology Committee of the Cabinet, he has never participated in government decisions and discussions related to genetic modification, nor has he participated in any decisions that will affect the interests of Sai's supermarket.
At this time, Blair issued a statement under the pressure of public opinion, expressing his trust in the integrity and justice of the Minister of Science and continuing to support genetically modified food. He said that it is "extremely stupid" to ban genetically modified foods. He eats genetically modified food himself and is not worried about affecting his health. This inevitably reminds people that during the mad cow disease crisis when the Conservative Party was in power a few years ago, the Minister of Agriculture ate beef hamburgers with his daughter in public to show the safety of British beef and appease public sentiment. However, the effect of the Hamburg show is not good. As the worst disaster in Britain in recent years, mad cow disease has left a very bad memory for the public. This time, the Prime Minister has set an example by eating genetically modified food, which is equally unattractive, and may even be even less attractive.
Or the scientific community eased the crisis. In May of that year, the Royal Society announced that a six-member expert group organized by the Society found that Putty's research on genetically modified potatoes was full of loopholes and could not draw any scientific conclusions that proved that genetically modified foods were harmful to health. Platts' research was published to the media for the first time, without peer review or publication in academic journals. Later, it was published and discussed by the The Lancet, a medical magazine, only because it became a hot issue and was not recognized. According to reports, most of the so-called 20 scientists are closely related to Platts' past, and it is doubtful whether their statements are objective and fair. Although the negative impression left by genetically modified food in this potato storm cannot be completely eliminated, at least, environmental protection organizations can't take it seriously when they declare that "genetically modified food may be harmful to health".
During the crisis, Blair strongly claimed that the government should resist the "hypocrisy and complete opportunism" of the media and the Conservative Party, while lamenting that he was "deterred" from the current GM debate, complaining that most people just took it for granted and did not discuss it on the basis of full understanding. If he knew that this issue would be debated like this for several years, depending on the situation, it would not end until the end of his second term, perhaps he would feel discouraged prematurely.
Caterpillar and corn field
There are three main reasons why people oppose genetically modified foods: 1) Genetically modified foods may be harmful to human health, such as containing unexpected toxic substances or new allergens. 2) Genetically modified crops that can produce insecticidal toxins themselves may poison other non-pest organisms. 3) Genetically modified crops may cross with wild relatives, resulting in "genetic pollution". There is a well-known but unconvincing study on these three aspects, which is related to potatoes, caterpillars and corn. Among them, Putty's potato is no longer mentioned as an argument. So far, no other research shows that genetically modified foods are harmful to health; Americans have been eating genetically modified food for more than ten years and nothing serious has happened. The DNA in food will decompose when it enters the human body. No matter whether it is "natural" or transferred genes, they are all the same in the end, which is harmful to health. It is also unfounded to think that "eating genes to supplement genes" for nucleic acid nutrition and worrying that eating genes will cause problems. As for the control of allergens, the developers of genetically modified crops have taken this into account and have not extracted the genes that need to be transferred from those allergic foods. Genetically modified foods must undergo more stringent toxicity and allergy tests than traditional foods. If properly managed, genetically modified foods are not more likely to cause allergies than ordinary foods.
In the name of the king's death
At present, Bt transgenic corn developed by Novartis in Switzerland and Monsanto in the United States is the most widely planted. It is implanted with a gene from bacteria, which can produce protein and effectively kill the pest corn borer. But will it also affect other insects? 1In May, 1999, john rossi, an entomologist from Cornell University in the United States, and others reported in the British journal Nature that they found that Bt transgenic corn pollen was harmful to the larvae of monarch butterflies in the United States, and caterpillars raised on the leaves of sonchus berezoffii coated with Bt transgenic corn pollen developed slowly and had a high mortality rate. This is regarded as evidence that genetically modified crops are harmful to the ecological environment, and Monarch Butterfly has become the signboard of environmental organizations opposed to genetically modified. However, some scientists immediately pointed out that the laboratory environment in this study is very different from the natural environment. In nature, the concentration of transgenic pollen is far from that under experimental conditions. Moreover, monarch butterfly larvae in the natural environment do not eat corn pollen. After more than two years of research, scientists from the French National Institute of Agriculture and the University of Minnesota in the United States published a paper in 2002, pointing out that monarch butterfly larvae will not be poisoned by Bt corn pollen in nature. In addition, in traditional agriculture, farmers have to spray a lot of pesticides to control corn borer, which is more likely to harm other insects.
Wang is dead, a sign against genetic modification.
Another story about corn took place in Mexico. This is the hometown of corn, which has been cultivated by local people for thousands of years. Up to now, there are many kinds of wild corn in Mexico, which is called the world corn diversity center. In order to protect this important natural resource, Mexico has stipulated from 1998 that transgenic corn will not be planted for the time being. In 2001110/0, two scientists from the University of California, Berkeley, published an article in the journal Nature, saying that genetically modified corn had "invaded" Mexico and polluted local corn varieties. They compared the wild corn samples collected in Oaxaca, Mexico, with Monsanto's genetically modified corn and natural corn that will definitely not be polluted, and found that some wild corn samples were contaminated by DNA fragments of genetically modified corn. It is said that these DNA appear in different positions of maize genome, which may destroy the function of other genes. Researchers speculate that the pollution comes from food aid in the United States. There was a heated debate around this matter. Opponents of genetically modified crops naturally claim to have found evidence of genetic pollution. However, some scientists question the reliability of this research, and think that there is something wrong with the technology used to amplify DNA samples in the experiment, and the result is an illusion. Two researchers provided new data, but they still couldn't convince the public. It is estimated that the editors of Nature are also very nervous. In April 2002, the magazine officially admitted that the existing evidence was "not enough to show that it was appropriate to publish the original paper", and also published two new papers supported by two authors and two other articles that questioned this research at the same time, allowing readers to judge for themselves. This is extremely rare in the history of magazine running 133 years.
Leave me alone, your highness.
There are quite a few anti-GMO organizations active in Britain, including the internationally renowned Greenpeace, the powerful organization Nature Britain (which is a government consultant on wildlife issues), and Friends of the Earth who often appear in the media to organize protests. There are also some fierce opponents who wear white coats like sterile clothes several times a year to protest the destruction of genetically modified crops in experimental fields, although judges usually don't hold them responsible for destroying other people's property because of "protecting the environment". In the minds of these people, genetically modified crops have been completely demonized, and even experiments are not allowed. They like to attract public attention with extreme images. For example, in a lush field, a god of death in a black robe is holding a scythe with a bloody blade. Such a big photo on the front page of a newspaper really has a visual impact. However, it may not be them, but Crown Prince Charles, who is most likely to attract the British public's recognition.
Prince Charles
After all, Prince Charles's popularity in Britain is extraordinary, although he has done enough to become the protagonist of the scandal and the foil of the fairy tale princess. He is very concerned about environmental problems and scientific problems, although in the eyes of some people, he might as well not care. Unlike her sister Princess Anne, who was invited to give an opening speech at the annual meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, Prince Charles often talks about science more religiously than scientifically, which often makes scientists very unhappy. He is the most prominent and active person in Britain who opposes genetically modified food. When I first arrived in England, my brother took me to the supermarket to buy food. When he explained to me what organic food was, he said that Prince Charles opposed genetic modification and strongly advocated organic food. His farm grows and sells organic products, which are said to be expensive, but "sell well". At that time, I was a journalist, and I suspected that there were reasons for interest.
In any case, the interaction between Prince Charles' propaganda and British public sentiment is very strong-even the stupid words like "Never eat any food containing DNA" will still have a market as long as he says it on TV. 1In April, 1999, he authorized the BBC to publish his own anti-GMO article, saying that he understood that genetic technology would bring great benefits to medicine, agriculture and the environment, but he expressed more concern about health and environmental damage, and said that mixing genetic materials of species that could not naturally hybridize violated "the exclusive domain of God". In May 2000, Prince Charles criticized modern science in a BBC speech on sustainable development. Naturally, among them, he attacked genetically modified foods and praised how "natural" organic agriculture is. This makes many scientists feel dissatisfied. Richard Dawkins, an evolutionary biologist and popular science writer, published an open letter in which he severely criticized his future king. Dawkins said that science doesn't believe in intuition, and agriculture is the behavior of human intervention and species selection since its birth, not a "natural" thing. If we play God, we have been playing God for centuries. He also said that paying too much attention to the possible risks of genetically modified crops will distract people's attention and drown out some problems in "transgenic, transgenic, transgenic, transgenic!" (GM GM GM GM GM GM GM！ (See this issue of Don't Reject Science).
Dawkins finally recommended Charles to read The Devil's World-Science: Lighting a Dark Candle by American scientist carl sagan. I don't know if he did it-I don't think so. His attitude seems to have not changed at all. In June 2002, Charles talked about the dangers of genetically modified crops when he accepted the environmental protection award from a private organization in Germany. The next day, Patrick batson, vice-chairman of the Royal Society, rudely told the media that the prince's attitude towards genetic modification was totally "hysterical". He said that so far there is no evidence that genetically modified crops are harmful, and Charles's hysteria "made me lose the right to buy products." The British royal family can't stand what Charles did. It is said that the Queen once talked with him about this matter, while her sister Princess Anne and her father Prince Philip publicly criticized him in the media, saying that he was not an expert in biology, so it was wrong to attack genetically modified food.
GM GM GM GM GM GM GM！
The government, scientific community, biotechnology companies, environmental protection organizations, celebrities and the public have been involved in the tug-of-war of genetically modified in the British media. In July 2003, the European Parliament passed a new regulation on genetically modified foods, and the freezing policy of genetically modified foods showed signs of breaking the ice in the past five years. At this time, the "national discussion on genetically modified organisms" organized by the British government was as hot as the weather. The Prime Minister's strategic team released a report saying that in the long run, genetically modified crops have great potential to promote British economic development and improve public health, but the benefits of genetically modified agriculture cannot be reflected in the short term; What benefits GM crops can get in the future depends on the attitude of the public and the ability of management institutions to deal with uncertain factors.
1999165438+1October, the British government decided not to consider the commercial planting of genetically modified crops for the time being, and at the same time, it conducted large-scale scientific experiments to investigate the impact of genetically modified crops on local environmental biodiversity. Simply put, it is the impact on weeds and insects in farmland. The test report was released on June, 2003 10, which will provide an important basis for the government to consider whether to ban the commercial cultivation of genetically modified crops in 2004. Before the report was published, public opinion statistics showed that the situation was not optimistic. It is said that during the discussion from June to September, 40,000 public feedback showed that only 2% of the British people were happy to eat genetically modified food, and 86% were determined not to eat it. 10, 13, opponents also held a protest March in London. They walked from the headquarters of the National Farmers' Association to Downing Street and the Ministry of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to submit documents against genetically modified crops. In order to attract attention, some maverick guys appeared in the parade: an organic farmer from northern Scotland, dragging a coffin on his bicycle; A writer walked from North Yorkshire to London.
Transgenic experimental field
The experimental results were unexpected: neither good nor bad, but good and bad. This is the largest experiment of its kind in the world, costing 5.5 million pounds and using hundreds of farmland in England and Scotland. The crops involved include genetically modified rape, beet and corn. Scientists visited the experimental field for 4000 times, and collected 500,000 grass seeds and 654.38+500,000 invertebrates. The results showed that the number of weeds, snails, beetles, butterflies and other animals in transgenic rape and beet fields was much less than that in corresponding traditional farmland, while the situation in corn fields was just the opposite. Considering the ecological environment, it is better to have more weeds and more insects on the premise of ensuring the yield. So what does this test result mean? The day after the report was released, several major British newspapers took it as the headline news. The Independent and the Daily Mail said that this "sounded the death knell of genetically modified crops". The Guardian published a cartoon in which Eve in the Garden of Eden looked at the apples on the tree and said to the snake, "Well, as long as it's not genetically modified". However, the Daily Telegraph does not think that this shows the prospect of biological catastrophe, and thinks that the root cause of anti-GM sentiment lies in the fear of new things. Friends of the Earth called this a "black warning to the English countryside". But supporters believe that this shows that genetically modified crops can be beneficial to the environment if they are properly managed.
In this regard, Lord May, President of the Royal Society, said in 10 that both sides who support and oppose genetically modified crops interpret this experimental result as beneficial to themselves, "selective and biased", and both sides said that they won. He said that experiments actually show that genetically modified agriculture may be more beneficial or harmful to biodiversity than traditional agriculture, depending on the specific application methods. Simply saying that genetic modification is good or bad is too simple. The impact of agriculture on wildlife lies not in genetic modification itself, but in farming methods, such as the strategy of using herbicides. We should turn our attention from genetic modification to broader agricultural problems and jointly explore the future development direction of modern agriculture. It sounds like fifty boards each, but if you touch it carefully, it's a very clever wording.
Both the scientific community and the government supported it, but many people opposed it, and finally the legislation was passed. Such an example is not uncommon in Britain: at the end of 2000, the House of Commons passed a bill, which was the first bill in a European country to allow the use of early human embryonic stem cells for medical research. Blair has always been very tough in protecting scientific research activities, especially biological and medical research. He was furious at some people's actions of destroying genetically modified experimental fields and attacking medical laboratories, and said that interference in legitimate scientific research must not be tolerated. However, the commercial cultivation of genetically modified crops involves more economy than science, and the Prime Minister offended the domestic public a lot in the Iraq war. Will the fate of genetic modification be like the stem cell bill or like the euro? This is hard to say.