Food for Thought

by Zi Mo

Nowadays， consumers find themselves lost in the dark due to the prevalence of new technologies such as genetically-modified food （GMF）. The usage of genetically-modified organisms （GMO） in everyday food products has aroused major controversy， and despite the emergence of evidence revealing possible risks， labeling of GMO food is still not required anywhere in the United States. Last year， California voters shot down a measure that would have required food producers to label GMO products in the state.

On October 19， 2013， nearly 300 fans of transgenesis， the process of introducing a foreign gene to a living organism， showed up to Huazhong Agriculture University in Wuhan， Hubei Province， for the first chance to taste Chinas transgenic golden rice. Fang Zizhou， a Chinese biochemist and popular science writer who gained fame for a campaign against academic fraud， had already debated the technology on TV with famous host Cui Yongyuan. The dispute intensified when 61 Chinese academicians signed a petition urging for accelerated industrialization of transgenic rice.

GMF： So Close to Us

The latest surveys show that 29 countries are planting genetically-modified seeds， which produce 80 percent of the worlds soybeans， 35 percent of corn， and 30 percent of canola.

In China， the government has granted agricultural GMO safety certification to seven transgenic plants， including shelfstable tomatoes， insect-resistant cotton and rice， color-changing petunias， disease-resistant chili and papaya， and trans-phytasegene corn. Moreover， it has granted import safety certification to four crops： transgenic cotton， which is only to be planted， and soy， corn， and canola for raw material processing.

Genetically-modified food has already invaded most lives despite the ongoing dispute. Wang Xiaoyu， deputy secretary general of the Heilongjiang Soybean Society， illustrated that over half of Chinas cooking oil consumption is soy， 90 percent of which is genetically-modified.

However， just about every government around the world has become cautious about the popularization of genetically modified crops. Early in 2009， the Chinese government granted safety certification to two strands of transgenic rice， Huahui No.1 and Bt Shanyou 63， but declined to grant a production license for commercial planting.

“Tremendous potential value lies in transgenic technology in terms of improving crops， increasing yields， upgrading quality， and intensifying tolerance，” asserts Professor Yang Jinshui at the School of Life Science in Fudan University. “Nevertheless， we havent reached any final conclusions， so we must remain cautious before calling anything a victory.”

Angel or Devil？

From the moment it was developed， transgenic technology has been embroiled in controversy， both ethical and ecological. Concerns about GMOs first arose in 1996 when transgenic crops began large-scale production because food safety is among everyones vital interests， as is the health of future generations. The debate is especially applicable to China， where any topic related to food safety is already touchy.

Like their counterparts abroad， Chinese experts can be found on both sides of the argument. Supporters argue that transgenic crops are more adaptable to changing environmental conditions， and thus more able to increase yields to alleviate food shortages around the globe.

Zhang Qifa， academician with the Chinese Academy of Sciences and president of the School of Life Science at Huazhong Agriculture University， is one of the supporters. Joining the 60 other academicians who drew up the petition， Zhang insists that China should waste no time accelerating the production of transgenic rice. He believes that delay will hold the country back. He asserts that leaving the technology underdeveloped would damage commercial prospects and scientific research.

Chen Junshi， a food safety expert， considers GMF as safe as anything else. “No harmful health effects caused by GMF now being produced have yet to be found，” he notes. “Intense scientific research has been conducted， followed by strict governmental supervision， yet it keeps getting approved. Data compiled by scientists in many countries has been overwhelmingly positive.”

Opponents argue that final conclusions about the safety of GMF are still far away， and involving the entire world population in the experiment is too great of a risk. In 2004， Greenpeace conducted an investigation of transgenic rice grown in Hubei Province. The statistics， published in April 2005， showed that transgenic planting was very popular in Hubei Province. Yu Jiangli， director of the Agricultural and Food Department of Greenpeace， warned， “Great calamity is about to hit Chinas natural rice varieties once production becomes commercialized and large in scale. We still dont know for sure whether transgenic rice is harmful， and we cant afford to take a chance which could put 1.3 billion people in danger.”

Industry experts claim that the majority of livestock feeds currently used in China already contains transgenic ingredients. Jiang Gaoming， researcher at the Institute of Botany under the Chinese Academy of Sciences， maintains that usage of such feeds carries considerable risk. Extensive studies have already shown a negative impact on livestock， which could ultimately be passed on to the humans who consume them.

The debate is heavy – about life and death. Yet most consumers are interested in concrete data about safety rather than an endless debate filled with hypotheticals. As American biologist Dr. Barry Commoner explains， “What the public fears is not the experimental science， but the fundamentally irrational decision to let it out of the laboratory into the real world before we truly understand it.” And now the fruits of the experiment are already on your dinner table.