On the positive side, it can be pointed out that both the European Union and North America allow the cultivation and even breeding of genetically modified products under strict supervision, and use and eat these products. These evidences show that at the current scientific level, it cannot be said that genetically modified products are absolutely harmful. Just like vaccines, there are risks, but in order to prevent diseases, we must take risks. China imported genetically modified crops because China's crop yield was insufficient to meet the demand. At present, most of the vaccines we use are products of genetic engineering, which is the same as purifying protein and refining oil with genetically modified crops.
The opposing side can't fight, and there is no evidence to support such an argument. At present, the EU and North America are not allowed to eat directly, but they can extract oil or protein. Because there is no difference between the composition of the product and non-GMO, even edible oil products in the United States cannot be labeled with genetically modified crops. The usual practice is to label organic food, that is, it does not contain genetically modified raw materials, otherwise it may contain genetically modified ingredients. (Original from FDA)
The opposing party can cite some research to illustrate the potential harm. The problem is that these studies themselves are not convincing enough.
The other side is very difficult to fight. If you fight the other side, you can ask directly, and then I will refute your example to improve it.
Question 2: The opponent of the debate is the safety of genetically modified food, but I don't know how to say 1. The theoretical safety and insecurity are only theoretical, and cannot be used as direct evidence that genetically modified food is unsafe. The other side's unsafe theory, as long as it is theoretical, should be directly denied without hesitation.
2. Safety is the fact that it is really safe-so far, there has been no safety accident caused by genetically modified food, which is the ironclad proof of true safety! In the same period, thousands of safety accidents occurred, all of which were caused by non-genetically modified foods, and many were caused by organic foods. -20 1 1 year, an organic bean sprout in Germany caused 3950 people to get sick, 53 people died, and hundreds of others had to rely on kidney dialysis for the rest of their lives.
3. There is no absolutely safe food in the world, such as genetically modified food, non-genetically modified food and organic food. The facts in the above 2 prove that genetically modified food is safer than non-genetically modified food and organic food.
If you have enough knowledge, you can also beat your opponent in theory.
Any authoritative organization in the world recognizes genetically modified food. If the other party says that some institutions are anti-establishment, you only need to prove that their so-called institutions are pheasant institutions. Greenpeace is a typical pheasant institution. The documents of * * * institutions in the world can't prove that genetically modified food is unsafe.
6. Any real biological scientist in the world supports the transgenic industry, and the reverse is not a real biological scientist, at least not the mainstream of biological science. The above two points are easy to prove. For example, Gu Xiulin in our country is an economics major (agricultural economics major), but she has been boasted by some people as a reverse biologist. In fact, she knows nothing about biological science.
7. Corruption can never be used as evidence that genetically modified food is unsafe. If the other party puts forward relevant arguments, directly prompt the other party and pay attention to your own thinking logic.
Grasping the above points can at least ensure that your debate is in an invincible position! And you can fully demonstrate your logical thinking ability and good scientific literacy.
Question 3: Debate on the Safety of Genetically Modified Foods Many people worry that the genes of animals and plants will be transferred to the human body after eating genetically modified foods, but this is actually a misunderstanding caused by not understanding the principle of gene action. Almost any food contains genes. Regardless of the origin of the gene, the genetic material DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) that constitutes the gene will be decomposed into small molecules by enzymes after entering the human body, and it is impossible to bring foreign genetic information into the human genome.
Scientists who agree that genetically modified foods are safe have the following reasons. First of all, a lot of scientific experiments have been carried out before any kind of genetically modified food goes on the market. The state and * * * all have relevant laws and regulations to restrict it, and scientists also have a very strict academic attitude. In addition, farmers will use pesticides to ensure the quality when planting traditional crops, while some insect-resistant genetically modified foods do not need to be sprayed with pesticides. Also, whether a food can cause poisoning depends mainly on whether it has receptors in the human body and whether it can be metabolized. After screening, the transformed genes have clear functions, so the transgenic components will not accumulate in the human body, so there will be no harm. For example, a kind of insect-resistant corn cultivated by us is transformed from the genetic white matter of Bacillus thuringiensis into a specific receptor, but humans and other animals and insects do not have this receptor, so it has no toxic effect. Any food is made up of living things, in other words, any food contains thousands of genes, and transgene is only based on human transformation of food, hoping that it has the traits that human beings hope. For example, if more lysine is added to wheat, there is no need to artificially add lysine later. For example, insect-resistant varieties, now many rice are invaded by insects, and a large number of pesticides are used every year, which will pollute water, air and soil and even lead to some poisoning incidents. Adding insect-resistant genes to plants now can save a lot of pesticides, which is good for the environment itself. Moreover, things that are toxic to insects are not necessarily toxic to people, and the transferred BT gene is also a substance that has been proved to be non-toxic to people through long-term research. The protein produced can kill insects. Before transgenic, BT protein has been widely sprayed on crops as a biological pesticide. Now it's time for crops to produce BT themselves. China and other countries in the world have very strict supervision over genetically modified products, and have very strict requirements on where genes come from and where they go. In addition, crops with genes removed cannot have bad records. For example, many people are allergic to eating gallnut, because there is a kind of protein in peanut, so the gene in peanut has not been taken out, nor has it been genetically modified, because if gene transfer is carried out, it is not easy to attribute peanut allergy to. Genetically modified foods have very strict regulations, so genetically modified foods are often safer than ordinary foods, because all processes have been strictly evaluated. If we evaluate traditional foods as harshly as genetically modified foods, many foods will fail.
Genetically modified foods mainly have the following six advantages:
1, solving the problem of food shortage, which can only lead to the death of LEPIDOPTERA insects, because only LEPIDOPTERA insects have eggs encoded by this gene.
2. Reduce the use of pesticides and avoid environmental pollution.
3. Save production costs and reduce food prices.
4. Increase food nutrition and increase added value.
5. Increase food varieties and improve food quality.
6. Improve production efficiency and promote the development of related industries.
Question 4: What kind of questions should be raised in the debate on genetically modified food? Is genetically modified food safe? At present, the so-called experiments that can prove the harm of genetically modified foods have more or less exposed loopholes? Theoretical analysis of genetically modified food from the perspective of materials shows that its food is not particularly dangerous.
Question 5: Advantages and disadvantages of genetically modified food. There is no evidence that genetically modified foods are harmful, which is the knowledge of global scientists in the scientific community. The scientific community has always been cautious and rigorous in studying the safety of genetically modified foods. So far, no matter inside or outside the scientific community, there are no examples to prove that genetically modified foods are harmful. Faced with this problem, many people will quibble in one sentence: but there is no evidence that genetically modified food is safe. Then I want to say: but there is no evidence that non-GM food is safe! Why not doubt that non-GM foods are unsafe? Many people will say: that's because non-GM food has a history of thousands of years, so it is safe. But you know what? Areca catechu with a history of 20,000 years has been proved to cause oral cancer. Pickles with a history of tens of thousands of years were found to produce strong carcinogen nitrite during pickling. Pteridium aquilinum, also eaten for a long time, is now classified as the second kind of carcinogen. Not all foods have a long history of eating. Do you remember the story of the first person who ate tomatoes? Humans actually ate tomatoes for the first time more than 100 years ago. Similarly, pepper is only a medicine in the medical books of the Ming Dynasty, and it has only been on the table for 400 years. Moreover, it is still popular to eat wild vegetables, many of which have never been eaten before. I've only been on the table for a few years. Why are these foods considered safe? I know that in the face of this problem, you will still say that because it is natural food, human beings should not change this kind of thing well. But do you know another fact? Transgene already exists in nature. Humans did not invent them, but discovered them and applied this method to crop breeding. In nature, many viruses and viroids express their vitality through the principle of transgene. Of course, it is a replication factory that transfers pathogenic genes and turns normal cells into viruses and viroids. But what if it is a nutritional gene? This is good for us. There are many cases of unintentional gene transfer in nature, which provide a lot of data for biological gene bank. When encountering environmental mutation, the probability of mutating beneficial genes from these gene pools increases after a little mutation, which is one of the important factors of biological evolution. Transgene is not invented by human beings, but exists in nature. The traditional food we eat has actually been genetically modified, but not by humans, but by nature.
Question 6: The questions raised by the pros and cons of the debate on the safety of genetically modified foods can be raised from the following angles:
(1) Multi-link and rigorous safety evaluation can ensure the safety of genetically modified food.
(2) Up to now, no cases of eating genetically modified foods affecting human health have been found.
(3) There is not enough evidence to prove that there is something wrong with genetically modified food.
(4) False news reports increase the public's fear of genetically modified crops.