Transmitting force to prove the safety of genetic modification: Eating pork will not be transferred into the pig gene

Reading Tip: An animal or plant food, whether traditional or genetically modified, will be digested and excreted when eaten, and its own genes will not be affected. Therefore, for thousands of years, people have eaten chickens, cattle, pigs, sheep, and grains, vegetables, and fruits, and they will not be “transferred” into animal or plant genes.

Copywriting | Zhang Feng Zhu Pengcheng

In October 2004, the “World Nobel Prize in Agriculture” was awarded to the Chinese rice breeder Yuan Longping for his contribution to hybrid rice breeding. Nine years later, the 2013 World Food Prize was awarded to three pioneers in transgenic plants. Three winners developed the world's earliest transgenic plants in 1983, and in the next thirty years The continuous development and promotion of transgenic technology.

Genetically modified foods have become a hot issue for the environment and health in many countries in the world. Its appearance quickly split the public’s thinking and ideas into two camps: those who agree with it believe that technological progress can significantly improve our living standards, while those who criticize it believe that scientific practice has gone too far ahead of it. Now. So what is genetically modified food?

Genetically modified foods use genetic engineering technology to transfer one or more exogenous genes to a specific organism and to effectively express the corresponding products (polypeptides or proteins) to make their traits available to people. The required goals are changed to create foods that can be consumed directly or as raw materials for processing.

GM foods are a new thing for many consumers. Many people lack understanding of GM foods, have a fear of GM foods, and have many questions about its safety. Some critics believe that at present our research on genetic modification is not thorough enough. Scientists have not fully grasped and precisely controlled the results of genetic adjustments. Such genetic changes can lead to the production of toxic substances or stimulate allergies.

Some consumers worry that the DNA of GM foods will recombine with human DNA. However, in fact, the proportion of genetically modified DNA in the plant's original DNA is very low, and it is difficult for the DNA in food to break through the body's digestive system and circulatory system. The barrier enters human cells and is inserted into human DNA.

A gene is a DNA sequence that is introduced into a host cell through a vector. The gene is expressed as a function of the protein and is either drought-fighting or insect-proof or increases yield. After we consume genetically modified foods, proteins are degraded along with DNA, and proteins become amino acids that are absorbed by human intestinal cells. DNA (including food itself and exogenous) is completely nuclease, diesterase, and nucleotidase in the small intestine. Hydrolysis to nucleotides, nucleosides, phosphates, ribose, bases, but not as deoxynucleotide. Nucleotides in the human body have a "de novo synthesis pathway" and "remediation pathways" using free base synthesis nucleotides. Exogenous nucleic acids cannot be directly absorbed and utilized by human cells. Nucleic acids in human cells are synthesized by themselves.

An animal or plant food, whether traditional or genetically modified, will be digested and excreted when eaten, and its own genes will not be affected. Therefore, for thousands of years, people have eaten chickens, cattle, pigs, sheep, and grains, vegetables, and fruits, and they will not be “transferred” into animal or plant genes.

The development of genetically modified technology is a matter of nearly 20 years. Because of its huge value, it has attracted more and more attention. The world’s first genetically transplanted crop was a kind of tobacco containing antibiotic drug-like antibodies, which was cultivated in 1983. More than a decade later, the first market-oriented genetic food emerged in the United States. It was the delay in ripening tomato crops. Until 1996, food made from this kind of tomato food was allowed to be sold in supermarkets.

Western countries did not formally plant genetically modified crops in the early 1990s. By 1999, 40 million hectares had been planted. Sales of genetically modified seeds all over the world were only US$75 million in 1995, and in 1998 they have soared to US$1.5 billion.

Although there are thousands of genetically modified plants that have been planted in various countries, less than one percent of the varieties that have been approved for listing by the government are listed. This shows that the governments of various countries still take a cautious attitude towards this. In addition to the technical aspects, there are other factors such as ecological health and social ethics that need to be weighed.

European doubts

European public will doubt the new food variety approved by the government. Since the occurrence of mad cow disease and the British-British pollution incident, the public is even more worried.

A public opinion survey showed that 79% of the British public oppose the trial of genetically modified crops. This concern has had a major impact on the overall marketing of GM products in the European Union. In fact, they have caused the government to suspend approval of the launch of genetically modified products. In general, the marketing of GM foods is the subject of extensive legislation. Community regulations have been established since the early 1990s. The process of approving the release of GMOs to the environment is quite complicated and basically requires agreement between the member states and the European Commission. The European Commission believes that existing regulations and new proposals will pave the way for continued approval of new genetically modified products in the EU and build consumer confidence in genetically modified products.

People opposed to genetically modified foods involve various interest groups, from Greenpeace to farmers’ associations. Their objections are mainly focused on the following aspects:

First, the introduction of genes that have herbicide-resistant or insect-killing properties in plants has potential hazards to humans. On this point, the supporters stressed that so far no research agency has found evidence that GM foods are harmful to human health.

Second, GM technology may cause biological contamination. In order to protect their own intellectual property rights, some biotechnology companies have “sterilized” genetically modified seeds sold to farmers. Research by Martha Crouch, an associate professor of biology at Indiana University, has shown that such a sterilizing gene may inadvertently make other crops infertile.

Thirdly, too fast promotion of transgenic plants may affect agriculture and the ecological environment. The promotion of herbicide-tolerant GM crops may encourage farmers to overuse herbicides, causing some non-essential crops to be harmed or even extinct. Farmers in many developing countries have been treating such non-essential crops as supplementary food or as feed. The U.S. Fisheries and Wildlife Service has discovered that 74 species of plants are threatened with extinction as a result of herbicides.

Fourth, genes with special functions “flow” into similar wild plant lines, making them resistant to herbicides and difficult to control; or allowing insects to produce antibodies against insecticides. In addition, some small creatures that eat insecticidal transgenic plants may become extinct. The proponents pointed out that agricultural production itself is a kind of activity that is detrimental to the environment. Traditional crops use large amounts of pesticides and insecticides, but the impact on the ecological environment may be greater than that of genetically modified crops. If the GM crops themselves are capable of resisting insects, farmers can reduce the amount of pesticides they spray, and in the end, they may be more compatible with the maintenance of ecological diversity and reduce the impact on the current natural ecological balance.

Such disputes are not easy to draw conclusions in a short time. The controversy over GM crops should be said to be a normal phenomenon. The first is that the newly-developed varieties are not yet perfect, and their long-term impact on the human body and the environment remains to be seen. People have expressed concern that there are reasons. Second, there are always some people who are more conservative in their awareness of emerging science and technology and cannot accept it. Then there is the impact of conflicts of interest in trade. Some governments and interest groups have made use of genetically modified foods to make trade wars more complicated and make things more complicated. But the pace of scientific advancement will not stop there.

Actively cautious of the United States

In the United States, GM varieties are more popular in their first and second largest crops—corn (2361, 0.00, 0.00%) and soybeans (4712, 27.00, 0.58%) than any previous non-GM crop.

According to the statistics of the United States Department of Agriculture, about 88% of corn in the United States and 94% of soybeans are genetically modified. The rapid growth of the area planted with GM crops demonstrates the recognition of the seed market and farmers for GM crops. This is mainly because the current GM crops are mainly focused on reducing the cost of agricultural farming and increasing crop resistance. That is to say, compared with growing traditional crops, planting genetically modified crops does not necessarily significantly increase the yield per unit area of ​​crops, but farmers The investment has been reduced, and the ability of crops to resist pests and natural disasters has increased. This has increased the return on investment of farmers as a whole. Therefore, the promotion of GM crops in the United States has basically met no obstacles and has quickly occupied the US seed market.

The public in the U.S. and Canada has relatively high acceptance of genetically modified foods. Some processed foods on the market, such as breakfast cereals, soft drinks, and beer, contain components of genetically modified crops.

Although GM crops have quickly gained recognition from the scientific community and farmers, many people still have doubts about the GM food consumers. In the United States, any type of genetically modified plant has to undergo 2-3 federal government inspections from the time it is planted into the food supply chain. The U.S. Department of Agriculture is responsible for examining whether or not genetically modified plants can be grown in the field. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency must evaluate the effects of genetically modified plants on the farmland environment and ecosystems, while the U.S. Food and Drug Administration needs overall toxicity and sensitization to genetically modified plants. And whether or not the nutrient content has changed has been monitored.

All the results of the evaluation of transgenic plants can be found on the website of the relevant government department. Only through all of these tested transgenic plants can the large-scale cultivation be approved and enter the food supply chain. In general, a transgenic plant will take approximately 13 years from R&D to market and cost an average of 130 million US dollars. About one-third to one-half of them were spent on government approvals, with an average cost of about $35 million.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration's assessment of the safety of certain GM foods is based on the "substantial equivalence principle." Under this principle, if the transgenic plants have no difference in sensitization, nutrient composition, toxic substances, etc., from non-transgenic plants of the same type, then they should be treated equally, that is, if non-transgenic plants are considered safe, then the transgenic plants It is also considered safe.

At present, this principle is also the basis for many countries and agencies to judge the safety of GM foods, including Canada, Japan, the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, and the World Health Organization. As of 2013, 148 cases evaluated by the US FDA and 189 cases of transgenic plants evaluated by the Japanese regulatory authorities all met the “substantive equivalent principle” and were deemed to be as safe as their non-GMO counterparts.

Callouts for Americans to wrestle

Whether or not genetically modified foods should be labeled relative to the safety of genetically modified foods may be the subject of much debate in the United States. According to the statistics of the United States Department of Agriculture, about 70% of foods in U.S. supermarkets currently contain genetically modified ingredients. As of 2013, there were three states, Oregon, California, and Washington, and they held a referendum on whether to label GM foods. The results are all prone to GM foods that do not require labeling. On the other hand, the other two states of the United States, Connecticut and Maine, passed the law in 2013 and required GM foods to be marked in supermarkets.

From the opinion poll results, the mainstream public opinion in the United States seems to support the labeling of genetically modified organisms. The reason for everyone is also very simple, that is, the right to know about the food purchased.

However, if it rises to the legislative level, it is not so simple to force GM foods to be labeled. First of all, the management of food marks belongs to the FDA's jurisdiction. At present, FAD manages genetically modified foods that have been approved for listing in accordance with the principle of “substantive equivalence”. That is, if GM foods are considered safe, they should be treated on the same scale as non-GM foods. If mandatory labeling, this part of the cost will be imposed on GM food manufacturers. This is unfair to these manufacturers, and it is suspected of discriminating against genetically modified foods and illegal US laws.

In fact, some food and seed companies are already preparing to file lawsuits against the mandatory labeling laws passed by Connecticut and Maine. Second, the principle of the US food mark is that signs should provide consumers with accurate and valuable nutrients, allergens, or harmful ingredients.

At present, the consensus of the US regulatory authorities and the scientific community is that there is no difference in the composition of these components between the genetically modified foods passed through safety assessment and similar non-genetically modified foods. However, simply genomically labeling genetically modified foods does not provide consumers with effective information. It is possible to mislead consumers who do not have a good understanding of genetically modified genes. Therefore, at present, the FDA's position on genetically modified foods is still voluntarily marked. The FDA and USDA websites provide specific information on all approved genetically modified plants and their food safety to ensure consumers’ right to information.

GM technology is also rapidly advancing. More controllable and accurate next-generation transgenic technologies have been gradually developed and applied in the United States.

Laboratory safety evidence

The safety of genetically modified foods has a clear consensus in the scientific community. During the 10 years from 2002 to 2012, according to an Italian research team, there have been about 1783 studies on the safety of transgenic plants, and almost all studies have found no damage to humans and animals from transgenic plants. A few reports of harmful transgenes have been found to have major defects in experimental design and results analysis, and the results cannot be repeated and accepted.

In September 2012, a research team led by the French Gilles-Eric Séralini published a research report on a two-year safety assessment of Monsanto's herbicide-resistant transgenic maize varieties. Their main conclusion is that rats fed the GM maize are more likely to die before maturation than rats fed the non-GM corn, and the incidence of tumors is 20% to 50% higher.

After the publication of the paper, due to the strong response, the French Academy of Sciences quickly established an independent investigation team to evaluate the experimental methods and experimental conclusions of the paper. The evaluation report pointed out that the rat breeds and statistical methods used in the study were seriously flawed, so the test results were not credible. The paper was also retracted by the magazine in November 2013. Despite this, the dissertation has been used as the latest evidence by the infringer and has accused the GM foods of failing to perform long-term safety testing before the market launch, and is convinced that there is a long-term risk of eating GM foods.

In fact, prior to this paper, there have been at least 12 research papers on animal experiments for genetically modified foods for 90 days to 2 years, and more than 12 studies on experimental animals for many generations (2-5 generations). These studies have shown that GM foods are as safe as similar non-GM foods.

link:

The Regulations on the Safety Management of Agricultural Genetically Modified Organisms was implemented on May 9, 2001.

The "Administrative Measures on the Safety Evaluation of Agricultural Genetically Modified Organisms" was implemented on March 20, 2002. For the first time, the transgene was divided into four grades from low to high.

The Measures for the Administration of the Import Safety of Agricultural Genetically Modified Organisms was implemented on March 20, 2002.

The Measures for the Administration of Agricultural Genetically Modified Organism Signs, which was implemented on March 20, 2002, provides for the implementation of a sign system for genetically modified organisms. The first list of genetically modified organisms managed by the mark are: soybean seed, soybean, soybean meal, soybean oil (6614, 218.00, 3.41%), soybean meal (3393, 98.00, 2.97%), corn seed, corn, corn oil, corn meal Rapeseed, rape seeds, rapeseed (4829, 24.00, 0.50%), rapeseed oil, rapeseed meal, cotton (19880, 100.00, 0.51%) seeds, tomato seeds, fresh tomatoes, tomato sauce.

The "Measures for Sanitary Management of Genetically Modified Foods" was promulgated on April 8, 2002 and implemented on July 1.

The "Measures for the Administration of Inspection and Quarantine of Entry and Exit Genetically Modified Products" was promulgated on June 12, 2004.

Hejian Deris are Both manufacturer and distributor, specialize on  Core Bit include two type both PDC core bit and Impregnated Diamond Core Bit


PDC Diamond Core Bit Use high-quality steel to make the base material of PDC Bit, the surface of the blade weld high-performance wear-resistant materials, the use of computer software for the overall design of Asymmetric spiral bevel blade, lng parabolic cone structure.

Suitable for low compressive strength homogeneous laminated formations, such as clay, marl, lignite, sandstone and so on.

PDC core bit

pdc bit

impregnated diamond bit have the widest range if application. They are the most commonly useful bits from medium to super hard formation in the mineral exploration industry. THE Hardness and abrasive of the rock formation are the key factors to determine the diamond specifications, concentration and matrix hardness.

Toothed bits can get higher drilling efficiency when it is drilling at dense or abrasive stratum with lower drilling speed and pressure. It want especially effective arc pal formation, using toothed bits can get better water flowing and drilling footage effect. Nowadays, Impregnated diamond bits have been widely used in wire-line drilling 

impregnated diamond core drill bit2

Core Bit

Core Bit,Core Drill Bit,Diamond Core Bit,Long Concrete Core Drill Bit

Hejian Deris Petroleum Drilling Equipment Co.,Ltd. , https://www.welldrillingbit.com