The issue of genetically modified crops is a matter that has been widely discussed in the media in recent years and there is a divergence of expert opinion on offer. The result is scientifically unfounded ideas that in their turn create fear. In reality however, genetic engineering technologies are not as harmful to health as many think. On the contrary, they are an important driver of policies related to technology, living standards and food.
Genetic engineering technology is designed with good intentions, and scientifically unfounded ideas end when knowledge begins.
Some people think that genetically modified crops are unnatural products resulting from a series of scientifically generated mutations. In fact, our ancestors engaged in genetic modification, for example by creating corn through the repeated hybridization of various teosinte species. This kind of modification is largely the same as what we would today classify as genetic modification.
In addition to the genes that are affected by the characteristics of the modified crop, crossbred corn also contains both many interrelated and many non-interrelated genes. Looking at modern genetic modification technology, delicately transplanting one or several genes allows us to control the consequences of breeding or the evaluation of mutations.
From this perspective, what are described as genetically modified crops are the successful products of scientists modifying the genes of a crop using naturally existing genetic resources to make it more resistant to adverse circumstances.
In addition, some people also say that genetically modified crops are more likely to damage the environment than non-genetically modified crops. Institutions in both the UK and the US, as well as the Council of Agriculture, have evaluated changes in the gene flow in genetically modified crops and in the microorganisms in the soil where genetically modified crops have been planted and they have all found that there are no noticeable differences in the environmental impacts of genetically modified crops and of non-genetically modified crops.
Addressing the situation in Taiwan in particular, invasive plants easily become dominant species and supplant native species. This creates great environmental problems and in comparison, the impact of genetically modified crops on the environment is negligible.
The spread of misinformation has made us forget that the genetic modification of crops in fact signifies scientific progress for humanity. It can help solve food shortages and nutritional deficiencies around the world.
Take golden rice, for example — rice that has been genetically engineered to produce and accumulate beta-carotene which is then either stored in the fatty tissues of the body or converted into vitamin A. It may help solve the deficiency of vitamin A in poor children.
In addition, thanks to technological developments, it is now possible to use genetic modification to reduce allergens in crops. This, of course, is the exact opposite of the view that genetically modified crops create allergies.
In this era of the Internet, we have access to a diversity of information, but this information is fragmentary and incomplete — and sometimes plain wrong. The result of this situation is that we often forget that true information is based on scientific facts.
It can only be hoped that all sectors of society will be able to join in a shared effort to obtain and disseminate correct information about genetically modified crops if we want to be able to correctly evaluate this issue.
Chu Wenshen is deputy director of the Biosource Collection and Research Center at the Food Industry Research and Development Institute.
Translated by perry svensson
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers