Generally speaking, there is no conclusive evidence that genetically modified food is harmful to human body. Of course, just because there is no evidence that it is harmful does not mean that it is certainly harmless. However, just because there is no evidence to prove that it is harmful does not mean that it must be harmful, right?

1. Gene technology uses antibiotic resistance genes to identify transgenic crops. Gene food may affect the therapeutic effect of antibiotics on human body after entering human body, and mutant genes in crops may lead to new diseases;

Antibiotic resistance genes are transcribed and translated in plants to form antibiotic resistance proteins. If these genes want to produce the effect of antibiotic resistance in human body, first of all, these genes must enter the human nucleus without being degraded (it is difficult not to be degraded; Genes don't inexplicably enter the nucleus themselves, such as protein with nuclear localization signal. ) I don't say impossible, but the possibility is really small. Moreover, there is no structural difference between the exogenous genes introduced by transgenic technology and the endogenous genes in other plants, so it is hard to imagine that a protein will specifically transfer these genes into human body.

Then, why can the gene transferred by transgenic technology enter the nucleus of plants but not the nucleus of animals? That's because the method of Agrobacterium transformation is unique to plants. Some necessary pathways of transcription need the help of cell wall signals, but the human body has no cell wall. The first step is to identify the target cell, which I think is very difficult to do.

Can mutant genes in crops cause diseases? At least the transferred gene will not mutate. If the transferred gene only interrupts the original gene of the plant, it may inactivate the gene. But now sequencing technology can completely detect the insertion site of the transferred gene. We only need to find a site where no other genes exist, so we don't have to worry about the possibility of gene mutation. In addition, the probability of gene mutation in endogenous genes is much higher than that in transgenic genes (10000 endogenous gene pairs 1 exogenous transgene, randomly select 1 mutation, which one is more prone to mutation? )。

2. protein transfer in transgenic technology may cause people to be allergic to foods that are not allergic, and whether the new protein traits after segmentation and recombination fully meet our envisaged needs remains to be verified;

This new protein may become an allergen. However, the current transgenic technology may not be able to synthesize new protein (for example, killing insects through RNAi interference), and many native plants in protein also come from other plants (for example, transplanting maize genes into rice), so the possibility of suddenly encountering new allergens is reduced.

Whether the characteristics of the new protein meet the requirements really needs to be verified. But the scientific community should have confidence in this. Take me for example. I have transferred fluorescent protein into plants. Without exception, these fluorescent proteins can show fluorescence. Green light is green light and blue light is blue light. We still have great confidence in the complete transcription and translation system of plants.

3. Artificial extraction and addition of genes may increase and accumulate trace toxins in food, lead to unpredictable biological mutation, and even increase the original toxin level or produce new toxins;

What is the original trace toxin in food?

Biological variation is predictable. As mentioned above, we can know whether the transgenic plants have interrupted the original genes by sequencing.

We also know the products of transgenic technology. If you transfer a gene that can synthesize toxins harmful to human body, new toxins will naturally be produced in large quantities, but why transfer it? Now most of them are only harmful to insects (why are they only harmful to insects? That toxin only works in alkaline environment. The digestive tract environment of human body is acidic, while that of insects is alkaline. )

4. As far as the ecosystem is concerned, genetically modified foods interfere with specific species and artificially give them a competitive advantage in the living environment, which will inevitably destroy the timeliness of natural survival laws and cause changes in ecological balance. Moreover, it is impossible for genetically modified organisms, bacteria and viruses to enter the environment, which is more serious and irreversible than chemical or nuclear pollution.

Transgenic technology can't express this gene at ordinary times, and it can only be induced when necessary. Even if these seeds and pollen are lost to the wild, these transgenic plants are no different from wild plants.

Is the harm really irreversible after genetically modified organisms and bacteria enter the environment? There are so many microorganisms in the soil that these things decompose casually (there are nucleases in bacteria). Is it more serious than nuclear pollution and chemical pollution? Transgenic technology only becomes single-digit genes (many only become 1). Hybrid rice is to cross two different kinds of rice and get hundreds of genes that did not belong to us. We haven't eaten them with relish.