A few days ago, the media published an article entitled “Generation of Eight Questions and Genetically Modified Grainsâ€, which raised doubts about the safety of genetically modified technology. Yesterday, the Ministry of Agriculture released a news release. Lin Min, a member of the National Committee on Genetically Modified Organisms, said that any genetically modified food that is listed through safety evaluation is as safe as traditional food. ("Beijing Times" reported on September 2)
With regard to the controversy over the safety of genetically modified foods, if the battlefield is pulled into the "scientific" field, experts like Lin Min naturally have a discourse advantage. After all, when it comes to scientific research on the terms and technical data of genetically modified foods, the vast majority of the public is certainly far behind. If the issue of the safety of genetically modified foods is only regarded as a "scientific problem," then whether or not it is safe will be completely determined by experts like Lin Min. However, the issue of genetically modified safety is essentially a public safety issue that involves some basic principles of modern public decision-making.
Lin Min emphasized that “China’s strict management of genetically modified technology†and “safety assessment and approval procedures for toxic, allergenic, and teratogenic, etc. are all required before GM foods are introduced to the marketâ€. It is clear that each of these items involves Public management, public decision-making, rather than purely "scientific issues." If we say that public administration also includes a "scientific decision", then this is also fundamentally different from simple genetically modified science and technology. It refers more to decision science. Moreover, scientific decision-making is only one of the principles of modern public management. In addition, there are also democratic decision-making, legal decision-making, etc. These are not covered by a simple "scientific problem."
In fact, the public and the media have raised strong questions about the issue of genetic safety in China. It shows that when the relevant departments formulate and implement policies concerning genetically modified foods, they have fully guaranteed the public’s right to know, participate, and monitor. ,Debatable. In the absence of full public knowledge, participation, and supervision, the major decisions involving major national interests, and even the health and safety of the public and future generations, are only viewed by experts as purely “scientific issuesâ€. Is this appropriate?
Withdrawing 10,000 steps, even if genetic safety has been completely guaranteed scientifically, it cannot deprive the public of this right to know and choose. The public has the right to decide whether or not to eat genetically modified foods. It should not be solely for the experts to decide whether or not to just give this to the authorities. If the public does not take responsibility for themselves, it cannot guarantee that the authorities will be correct and reliable in the management and decision-making of genetically modified organisms. However, if there are major mistakes in related management and decision-making, what harms the fundamental interests of the country and the nation, as well as the vital interests of the public, such as the health and safety of the public, can they be careless about this, and underestimate it with “scientific issues�
KMP Cat Parts,Cat Engine Parts,KMP Cat Stamping Parts,Custom KMP Cat Parts,CAT Spare Parts
JINING SHANTE SONGZHENG CONSTRUCTION MACHINERY CO.LTD , http://www.stszcmparts.com