Gene Era and Gene Economy

Author: Zhang Tiankan
Publisher:
Publish Date: 2001-01-01
Features: Mr. Zhang Tiankan's book "The Gene Era and the Gene Economy" is a culmination of years of effort, written with vivid language and rich, detailed information, providing a relatively comprehensive introduction to life sciences and the biotechnology industry from social and economic perspectives. Although there are areas in this book where concepts and definitions could be debated, and certain issues may still require further discussion, it remains a good book.
Excerpt:
Attitudes toward genetically modified foods
Genetically modified foods have great potential to become dominant products in crops and livestock in the 21st century, occupying a significant portion of the food market. The gradual rise of genetically modified foods has inevitable reasons, primarily the need to address the growing food demands of billions of people on Earth. In the face of the immense economic and social value of genetically modified foods, people around the world hold varying stances—some support it, some oppose it, and others remain ambiguous. Scientists, governments, civil organizations, and citizens in various countries have shown considerable resistance, driven by a natural instinct.
The attitude of scientists
Historically, biologists and agricultural experts were strong advocates and implementers of genetically modified foods, believing that only this approach could produce enough food. However, the attitudes of these professionals have recently shifted. Chen Zhangliang, a biologist in China, received a survey on scientists' attitudes toward genetically modified foods at a recent international biotechnology conference. The question was simple: of the 400+ scientists in attendance, they were asked to respond with either "support" or "oppose" regarding genetically modified foods. It was expected that most scientists would support this research beneficial to the nation and society, but the results showed that the majority opposed it, with only a few, including Chen Zhangliang, supporting it.
Most scientists who opposed genetically modified foods came from Europe and developed countries, indicating that they were considering whether this technology, while solving the food crisis, might also lead humanity into another disaster. Previously, it was believed that natural foods and genetically modified foods underwent similar genetic changes and transfers, making genetically modified foods no more frightening. Moreover, any genetically modified food undergoes four stages—laboratory testing, intermediate trials, environmental release, and commercial production—all designed to strictly control the risks of genetically modified foods.
However, now, driven by a fundamental concept—that genetic modifications in genetically modified foods differ from natural genetic changes—scientists have altered their perspectives. People began to view genetically modified foods as sudden changes, designed based on our limited understanding of genes, without full confidence in controlling the safety of crops after such modifications. Additionally, the introduction of foreign genes into crops could suddenly disrupt the genetic structures of plants and animals that have evolved over millennia, potentially introducing unknown pathogens and mutagenic factors, leading to unimaginable consequences when consumed.
Moreover, some side effects of genetically modified foods have already emerged, such as killing beneficial insects, causing allergies, reducing anticancer components in food, producing harmful variant viruses and biological monsters, increasing pest resistance, and polluting the environment. In contrast, natural crops and foods undergo gradual genetic changes through biological evolution, making them more stable and safer.
Scientists also believe that some critical factors may have been overlooked in the research on genetically modified foods, such as the potential harmful effects of encoding target genes, the long-term side effects of marker genes, the impact of randomly and excessively introducing exogenous genes on the species' own DNA, and the resulting effects on human health and ecological environments at the DNA and RNA levels. Considering these factors, a significant number of scientists oppose genetically modified foods.
The attitude of governments and decision-makers
Another group that has clearly shifted its stance on genetically modified foods is governments and decision-makers in various countries, particularly in developed nations. Initially, they were staunch supporters of genetically modified foods, as only by addressing the basic food needs of their people could national strength, ethnic progress, and social advancement be discussed. However, now the attitudes of some governments have shifted from subtle to overt opposition. For example, the British government, which was previously firmly supportive of genetically modified foods, maintained this stance in its consistent policy. Before the outbreak of mad cow disease, the British Minister of Health even appeared on television with his family, personally feeding his child a beef sandwich to demonstrate the safety of British beef. The British public felt reassured, but when mad cow disease spread like a plague in the UK by 1992, with 370,000 cattle infected by early 1997, the nation suffered the devastating consequences of nearly losing its beef cattle and some citizens contracting a "mad person's disease" similar to mad cow disease. The root of this disaster lay in the initial belief that heating and grinding animal bone meal and internal organs as feed was safe. However, years later, the emergence of prion proteins—uncontrolled, heat-resistant, and transmissible—led to mad cow disease and the "mad person's disease." Learning from this lesson, the British government has now changed its stance significantly regarding genetically modified foods.
Just a year ago, Prime Minister Tony Blair, following the British government's long-standing approach, publicly appeared in the media, stating that genetically modified foods were safe and explicitly supporting them, even eating them as a leader. However, on February 27, 2000, he published an article in British newspapers, openly admitting that genetically modified foods could cause harm to humans and the environment. He said, "There is no doubt that genetically modified foods could pose risks to human health and the environment. Protecting public and environmental safety is, and will remain, the government's top priority. But at the same time, this new technology will bring more benefits to humanity, which is also undeniable." While this "both sides" statement may seem ambiguous, the British public still sensed a shift in the government's stance on genetically modified foods, at least more so than the government's attitude toward mad cow disease years ago.
The attitude of grassroots and aristocratic groups
Those who have always strongly opposed genetically modified foods have become even more fervent in their stance. Among them are royalty, religious figures, but the majority are ordinary grassroots people. Royalty and religious circles have always had an instinctive aversion to new things. For example, the Pope, who only recently accepted the theory of evolution, remains opposed to abortion, gene therapy, the transplantation of fetal tissues for treatment, cloning animals, and various advanced biomedical technologies. Royal families around the world hold the same stance. Prince Charles of the UK frequently published articles in British newspapers opposing genetically modified foods, representing both widely influential religious beliefs in the West and the views of the royal family. He said that in the face of genetically modified foods, people worry that the role of God is being replaced by technology, and that the public will face an ominous future. Even if the goal is to feed a large population, there is no need to resort to genetically modified foods; instead, more moderate and thorough steps could be taken to increase food production and improve varieties in ways that align with natural tendencies.
The attitude of grassroots groups opposing genetically modified foods is particularly strong in EU countries, especially in France, the UK, and Germany. Europeans have long suspected the safety of genetically modified tomatoes, such as "Flavor Savers," when they were introduced to the market in 1994. In early 1999, French farmers and citizens staged large-scale protests against the import of genetically modified foods from the United States. They gathered outside a Safeway store to protest the production and sale of genetically modified foods, with some throwing genetically modified foods into street bins. Germans have consistently opposed the import of genetically modified foods from the United States. In early November 1996, the U.S. exported genetically modified soybeans (which were resistant to herbicides) to Germany, but some Germans protested and opposed it. They feared that consuming these soybeans and products made from them—such as chocolate, margarine, soy sauce, mayonnaise, and thousands of other food items—could be unsafe. Although scientists assured that genetically modified soybeans were safe, due to consumer opposition, some renowned food manufacturers in Germany refused to use genetically modified soybeans.
Today, the strongest opposition to genetically modified foods comes from the British. Surveys show that 80% of the British public oppose genetically modified foods, which may be related to the outbreak of mad cow disease in the UK. On February 25, 2000, five Greenpeace activists intercepted a U.S.-flagged ship named I· off the coast of Anglesey in North Wales, which was carrying 60,000 tons of genetically modified soybeans. The ship's owner was Cargill, a giant in agricultural production in the U.S., which has a flour mill in Liverpool, a major source of genetically modified foods in the UK. Greenpeace members blocked the ship and demanded it return to the U.S. The British public, still wary after the mad cow disease disaster, demanded that any producer of genetically modified foods clearly state the genetic modifications involved, the tests conducted, and whether the products are safe. Otherwise, people have the right to refuse consumption. This undoubtedly casts a shadow over the development of genetically modified foods and the gene economy.