How should the positive side argue about the safety debate of genetically modified food? What materi

You are on the right side, in fact already victorious, unless your IQ is too low, it is impossible to fail! A mainstream scientific community has already made up its mind, and the opposition will not be allowed to overturn it.

1. No food can be absolutely safe, although no one can guarantee genetically modified food.

Absolutely safe, but for this reason it is forbidden to promote, which in itself is nonsense! Including Cui Yongyuan.

The same goes for organic food that stands on the platform for single-mindedness, which is not guaranteed to be completely safe. In 2011, organic food in Germany killed 53 people, and hundreds of people were dependent on kidney dialysis for the rest of their lives.

However, we cannot ban the promotion of organic food because of this, and of course we cannot ban the promotion of genetically modified food because it cannot guarantee 100% safety.

2. The so-called "potential harm" does not mean that there must be harm, and it also needs to be based on real evidence. And this is based on real evidence, and I believe that the opposing side will not be able to find definite evidence anyway.

3. More than two billion people in the world eat genetically modified food, without any example of health hazards, it proves that genetically modified food is relatively safe, although it is impossible to guarantee 100% safety, but the overall safety will not be lower than the current non-genetically modified food, the opposite side can not overturn this conclusion, you only need to find a number of examples of traditional food is not completely safe to prove that your point is correct.

4. Since 2005, nearly 5,000 food safety accidents have occurred in China, all of which are caused by non-GMO food, but we have not banned the production and sale of non-GMO food. And there is not a single instance of genetically modified food that is harmful to health in the world!

5. As early as the early nineties of the last century, the genetic engineering of a large number of plantings in China.

Rice No. 3 and No. 5, it is a genetically modified rice variety cultivated by transferring the gene of corn into rice, with a total cultivation area of more than 700,000 mu and more than one million people eating it.

6, Yuan Longping.

and other scientific circles support the promotion and research of genetically modified crops.

7. FDA and International Food Programme of the United States.

and other international institutions.

All recognize the safety of genetically modified food, and this conclusion is by no means overturned by Cui Yongyuan and others. Our Ministry of Agriculture.

I don't support genetically modified foods for the time being, so I only know how to refute their safety.

But you can take a look at the ** made by Xiao Cui, there are many experts' opinions, some of which are in favor of genetically modified foods, you can selectively pick them out, and by the way, you can also see what questions the other party will ask from those aspects.

There are often some food safety incidents such as abuse of food additives, excessive pesticide residues, and heavy metal pollution, which lead to many people beginning to reject all "artificial" foods produced in the hall and pursue "pure natural". They believe that all industrially produced things are bad, including genetically modified crops, and are contrary to "the principles of nature".

In fact, the pursuit of pure "pure natural food" simply cannot meet the basic needs of the development of human society. In addition, due to the lack of necessary food safety supervision, it is easier to cause the breeding of harmful substances, such as peanuts and corn if they are not well preserved, they will be contaminated by mold, producing highly toxic aflatoxin and fumonisin.

Genetically modified technology is a completely new technology, theoretically speaking, if someone intentionally or unintentionally introduces a gene that can express toxic substances or allergic substances into a crop, it will cause harm to human health, and this potential risk exists. Therefore, when the development of genetically modified technology began in the seventies and eighties of the 20th century, the safety of genetically modified organisms was the most concerned issue. Scientists have also emphasized the need to strengthen the control of potential risks in the research and application of genetically modified technology.

However, risk is not a real, existing hazard or danger, but refers to the possibility of a certain loss occurring in a specific environment and in a specific period of time.

Subsequently, countries around the world have established their own evaluation systems to fully demonstrate and test the genetically modified products to be marketed. Although the modes and procedures for conducting safety assessment and hidden prices vary from country to country, the general evaluation principles and technical methods are still developed in accordance with the standards of the Codex Alimentarius Commission. The scientific procedures proposed by the Codex Alimentarius Commission in 1997 to evaluate the potential of additives, contaminants, poisons and pathogenic bacteria in food, beverages and feed to humans or animals have now become the basis for countries around the world to formulate risk assessment standards and management methods, carry out food risk assessment and exchange risk information.

Food is digested into small molecules before it can be absorbed by the body.

The use of genetically modified plants as food has raised concerns about the consumption of human ingredients and processed products (edible oil, etc.) on the one hand, and meat, eggs, and milk produced after being used as animal feed.

In fact, after humans eat food, macromolecular substances such as starch, nucleic acids, proteins, and fats in the food need to be turned into small molecules (such as glucose, nucleotides, amino acids, fatty acids, etc.) under the action of digestive enzymes in the digestive tract before they can be absorbed by the human body.

1. Theoretical safety and insecurity are only theoretical, which cannot be used as genetically modified food.

Direct evidence of insecurity. As long as the theory of insecurity talked about by the other side is theoretical, it must be unceremoniously and directly rejected.

2. In fact, safety is real safety - so far, there has not been a safety accident caused by genetically modified food, which is the ironclad proof of real safety! - In the same time period, there were thousands of safety incidents, all caused by non-GMO foods, and there were also many safety accidents caused by organic foods. - In 2011, an organic sprout in Germany sickened 3,950 people, killed 53 people, and left hundreds more dependent on kidney dialysis.

Spend the rest of your life. 3. There is no absolutely safe food in the world, genetically modified food, non-GMO food, organic food, and the facts in the above 2 prove that genetically modified food is safer than non-GMO food and organic food.

5. Any authoritative organization in the world recognizes genetically modified food, and if the other party says that some institutions are reversed, then you only need to prove that their so-called institutions are pheasant institutions, and Greenpeace is a typical pheasant organization. Documents from the world's leading institutions do not prove that genetically modified foods are unsafe.

6. Any real biological science in the world.

Those who support the GMO industry cannot be regarded as real biological scientists, at least not the mainstream of the biological science community. The above two points are easy to prove. Gu Xiulin, like Gu Xiulin in our country, is a biological scientist who studies economics (majoring in agricultural economics), but is touted by some people as a reversed biological scientist, and she actually knows nothing about biological science.

7. Corruption can never be used as evidence that genetically modified food is unsafe. If the other party raises relevant arguments, prompt the other party directly and pay attention to the logic of your own thinking.

Grasp the above points and at least guarantee that your debate will be invincible! And it can fully demonstrate your logical thinking skills.

and good scientific literacy.