Recently, an astonishing piece of news struck us like lightning. It turns out that on television, newspapers and the Internet, a group of people who often advocate genetically modified food in the name of "academicians" actually do not have the title of relevant academicians, and the revelation of their true identities has shocked every citizen who cares about food safety issues.
These more than 60 "academicians" have been using their false identities to publish articles in major media and conduct interviews on television, vigorously exaggerating and promoting genetically modified products. They use a variety of high-end terms and concepts to express a strong stance that genetically modified foods are "safe and reliable", which deeply affects and misleads the public.
In fact, these "academicians" have no relevant professional background at all, and they are "lobbyists" funded and assigned by a biotechnology company and seed company. The company has been developing and promoting a variety of genetically modified products, but has faced skepticism and resistance from dissenting people.
To this end, they used false "expert status" to instill a stream of positive information on a large scale, diverted the society's attention to GMO, and laid the foundation of public opinion to a certain extent. However, they have never disclosed their identities and qualifications, and the roles and motivations behind them have always been hidden in the shadows.
Now that the truth has been revealed, the seriousness of this matter lies not only in the misleading information, but also in the major blind spots in the guidance and supervision of public opinion. A substantive debate on an issue should not conclude with the deliberate "authority" of some people. Each of us citizens should have the ability to think and examine issues independently.
As members of the public, we need to be vigilant and not trust any "experts" from unknown sources. Instead of believing the words of others, it is better to read the sources of various sources on your own and understand the various dimensions of the problem. At the same time, when reporting on similar controversial issues, the media should also carefully verify the true identity and background of each "expert", so as not to become an accomplice in the manipulation of public opinion.
This revelation reminds us that food tech is a deep and complex problem area. The argument between different points of view should be based on reciprocity and fairness. In the future, we hope that the relevant authorities can further standardize this field, establish an open and transparent review system, reveal the true identity and interests of the participants, and allow the public to obtain a variety of reliable information and make more informed judgments.
At the same time, we should not oversimplify the problem. None of the issues were all-black or all-white. We should examine all aspects of the problem according to a scientific and rational attitude, understand the possible beneficial role of food technology in solving nutritional shortages and increasing yields, and also pay attention to its possible risks. It is only through openness and transparency and dialogue that people with different positions can respect each other and find a balanced solution that is acceptable to all.
In short, this incident reminds us to continuously improve the scientific spirit and judgment ability of society. Each of us should play a supervisory role, but at the same time, we must maintain an open and rational mind, and work together to create a healthier environment for public opinion. We hope that the issue will be properly handled and that the relevant responsible authorities will give you a clear answer. It's not just about food safety, it's about the public's trust in this society.