Document No. 1 first mentioned what signal was released by the popularization of genetically modified science.

Transgenic as a technology is neutral, the evaluation of technology depends on the specific application, and the assessment of its benefits and risks should also focus on evidence and logic. It may be more beneficial to put aside "prejudices" and look at GM rationally.

On February 1, 2015, the first document of the Central Committee was released. In a long article of more than 10,000 words, 21 words "strengthening the research, safety management and science popularization of agricultural genetically modified biotechnology" attracted people's attention. It is not surprising that document No. 1 talks about GM. From 2007 to 2014, the issue of GM was mentioned at least six times, which can be described as an unavoidable topic in the issues of agriculture, rural areas and farmers. What is really worth observing is that there is a hidden mystery in the formulation every year.

For example, in 2007, it was first mentioned that the labelling system of genetically modified foods should be strictly implemented; in 2008, it was emphasized to launch major scientific and technological projects for the cultivation of new varieties of genetically modified organisms; in 2009 and 2010, it was proposed to speed up the major special projects of genetically modified organisms and to cultivate the industrialization of new varieties; in 2012, while public opinion made waves, it emphasized the further implementation of major projects, and put forward the term "molecular breeding", which is similar to genetically modified organisms. In 2013, the public became more emotional about GM, so the reference in 2014 became "strengthening basic research and biotechnology development focusing on molecular breeding" to avoid using the word "GM" to touch the public's nerves. At the same time, the word "strengthen" was used to appease the scientists' camp.

This year's wording also balances the concerns of all parties, and the first mention of genetically modified "science popularization" is meaningful. After years of "twists and turns" in China's GM field, it has been seen from the government to the industry that due to the emphasis on scientific research over popular science in the past, there is a vacuum in GM knowledge, and GM has been demonized, resulting in the pressure of public opinion leading to the grounding of GM industrialization.

In the past year, the popularization of genetically modified science began to "warm up", and many scientists came to the front desk to respond and gradually allay public doubts. With Xi Jinping's speech on GM being made public, the discussion of GM has become more extensive, so it is natural to include GM science popularization in this year's No. 1 document.

The writing of GM science popularization into document No. 1 means that the central government has realized the importance and urgency of popularizing GM knowledge, and GM science popularization has since risen to the "national" level. In contrast, in the past, the popularization of GM science was more of a private, spontaneous, few expert matter, or only related to the Ministry of Agriculture, but from this year on, the Ministry of Agriculture is no longer alone. For example, the Ministry of Agriculture has been trying to coordinate with other ministries to stop "non-GM advertising" last year, but the effect is not satisfactory, so it can be justified now, because non-GM advertising is not scientific.

Of course, it takes "courage" to propose the popularization of genetically modified science. At present, the public is still in the majority who suspect genetically modified genes. In the view of some opponents, it seems that the central government's proposal of GM science popularization is to serve GM industrialization, especially after the central government has determined the strategy of GM industrialization from surrounding crops, non-staple grain to staple grain, will science popularization avoid the key points and ignore the risks?

It's not surprising to be so skeptical, but don't worry too much. The popularization of genetically modified science in China should be more of a correction of the "demonization of genetically modified genes" in the past. Transgenic as a technology is neutral, the evaluation of technology depends on the specific application, and the assessment of its benefits and risks should also focus on evidence and logic, and there is nothing to "cheat".

It may be more beneficial for the public to put aside their "prejudices" and look at GM rationally. Besides, even if we don't talk about industrialization, it is very interesting to analyze and think about GM as a cutting-edge science and technology, at least to broaden our thinking and enlighten our wisdom.