Overall, there is no conclusive evidence that genetically modified (GM) food is harmful to humans. Of course, just because there is no evidence that it is harmful does not mean that it is definitely harmless, but it is even more important not to assume that it is definitely harmful just because there is no evidence that it is harmful, right?

1. Gene technology uses antimicrobial-resistant genes to identify genetically modified crops, which may affect the efficacy of antibiotics in humans after the genetically modified food enters the human body, and mutated genes in the crops may lead to new diseases;

Antimicrobial-resistant genes form antimicrobial-resistant proteins through transcription and translation in plants. For these genes to also produce antimicrobial resistance in humans, they would first have to enter the nucleus of the human cell without being degraded (and it would be difficult not to be degraded; genes don't enter the nucleus on their own somehow, for example, they need help from proteins with nuclear localization signals) I'm not saying it's not possible, but the likelihood of it is very small indeed. And there's no structural difference between exogenous genes introduced by transgenic technology and endogenous genes in other plants, and it's hard to imagine a protein that would specialize in transferring those genes into the human body.

So why are the genes transferred by GM technology able to enter the nucleus of a plant but not that of an animal? That's because the method of transformation with Agrobacterium is specific to plants. Some of the required pathways of transcription need to be aided by signals from the cell wall, which the human body does not have. That first step of recognizing the target cell would be difficult to do, IMO.

Do mutated genes in crops cause disease? At least the genes that are transferred in are not mutated. It is possible to cause inactivation of the gene if the transferred gene happens to interrupt the original gene in the plant. However, nowadays sequencing technology is able to detect the insertion site of the transferred gene. We just need to find the insertion site where no other gene exists, and then we don't have to worry about the possibility of causing gene mutation. In addition, the probability of a gene mutation occurring in an endogenous gene is much greater than the probability of a mutation occurring in a gene that has been genetically modified (10,000 endogenous genes versus 1 exogenous transgene, randomly select 1 to mutate, which one do you think has a higher probability of being likely to be mutated?) .

2. The transfer of proteins in transgenic technology may cause the human body to develop allergies to foods to which it was not originally allergic, and it remains to be demonstrated whether or not the new protein traits after segmentation and recombination are fully compatible with the needs we envisioned;

It is possible that the new proteins become allergens. But given that new proteins may not be synthesized by today's transgenic technology (e.g., by RNAi interference to kill insects), and that many proteins are natively in other plants (e.g., by putting genes from maize into rice), the likelihood of sudden encounters with new allergens is reduced.

Whether the traits of the new proteins are in demand really needs to be proven. But the scientific community should have a lot of confidence in this. In my case, I've transferred fluorescent proteins into plants that invariably exhibit fluorescence, green for green and blue for blue. We still have a handle on the whole transcription-translation system of plants.

3. Artificial refinement and addition of genes has the potential to increase and accumulate trace toxins originally present in food, unforeseen biological mutations . It may even increase the level of original toxins or produce new ones;

What are the original trace toxins in food.

Biological mutations are foreseeable, as said before, we can know if the transgenes interrupt the original genes of the plant by sequencing.

We also know this about the products of transgenic technology. If you turn in a gene that synthesizes a toxin that is harmful to the human body, that new toxin will naturally be produced in large quantities, but why would we want to turn it? Most of what is being transferred now is only harmful to insects (why only harmful to insects?). That toxin will only work in an alkaline environment. The human digestive environment is acidic, the insect digestive environment is alkaline...)

4. For the ecosystem, genetically modified food is the intervention of a specific species, artificially make it in the survival environment to obtain a competitive advantage, which will certainly make the natural law of survival of the time-breaking, caused by the ecological balance of the changes, and genetically engineered organisms, bacteria, viruses, etc., into the environment, the preservation or restoration is impossible, and it is more than the seriousness of the chemical or nuclear contamination, the harm is even more irreversible.

Transgenic technology can be done normally this gene is not expressed, only when needed through the induction of expression. Even if these seeds and pollen are lost to the wild, there is no difference between these genetically modified plants and wild plants.

Is it true that the damage done by genetically modified organisms, bacteria, etc., is irreversible when they enter the environment? There are so many microorganisms in the soil that casually break these things down (some of the bacteria have to be nuclease). Is it worse than nuclear and chemical contamination? Genetic modification technology only transfers a single-digit number of genes (many only transfer 1), hybrid rice is to cross two different rice, a hybrid of hundreds of genes that originally did not belong to their own to get in, and we are not eaten with relish.