Chinese garlic threatens the United States*** It sounds like a bizarre joke, but recently US Republican Senator Rick Scott has made a big splash about it. Scott believes that Chinese garlic poses a serious threat to the United States due to the use of unhygienic manure for watering. He insisted that because the U.S. imports a lot of Chinese garlic, the Americans are actually in"Eat Chinese dung", posing a threat to public health and ***. Does this logic really hold water?First, let's see if this argument holds water. According to this logic, if the Chinese grow garlic and use manure to fertilize it, then after these garlic are exported to the United States, Americans will eat it equally"Eat Chinese dung"。But does this argument really hold water?Is there scientific evidence that fertilizing with manure poses a threat to human health?Historically, humans have used manure and manure for fertilization of crops for a long time, and there have been no serious safety problems as a result.
Prior to the advent of chemical fertilizers, this method of fertilization was widely adopted worldwide and did not cause serious public health problems. Therefore, whether fertilization with manure poses a threat to public health and *** needs to be supported by more comprehensive scientific research and evidence. In addition, as experts have pointed out, there is no scientific basis for the claim that garlic in China is watered with fecal water. For the production method of garlic in China, China** has also been strengthening supervision and management to ensure food safety and quality. Therefore, Scott's statement does not seem to correspond to the actual situation. Of course, the friction between the United States and China caused by a single garlic involves more issues such as politics and international competition. The inspection standards and quality control of imported goods in the United States** are legal acts to ensure the domestic market and the rights and interests of consumers. However, it is worth pondering whether this kind of unilateral obstruction of political factors is reasonable. Finally, we must also realize that in the era of globalization, economic exchanges and exchanges between countries are difficult to be influenced by temporary political factors.
China and the United States are both the world's largest economies, and the two sides also have a close cooperative relationship. It is hoped that the two sides will resolve their differences through dialogue and consultation on the basis of mutual respect, equality and mutual benefit, so as to promote the sustained and healthy development of China-US economic and trade relations. Overall, the question of whether Chinese garlic threatens the United States *** is subject to more scientific research and evidence. In the international arena, political factors should not become an obstacle to development, and the two sides should resolve differences through dialogue and consultation based on the principles of mutual respect, equality and mutual benefit, so as to promote the sustained and healthy development of China-US economic and trade relations. U.S. Senator Rick Scott recently made remarks about China's fertilizer problem, which sparked heated discussions. Scott claimed that the fertilizer exported by China to the United States was "human manure" and called it a threat. This remark has not only aroused attention at home and abroad, but also aroused widespread discussion and questioning among people. On this issue, we might as well think about it from another angle: which is safer and healthier, chemical fertilizer or organic fertilizer?
First, let's look at the background of this question. In modern agriculture, most crops use chemical fertilizers, while organic fertilizers are marginalized due to their long growth cycle and low efficiency. Issues such as pesticide residues and fertilizers in agricultural products have been controversial, while organic produce is highly sought after due to its unique production methods. People say that organic produce is safer, healthier and better for the human body. But do these arguments hold up at all?As a natural organic fertilizer, organic fertilizer does have many advantages, but the growth cycle is slow and the efficiency is low, which is why most agricultural production uses chemical fertilizers. Chemical fertilizers are easily soluble in water, decompose quickly, and are easily absorbed by the root system, and are also called fast-acting fertilizers. These advantages have made chemical fertilizers dominant in modern agriculture. However, the safety of agricultural products caused by chemical fertilizers cannot be ignored. Residues of chemical fertilizers in agricultural products can have a certain impact on human health, which is one of the reasons why people favor organic agricultural products.
Of course, in response to Senator Scott's remarks, we might as well ask a rhetorical question: if organic fertilizer is a natural organic fertilizer, why should it be called "human manure"?Is there a certain drama and exaggeration in such statements?In fact, such statements are likely to be exaggerated for some purpose. Senator Scott, as a senator from Florida, will undoubtedly attract more attention with his remarks. In this way, he may aim to attract more eyeballs and improve his popularity in the public. In addition, Senator Scott's remarks may also have a certain political purpose. Against the backdrop of the current tensions between China and the United States, there are many negative remarks made by American politicians about China. Such rhetoric tends to resonate emotionally with those at the bottom, which in turn diverts attention from domestic issues and turns the focus to external threats. This is reminiscent of some of Wang's remarks in the early days of the pandemic, and the response of former FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb.
There may be more political considerations behind these statements. To sum up, there are pros and cons to fertilizers and organic fertilizers, and Senator Scott's remarks have sparked more reflection and discussion on this issue. We might as well start from a more objective perspective, look at this issue rationally, and not be swayed by words. At the same time, in the face of such remarks, we also need to keep a cool head, not be swayed by emotions, look at problems rationally, and make correct judgments. After all, only rational discussion can find a better solution. During the pandemic, some rhetoric advised people to drink disinfectants or inject disinfectants to kill the virus. These dangerous acts have had a terrifying effect on some groups of people and have even led to unfortunate results. An American woman in her 60s listened to these advices and drank detergent at the same time as her husband, who died that day. Could such a tragedy be avoided?On the other hand, we can't help but wonder why such rhetoric can spread in societyWhy would people believe such advice?
Is there some root cause?Let's take a look at the question. First, the disinfectant manufacturer issued a statement warning people not to drink their products and stressed that disinfectant products should not enter the human body. This is because the chemical components in disinfectants are harmful to the human body and can lead to poisoning and even death. At the same time, the WHO** also pointed out that the recommendation to kill the virus with ultraviolet radiation and disinfectant injections is very dangerous, and from a scientific point of view, such actions can lead to the cost of lives. However, even so, why would anyone even try such a dangerous behavior?Second, some of these people at the bottom believe these statements, probably because they lack scientific knowledge, lack medical knowledge, and are prone to believe these seemingly ridiculous suggestions. These people are often susceptible to some extreme remarks, listen to the wind and rain, and are prone to panic and suspicion of conspiracy theories, China threat theories and other remarks.
In the absence of information, they can easily become the target of deception, so more science popularization and education are needed to help them distinguish between true and false information. In addition, there are some groups of people who may spread these erroneous remarks because of their own interests or the needs of their position in order to achieve a certain goal. These people may be motivated by political, economic, or other purposes, taking advantage of the fears and uncertainty of some people, and spreading misinformation for their own ends. This is also an important reason for the spread of these rhetoric. To sum up, we should increase the popularization of scientific knowledge and strengthen the ability to screen information. At the same time, rational thinking should be advocated and rumors and extremist remarks should not be believed. ** and social organizations should also strengthen supervision to prevent the spread of erroneous speech and protect people's health and life safety. It is hoped that everyone can look at information rationally, not be misled by extreme remarks, resist erroneous remarks together, and protect the lives of themselves and others.
The U.S. Department of Commerce recently announced a new round of anti-dumping investigations into garlic imports from China, which involves the interests of garlic farmers growing in the United States. Some people may find such a decision a bit strange, but in reality, there is a deeper motive behind it. Behind the investigation, it may not only be ***, but also the consideration of votes, farmers' interests, and even political struggles. When we see some decisions that seem outrageous, we might as well think more about what is behind the scenes. After all, people's behavior is often inseparable from the word "profit".