林博客
潜龙勿用，亢龙有悔

10 reasons why GM won’t feed the world

转基因无益于世界的十个原因

Mark Anslow   The Ecologist   March 1, 2008

马克·安斯洛   生态学者   2008.03.01

翻译：独秀书生（嘉林）

Genetic modification can’t deliver a safe, secure future food supply. Here’s why…

转基因不能提供安全、有效的未来食品供应。原因如下：

1. Failure to deliver

1.失败的宣称

Despite the hype, genetic modification consistently fails to live up to industry claims. Only two GM traits have ever made it to market: herbicide resistance and BT toxin expression (see below). Other promises of genetic modification have failed to materialise. The much vaunted GM ‘golden rice’– hailed as a cure to vitamin A deficiency – has never made it out of the laboratory, partly because in order to meet recommended levels of vitamin A intake, consumers would need to eat 12 bowls of the rice every day.[1] In 2004, the Kenyan government admitted that Monsanto’s GM sweet potatoes were no more resistant to feathery mottle virus than ordinary strains, and in fact produced lower yields.[2] And in January 2008, news that scientists had modified a carrot to cure osteoporosis by providing calcium had to be weighed against the fact that you would need to eat 1.6 kilograms of these vegetables each day to meet your recommended calcium intake.[3]

实际情况与其推销相反，转基因毫无例外地全部未能实现该行业的相关宣称。只有两种转基因特性被市场共知，分别是抗除草剂性和BT杀虫基因的表达（请情下文）。关于转基因的其它承诺也未能实现。最为推崇的转基因金水稻——被视为克服了维生素A缺乏的问题——然而这却仍停留在实验阶段，部分原因是，为了取得维生素A的建议摄入水平，消费者每天必须吃下12碗①这种米饭。[1] 2004年，肯尼亚政府承认，孟山都公司的转基因甜薯的抗羽状斑驳病毒能力并不比常规品种强，实际上，转基因甜薯还导致了产量的下降。[2] 2008年1月，科学家们通过加入钙成分来治愈骨质疏松症转基因胡萝卜不得不面对这样的情况——为了达到必要的钙摄入水平，你每天得吃1.6公斤这种蔬菜。[3]

2. Costing the Earth

2.全球代价

GM crops are costing farmers and governments more money than they are making. In 2003, a report by the Soil Association estimated the cost to the US economy of GM crops at around $12 billion (£6 billion) since 1999, on account of inflated farm subsidies, loss of export orders and various seed recalls.[4] A study in Iowa found that GM soyabeans required all the same costs as conventional farming but, because they produced lower yields (see below), the farmers ended up making no profit at all.[5] In India, an independent study found that BT cotton crops were costing farmers 10 per cent more than non-BT variants and bringing in 40 per cent lower profits.[6] Between 2001 and 2005, more than 32,000 Indian farmers committed suicide, most as a result of mounting debts caused by inadequate crops.[7]

转基因作物花费了农民们和各个政府越来越多的金钱。2003年，土壤协会的评估显示，自1999年始，在疯狂的农业补贴下，美国转基因作物经济已花费了120亿美元（6亿英磅），并且导致出口损失、各类种子被召回。衣阿华州的一份研究发现，转基因大豆要求与传统品种同样的投入成本，但是，由于转基因大豆导致了更低的产量，农民们最终根本没有获利。[5]印度的一份独立研究发现BT转基因棉花比非转基因棉花各类多花费了10%的生产成本，并且收益降低了40%。[6]2001至2005年，超过32000印度农民自杀②，几乎全部是因为种植这种不当的作物而导致债务缠身。[7]

3. Contamination and gene escape

3.污染和基因逃逸

No matter how hard you try, you can never be sure that what you are eating is GM-free. In a recent article, the New Scientist admitted that contamination and cross-fertilisation between GM and non-GM crops ‘has happened on many occasions already’.[8] In late 2007, US company Scotts Miracle-Gro was fined $500,000 by the US Department of Agriculture when genetic material from a new golf-course grass Scotts had been testing was found in native grasses as far as 13 miles away from the test sites, apparently released when freshly cut grass was caught and blown by the wind.[9] In 2006, an analysis of 40 Spanish conventional and organic farms found that eight were contaminated with GM corn varieties, including one farmer whose crop contained 12.6 per cent GM plants.

无论怎样阻止，我们都将无法找出没有转基因成分的食品。最近的一篇文章指出，新科学家确认，污染和转基因作物与非转基因作物的交叉施肥“在很多情况下已然发生”。[8]2007年稍晚时候，美国Scotts Miracle-Gro公司被美国农业部处罚了50万美元，原因是对一个新的Scotts高尔夫草场的转基因物质进行了测验，发现出现远在13英里外的本地草场中。显然，这是由对草料的剪裁和风吹所致的。[9]2006年，一份关于40家西班牙传统有机农场的分析显示，有8家被各种转基因作物污染，其中一位农场主的农作物包含 12.6%的转基因植物。

4. Reliance on pesticides

4.无法离开杀虫剂

Far from reducing dependency on pesticides and fertilisers, GM crops frequently increase farmers’ reliance on these products. Herbicide-resistant crops can be sprayed indiscriminately with weedkillers such as Monsanto’s ‘Roundup’ because they are engineered to withstand the effect of the chemical. This means that significantly higher levels of herbicide are found in the final food product, however, and often a second herbicide is used in the late stages of the crop to promote ‘dessication’ or drying, meaning these crops receive a double dose of harmful chemicals.[10] BT maize, engineered to produce an insecticidal toxin, has never eliminated the use of pesticides,[11] and because the BT gene cannot be ‘switched off’ the crops continue to produce the toxin right up until harvest, reaching the consumer at its highest possible concentrations.[12]

转基因作物并未减少对杀虫剂和化肥的依赖，相反却屡次增加了农民们对这些产品用量的依赖，抗除草剂作物可以被喷洒诸如孟山都公司的农达的除草剂，这是因为这些转基因作物被设计成可以抵抗这种化学物质。这说明在最终食物产品中会有更多的除草剂，并且作物生长的最后阶段会再次使用除草剂进行干燥处理，这意味着这些作物接受了双倍的有毒化学物质剂量。[10]设计产生杀虫毒素的BT转基因玉米，从未降低杀虫剂的用量，[11]而且由于BT基因不能阻止农作物在收获前持续产生毒素，这将导致毒素在消费者体内最高水平的集中。[12]

5. ‘Frankenfoods’

5.“基因改造食物”

Despite the best efforts of the biotech industry, consumers remain staunchly opposed to GM food. In 2007, the vast majority of 11,700 responses to the Government’s consultation on whether contamination of organic food with traces of GM crops should be allowed were strongly negative. The Government’s own ‘GM Nation’ debate in 2003 discovered that half of its participants ‘never want to see GM crops grown in the United Kingdom under any circumstances’, and 96 per cent thought that society knew too little about the health impacts of genetic modification. In India, farmers’ experience of BT cotton has been so disastrous that the Maharashtra government now advises that farmers grow soybeans instead. And in Australia, over 250 food companies lodged appeals with the state governments of New South Wales and Victoria over the lifting of bans against growing GM canola crops.[13]

不管生物学行业如何努力，消费者仍是坚定地反对转基因食品。2007年，关于有机食品的转基因作物污染痕迹是否应该被允许的政府咨询会议收到了11700份之多的回应，其否定态度十分激烈。2003年政府的“转基因国家”的辩论发现一半的参与者“根本不愿看到英国在任何情况下种植转基因作物”，96%的人认为社会对转基因对健康的影响知之甚少。在印度，种植BT转基因棉花的农民们损失惨重，以致于Maharashtra政府现在建议农民们改种大豆。在澳大利亚，由于维多利亚和新南威尔士对种植转基因油菜作物的禁令，有超过250食品公司向州政府提出上诉。[13]

6. Breeding resistance

6.抵抗正常培育

Nature is smart, and there are already reports of species resistant to GM crops emerging. This is seen in the emergence of new ‘superweeds’ on farms in North America – plants that have evolved the ability to withstand the industry’s chemicals. A report by then UK conservation body English Nature (now Natural England), in 2002, revealed that oilseed rape plants that had developed resistance to three or more herbicides were ‘not uncommon’ in Canada.[14] The superweeds had been created through random crosses between neighbouring GM crops. In order to tackle these superweeds, Canadian farmers were forced to resort to even stronger, more toxic herbicides.[15] Similarly, pests (notably the diamondback moth) have been quick to develop resistance to BT toxin, and in 2007 swarms of mealy bugs began attacking supposedly pest-resistant Indian cotton.

自然的是最好的。已有报道指出转基因作物的特殊耐性已经形成。在北美的农田中出现了一种新的“超级杂草”——一种已经进化出可以抵抗转基因行业化学物质的植物。2002年，当时的英国自然英语保持组织（现在为自然英格兰）的一份报告透露出，在加拿大对三种或更多除草剂有抵抗性的油菜作物并不是不常见的。[14]这种超级杂草是由相邻的转基因作物的任意交叉而产生出来的。为了应对这些超级杂草，加拿大的农民们被迫诉诸于使用更强效、更具毒性的除草剂。[]51类似地，害虫（特别是菱形斑纹蛾）也已经拥有了对BT毒素的抵抗性，如2007年在印度一大群粉状昆虫开始攻击被宣称可以抵抗虫害的棉花。

7. Creating problems for solutions

7.制造问题以便于能够解决它

Many of the so-called ‘problems’ for which the biotechnology industry develops ‘solutions’ seem to be notions of PR rather than science. Herbicide-resistance was sold under the claim that because crops could be doused in chemicals, there would be much less need to weed mechanically or plough the soil, keeping more carbon and nitrates under the surface. But a new long-term study by the US Agricultural Research Service has shown that organic farming, even with ploughing, stores more carbon than the GM crops save.[16] BT cotton was claimed to increase resistance to pests, but farmers in East Africa discovered that by planting a local weed amid their corn crop, they could lure（引诱） pests to lay their eggs on the weed and not the crop.[17]

生物工学行业对许多所谓的“问题”的解决似乎更依赖于公共关系而非科学。在转基因作物因被化学物质包围而使得机械除草和翻犁土壤的必要性降低、地下可以保持更多地碳、氮的美丽声称下，抗除草剂的转基因作物种子被销售。但是美国农业调查服务机构的一项长期研究显示，有机农业——甚至于机械的犁作方式——保持着比转基因作物更多的碳肥料。[16]BT转基因棉花被声称可以增强对害虫的抵抗性，但是东部非洲的农民发现，在他们的小麦作物田里种植本地杂草，可以引诱害虫在杂草上产卵而不再侵害作物。[17]

8. Health risks

8.健康风险

The results of tests on animals exposed to GM crops give serious cause for concern over their safety. In 1998, Scottish scientists found damage to every single internal organ in rats fed blight-resistant GM potatoes. In a 2006 experiment, female rats fed on herbicide-resistant soybeans gave birth to severely stunted pups, of which half died within three weeks. The survivors were sterile. In the same year, Indian news agencies（媒介） reported that thousands of sheep allowed to graze on BT cotton crop residues（残渣） had died suddenly. Further cases of livestock deaths followed in 2007. There have also been reports of allergy-like symptoms among Indian labourers in BT cotton fields. In 2002, the only trial ever to involve human beings appeared to show that altered genetic material from GM soybeans not only survives in the human gut, but may even pass its genetic material to bacteria within the digestive system.[18]

动物喂养转基因作物试验的结果，导致了人们对食品安全的严重担忧。1998年，西班牙科学家发现被喂养了抗枯萎转基因土豆的小鼠的每一个内脏器官都受到了损伤。2006年一个试验，被喂养了抗除草剂的转基因大豆雌性小鼠的生育能力强烈下降，其生育的幼鼠中有一半在三周内死亡，存活的幼鼠则发育不良。同一年，印度的新闻媒体报告数以千计被允许喂养BT转基因棉花作物残渣的绵羊很快死亡。2007年则有更多的家畜死亡事件发生。印度还报道过BT转基因棉花田间耕作者的疑似过敏症状。2002年的一份迄今唯一的人体试验显示，转基因玉米中的被改变过的基因物质不仅存在于人体肠道，其甚至可以进入到消化系统中的细菌细胞之中。[18]

9. Left hungry

9.产生和加剧饥饿

GM crops have always come with promises of increased yields for farmers, but this has rarely been the case. A three-year study of 87 villages in India found that non-BT cotton consistently produced 30 per cent higher yields than the (more expensive) GM alternative.[19] It is now widely accepted that GM soybeans produce consistently lower yields than conventional varieties. In 1992, Monsanto’s own trials showed that the company’s Roundup Ready soybeans yield 11.5 per cent less on harvest. Later Monsanto studies went on to reveal that some trials of GM canola crops in Australia actually produced yields 16 per cent below the non-GM national average.[20]

转基因作物被承诺可以提高农民们的粮食产量，但这几乎没有成为事实。印度的一份对87个村庄进行为期3年的研究发现，非BT转基因棉花提供了比其（更反昂贵的）转基因替代物高30%的产量。[19]转基因玉米的产量低于其传统品种的事实已经被广泛接受。1992年孟山都自己的试验显示，其抗农达除草剂的玉米收获的产量减少了11.5%。孟山都后来的研究继续透露，其在澳大利亚的几份关于转基因考拉作物的试验产量比非转基因的全国平均水平下降了16%。[20]

10. Wedded to fertilisers and fossil fuels

10. 使用化肥增加化石燃料消耗

No genetically modified crop has yet eliminated the need for chemical fertilisers in order to achieve expected yields. Although the industry has made much of the possibility of splicing nitrogen-fixing genes into commercial food crops in order to boost yields, there has so far been little success. This means that GM crops are just as dependent on fossil fuels to make fertilisers as conventional agriculture. In addition to this, GM traits are often specifically designed to fit with large-scale industrial agriculture. Herbicide resistance is of no real benefit unless your farm is too vast to weed mechanically, and it presumes that the farmers already farm in a way that involves the chemical spraying of their crops. Similarly, BT toxin expression is designed to counteract the problem of pest control in vast monocultures, which encourage infestations. In a world that will soon have to change its view of farming – facing as it does the twin challenges of climate change and peak oil – GM crops will soon come to look like a relic of bygone practices.

为了实现预期产量而使用的化学肥料的需求并没有因为转基因作物而降低。尽管转基因行业已经做了很多接合碳固定基因到商业食物的作物中，以便于提高产量，但到目前为止还没有一丝成功的迹象。这意味着转基因作物只利用化石燃料制造传统农业所需的化肥。另外，转基因试验经常进行特殊设计以便整合大面积工业化农业生产。故而抗除草剂特性并没有真实的好处可言，除非农场大到足够可以进行机械化除草，或者假定农场主的耕作方式包含向农作物喷洒化学物质。同样地，BT毒素基因表达被设计成可抵消鼓励群作的单一耕种的大农场的虫害控制问题。在全球范围内，这将改变未来的耕作方式——我们不得不面对转基因作物所导致的全球气候变化和石油峰值的到来——转基因作物会很快成为过去实验的遗迹。

Mark Anslow is the Ecologist’s senior reporter

迈克·安斯洛，生态学者中的资深记者

---

①直译如此。威廉·恩道尔著、知识产权出版社出版的《粮食危机》在论述到金水稻时说道：“有人曾预测，一个亚洲人平均每天需要吃掉9公斤大米才能满足人类正常的维生素A最低摄入量。一个亚洲人一般一日三餐食用300克大米，只能提供8%的需要量。”（P？？？页数）

② 根据记者赵国贺2010年07月14日的《转基因种子为害印度印度已有20万棉农自》：

“2002年104起，2003年148起，2004年447起，2005年445起，2006年1448起，2007年1246起，2008年1267起。”“据印度国家犯罪记录办公室的统计数据，从1997年至今，已有近20万印度农民自杀身亡，其中很大一部分是棉农。”

http://finance.ifeng.com/news/hqcj/20100714/2407184.shtml 

References

参考文献

1 http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=8521

2 http://www.greens.org/s-r/35/35-03.html

3 Telegraph, 14th January 2008, http://tinyurl.com/38e2rp

4 Soil Association, 2007, http://tinyurl.com/33bfuh

5 http://ianrnews.unl.edu/static/0005161.shtml

6 http://www.i-sis.org.uk/IBTCF.php

7 Indian Muslims, 20th November 2007, http://tinyurl.com/2u7wy7

8 New Scientist, ‘Genes for Greens’, 5th January 2007, Issue 2637, Vol 197

9 http://gmfoodwatch.tribe.net/thread/a1b77b8b-15f5-4f1d-86df-2bbca5aaec70

10 http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=9927

11 http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpWESSEX/Documents/usdagmeconomics.htm

12 http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=9927

13 http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/11/27/18463803.php

14 http://www.english-nature.org.uk/pubs/publication/PDF/enrr443.pdf

15 Innovations Report, 20th June 2005, http://tinyurl.com/3axmln

16 http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=8658

17 http://www.i-sis.org.uk/GMcropsfailed.php

18 All references from ‘GM Food Nightmare Unfolding in the Regulatory Sham’, Mae-Wan Ho, Joe Cummins, Peter Saunders, ISIS report.

19 http://www.i-sis.org.uk/IBTCF.php

20 http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=8558

Source: http://www.theecologist.org/archive_detail.asp?content_id=1185

标签: Ban-GM, BT, GM, 产量, 健康, 化石燃料, 印度, 基因, 有机农业, 杀虫剂, 粮食危机, 维生素, 美国, 转基因, 转基因大豆, 转基因棉花, 转基因食品, 除草剂, 风险, 饥饿