林博客
潜龙勿用，亢龙有悔

转基因作物：研究证明其局限性、风险和替代物（上）

转基因作物是否环保？

 

市场上占主导地位的转基因作物有两类：

·能抵抗全效除草剂的作物，如美国的农达牌除草剂：这种作物可以减少喷洒除草剂的次数并且不会被除草剂杀死。

·能生成杀虫剂中苏云金杆菌毒蛋白的作物：种植这种作物可减少化学杀虫剂的喷洒量。

然而，上述两种说法都有待进一步分析。

转基因作物和除草剂

 

最普遍的是被设计成对农达牌除草剂具有抗药性的抗除草剂转基因作物。但是随着农达除草剂的广泛使用，出现了很多对这种除草剂免疫的杂草，[82]如藜[83]，黑麦草[84]和抗草甘膦杉叶藻[85]等。在美国最初引进转基因作物时除草剂的用量下降，然而，在出现抗农达药性杂草后，[86 87 ]越来越多的农户不得不改变耕作习惯来除草。农民们疯狂加大农达的用量，并被告知需要使用更强效的混合除草剂，且不仅限于农达。[88 89]

这些化学制剂都有毒性，危害到喷药的农民和食用染毒植物的人和牲畜。农达的例子尤甚。事实证明，农达除草剂在杀伤植物细胞方面的毒性类似于抗药性转基因作物的细胞所遭受的破坏力。[90]

加拿大政府在2001年的一项研究表明，抗除草剂转基因油菜在商业化种植仅4-5年，就已经通过交叉授粉导致了对三种不同的全效除草剂均有抗药性的顽固性杂草的出现。这种杂草成为严重困扰农民的一大问题，并波及相邻农田的主人。[91 92 93]

另有发现表明，转基因油菜能和其它植物交叉授粉并把抗药性基因遗传给这些植物，如芜菁和野萝卜。这导致这些植物变种成很难被农民控制的顽固性杂草且的可能性便会增加。[94]针对这一情况，业内的回应是增加除草剂的用量、使用复杂的混合除草剂[95 96]、培育能抵抗新型、混合型除草剂的作物。这种对策显然会导致化学药剂的恶性循环，让人难以接受，尤其对发展中国家的农民而言更是如此。

杀虫剂产生型的转基因作物

 

杀虫剂产生型的Bt转基因作物已经显示出能抵御害虫，是加大了化学药剂应用的结果。[97 98 99]

在中国和印度，Bt转基因棉花最初在消灭棉花象鼻虫方面很有效。但是对第二代的害虫，特别如粉蚧科的介壳虫是高度抵抗Bt毒素的，迅速成为主要害虫。农民们承受了大规模的作物减产，还不得不使用昂贵的农药，因此而抵销他们的利润所得。[100 101 102 103]因为承担不起高昂的投入，这样的发展对发展中国家的农民是非常有损害性的。

所谓Bt转基因作物能减少杀虫剂的使用的观点是愚蠢的，因为Bt作物是自我杀虫的。法国科恩大学的吉尔斯•艾瑞克萨拉利尼说，Bt作物实际上是被设计产生毒素来抵御害虫的，Bt转基因的茄子（茄子即紫色茄子）产生了多到每公斤16-17毫克的毒素。它们能毒害动物，不幸的是，确定它们对人类的的影响效力未能试验。[104]

转基因作物和野生动物

 

英国政府资助的农场层面农业方面的试验表明，抗除草剂转基因作物（例如糖萝卜、油菜籽油菜）的生长会消减野生物种群的数量。[105 106]

阿根廷的例子

 

在阿根廷，大量种植转基因黄豆产品的农业转型已导致农村社会和经济结构方面灾难性的后果。它损害了食品安全并且引起了相当严重的环境问题，包括抗除草剂的杂草蔓延，土壤质量退化以及虫害虫和疾病频发。[107 108]

转基因作物和非目标性的昆虫以及有机生物体

 

Bt杀虫转基因作物伤害无关昆虫群体，包括蝴蝶[109 110 111]和一些有益的害虫天敌。[112]Bt转基因作物的杀虫剂对水生生物[113]和土壤中的有机生物有毒害作用[114]。一项研究披露，Bt杀虫转基因作物对益虫有更加负面而不是正面的影响。[115]

转基因和非转基因作物能共存吗

 

一些搞生物工程的人反驳说，如果农民愿意，他们可以选择种植转基因作物，他们声称转基因作物和非转基因作物可以和平共处。然而北美的经验已经表明，让转基因作物和非转基因作物“共存”很快导致非转基因作物被广泛污染。

这不仅对农业生态学方面有重要影响，还对经济产生严重后果，损害了传统有机农业农民们获取收益的能力。也阻碍了向对基因污染进行严格管理的国家的出口市场的发展。

污染的发生植物间的交叉授粉，并通过农具上的转基因种子和无意间的混合存储散播。转基因作物进入一个国家就决定了——每个人都会逐渐被迫培植转基因作物，否则将不得不接受他们的传统作物的被污染。

这里就有一些典型的转基因污染事件：

·在2006年，转基因大米刚进行了一年的领域性试验，就被发现造成了大面积美国大米供应源和种子苗木污染[116]。被污染的大米甚至出现在遥远的非洲、欧洲和美洲中部。2007年三月路透社报道，美国出口大米的销售量比上一年锐减20%，就是前些年转基因污染的结果。[117]

·在加拿大，转基因油菜的污染使得根本上已不可能栽培有机非转基因油菜了。[118]

·美国法院推翻了对转基因紫苜蓿的批准，因为它通过交叉授粉威胁非转基因苜蓿。[119]

·由于转基因玉米以英亩计的种植面积增加，西班牙的有机玉米同样因为交叉授粉问题导致产量显著下降。[120]

·2009年，随着广泛散播的未经授权的转基因变种所带来的污染被发现，加拿大亚麻种子的欧洲出口市场瓦解。[121]

·仅2007年，就有39例新出现的转基因污染事件发生在23个国家，而从2005年以来，216起相关污染事件被报道。[122]

对转基因的替代

 

许多权威机构，包括IAASTD关于农业前景123的报告，发现转基因作物对全球农业的改善和对抗贫穷、饥饿以及气候变化几乎没什么贡献，因为存在更好的替代。它们多种多样可以列举很多，包括综合害虫管理、有机生物、可持续的、低投入、非化学害虫管理和农业生态农场，它们的扩展可以超越彼此的特定领域界限。在发展中国家专门项目应用这些经过证实的策略已经很生动地增加了产量和粮食安全。[124 125 126 127 128 129]

这些战略应用包括：

·可持续，低投入，节省能源的实践，保持建设土壤，加强的抗自然害虫和稳定性。

·创新农耕办法，以减少和消除高成本的化学杀虫剂和施肥。

·应用成千上万种传统农业中每种主粮作物，自然地适应了各种自然压力例如干旱、高温、恶劣天气、水涝、盐碱地、土壤贫瘠、害虫和疾病等。[130]

·应用现存的作物和它们的野生家族传统的育种项目，以发展有利的品种多样性。

·传播能使农民相互协作地保持并改进的传统种子。

·应用现代生物技术有益的和全面的方面。例如标记辅助选择，即用最新遗传知识来加速传统繁殖。[131]不同于转基因技术，标记辅助选择可以安全地生产出新的多种作物品种，使之产生有价值的基因嫁接体，诸如增加营养、口感、产量以及抵御虫害和疾病的能力，以及培养其耐旱、耐热、抗盐碱、抗涝的能力。[132]

有机生物农业和低投入耕作在非洲改进了产量

 

因为已经存在经过试验和检测的低成本方法增加粮食产量，所以没有理由来拿着贫穷农民的身家性命来赌博，而非要劝说他们种植尚处试验阶段的转基因作物。最近的许多研究表明，在非洲国家诸如有机农业的低投入做法可以大幅度地提升产量，并带来其它益处。这样以相关知识为基础的做法比以高投入为基础更具优势。结果是它们比那些昂贵的高科技（过去也毫无补益）更容易被贫穷的农民接受。

2008年联合国的《非洲的有机农业和粮食安全》报告考察了在24个非洲国家的114组农业项目，发现有机农业或者近似有机农业的实践，带来产量的增加超过100%。在东部非洲，产量增加了128%。[133]进一步的研究表述：“这些研究证据支持了这样的观点，即在非洲，有机农业比常规农业生产系统更有利于粮食安全，从长远看也更具可持续性。[134]

有机和低投入方法增加了发展中国家农民的收入

 

贫穷是粮食危机的主要因素，根据2008年联合国的《非洲的有机农业和粮食安全》报告，有机耕作从多方面积极改善贫穷——农民主要收益于：

·现金储蓄，因为有机耕作不要求高成本的杀虫剂和化肥。

·额外收入，来自于出售副产品（因为要改成有机耕作）。

·对合格的有机产品的奖励价格，最初在非洲取得用于出口，同时也在国内市场出售。

·加工有机产品的附加价值。

这些发现被来自亚洲和拉丁美洲的研究所支持。这些研究的结论是有机农业能以环境友好的方式减少贫穷。

最近的研究表明，合格的有机农场生产的产品参与的出口，比常规产品（指农民的净收入）可以获取更高的利润。[136]在这些例子中，87%的农民和家庭的收入增加得益于采用有机耕作，因此有机耕作有助于降低贫困水平并增加区域性粮食安全。[135]

谁占有转基因技术

 

关于哪种农业技术最有利于于发展中国家的争论，要害是应当弄清楚谁占有这种技术。基因革命被引入非洲将消除当地公共和私人的合作关系，其中的公共方面将由非洲方面提供，而私人方面是美国和欧洲的生物技术公司。

在转基因作物中应用的植入基因被生物技术公司申请专利和所有。在美国和加拿大，许多公司打官司把农民告上法庭，指责他们的作物中有这些公司的专利基因。农民们辨白说他们不是故意地种植了转基因作物，但无法阻止法庭的巨额罚款。

如果农民们购买转基因种子，他们必须签一个技术合同，保证不私留和再培育种子。他们每年不得不从生物技术公司买新种子，从而将粮食控制权拱手让给了种子公司。不断加强的种子产业逐渐意味着，农民除了购买转基因种子别无选择。千百年来农民根据知识建立的适应于各地的多种类的种子供给被抹去了。

相反，低投入和有机农耕办法不涉及专利技术，粮食控制保留在农民手上，保持了农民的耕种技术，且有利于对粮食安全。

结论

 

转基因作物栽培技术并没有提供特别的优势。相反，它们却凸显了对人类和动物健康、环境、农民生计、食品安全和出口市场的风险。迄今没有一个有说服力的理由去拿农民的生计冒险，尤其是被证明成功的和被广泛接受的替代方法容易地、廉价地存在着。这样的替代方法将保持粮食供应的独立性，而不受外国跨国公司的控制，而且提供最佳保险以应对气候变化的挑战。

英语原文（略）

 

注释（References）

 

1. The Mutational Consequences of Plant Transformation. Latham J.R. et al. J Biomed Biotech. 2006, Article ID 25376, 1-7, 2006.

2. Transformation-induced mutations in transgenic plants: Analysis and biosafety implications. Wilson A.K. et al. Biotechnol Genet Eng Rev., 23: 209-234, 2006.

3. Safety testing and regulation of genetically engineered foods. Freese W and Schubert D. Biotechnol Genet Eng Rev., 21: 299-324, 2004.

4. GMO in animal nutrition: potential benefits and risks. Pusztai A. and Bardocz S. In: Biology of Nutrition in Growing Animals, eds. R. Mosenthin, J. Zentek and T. Zebrowska, Elsevier Limited, pp. 513-540, 2006.

5. Assessing the survival of transgenic plant DNA in the human gastrointestinal tract. Netherwood T. et al. Nat Biotech., 22: 204-209, 2004.

6. Experts Weigh In: Will Trans Fat Bans Affect Obesity Trends? Meir Stampfer. DOC News, Volume 4 (Number 5): p. 1, 1 May 2007.

7. Food related illness and death in the United States. Mead P.S. et al. Emerging Infectious Diseases, 5: 607-625, 1999.

8. Food Safety – Contaminants and Toxins. Unpublished study reviewed in J.P.F. D’Mello, CABI Publishing, 2003.

9. Fine structural analysis of pancreatic acinar cell nuclei from mice fed on GM soybean. Malatesta M. et al. Eur J Histochem., 47: 385-388, 2003.

10. Ultrastructural morphometrical and immunocytochemical analyses of hepatocyte nuclei from mice fed on genetically modified soybean. Malatesta M et al. Cell Struct Funct., 27: 173-180, 2002.

11. Ultrastructural analysis of testes from mice fed on genetically modified soybean. Vecchio L. et al. Eur J Histochem., 48: 448-454, 2004.

12. Transgenic expression of bean alpha-amylase inhibitor in peas results in altered structure and immunogenicity. Prescott V.E. et al. J Agric Food Chem., 53: 9023-9030, 2005.

13. Biotechnology Consultation Note to the File BNF No 00077. Office of Food Additive Safety, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, US Food and Drug Administration, 4 September 2002.

14. GMO in animal nutrition: potential benefits and risks. Pusztai A. and Bardocz S. In: Biology of Nutrition in Growing Animals, eds. R. Mosenthin, J. Zentek and T. Zebrowska, Elsevier Limited, pp. 513-540, 2006.

15. Effects of diets containing genetically modified potatoes expressing Galanthus nivalis lectin on rat small intestine. Ewen S.W. and Pusztai A. The Lancet, 354: 1353-1354, 1999.

16. New analysis of a rat feeding study with a genetically modified maize reveals signs of hepatorenal toxicity. Séralini, G.-E. et al. Arch. Environ Contam Toxicol., 52: 596-602, 2007.

17. A three generation study with genetically modified Bt corn in rats: Biochemical and histopathological investigation. Kilic A and Akay MT. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 46: 1164-1170, 2008.

18. Intestinal and Peripheral Immune Response to MON810 Maize Ingestion in Weaning and Old Mice. Finamore A et al. J. Agric. Food Chem., 56: 11533-11539, 2008.

19. Biological effects of transgenic maize NK603xMON810 fed in long term reproduction studies in mice. Velimirov A et al. Bundesministerium für Gesundheit, Familie und Jugend Report, Forschungsberichte der Sektion IV Band 3/2008, Austria, 2008.

http://bmgfj.cms.apa.at/cms/site/attachments/3/2/9/CH0810/CMS1226492832306/forschungsbericht_3-2008_letztfassung.pdf

20. A long-term study on female mice fed on a genetically modified soybean: effects on liver ageing. Malatesta M. et al. Histochem Cell Biol., 130: 967-977, 2008.

21. Genetically modified soya bean in rabbit feeding: detection of DNA fragments and evaluation of metabolic effects by enzymatic analysis. R. Tudisco et al. Animal Science, 82: 193-199, 2006.

22. A three-year longitudinal study on the effects of a diet containing genetically modified Bt176 maize on the health status and performance of sheep. Trabalza-Marinucci M. et al. Livestock Science, 113: 178-190, 2008.

23. Fate of genetically modified maize DNA in the oral cavity and rumen of sheep. Duggan P.S. et al. Br J Nutr., 89: 159-166, 2003.

24. Detection of genetically modified DNA sequences in milk from the Italian market. Agodi A. et al. Int J Hyg Environ Health, 209: 81-88, 2006.

25. Assessing the transfer of genetically modified DNA from feed to animal tissues. Mazza R. et al. Transgenic Res., 14: 775-784, 2005.

26. Detection of Transgenic and Endogenous Plant DNA in Digesta and Tissues of Sheep and Pigs Fed Roundup Ready Canola Meal. Mazza R. et al. J Agric Food Chem. 54: 1699-1709, 2006.

27. How Subchronic and Chronic Health Effects can be Neglected for GMOs, Pesticides or Chemicals. Séralini, G-E, et al. International Journal of Biological Sciences, 2009; 5(5):438-443.

28. How Subchronic and Chronic Health Effects can be Neglected for GMOs, Pesticides or Chemicals. Séralini, G-E, et al. International Journal of Biological Sciences, 2009; 5(5):438-443.

29. Under wraps – Are the crop industry’s strong-arm tactics and close-fisted attitude to sharing seeds holding back independent research and undermining public acceptance of transgenic crops? Waltz, E., Nature Biotechnology, Vol. 27, No. 10, October 2009.

30. Crop Scientists Say Biotechnology Seed Companies Are Thwarting Research. Pollack, A., New York Times, 20 February 2009.

31. The Genetic Engineering of Food and the Failure of Science – Part 1: The Development of a Flawed Enterprise. Lotter, D., Int. Jrnl. of Soc. of Agr. & Food, Vol. 16, No. 1, 2007, pp. 31–49.

32. The Genetic Engineering of Food and the Failure of Science – Part 2: Academic Capitalism and the Loss of Scientific Integrity. Lotter, D., Int. Jrnl. of Soc. of Agr. & Food, Vol. 16, No. 1, 2008, pp. 50–68.

33. Biotech proponents aggressively attack independent research papers: GM crops: Battlefield. Waltz, E., Nature 461, 2009, 27–32.

34. Alterations in clinically important phytoestrogens in genetically modified, herbicide-tolerant soybeans. Lappe M.A. et al. J Med Food, 1: 241-245, 1999.

35. Seed-specific overexpression of phytoene synthase: increase in carotenoids and other metabolic effects. Shewmaker CK et al. Plant J, 20: 401-412, 1999.

36. Assessing the survival of transgenic plant DNA in the human gastrointestinal tract. Netherwood T. et al. Nat Biotech., 22: 204-209, 2004.

37. The fate of transgenes in the human gut. Heritage J. Nat Biotech., 22: 170-172, 2004.

38. Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1Ac Protoxin is a Potent Systemic and Mucosal Adjuvant. Vázquez RI et al. Scand J Immunol., 49: 578-584, 1999.

39. Intragastric and intraperitoneal administration of Cry1Ac protoxin from Bacillus thuringiensis induces systemic and mucosal antibody responses in mice. Vázquez-Padrón, RI et al. Life Sci., 64: 1897-1912, 1999.

40. Cry1Ac Protoxin from Bacillus thuringiensis sp. kurstaki HD73 Binds to Surface Proteins in the Mouse Small Intestine. Vázquez-Padrón, RI et al. Biochem Biophys Res Comm.,  271: 54-58, 2000.

41. Eosinophilia-myalgia syndrome and tryptophan production: a cautionary tale. Mayeno A.N and Gleich G.J. Tibtech, 12: 346-352, 1994.

42. Identification of a Brazil-nut allergen in transgenic soybeans. Nordlee J.E. et al. N England J Med., 334: 688-692, 1996.

43. GMO in animal nutrition: potential benefits and risks. Pusztai A. and Bardocz S. In: Biology of Nutrition in Growing Animals, eds. R. Mosenthin, J. Zentek and T. Zebrowska, Elsevier Limited, pp. 513-540, 2006.

44. Effects of diets containing genetically modified potatoes expressing Galanthus nivalis lectin on rat small intestine. Ewen S.W. and Pusztai A. The Lancet, 354: 1353-1354, 1999.

45. Transgenic expression of bean alpha-amylase inhibitor in peas results in altered structure and immunogenicity. Prescott V.E. et al. J Agric Food Chem., 53: 9023-9030, 2005.

46. A Note on Rising Food Prices. Donald Mitchell. World Bank report, 2008.

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Environment/documents/2008/07/10/Biofuels.PDF

47. Soaring Food Prices: Facts, Perspectives, Impacts and Actions Required. United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation conference and report, Rome, 3-5 June 2008.

http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/foodclimate/HLCdocs/HLC08-inf-1-E.pdf

48. Small Is Beautiful: Evidence of Inverse Size Yield Relationship in Rural Turkey. Ünal, FG. The Levy Economics Institute of Bard College, October 2006, updated December 2008.

http://www.levy.org/pubs/wp_551.pdf

49. Farm Size, Land Yields and the Agricultural Production function: An Analysis for Fifteen Developing Countries. Cornia, G. World Development, 13: 513-34, 1985.

50. Rural market imperfections and the farm size-productivity relationship: Evidence from Pakistan. Heltberg, R. World Development 26: 1807-1826, 1998.

51. Is there a future for small farms? Hazell, P. Agricultural Economics, 32: 93-101, 2005.

52. Is Small Beautiful? Farm Size, Productivity and Poverty in Asian Agriculture. Fan S and Chan-Kang C. Agricultural Economics, 32: 135-146, 2005.

53. Hope for Africa lies in political reforms. Daniel Howden, Africa correspondent, The Independent (London), 8 September 2008,

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/daniel-howden-hope-for-africa-lies-in-political-reforms-922487.html

54. Evidence of the Magnitude and Consequences of the Roundup Ready Soybean Yield Drag from University-Based Varietal Trials in 1998. Benbrook C. Benbrook Consulting Services Sandpoint, Idaho. Ag BioTech InfoNet Technical Paper, Number 1, 13 Jul 1999.

http://www.mindfully.org/GE/RRS-Yield-Drag.htm

55. Glyphosate-resistant soyabean cultivar yields compared with sister lines. Elmore R.W. et al. Agronomy Journal, 93: 408-412, 2001.

56. Development, yield, grain moisture and nitrogen uptake of Bt corn hybrids and their conventional near-isolines. Ma B.L. and Subedi K.D. Field Crops Research, 93: 199-211, 2005.

57. The Adoption of Bioengineered Crops. US Department of Agriculture Report, May 2002,

http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/aer810/aer810.pdf

58. International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development: Global Summary for Decision Makers (IAASTD); Beintema, N. et al., 2008.

http://www.agassessment.org/index.cfm?Page=IAASTD%20Reports&ItemID=2713

59. Failure to Yield: Evaluating the Performance of Genetically Engineered Crops. Doug Gurian-Sherman. Union of Concerned Scientists, April 2009, p. 13

60. Roundup ready Soybeans in Argentina: farm level and aggregate welfare effects. Qaim, M. and G. Traxler. 2005. Agricultural Economics 32: 73–86.

61. Doug Gurian-Sherman, quoted on Union of Concerned Scientists website,

http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/science_and_impacts/science/failure-to-yield.html

62. Millions served. Lynn J. Cook. Forbes magazine, 23 December 2002.

63. GM technology fails local potatoes. Gatonye Gathura. The Daily Nation (Kenya), 29 January 2004.

64. Monsanto’s showcase project in Africa fails. New Scientist, Vol. 181, No. 2433, 7 February 2004.

65. Genetically modified crops and sustainable poverty alleviation in sub-Saharan Africa: An assessment of current evidence. Aaron deGrassi. Third World Network-Africa, June 2003.

66. Plant Researchers Offer Bumper Crop of Humanity. Martha Groves. LA Times, 26 December 1997.

67. Danforth Center cassava viral resistance update. Donald Danforth Plant Science Center, 30 June 2006.

68. Can biotech from St. Louis solve hunger in Africa? Kurt Greenbaum. St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 9 December 2006.

69. St. Louis team fights crop killer in Africa. Eric Hand. St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 10 December 2006.

70.  Farmers get better yields from new drought-tolerant cassava. IITA, 3 November 2008; Cassava’s comeback. United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation, 13 November 2008.

71. A Disaster in Search of Success: Bt Cotton in Global South. Film by Community Media Trust, Pastapur, and Deccan Development Society, Hyderabad, India, February 2007.

72. Impact of Bt cotton adoption on pesticide use by smallholders: A 2-year survey in Makhatini Flats (South Africa). Hofs, J-L, et al. Crop Protection, Volume 25, Issue 9, September 2006, pp. 984–988.

73. Food, energy and society. Pimentel, D., and M. Pimentel. Niwot: Colorado University Press, 1996. Cited in Energy efficiency and conservation for individual Americans. D. Pimentel, Environ Dev Sustain, 1996.

74. Energy and economic inputs in crop production: Comparison of developed, developing countries. Pimentel, D., Doughty, R., Carothers, C., Lamberson, S., Bora, N., & Lee, K. In L. Lal, D. Hansen, N. Uphoff, & S. Slack (Eds.), Food security & environmental quality in the developing world (pp. 129–151). Boca Raton: CRC Press, 2002.

75. U.S. energy conservation and efficiency: Benefits and costs. Pimentel, D., Pleasant, A., Barron, J., Gaudioso, J., Pollock, N., Chae, E., Kim, Y., Lassiter, A., Schiavoni, C., Jackson, A., Lee, M., & Eaton, A. Environment Development and Sustainability, 6, 279–305, 2004.

76. Ethanol production using corn, switchgrass, and wood; and biodiesel production using soybean and sunflower. Pimentel, D., & Patzek, T. Natural Resources Research, 14(1), 65–76, 2005.

77. Energy and economic inputs in crop production: Comparison of developed, developing countries. Pimentel, D., Doughty, R., Carothers, C., Lamberson, S., Bora, N., & Lee, K. In L. Lal, D. Hansen, N. Uphoff, & S. Slack (Eds.), Food security & environmental quality in the developing world (pp. 129–151). Boca Raton: CRC Press, 2002.

78. Energy efficiency and conservation for individual Americans. D. Pimentel et al. Environ Dev Sustain., Vol. 11, No. 3, June 2009.

79. Environmental, Energetic, and Economic Comparisons of Organic and Conventional Farming Systems. Pimentel, D. et al. Bioscience, Vol. 55, No. 7, July 2005, pp. 573–582,

http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.1641/0006-3568(2005)055%5B0573%3AEEAECO%5D2.0.CO%3B2#references

80. The impact of compost use on crop yields in Tigray, Ethiopia. Institute for Sustainable Development (ISD). Edwards, S. Proceedings of the International Conference on Organic Agriculture and Food Security. FAO, Rom, 2007,

ftp://ftp.fao.org/paia/organicag/ofs/02-Edwards.pdf

81. The ethylene response factors SNORKEL1 and  SNORKEL2 allow rice to adapt to deep water. Hattori, Y. et al. Nature, Vol 460, 20 August 2009: 1026–1030.

82. Glyphosate-Resistant Weeds: Current Status and Future Outlook. Nandula V.K. et al. Outlooks on Pest Management, August 2005: 183–187.

83. Syngenta module helps manage glyphosate-resistant weeds. Delta Farm Press, 30 May 2008,

http://deltafarmpress.com/mag/farming_syngenta_module_helps/index.html

84. Resistant ryegrass populations rise in Mississippi.  Robinson R. Delta Farm Press, Oct 30, 2008.

http://deltafarmpress.com/wheat/resistant-ryegrass-1030

85. Glyphosate Resistant Horseweed (Marestail) Found in 9 More Indiana Counties. Johnson B and Vince Davis V. Pest & Crop, 13 May 2005.

http://extension.entm.purdue.edu/pestcrop/2005/issue8/index.html

86. Genetically Engineered Crops and Pesticide Use in the United States: The First Nine Years. Benbrook CM.  BioTech InfoNet Technical Paper Number 7, October 2004.

http://www.biotech-info.net/Full_version_first_nine.pdf

87. Agricultural Pesticide Use in US Agriculture. Center for Food Safety, May 2008,

http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/pubs/USDA%20NASS%20Backgrounder-FINAL.pdf.

88. A Little Burndown Madness. Nice G et al. Pest & Crop, 7 Mar 2008.

http://extension.entm.purdue.edu/pestcrop/2008/issue1/index.html

89. To slow the spread of glyphosate resistant marestail, always apply with 2,4-D. Pest & Crop, issue 23, 2006.

http://extension.entm.purdue.edu/pestcrop/2006/issue23/table1.html

90. Glyphosate Formulations Induce Apoptosis and Necrosis in Human Umbilical, Embryonic, and Placental Cells. Benachour, N. and Gilles-Eric Séralini. Chem. Res. Toxicol., 2009, 22 (1), pp 97–105.

91. Genetically-modified superweeds “not uncommon”.  Randerson J. New Scientist, 05 February 2002.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1882-geneticallymodified-superweeds-not-uncommon.html

92. Elements of Precaution: Recommendations for the Regulation of Food Biotechnology in Canada. An Expert Panel Report on the Future of Food Biotechnology prepared by The Royal Society of Canada at the request of Health Canada Canadian Food Inspection Agency and Environment Canada, 2001.

http://www.rsc.ca//files/publications/expert_panels/foodbiotechnology/GMreportEN.pdf

93. Gene Flow and Multiple Herbicide Resistance in Escaped Canola Populations. Knispel AL et al. Weed Science, 56: 72-80, 2008.

94. Do escaped transgenes persist in nature? The case of an herbicide resistance transgene in a weedy Brassica rapa population. Warwick SI et al. Molecular Ecology, 17: 1387-1395, 2008.

95. A Little Burndown Madness. Nice G et al. Pest & Crop, 7 Mar 2008.

http://extension.entm.purdue.edu/pestcrop/2008/issue1/index.html

96. To slow the spread of glyphosate resistant marestail, always apply with 2,4-D. Pest & Crop, issue 23, 2006.

http://extension.entm.purdue.edu/pestcrop/2006/issue23/table1.html

97. First report of field resistance by the stem borer, Busseola fusca (Fuller) to Bt-transgenic maize. Rensburg J.B.J. S. Afr J Plant Soil., 24: 147-151,  2007.

98. Resistance of sugarcane borer to Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1Ab toxin. Huang F et al. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 124: 117-123, 2007.

99. Insect resistance to Bt crops: evidence versus theory. Tabashnik BE et al. Nat Biotech., 26: 199-202, 2008.

100. Transgenic cotton drives insect boom. Pearson H. NatureNews. Published online 25 July 2006.

http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060724/full/news060724-5.html

101. Bt-cotton and secondary pests. Wang S et al. Int. J. Biotechnology, 10: 113-121, 2008.

102. India: Bt cotton devastated by secondary pests. Bhaskar Goswami. Grain, 01 Sept 2007.

http://www.grain.org/btcotton/?id=398

103. Bt cotton not pest resistant. Gur Kirpal Singh Ashk. The Times of India, 24 Aug 2007,

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Chandigarh/Bt_cotton_not_pest_resistant/articleshow/2305806.cms

104. Prof Gilles-Eric Séralini, in an interview with Savvy Soumya Misra, Down to Earth, 15 April 2009,

http://downtoearth.org.in/full6.asp?foldername=20091031&filename=inv&sec_id=14&sid=1

105. Transgenic crops take another knock. Giles J. NatureNews, published online: 21 March 2005.

http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050321/full/050321-2.html

106. Effects on weed and invertebrate abundance and diversity of herbicide management in genetically modified herbicide-tolerant winter-sown oilseed rape. Bohan DA et al. Proc R Soc B, 272: 463-474, 2005.

107. Argentina’s bitter harvest. Branford S. New Scientist, 17 April 2004.

108. Rust, resistance, run down soils, and rising costs  –  Problems facing soybean producers in Argentina. Benbrook C.M. AgBioTech InfoNet, Technical Paper No 8, Jan 2005.

109. Transgenic pollen harms monarch larvae. Losey J.E. et al. Nature, 399: 214, 1999.

110. Field deposition of Bt transgenic corn pollen: lethal effects on the monarch butterfly. Hansen L. C. and J. Obrycki J. Oecologia, 125: 241-245, 2000.

111. The effects of pollen consumption of transgenic Bt maize on the common swallowtail, Papilio machaon L. (Lepidoptera, Papilionidae). Lang A and Vojtech E. Basic and Applied Ecology, 7: 296-306, 2006.

112. A meta-analysis of effects of Bt cotton and maize on nontarget invertebrates. Marvier M. et al. Science, 316: 1475-1477, 2007.

113. Toxins in transgenic crop byproducts may affect headwater stream ecosystems. Rosi-Marshall E.J. et al. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 104: 16204-16208, 2007.

114. Impact of Bt Corn on Rhizospheric and Soil Eubacterial Communities and on Beneficial Mycorrhizal Symbiosis in Experimental Microcosms. M. Castaldini M. et al. Appl Environ Microbiol., 71: 6719-6729, 2005.

115. The impact of transgenic plants on natural enemies: a critical review of laboratory studies. Lövei, G.L. and S. Arpaia, 2004. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata vol. 114: 1–14.

116. Risky business: Economic and regulatory impacts from the unintended release of genetically engineered rice varieties into the rice merchandising system of the US. Report for Greenpeace, 2007.

117. Mexico Halts US Rice Over GMO Certification. Reuters, 16 March 2007.

118. Organic farmers seek Supreme Court hearing. Press release, Organic Agriculture Protection Fund Committee, Saskatoon, Canada, 1 August 2007.

119. The United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Case 3:06-cv-01075-CRB Document 199 Filed 05/03/2007: Memorandum and Order Re: Permanent Injunction.

120. Coexistence of plants and coexistence of farmers: Is an individual choice possible? Binimelis, R., Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 21: 437-457, 2008.

121. CDC Triffid Flax Scare Threatens Access To No. 1 EU Market. Allan Dawson. Manitoba Co-operator, 17 September 2009; Changes Likely For Flax Industry. Allan Dawson. Manitoba Cooperator, 24 September 2009.

122. Biotech companies fuel GM contamination spread. Greenpeace International, 29 February 2008.

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/gm-ge-contamination-report290208

123. International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development: Global Summary for Decision Makers (IAASTD); Beintema, N. et al., 2008.

http://www.agassessment.org/index.cfm?Page=IAASTD%20Reports&ItemID=2713

124. Applying Agroecology to Enhance the Productivity of Peasant Farming Systems in Latin America. Altieri M.A. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 1: 197-217, 1999.

125. More Productivity with Fewer External Inputs: Central American Case Studies of Agroecological Development and their Broader Implications. Bunch R. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 1: 219-233, 1999.

126. Can Sustainable Agriculture Feed Africa? New Evidence on Progress, Processes and Impacts. Pretty J. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 1: 253-274, 1999.

127. Organic Agriculture and Food Security in Africa. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, United Nations Environment Programme, 2008.

http://www.unep-unctad.org/cbtf/publications/UNCTAD_DITC_TED_2007_15.pdf

128. Ecologising rice-based systems in Bangladesh. Barzman M. & Das L. ILEIA Newsletter, 2: 16-17, 2000.

http://www.leisa.info/index.php?url=magazine-details.tpl&p[_id]=12434

129. Genetic diversity and disease control in rice. Zhu Y et al. Nature, 406: 718-722, 2000.

130. Lost Crops of Africa, Vol.1: Grains. National Research Council (Washington DC, USA) Report, 1996.

http://www7.nationalacademies.org/dsc/LostCropsGrains_Brief.pdf

131. Marker-assisted selection: an approach for precision plant breeding in the twenty-first century. Collard BCY and Mackill DJ. Phil Trans R Soc B, 363: 557-572, 2008.

132. Breeding for abiotic stresses for sustainable agriculture. Witcombe J.R. et al. Phil Trans R Soc B, 363: 703-716, 2008.

133. “Organic Agriculture and Food Security in Africa”. Foreword by Supachai Panitchpakdi, Secretary-General of UNCTAD, and Achim Steiner, Executive Director of UNEP. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), 2008, p. 16,

http://www.unep-unctad.org/cbtf/publications/UNCTAD_DITC_TED_2007_15.pdf

134. “Organic Agriculture and Food Security in Africa”. Foreword by Supachai Panitchpakdi, Secretary-General of UNCTAD, and Achim Steiner, Executive Director of UNEP. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), 2008,

http://www.unep-unctad.org/cbtf/publications/UNCTAD_DITC_TED_2007_15.pdf

135. Certified organic export production. Implications for economic welfare and gender equity among smallholder farmers in tropical Africa. UNCTAD. 2008,

http://www.unctad.org/trade_env/test1/publications/UNCTAD_DITC_TED_2007_7.pdf;

The economics of certified organic farming in tropical Africa: A preliminary analysis. Gibbon P and Bolwig S. 2007. SIDA DIIS Working Paper no 2007/3, Subseries on Standards and Agro-Food-Exports (SAFE) No. 7; Organic Agriculture: A Trade and Sustainable Development Opportunity for Developing Countries. Twarog. 2006. In UNCTAD. 2006. Trade and Environment Review, UN, 2006,

http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/ditcted200512_en.pdf

136.The economics of certified organic farming in tropical Africa: A preliminary analysis. Gibbon P and Bolwig S. 2007. SIDA DIIS Working Paper no 2007/3, Subseries on Standards and Agro-Food-Exports (SAFE) No. 7; Certified organic export production. Implications for economic welfare and gender equity among smallholder farmers in tropical Africa. UNCTAD. 2008,

137.http://www.unctad.org/trade_env/test1/publications/UNCTAD_DITC_TED_2007_7.pdf

本译文最初来源：乌有之乡（http://www.wyzxsx.com）

本论文原文及译文下载：http://cid-3f676a8f43f4b099.office.live.com/browse.aspx/.Public/GM

标签: BT, 下载, 农药, 动物, 化石燃料, 化肥, 基因, 增产, 安全, 实验, 局限, 市场, 干旱, 杀虫剂, 杂草, 毒性, 气候变化, 氮肥, 水稻, 温室气体, 环境, 生物技术, 粮食产量, 粮食危机, 翻译, 能源消耗, 自然杂交, 营养, 虫害, 转基因, 转基因大米, 转基因大豆, 转基因玉米, 转基因种子, 过敏反应, 迈克尔·安东尼, 阿根廷, 除草剂, 非洲, 风险