转基因食品争议

转基因食品争议（英語：Genetically modified food controversies）是指关于食用转基因作物及其副产品、在食品生产中利用基因工程技术而非植物配種等方面的争议。这场争议与消费者、生物技术公司、政府管理者、非政府组织和科学家都密切相关。关于基因改造食品的争论核心包括：转基因食品的上市标注、政府管理者的责任、相关科学研究的目的、转基因作物对环境和健康的影响、对害虫之抗药性（英语：Pesticide resistance）的影响、对农业生产者的影响和转基因作物对满足全球粮食需求的作用。 公众对转基因食品的具体担忧包括对于转基因食品与非转基因食品在供应上的影响，转基因食品对环境造成的影响，监督者是否会渎职。食品安全中心（英语：Center for Food Safety）、有机产品消费者协会（英语：Organic Consumers Association）、相关科学家联合会（英语：Union of Concerned Scientists）及绿色和平等相关利益團體认为转基因相关的风险并没有被正确认识和应对，同时质疑监管机构的客观性。 目前的科学共识是此类转基因作物及其副产品的健康安全风险并不高于传统食品，也就是说转基因作物的安全性是可以保证的，不过即便如此目前对转基因的安全评估依然十分严格。对转基因食品的安全评估始于鉴定该食品是否与同类非转基因食品实质性等同（英语：Substantial equivalence），即确认转基因食品是否与已经被确认无害的传统食品是否本质相同，且目前还没有报告称转基因食品在人身上造成疾病，但公众还是担心转基因食品有害健康。虽然针对转基因生物产品的标注在许多国家是强制性的，但美国和加拿大并不执行类似政策，在市场上转基因食品和传统食品是没有差别的。 尽管重视食品卫生的思想自古已有之，但在美国，直到厄普顿·辛克莱的小说《屠場》出版以及純淨食品藥物法案（英语：Pure Food and Drug Act）出世后，这一问题才正式被公众所广泛讨论。这进一步导致了人们对食品纯度、食品“天然度”的长期关注，这种关注随后演变到了对防腐剂、香料、甜味剂、农药残留物的担忧，有機食品的崛起以及最终对转基因食品的担忧。许多消费者认为转基因食品是“非天然的”并对转基因食品充满负面联想和恐惧（这被认为是一种逆向的晕轮效应）。 公众的看法包括但不限于将基因工程视为干预自然进化的生物过程，以及认为科学在潜在危害的评估时有局限。不过，一种反对的看法认为基因工程就是传统选择性育种的演变，且现有证据证明转基因食品在营养价值和健康方面与传统食品相同（即实质性等同）。 一系列的研究指出，人们担忧进食转基因食品对身体有害；担忧生物技术的风险十分高；担忧自己了解的信息不足，不敢冒着风险进食。 Proposals for managing the coexistence of GM, conventional and organic crops Response to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs consultation paper (PDF). Chartered Institute of Environmental Health. 2006-10 [2021-03-14]. （原始内容存档 (PDF)于2017-05-25）.  Statement on Genetically Modified Organisms in the Environment and the Marketplace. Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment. October 2013 [2014-03-25]. （原始内容存档于2014-03-26）.  Genetically Modified Maize: Doctors' Chamber Warns of "Unpredictable Results" to Humans.. PR Newswire. 2013-11-11 [2021-03-14]. （原始内容存档于2021-02-25）.  IDEA Position on Genetically Modified Foods.. Irish Doctors' Environmental Association. [2014-03-25]. （原始内容存档于26 March 2014）.  Report 2 of the Council on Science and Public Health: Labeling of Bioengineered Foods. (PDF). American Medical Association: 7. 2012 [2014-05-21]. （原始内容 (PDF)存档于2012-09-07）. 为了更好地检测转基因食品对人类的潜在影响，研究委员会认为售前安全评估应从建议性措施转为强制性措施（To better detect potential harms of bioengineered foods, the Council believes that pre-market safety assessment should shift from a voluntary notification process to a mandatory requirement）  Ronald, Pamela. Plant Genetics, Sustainable Agriculture and Global Food Security. Genetics. May 1, 2011, 188 (1): 11–20. PMC 3120150 . PMID 21546547. doi:10.1534/genetics.111.128553. There is broad scientific consensus that genetically engineered crops currently on the market are safe to eat. After 14 years of cultivation and a cumulative total of 2 billion acres planted, no adverse health or environmental effects have resulted from commercialization of genetically engineered crops (Board on Agriculture and Natural Resources, Committee on Environmental Impacts Associated with Commercialization of Transgenic Plants, National Research Council and Division on Earth and Life Studies 2002). Both the U.S. National Research Council and the Joint Research Centre (the European Union's scientific and technical research laboratory and an integral part of the European Commission) have concluded that there is a comprehensive body of knowledge that adequately addresses the food safety issue of genetically engineered crops (Committee on Identifying and Assessing Unintended Effects of Genetically Engineered Foods on Human Health and National Research Council 2004; European Commission Joint Research Centre 2008). These and other recent reports conclude that the processes of genetic engineering and conventional breeding are no different in terms of unintended consequences to human health and the environment (European Commission Directorate-General for Research and Innovation 2010).  Nicolia, Alessandro; Manzo, Alberto; Veronesi, Fabio; Rosellini, Daniele. An overview of the last 10 years of genetically engineered crop safety research (PDF). Critical Reviews in Biotechnology. 2013, 34 (1): 77–88 [2020-05-07]. PMID 24041244. doi:10.3109/07388551.2013.823595. （原始内容存档 (PDF)于2021-03-08）. 我们回顾了自转基因植物在全球广泛种植以来近十年有关转基因作物安全性的科学文献，我们得出结论：目前进行的科学研究并未发现任何与转基因作物直接相关的重大危害。 关于生物多样性和转基因食品/饲料消费的文献常引起激烈争论，这涉及到了实验设计的适用性、统计方法的选择以及数据的公众可获取性。然而，在这场争论中即便是科学界内常态的、自然的同行评审也常常被媒体歪曲并常用于政治化和扭曲转基因相关技术。（We have reviewed the scientific literature on GE crop safety for the last 10 years that catches the scientific consensus matured since GE plants became widely cultivated worldwide, and we can conclude that the scientific research conducted so far has not detected any significant hazard directly connected with the use of GM crops. The literature about Biodiversity and the GE food/feed consumption has sometimes resulted in animated debate regarding the suitability of the experimental designs, the choice of the statistical methods or the public accessibility of data. Such debate, even if positive and part of the natural process of review by the scientific community, has frequently been distorted by the media and often used politically and inappropriately in anti-GE crops campaigns.）  American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), Board of Directors (2012). Legally Mandating GM Food Labels Could Mislead and Falsely Alarm Consumers （页面存档备份，存于互联网档案馆） A decade of EU-funded GMO research (2001-2010) (PDF). Directorate-General for Research and Innovation. Biotechnologies, Agriculture, Food. European Union. 2010 [2014-05-21]. ISBN 978-92-79-16344-9. doi:10.2777/97784. （原始内容存档 (PDF)于2019-08-17）. 「过去超过25年间的研究，有着超过130个研究项目，多余500个独立研究小组参与，都得出结论，生物技术，特别是转基因食品，并不比传统育种的食物有更大的风险。」("The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research, and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are not per se more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies.")(p. 16)  关于转基因食品的常见问题. 世界卫生组织. [August 30, 2019]. （原始内容存档于2020-10-19）. 不同的转基因生物包括以不同方式插入的各种基因。这意味着应逐案评估各别转基因食品及其安全性，并且不可能就所有转基因食品的安全性发表总体声明。目前在国际市场上可获得的转基因食品已通过安全性评估并且可能不会对人类健康产生危险。此外，在此类食品获得批准的国家普通大众对这些食品的消费未显示对人类健康的影响。不断利用以食品法典委员会原则为基础的安全性评估并酌情包括上市销售后监测，应构成评价转基因食品安全性的基础。  American Medical Association (2012). Report 2 of the Council on Science and Public Health: Labeling of Bioengineered Foods，archived from Wayback Machine： 「转基因食物已经被食用了近二十年，在此期间，没有一个经过同行评审的科学报告表明它对人类健康有不良效应。」("Bioengineered foods have been consumed for close to 20 years, and during that time, no overt consequences on human health have been reported and/or substantiated in the peer-reviewed literature.")(page 1) United States Institute of Medicine and National Research Council (2004). Safety of Genetically Engineered Foods: Approaches to Assessing Unintended Health Effects. National Academies Press. Free full-text （页面存档备份，存于互联网档案馆）. National Academies Press. pp R9-10: 「相比传统食物生产造成的健康危害，类似的严重健康影响还没能被证明同样会由转基因技术产生。这可能是因为转基因生物的研发者进行了大量分析，验证每个生物表现型都是令人满意的，并确保食物关键成分中不会产生不在计划中的变化。」 （"In contrast to adverse health effects that have been associated with some traditional food production methods, similar serious health effects have not been identified as a result of genetic engineering techniques used in food production. This may be because developers of bioengineered organisms perform extensive compositional analyses to determine that each phenotype is desirable and to ensure that unintended changes have not occurred in key components of food."） Key S, Ma JK, Drake PM. Genetically modified plants and human health. J R Soc Med. June 2008, 101 (6): 290–8. PMC 2408621 . PMID 18515776. doi:10.1258/jrsm.2008.070372. +pp 292-293. 超过15年间，转基因作物及其副产品被全世界千百万人消费，没有造成疾病效应。（Foods derived from GM crops have been consumed by hundreds of millions of people across the world for more than 15 years, with no reported ill effects (or legal cases related to human health).）  Funk, Cary; Rainie, Lee. Public and Scientists' Views on Science and Society. Pew Research Center. January 29, 2015 [August 30, 2019]. （原始内容存档于2019-01-09）. 在美国，公众与美国科学促进会科学家之间对转基因食品安全性的认知存在显著差异。接近90%（88%）的科学家认为转基因食品是大概安全的，但只有37%的大众持这一观点，双方差值达到51%。（The largest differences between the public and the AAAS scientists are found in beliefs about the safety of eating genetically modified (GM) foods. Nearly nine-in-ten (88%) scientists say it is generally safe to eat GM foods compared with 37% of the general public, a difference of 51 percentage points.）  Marris, Claire. Public views on GMOs: deconstructing the myths. EMBO Reports. 2001, 2 (7): 545–548. PMC 1083956 . PMID 11463731. doi:10.1093/embo-reports/kve142.  Swann JP. The 1906 Food and Drugs Act and Its Enforcement. FDA History – Part I. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. [10 April 2013]. （原始内容存档于2021-01-03）.  Konnikova M. The Psychology of Distrusting G.M.O.s. New Yorker. August 8, 2013 [2020-05-06]. （原始内容存档于2014-04-25）. G.M.O.s, in contrast, suffer from a reverse halo effect, whereby one negative-seeming attribute (unnaturalness, in this case) skews over-all perception. In a 2005 study conducted at Maastricht University, in the Netherlands, researchers found that the more unnatural a genetically modified product seemed, the less likely it would be to gain acceptance. A hundred and forty-four University of Maastricht undergraduates were asked to visualize seven products, including butter, tomatoes, and fish fingers, and rate them on naturalness, health, and necessity.  人们惧怕转基因食品的心理原因. 《中国食品学报》. 2013, 13 (12): 88. 并且人们在判断两者孰优孰劣时会存在认知上的偏见，即天然的一定是好的，而非天然的就是坏的。而任何事物，只要进行了人为干涉都会被定义为“非天然”，比如转基因食品。  Brody, Jane E. Are G.M.O. Foods Safe?. The New York Times. 2018-04-23 [2019-01-07]. ISSN 0362-4331. （原始内容存档于2021-04-18） （美国英语）.  Pollack, Andrew. Genetically Engineered Crops Are Safe, Analysis Finds. The New York Times. 2016-05-17 [2019-01-07]. ISSN 0362-4331. （原始内容存档于2021-05-03） （美国英语）.  Borel B. Can Genetically Engineered Foods Harm You?. Huffington Post. 1 November 2012 [7 September 2013]. （原始内容存档于2017-05-31）.  Editors of Nature. Editorial: Fields of gold. Nature. 2 May 2013, 497 (5–6): 5–6. PMID 23646363. doi:10.1038/497005b.  Harmon A. A Lonely Quest for Facts on Genetically Modified Crops. The New York Times. 4 January 2014 [2020-07-24]. （原始内容存档于2021-05-18）.  Johnson N. The genetically modified food debate: Where do we begin?. Grist. July 8, 2013 [2020-07-24]. （原始内容存档于2021-03-17）.  Hunt L. Factors determining the public understanding of GM technologies (PDF). AgBiotechNet. 2004, 6 (128): 1–8 [2012-09-16]. （原始内容 (Review Article)存档于2013-11-02）.  Lazarus RJ. The Tragedy of Distrust in the Implementation of Federal Environmental Law. Law and Contemporary Problems. 1991, 54 (4): 311–74 [2020-07-24]. JSTOR 1191880. doi:10.2307/1191880. （原始内容存档于2021-03-11）.  維基教科書中的相關電子教程：Genes, Technology and Policy GMO Compass Information on the use of genetic engineering in the agri-food industry. Authorization database with all GM plants in the EU. Center for Environmental Risk Assessment Database detailing all currently accepted GM crops. Coextra Research project on coexistence and traceability of GM and non-GM supply chains. Archived from the original on February 28, 2007. Labeling of Genetically Engineered Foods （页面存档备份，存于互联网档案馆） A website posted by P. Bryne of the Colorado State University Extension, provides a concise list of pros and cons of labeling food derived from genetically modified organisms Genetic Imperialism?: the First and Third World's face-off on the frontiers of science from the Dean Peter Krogh Foreign Affairs Digital Archives Intelligence Squared. Debate on Should We Genetically Modify Foods? （页面存档备份，存于互联网档案馆） "Arguing for the motion is Monsanto's Executive VP and Chief Technology Officer, Robert Fraley, and genomics and biotechnology researcher at UC Davis, Alison Van Eenennaam. Arguing against the motion is research professor at the Center for Sustaining Agriculture and Natural Resources, Charles Benbrook, and science policy consultant and former senior scientist of Union of Concerned Scientists, Margaret Mellon." April 2015 Soil Association （页面存档备份，存于互联网档案馆） Center for Food Safety Greenpeace Sierra Club （页面存档备份，存于互联网档案馆） Institute for Responsible Technology （页面存档备份，存于互联网档案馆） Council for Biotechnology Information （页面存档备份，存于互联网档案馆） AgBioWorld （页面存档备份，存于互联网档案馆） BioTech Now （页面存档备份，存于互联网档案馆） Bill Gates Agricultural Development Golden Rice. [3 Feb 2016]. （原始内容存档于2016-02-03）.  Bill Nye Proof he's the Science Guy: Bill Nye is changing his mind about GMOs. 3 March 2015 [3 Feb 2016]. （原始内容存档于2021-02-16）.  German Federal Ministry of Education and Research UK Food Standards Agency （页面存档备份，存于互联网档案馆） European Food Safety Authority EU legislation documents on genetically modified organisms （页面存档备份，存于互联网档案馆） Government of Canada BioPortal NIH National Library of Medicine （页面存档备份，存于互联网档案馆） Royal Society, Genetically modified plants for food use and human health—an update （页面存档备份，存于互联网档案馆）. 2002