l****z
发帖数: 29846 | 1 【 以下文字转载自 Biology 讨论区 】
发信人: Chamgrape (香槟葡萄), 信区: Biology
标 题: 这期Nature Biotechnology上关于转基因的文章
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Tue Sep 10 14:15:59 2013, 美东)
http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v31/n9/full/nbt.2700.html?WT.
真正想了解而不是想吵架的同学可以看看
还可以给身边对这个有疑问的朋友看看
也提到了去年法国的那个老鼠实验
还有黄金大米
Contrary to popular belief
Nature Biotechnology 31, 767 (2013) doi:10.1038/nbt.2700
Published online 10 September 2013
Three decades after transgenes were first introduced into plants, why do so
many consumers remain so negative about genetically modified (GM) food?
GM food has an uncanny ability to spook consumers. It does not matter that
many of us have been consuming GM cornflakes, sweet corn, starches and
sugars in processed food for over a decade. It does not matter that no
adverse health effects have been recorded from eating them. Nor does it
matter that august agencies, such as the World Health Organization, the US
National Academy of Sciences, the European Commission or the American
Medical Association, have come out with ringing endorsements of their safety
. The fact is, negative attitudes remain entrenched and widespread. And
changing them will require a concerted and long-term effort to develop GM
foods that clearly provide convincing benefits to consumers—something that
seed companies have conspicuously failed to do over the past decade.
On p. 794, our Feature asks why the same circuitous debates and concerns
keep circulating regarding the health risks of GM food. This time last year,
a peer-reviewed paper by French scientists, claiming that glyphosate-
resistant corn causes tumors in Sprague Dawley rats (Food Chem. Toxicol. 50,
4221–4231, 2012), sparked a media circus about the cancer risks of eating
GM corn. This methodologically and statistically flawed study—the claims of
which have since been debunked—grabbed headlines around the world and
provided shocking images of animals overgrown with tumors.
The report and others like it making extraordinary claims about health risks
represent a tiny minority of all the peer-reviewed studies on GM food. But
each time one is published, anti-GM activists seize upon it, no matter how
flimsy the evidence or flawed the study design. And all too often, an
uncritical and sensationalist media leaps upon negative findings, continuing
the cycle of scares, urban myths and downright mistruths about GM food, all
of which serve to stoke consumer paranoia. How can there be smoke without
fire?
After decades of controversy, the public now mistrusts most mainstream
sources of data on GM food—large corporations, regulators, governments and
even scientists. In contrast, nongovernmental organizations,
environmentalists and advocacy groups (that often oppose GM food) are
treated with credulity. They are, after all, more aligned with 'consumer
interests'.
Consumers are concerned about the close (some might say cushy) relationships
between regulators and companies. They are concerned about food safety data
being difficult to obtain from regulatory agencies. The revolving door
between agribusiness and regulatory agencies and the amounts spent on
political lobbying also raise red flags. Even academics have fallen in the
public's esteem, especially if there's a whiff of a company association or
industry funding for research.
Of course, the public's misgivings about GM food go beyond just the risk to
health. Corporate control of the food supply, disenfranchisement of
smallholder farmers, the potential adverse effects of GM varieties on
indigenous flora and fauna, and the 'contamination' of crops grown on non-GM
or organic farms all play into negative perceptions. And for better or
worse, GM food is now inextricably linked in the public consciousness with
Monsanto, which has seemingly vied with big tobacco as the poster child for
corporate greed and evil.
A more fundamental problem is that the public debate has been framed in the
wrong terms all along. For consumers, the question revolves around GM food
or non-GM/organic food. But in terms of risk, how a food crop is created is
totally irrelevant—it is what is in the food that is important.
This has not stopped European regulators from deepening existing prejudices
against these products by creating a regulatory system that singles out GM
products as sufficiently threatening to merit special attention. Even
Monsanto and the biotech industry unwittingly have enhanced the false GM/non
-GM dichotomy by parroting the agronomic benefits of any products under the
GM umbrella. This has led to a debate framed by oversimplified pro-GM or
anti-GM stances. Instead, the discussion should be about pros and cons of
individual products: Bt corn or EPSPS soybeans and so on.
In the decades to come, children born into a world where GM food is more
commonplace may come to see it as less alien and threatening. In the
meantime, a key aim in overcoming negative perceptions about GM products
should be to focus on crops addressing consumer needs as well as producer
needs, which cannot be produced via other means.
In the Philippines, beta carotene–enriched Golden Rice is currently being
prepared for regulatory submission. Golden Rice can provide a useful adjunct
to diets in areas like the Philippines, where lack of vitamin A frequently
causes blindness, simply because alternative vitamin A supplements are a
never-ending expense for families. In contrast, the benefits of Bt brinjal
for Filipino consumers are equivocal (p. 777).
In the 1990s, pioneering efforts led to the creation of two disease-
resistant varieties of GM papaya in Hawaii, where the non-GM crop was almost
wiped out by ringspot virus. Today, these comprise ~80% of the harvest. If
genetic modification had not been available, papaya fruit would likely have
disappeared from Hawaii, and consumers would have been affected.
A recent story in The New York Times (July 27, 2013) outlined a similar
scenario unfolding in the orange groves of Florida, where the harvest is
being threatened by citrus greening disease. Genetic modification is
currently the only feasible route to create resistance. Until recently,
growers had rejected GM oranges for fear of a consumer backlash. But
reluctance has dwindled as they have been confronted with the possibility of
having no oranges left to grow. Presumably, if OJ becomes a rarer and more
expensive commodity in supermarkets, consumer attitudes to GM oranges may
change, too.
Public perception of GM food will not become more positive overnight. But as
more products meet unmet needs, small victories may be won. In the end,
necessity may turn out to be the mother of acceptance. |
|
