又是沙塵漫天。
看到一則美國的報道，美國老百姓反對美國政府和大企業(yè)發(fā)展轉(zhuǎn)基因。這篇報道反對的轉(zhuǎn)基因目標(biāo)，不是以前人們常說玉米、大豆等糧食，而是苜蓿，它是一種牧草，人不會直接吃苜蓿，它是動物飼料。該報道雖然對具體的危害沒有詳細(xì)描述，但是，已經(jīng)指出其危害包括動物的肉制品、奶制品以及環(huán)境。我看了這篇報道，覺得有三個問題值得一說。
一是美國的有機(jī)食品。有機(jī)食品是為了與轉(zhuǎn)基因等食品作區(qū)分而在美國出現(xiàn)的一種食品標(biāo)記，這種標(biāo)記也需要有關(guān)部門的核實(shí)、批準(zhǔn)。該報道中的內(nèi)容指出，由于轉(zhuǎn)基因的污染，例如花粉的傳播，使得原來的有機(jī)食品制造商面臨失去“有機(jī)”標(biāo)識的資格。美國不標(biāo)注“轉(zhuǎn)基因”，才有人反向搞出“有機(jī)”，以顯示自己不是轉(zhuǎn)基因。事實(shí)上，所謂“有機(jī)”，大致就是傳統(tǒng)農(nóng)牧業(yè)，其產(chǎn)品比轉(zhuǎn)基因食品要貴，有錢人能夠放心食用。在我看來，這是很不好的現(xiàn)實(shí)，傳統(tǒng)農(nóng)牧業(yè)本來是普遍狀態(tài)，在轉(zhuǎn)基因的圍攻下，快成稀有的“保護(hù)區(qū)”了。美國甚至出現(xiàn)了小冊子，專門告訴人們?nèi)绾翁暨x不是轉(zhuǎn)基因的食物，這個小冊子成為美國的暢銷書。
二是這篇報道提到了花粉，在我以前貼的關(guān)于轉(zhuǎn)基因的文章后面，也有讀者跟帖提到了花粉。這讓我想起西元2007年美國出現(xiàn)過的一件奇怪的事情，當(dāng)時美國有35個州報告，養(yǎng)蜂人的蜜蜂集體失蹤，這一現(xiàn)象在歐洲也有不同程度地出現(xiàn)。蜜蜂雖然只是一種昆蟲，似乎只給人類提供蜂蜜，但是，全世界無數(shù)的植物能夠結(jié)出果實(shí)，都要靠蜜蜂。沒有蜜蜂，人類將面臨巨大的困境。對于西元2007年美國蜜蜂的大規(guī)模失蹤，至今沒有合理的解釋，我認(rèn)為，也許同轉(zhuǎn)基因作物有關(guān)。我聽說過這樣一件事。有一位朋友購買有機(jī)的木瓜，放在桌子上，很快會有螞蟻。但是，如果買了轉(zhuǎn)基因木瓜，放在哪里都不會有螞蟻。這說明螞蟻也能分辨轉(zhuǎn)基因，那么，我認(rèn)為，蜜蜂也能分辨轉(zhuǎn)基因，當(dāng)一個地方大量種植了轉(zhuǎn)基因作物，蜜蜂拒絕轉(zhuǎn)基因作物的花粉，失蹤很可能是蜜蜂過于辛勞而死亡。蜜蜂失蹤現(xiàn)象的程度不同，很可能是轉(zhuǎn)基因作物種植面積的不同。至今為止，我未看到支持轉(zhuǎn)基因的專家們，針對轉(zhuǎn)基因與昆蟲的生態(tài)關(guān)系有任何研究報告。這也就是我常說的，他們只看幾個單項(xiàng)數(shù)據(jù)，嚴(yán)重缺乏整體和系統(tǒng)的觀念。
三是這篇報道提到了孟山都。這家大型農(nóng)業(yè)生物企業(yè)與美國政府的關(guān)系極為密切，該報道也指出，孟山都公司利用非法手段，從美國政府那里獲得批準(zhǔn)。事實(shí)上，政府與利益集團(tuán)的勾結(jié)，使得在轉(zhuǎn)基因問題上，反對的聲音總是難以傳播。而對中國來說，孟山都公司勾結(jié)美國農(nóng)業(yè)部的一整套手法，也被某些中國人被照搬和模仿。這是盲目學(xué)美國的后果之一。
以下是美國的這篇報道，西元2010年3月，發(fā)表于美國《Heather》雜志，標(biāo)題和副標(biāo)題是：
二十多萬個NGO組織、農(nóng)民、消費(fèi)者和有機(jī)食品生產(chǎn)商
向美國農(nóng)業(yè)部呼吁禁止轉(zhuǎn)基因苜蓿
非基因工程及有機(jī)苜蓿干草和種子被污染可能破壞畜牧和有機(jī)工業(yè)
全文如下：
今天，全國有機(jī)聯(lián)盟（簡稱NOC）宣布，超過20萬人向美國農(nóng)業(yè)部（USDA）提交了針對基因工程苜蓿提出的關(guān)于“環(huán)境影響報告書草案（DEIS）”的影響和實(shí)質(zhì)的評論意見。現(xiàn)在，包括社會團(tuán)體，NOC，食品安全中心（CFS），有機(jī)消費(fèi)者協(xié)會，食品和水源監(jiān)督機(jī)構(gòu)以及食品民主等機(jī)構(gòu)均動員他們的成員發(fā)表評論來促成這一前所未有的為數(shù)眾多的行動。
此外，300多個公共利益組織，農(nóng)民，奶制品供應(yīng)商，零售商和來自美國和加拿大的有機(jī)食品生產(chǎn)商向美國農(nóng)業(yè)部發(fā)表了措辭強(qiáng)烈的信函，呼吁它拒絕批準(zhǔn)孟山都公司的基因工程，草甘磷苜蓿（基因苜蓿）。信中列舉了該基因工程對有機(jī)物和非基因工程苜蓿干草及種子不可避免的污染以及對有機(jī)乳制品，牲畜生存的可能存在的威脅，表達(dá)了肉類和乳制品生產(chǎn)商最急迫的拒絕態(tài)度。乳制品生產(chǎn)商、NOC、全國雜貨商聯(lián)合協(xié)會，CFS和其他團(tuán)體都認(rèn)為，如果像現(xiàn)在這樣缺乏法律依據(jù)而對產(chǎn)生基因污染的公司負(fù)責(zé)的話，那將是不負(fù)責(zé)任的政府才會有的政策。
2006年，CFS中心起訴美國農(nóng)業(yè)部（USDA）通過非法的手段贊成孟山都公司的基因苜蓿。按照法律要求，美國農(nóng)業(yè)部在重新規(guī)定作物種類之前沒有執(zhí)行環(huán)境影響報告書（EIS）。聯(lián)邦法院站在CFS一邊，禁止基因苜蓿的種植直到美國農(nóng)業(yè)部分析完成基因苜蓿對環(huán)境，農(nóng)民和公眾的影響。今天是對EIS草案提交公眾評論的最后期限，這個草案是贊成孟山都公司的基因苜蓿的。
美國農(nóng)業(yè)部的EIS稱有機(jī)食品的消費(fèi)者不用擔(dān)心基因工程對他們食物的污染，盡管大量的事實(shí)與此相反。消費(fèi)者調(diào)查顯示，75%以上的受訪者反復(fù)地說他們不愿意吃被基因工程污染的食物，他們購買有機(jī)食品的五個原因之中最重要的一條就是想要避免購買基因工程生產(chǎn)的食物。
農(nóng)民之家和有機(jī)谷公司的CEO喬治西蒙說，“基因苜蓿正好是對有機(jī)工業(yè)的結(jié)構(gòu)產(chǎn)生了威脅”，“有機(jī)產(chǎn)品的消費(fèi)者需要種子和產(chǎn)品保持不被基因工程污染?！?BR> 獨(dú)立，實(shí)證研究和過去的經(jīng)驗(yàn)表明，基因工程的花粉和種子的污染在空氣中不可能通過蜜蜂或者其他的媒介傳播六英里以上的距離。種子也可以在收割設(shè)備的幫助下或者通過靴子的帶動，田地里運(yùn)輸干草和種子的卡車的帶動傳播很遠(yuǎn)的距離。在過去的十年中，兩百個已知的基因工程污染案例已經(jīng)被紀(jì)錄下來。最近的污染最嚴(yán)重的案件，在油菜（油菜）作物。由于廣泛的污染，在加拿大西部油菜作物和食用油不能再被打上有機(jī)食品和非基因工程食品的標(biāo)簽。
Organic Policy Coordinator at Center for Food Safety.的Lisa J. Bunin,博士說,繼續(xù)放寬對基因工程作物的監(jiān)管會對我們的食品供應(yīng)，有機(jī)物種多樣性以及不斷增長的世界人口賴以生存的傳統(tǒng)農(nóng)業(yè)體系產(chǎn)生巨大的威脅?！耙环矫?，不斷地僅從少數(shù)幾個基因工程公司手中購買種子，并不斷提高他們在全國種子購買中所占的比重，另一方面，為了提高種子的有效性，而產(chǎn)生了一種新型的數(shù)量有限的農(nóng)藥。”
盡管基因工程苜蓿有不可避免的污染，EIS不承認(rèn)這種傷害，把全部抵制這種污染的負(fù)擔(dān)強(qiáng)加到非基因工程的作物的農(nóng)民身上，并對食品的生產(chǎn)者，消費(fèi)者和出口商不采取任何保護(hù)。Liana Hoodes（Director, National Organic Coalition）說“如果草甘磷苜蓿允許出售，產(chǎn)生的連鎖反應(yīng)將消滅多種有機(jī)物和非基因工程產(chǎn)業(yè)，從有機(jī)種子，飼料加工到有機(jī)奶農(nóng)及其零售商，無一幸免?！薄懊總€美國人有權(quán)利種植，銷售，使用用非基因工程食品和有機(jī)食物的日子將一去不復(fù)返?！?BR> 雖然EIS的承認(rèn)，基因工程苜蓿會增加草甘磷除草劑的使用，自從絕大多數(shù)農(nóng)民不再大量使用苜蓿（百分之九十三），它忽略了一個事實(shí)，種植基因工程苜蓿可能需要許多農(nóng)民在一開始就使用農(nóng)藥。這就可能導(dǎo)致化學(xué)毒素在某些以前根本沒有毒素存在的地區(qū)的傳播。在過去的13年中，基因工程的作物的種植已經(jīng)極大地提高了除草劑在玉米，大豆和棉花上的應(yīng)用，達(dá)到了3億8千3百萬磅?；蚬こ誊俎５闹匦乱?guī)定可能會非常明顯地帶來高毒性給環(huán)境的負(fù)擔(dān)。
Conventional South Dakota alfalfa seed and hay grower, Chuck Noble.警告說 “我們的基因庫是非常寶貴的，我們不能承擔(dān)通過那些所謂的生物科技公司之手摧毀它的代價，” “如果我們已經(jīng)在百萬人忍受饑餓甚至面對死亡的時候從歐洲人那里學(xué)會了種植馬鈴薯，度過了艱難，人類需要種子的多樣性來保護(hù)和對抗疾病和饑荒，基因工程嚴(yán)重影響了這種多樣性。（楊丹翻譯）
英文原文：
More Than 200,000 NGOs, Farmers, Consumers, and Organic Producers Call for USDA to Prohibit Genetically Engineered Alfalfa
Posted on March 3, 2010 by Heather
Resulting contamination of non-GE and organic alfalfa hay and seed would devastate livelihoods and organic industry
The National Organic Coalition (NOC) today announced that more than 200,000 people submitted comments to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) critiquing the substance and conclusions of its Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) on Genetically Engineered (GE) Alfalfa. Groups, including NOC, Center for Food Safety (CFS), Organic Consumers Association, Food & Water Watch, CREDO Action and Food Democracy Now, mobilized their communities to help generate the unprecedented number of comments.
In addition, more than 300 public interest organizations, farmers, dairies, retailers and organic food producers from the U.S. and Canada delivered a strongly worded letter to USDA, calling upon it to deny approval of Monsanto’s genetically engineered, Roundup Ready alfalfa (GE alfalfa). The letter cites the inevitable contamination of organic and non-GE alfalfa hay and seeds and threats to the viability of organic dairies, livestock, and meat and dairy producers as reasons for urging the denial. NOC, Organic Valley, Whole Foods, National Cooperative Grocers Association, CFS and others agree that it would be irresponsible government policy to approve GE alfalfa in the absence of legal requirements holding companies accountable for GE contamination, as is currently the case.
In 2006, CFS sued USDA for its illegal approval of Monsanto’s GE alfalfa. USDA failed to conduct an environmental impact statement (EIS), as required by law, before deregulating the crop. The federal courts sided with CFS and banned GE alfalfa plantings until USDA analyzed the impacts of GE alfalfa on the environment, farmers and the public. Today marks the deadline for submitting public comments on the draft EIS, which recommends approving Monsanto’s GE alfalfa.
USDA’s EIS claims that organic consumers do not care about GE contamination of their food, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Consumer surveys show that 75 percent or more of respondents repeatedly say that they do not want to eat GE contaminated food and cite their desire to avoid GE food as one of the top five reasons for buying organic.
“GE alfalfa threatens the very fabric of the organic industry,” adds George Siemon, one of the founding farmers and CEO of Organic Valley. “Organic consumers want seeds and products to remain unpolluted by GE.”
Independent, empirical studies and past experience show that containment of GE pollen and seeds is not possible GE alfalfa pollen can travel six miles or more in the air, via bees or other pollinators. Seeds can also travel long distances on harvesting equipment and on the boots and in the trucks of people who work in fields and transport hay and seeds. More than 200 known cases of GE contamination have been documented within the last decade. The most serious and immediate cases of contamination are in canola (rapeseed) crops. Due to widespread contamination, canola crops and oil can no longer be marketed as organic or non-GE in Western Canada.
“The continued deregulation of GE crops threatens our food supply and the diverse organic and conventional farming systems that have fed the world’s growing population for centuries,” said Lisa J. Bunin, Ph.D., Organic Policy Coordinator at Center for Food Safety. “It is unconscionable for USDA to increasingly allow the concentration of our nation’s seed supply in the hands of a few GE companies that produce a limited number of novel, pesticide-promoting seed varieties.”
Despite the inevitable contamination from GE alfalfa, the EIS disavows this harm and places the entire burden for preventing contamination on non-GE farmers, with no protections for food producers, consumers and exporters. “If Roundup Ready Alfalfa is permitted to be sold commercially, the ripple effect would wipe out many organic and non-GE businesses, from organic seed and forage growers to organic dairy farmers and retailers,” said Liana Hoodes, Director, National Organic Coalition. “Every American’s right to cultivate, sell and eat non-GE and organic food would no longer exist.”
Even though the EIS acknowledges that GE alfalfa would increase Roundup herbicide use, since the vast majority of alfalfa farmers do not use any herbicides at all (93 percent), it omits the fact that planting GE alfalfa would require many farmers to use Roundup for the very first time. This would result in the spread of toxic chemicals in regions where such toxins were previously non-existent. Over the past 13 years, the planting of GE crops has significantly increased herbicide use on corn, soybeans and cotton – by 383 million pounds. GE alfalfa deregulation would markedly add to that high toxic burden on the environment.
“Our genetic gene pool is extremely valuable, and we can not afford to destroy it by handing it over to the biotech companies,” warns Conventional South Dakota alfalfa seed and hay grower, Chuck Noble. “If we’ve learned anything from Europe’s potato famines when millions starved to death, humans need seed variety to protect against blight and famine. Genetic engineering severely compromises that diversity.”
Contact Us
National Headquarters
660 Pennsylvania Ave, SE, #302
Washington DC 20003
phone: (202)547-9359
fax: (202)547-9429
West Coast Office
2601 Mission Street, Suite 803
San Francisco, CA 94110
phone: (415) 826-2770
fax: (415) 826-0507
CFS welcomes your questions and comments. Please contact us at [email protected]