【編者按】本文是英國(guó)倫敦國(guó)王學(xué)院醫(yī)學(xué)與分子遺傳學(xué)系邁克爾•安東尼博士，從《中國(guó)日?qǐng)?bào)》上了解到中國(guó)百名學(xué)者上書反對(duì)轉(zhuǎn)基因主糧商業(yè)化的消息后，懷著科學(xué)的良知和對(duì)人類前途的責(zé)任，從專業(yè)技術(shù)角度，援引了大量的科學(xué)研究的實(shí)證依據(jù)和權(quán)威性文件，論述了轉(zhuǎn)基因作物的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)、局限性以及更佳的替代方案。希望能夠?yàn)槲覀兊恼腿嗣裉峁└嗟氖聦?shí)和真相，以便做出正確的判斷。翻譯過(guò)程難免錯(cuò)漏之處，故而將英文原文附在后面，讀者可自行甄別。下面楷體字附上邁克爾博士的信件正文部分。

親愛的XXX教授，

我懷著極大的興趣閱讀了標(biāo)題為《學(xué)者們激烈反對(duì)轉(zhuǎn)基因證書》的文章，其出現(xiàn)在3月11日的《中國(guó)日?qǐng)?bào)》上。

正如一些一直批評(píng)轉(zhuǎn)基因遺傳改造作物之價(jià)值、并強(qiáng)調(diào)它們現(xiàn)在已被證明是健康和環(huán)境之危險(xiǎn)的人，我高興地看到一批知名學(xué)者反對(duì)在中國(guó)推出轉(zhuǎn)基因水稻。雖然我很理解中國(guó)政府關(guān)切于為了貴國(guó)龐大人口的糧食生產(chǎn)，但重要的是：他們意識(shí)到一種轉(zhuǎn)基因作物方法將會(huì)引起的危害遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)超過(guò)其可提供的任何好處，以及滿足我們糧食生產(chǎn)需求的安全、可靠、天然的替代品已經(jīng)存在。

……

若我可看到這份學(xué)者請(qǐng)?jiān)笗⑶以谀銈兊脑试S下把它傳閱給志同道合的朋友，這將是非常令人振奮的。

如果你們?cè)谛麄骰顒?dòng)中需要來(lái)自像我自己一樣持續(xù)批評(píng)轉(zhuǎn)基因作物的西方科學(xué)家的任何幫助，請(qǐng)隨時(shí)聯(lián)系我而不要猶豫。我附加了一份文件，我協(xié)助編制了這份文件，并希望它將對(duì)你們有所幫助。

謹(jǐn)以最良好的祝愿，祝你和你的家人在虎年健康、成功、幸福！

邁克爾

 

轉(zhuǎn)基因作物——僅僅是“科學(xué)”

研究證明其局限性、風(fēng)險(xiǎn)和替代物

GM CROPS – JUST THE SCIENCE

research documenting the limitations, risks, and alternatives

 

作者：邁克爾·安東尼 博士

Dr. Michael Antoniou

倫敦國(guó)王學(xué)院醫(yī)學(xué)院醫(yī)學(xué)與分子遺傳學(xué)系

King’s College London School of Medicine Department

of Medical and Molecular Genetics

翻譯：義成 莎莎 mountriver nicename

支持者聲稱轉(zhuǎn)基因（遺傳改造）作物（具有如下優(yōu)點(diǎn)）：

·安全且更有營(yíng)養(yǎng)；

·有利于環(huán)境；

·減少除草劑與殺蟲劑的使用；

·提高作物產(chǎn)量，因此可幫助農(nóng)民并可解決糧食危機(jī)；

·創(chuàng)造一個(gè)更加富裕、穩(wěn)定的經(jīng)濟(jì)；

·只是一種自然育種的延伸，并且沒有與自然育種作物不同的任何風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。

然而，不斷壯大且越來(lái)越多的科學(xué)團(tuán)體以及實(shí)地經(jīng)驗(yàn)顯示轉(zhuǎn)基因生物未能符合這些聲稱。相反，轉(zhuǎn)基因作物（具有以下弊端）：

• 有毒性，可引起過(guò)敏癥，或者比它們的自然相關(guān)物種更少營(yíng)養(yǎng)；

• 能夠破壞生態(tài)系統(tǒng)，傷害脆弱的植物和野生動(dòng)物種群，并且損害生物多樣性

• 從長(zhǎng)期看，增加了（農(nóng)藥、除草劑）化學(xué)品的投放；

• 與傳統(tǒng)作物相比，實(shí)現(xiàn)產(chǎn)量不是更好，而是往往更糟糕；

• 造成或加劇了社會(huì)和經(jīng)濟(jì)問(wèn)題的范圍；

• 是實(shí)驗(yàn)室制造的，一旦被釋放，有害的轉(zhuǎn)基因生物不能被從環(huán)境中召回。

被科學(xué)證明的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)與明確的實(shí)際利益缺乏，已經(jīng)使得專家們視轉(zhuǎn)基因技術(shù)為一種粗陋、過(guò)時(shí)的技術(shù)。鑒于有效供應(yīng)、科學(xué)證明、能源效率以及滿足當(dāng)今和未來(lái)的全球糧食需求的安全方式，我們不必蒙受它們呈現(xiàn)的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。

本文介紹了關(guān)鍵的科學(xué)證據(jù)——114項(xiàng)研究和其他權(quán)威性文件——證明轉(zhuǎn)基因作物的局限性與風(fēng)險(xiǎn)，以及當(dāng)前可用的許多更安全、更有效的替代品。

目錄

轉(zhuǎn)基因是一種自然的植物育種的延伸嗎？...

吃轉(zhuǎn)基因食品安全嗎？...

關(guān)于轉(zhuǎn)基因食品的動(dòng)物研究引起關(guān)注...

家畜的飼養(yǎng)研究...

動(dòng)物飼養(yǎng)研究突出了對(duì)人的潛在健康問(wèn)題嗎？...

轉(zhuǎn)基因食品是否更有營(yíng)養(yǎng)？...

轉(zhuǎn)基因食品可以幫助緩解世界糧食危機(jī)？...

轉(zhuǎn)基因作物是否有增產(chǎn)潛力？...

失敗的收益率...

非洲的三種轉(zhuǎn)基因作物...

轉(zhuǎn)基因甘薯...

轉(zhuǎn)基因木薯...

抗蟲棉（Bt棉）...

氣候變暖對(duì)農(nóng)業(yè)的影響...

石油峰值和農(nóng)業(yè)...

轉(zhuǎn)基因作物和氣候變暖...

特培作物的非轉(zhuǎn)基因研究成效...

轉(zhuǎn)基因作物是否環(huán)保？...

轉(zhuǎn)基因作物和除草劑...

殺蟲劑產(chǎn)生型的轉(zhuǎn)基因作物...

轉(zhuǎn)基因作物和野生動(dòng)物...

阿根廷的例子...

轉(zhuǎn)基因作物和非目標(biāo)性的昆蟲以及有機(jī)生物體...

轉(zhuǎn)基因和非轉(zhuǎn)基因作物能共存嗎...

對(duì)轉(zhuǎn)基因的替代...

有機(jī)生物農(nóng)業(yè)和低投入耕作在非洲改進(jìn)了產(chǎn)量...

有機(jī)和低投入的辦法在發(fā)展中國(guó)家增進(jìn)農(nóng)民的收入...

誰(shuí)擁有高科技...

結(jié)論...

原文...

注釋：References.

轉(zhuǎn)基因是一種自然的植物育種的延伸嗎？

自然繁殖或育種只能發(fā)生于密切相關(guān)的生命體之間（貓與貓，而不是貓與狗；小麥與小麥，而不是小麥與番茄或魚）。就這樣，子代從親代繼承的攜帶生命體各部分信息的基因（群），以一種有序的方式一代一代傳下去。

轉(zhuǎn)基因不像自然的植物育種。轉(zhuǎn)基因用實(shí)驗(yàn)室技術(shù)以插入人工改造的基因單元，重新規(guī)劃了植物DNA藍(lán)圖而使之帶有全新的屬性。這種過(guò)程在自然界從未發(fā)生過(guò)。通過(guò)加入來(lái)自多種生物包括病毒、細(xì)菌、植物和動(dòng)物的DNA片段，人工改造的基因單元在實(shí)驗(yàn)室中被創(chuàng)造出來(lái)。例如，在最常見的可耐受除草劑的大豆中的遺傳改造基因（轉(zhuǎn)基因），是用來(lái)自一種植物病毒、一種土壤細(xì)菌和一種矮牽牛植物的基因拼裝起來(lái)的。

植物的轉(zhuǎn)基因轉(zhuǎn)化過(guò)程是不成熟的、不精確的，并導(dǎo)致廣泛的突變，導(dǎo)致植物DNA藍(lán)圖的重大變化[1]。這些突變以非預(yù)期的和潛在危害的方式，非自然地改變了基因（群）的功能[2]，詳情見下文；不利影響包括作物生長(zhǎng)情況較差、毒性作用、過(guò)敏反應(yīng)以及對(duì)環(huán)境的破壞。

吃轉(zhuǎn)基因食品安全嗎？

與該行業(yè)者的宣稱相反，轉(zhuǎn)基因食品在被釋放銷售之前，其對(duì)人類的安全性沒有被適當(dāng)?shù)販y(cè)試[3,4]。實(shí)際上，唯一發(fā)表的研究報(bào)告，其直接測(cè)試轉(zhuǎn)基因食品對(duì)人類的安全性，發(fā)現(xiàn)了潛在的問(wèn)題[5]。到目前為止，這項(xiàng)研究并沒有跟進(jìn)。

對(duì)于安全性質(zhì)問(wèn)的典型回答是，在美國(guó)和其他地區(qū)，人們已吃了轉(zhuǎn)基因食品超過(guò)10年而無(wú)不良影響，這證明這些產(chǎn)品是安全的。但轉(zhuǎn)基因食品在被廣泛食用的美國(guó)和其他國(guó)家，并沒有被標(biāo)簽；其對(duì)消費(fèi)者健康的影響并沒有被監(jiān)測(cè)。

正因?yàn)槿绱?，?lái)自轉(zhuǎn)基因食品對(duì)健康的任何影響，必須滿足不同尋常的條件才會(huì)被注意到。對(duì)健康的影響還必須是：

• 立即出現(xiàn)于食用一種已知是轉(zhuǎn)基因（盡管其不被標(biāo)記）的食品之后，這種反應(yīng)被稱作急性毒性。

• 引起完全不同于常見疾病的癥狀；如果轉(zhuǎn)基因食品造成了普通的或緩慢發(fā)作的象過(guò)敏或癌癥之類疾病的上升，則沒有人會(huì)知道是什么引起這樣的上升。

• 是肉眼可見的強(qiáng)烈而明顯；沒有人用顯微鏡去檢查個(gè)人身體組織的損害，在他們吃了轉(zhuǎn)基因食品之后。但是，需要這樣的檢查類型以便對(duì)諸如癌前變化等問(wèn)題發(fā)出預(yù)警。

為了檢測(cè)對(duì)健康是重要卻更微妙的影響、或者需要時(shí)間來(lái)顯示的影響（慢性影響），對(duì)更大人口的長(zhǎng)期、可控研究是必需的。

在目前情況下，轉(zhuǎn)基因食品對(duì)健康的溫和或緩慢發(fā)作的影響可能需要數(shù)十年才會(huì)廣為人知，正如反式脂肪（另一種人工食品類型）的危害作用經(jīng)過(guò)幾十年才被認(rèn)識(shí)。來(lái)自反式脂肪的“慢性毒藥“的影響，造成了世界各地?cái)?shù)以百萬(wàn)計(jì)人過(guò)早死亡[6]。

轉(zhuǎn)基因食品的任何有害影響將是緩慢浮出表面且不太明顯的另一個(gè)原因是因?yàn)?，即使在轉(zhuǎn)基因作物消費(fèi)歷史最悠久的美國(guó)，轉(zhuǎn)基因食品只占美國(guó)飲食的一小部分（玉米少于15％，大豆產(chǎn)品不到5％）。

然而，有跡象表明美國(guó)食品供應(yīng)并非很好。由美國(guó)疾病控制中心提供的報(bào)告顯示，在1994年（就在轉(zhuǎn)基因食品商業(yè)化之前）至1999年的幾年中，與食物有關(guān)的疾病增加了2至10倍 [7]。是否與轉(zhuǎn)基因食品有關(guān)聯(lián)？沒有人知道，因?yàn)槠鋵?duì)人類（健康影響）的研究還沒有完成。

關(guān)于轉(zhuǎn)基因食品的動(dòng)物研究引起關(guān)注

雖然對(duì)人類的研究還沒有完成，但是科學(xué)家正在報(bào)導(dǎo)越來(lái)越多的檢測(cè)轉(zhuǎn)基因食品對(duì)實(shí)驗(yàn)動(dòng)物影響的研究。這些研究，總結(jié)如下，提出了關(guān)于轉(zhuǎn)基因食品對(duì)人以及動(dòng)物的安全性的嚴(yán)重關(guān)切。

小動(dòng)物飼養(yǎng)研究

• 被喂食轉(zhuǎn)基因西紅柿的大鼠產(chǎn)生了胃潰瘍[8]；

• 被喂食轉(zhuǎn)基因大豆的小鼠，其肝臟、胰腺、睪丸功能受到擾亂[9,10,11]；

• 轉(zhuǎn)基因豌豆給小鼠造成過(guò)敏反應(yīng)[12]；

• 被喂食轉(zhuǎn)基因油菜的大鼠得了肝臟腫大，這往往是毒性標(biāo)志[13]；

• 用轉(zhuǎn)基因馬鈴薯喂食大鼠造成其腸道內(nèi)壁的過(guò)度增長(zhǎng)，類似癌前狀態(tài)[14,15]；

• 被喂食可產(chǎn)生抗蟲成分轉(zhuǎn)基因玉米的大鼠生長(zhǎng)很慢，遭受肝、腎功能問(wèn)題折磨，并在其血液中顯示某些脂肪的更高水平[16]；

• 超過(guò)三代被喂食可產(chǎn)生抗蟲成分轉(zhuǎn)基因玉米的大鼠，遭受肝、腎傷害的折磨，并且出現(xiàn)了血液生化指標(biāo)的變更[17]；

• 被喂食可產(chǎn)生抗蟲成分轉(zhuǎn)基因玉米的年老與年幼的小鼠，在免疫系統(tǒng)細(xì)胞群和生化活力方面出現(xiàn)了顯著的紊亂[18]；

• 超過(guò)四代被喂食可產(chǎn)生抗蟲成分轉(zhuǎn)基因玉米的小鼠，顯示出在各器官（肝、脾、胰腺）中異常結(jié)構(gòu)變化的增加，重大變化在于其內(nèi)臟中基因功能的模式，反映了這個(gè)器官系統(tǒng)的化學(xué)反應(yīng)的紊亂（例如，在膽固醇制造，蛋白質(zhì)制造和降解），以及最重要的，生育率下降[19]；

• 終生（24個(gè)月）被喂食轉(zhuǎn)基因大豆的小鼠在它們的肝臟中顯示更嚴(yán)重的衰老跡象[20]；

• 被喂食轉(zhuǎn)基因大豆的兔子表現(xiàn)出腎和心臟中酶功能的紊亂[21]。

家畜的飼養(yǎng)研究

家畜已被轉(zhuǎn)基因飼料喂養(yǎng)許多年。這是否意味著用于牲畜的轉(zhuǎn)基因飼料是安全的？當(dāng)然，這意味著影響不是急性的并且不會(huì)馬上顯示出來(lái)。然而，旨在評(píng)估轉(zhuǎn)基因飼料緩慢發(fā)生、更微妙的對(duì)健康影響的長(zhǎng)期研究，表明轉(zhuǎn)基因飼料（對(duì)家畜）確有不利影響，證實(shí)了上述實(shí)驗(yàn)動(dòng)物（呈現(xiàn)）的結(jié)果。

下面的問(wèn)題已被發(fā)現(xiàn)：

• 超過(guò)三代被喂食可產(chǎn)生抗蟲成分轉(zhuǎn)基因Bt玉米的綿羊顯示母羊的消化系統(tǒng)功能紊亂而其羔羊的肝臟和胰腺功能紊亂[22]。

• 在轉(zhuǎn)基因飼料喂養(yǎng)的羊的消化道中，轉(zhuǎn)基因DNA被發(fā)現(xiàn)存在處理情況并被檢測(cè)到。這就提出了一個(gè)可能性，即抗生素耐藥性與Bt殺蟲基因可以進(jìn)入腸道細(xì)菌[23]，一種已知的水平基因轉(zhuǎn)移。水平基因轉(zhuǎn)移能夠?qū)е聦?duì)抗生素有抗藥性的致病細(xì)菌（“超級(jí)細(xì)菌”）以及可能導(dǎo)致帶有潛在有害后果的Bt殺蟲成分在腸道中產(chǎn)生。多年來(lái)管理者和生物技術(shù)行業(yè)聲稱水平基因轉(zhuǎn)移不會(huì)發(fā)生于轉(zhuǎn)基因DNA；但這一研究挑戰(zhàn)了這種聲稱。

• 飼料中的轉(zhuǎn)基因DNA被動(dòng)物的器官吸納。少量的轉(zhuǎn)基因DNA出現(xiàn)在人們食用的牛奶和肉類中[24,25,26]。（轉(zhuǎn)基因DNA）對(duì)動(dòng)物與食用它們的人群的健康影響還沒有被研究。

動(dòng)物飼養(yǎng)研究突出了對(duì)人的潛在健康問(wèn)題嗎？

食品添加劑和新的藥物在做人體試驗(yàn)之前，必須先在小鼠或大鼠身上測(cè)試。如果有害作用在這些初步的動(dòng)物實(shí)驗(yàn)中被發(fā)現(xiàn)，然后這樣的藥物很可能會(huì)被取消人用資格。只有當(dāng)動(dòng)物研究顯示沒有不良影響，該藥物才可以進(jìn)一步對(duì)人類志愿者進(jìn)行測(cè)試。

但在實(shí)驗(yàn)動(dòng)物中引起不良影響的轉(zhuǎn)基因作物已在許多國(guó)家被批準(zhǔn)商業(yè)化。這表明，與新藥相比，更不嚴(yán)格的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)被用來(lái)評(píng)價(jià)轉(zhuǎn)基因作物的安全性。

事實(shí)上，至少在一個(gè)國(guó)家――美國(guó)――轉(zhuǎn)基因生物的安全評(píng)價(jià)是自愿的，而不是由法律規(guī)定；不過(guò)，迄今為止，所有轉(zhuǎn)基因生物已自愿接受審查。在幾乎所有國(guó)家，安全評(píng)估并不科學(xué)嚴(yán)謹(jǐn)。例如，被轉(zhuǎn)基因作物開發(fā)人員通常進(jìn)行展示其產(chǎn)品安全性的動(dòng)物飼養(yǎng)研究，就是持續(xù)時(shí)間太短且使用科目太少以至于無(wú)法可靠地檢測(cè)到重要的有害影響[27]。

雖然該行業(yè)對(duì)其自己的轉(zhuǎn)基因產(chǎn)品進(jìn)行不嚴(yán)謹(jǐn)?shù)难芯縖28]，但與此并行，是系統(tǒng)且持續(xù)地妨礙著獨(dú)立科學(xué)家對(duì)轉(zhuǎn)基因生物進(jìn)行更嚴(yán)格和深入的獨(dú)立研究的能力。關(guān)于轉(zhuǎn)基因生物的比較和基本農(nóng)藝研究，安全和組成的評(píng)估，環(huán)境影響的評(píng)估，都受到生物技術(shù)工業(yè)的限制和壓制[29,30]。

與合同相聯(lián)系的專利授權(quán)被用于限制獨(dú)立研究人員使用商業(yè)化轉(zhuǎn)基因種子。對(duì)已被授予專利的轉(zhuǎn)基因作物的研究許可或被隱瞞或難以獲取，以至于研究被有效阻止。在（研究）許可被最終給予的情況下，生物技術(shù)公司持有權(quán)力阻止出版物，導(dǎo)致許多重大研究永遠(yuǎn)無(wú)法被發(fā)表[31,32]。

該業(yè)界和其同盟也使用廣泛的公共關(guān)系戰(zhàn)略，以抹黑和/或鉗制那些發(fā)表對(duì)轉(zhuǎn)基因持批評(píng)研究的科學(xué)家[33]。

轉(zhuǎn)基因食品是否更有營(yíng)養(yǎng)？

商業(yè)化的轉(zhuǎn)基因改良食品沒有營(yíng)養(yǎng)價(jià)值。目前，現(xiàn)有的轉(zhuǎn)基因食品并沒有更好的營(yíng)養(yǎng)價(jià)值，在某些情況下還低于天然食品的營(yíng)養(yǎng)。有些轉(zhuǎn)基因食品在測(cè)試中被證明有毒性或過(guò)敏反應(yīng)。

這些例子包括：

·轉(zhuǎn)基因大豆的抗癌異黃酮含量比非轉(zhuǎn)基因大豆低12-14％[34]

·經(jīng)過(guò)基因改造含有維生素A的油菜大大減少了維生素E在油脂中的含量，并且改變了油脂成分[35]

·人類志愿者試吃轉(zhuǎn)基因大豆豆粕表明，轉(zhuǎn)基因的DNA在加工過(guò)程中能夠生存，并在消化道中可以檢測(cè)到。有證據(jù)表明基因橫向轉(zhuǎn)移到了腸道細(xì)菌中。[36 37]抗生素耐藥性的基因橫向轉(zhuǎn)移和通過(guò)轉(zhuǎn)基因食品進(jìn)入腸道細(xì)菌的Bt殺蟲基因是一個(gè)極其嚴(yán)重的問(wèn)題。這是因?yàn)榻?jīng)過(guò)基因改造后的腸道細(xì)菌能對(duì)抗生素產(chǎn)生抗藥性，或成為Bt殺蟲劑工廠。雖然Bt的自然形態(tài)已被安全地作為農(nóng)業(yè)殺蟲劑使用多年，轉(zhuǎn)基因的Bt毒素已進(jìn)入農(nóng)作物，在實(shí)驗(yàn)室動(dòng)物試驗(yàn)中被發(fā)現(xiàn)對(duì)健康有潛在的不良影響[38 39 40]

·在80年代后期，使用轉(zhuǎn)基因細(xì)菌生產(chǎn)的補(bǔ)充食品含有毒素41，最初造成37個(gè)美國(guó)人死亡，然后使超過(guò)5000名美國(guó)人患了重病。

·幾種試驗(yàn)性轉(zhuǎn)基因食品（非商業(yè)化的）被發(fā)現(xiàn)有害：

·對(duì)巴西堅(jiān)果過(guò)敏的人對(duì)由巴西堅(jiān)果基因改造過(guò)的大豆也有過(guò)敏反應(yīng)42

·基因改造過(guò)程本身可能導(dǎo)致有害的影響。轉(zhuǎn)基因馬鈴薯引起多個(gè)器官系統(tǒng)的毒性反應(yīng)。[43 44]轉(zhuǎn)基因豌豆引起了2倍的過(guò)敏反應(yīng) - 轉(zhuǎn)基因蛋白有過(guò)敏性，刺激對(duì)其它食品成分的過(guò)敏反應(yīng)。[45]這就提出了一個(gè)問(wèn)題，轉(zhuǎn)基因食品是否會(huì)導(dǎo)致增加對(duì)其它物質(zhì)的過(guò)敏。

轉(zhuǎn)基因食品可以幫助緩解世界糧食危機(jī)？

饑餓的根源不是缺乏食物，而是缺少獲得食物的途徑。窮人沒有錢購(gòu)買食物，并且越來(lái)越?jīng)]有土地種植食物。饑餓基本上是社會(huì)、政治和經(jīng)濟(jì)的問(wèn)題，這是轉(zhuǎn)基因技術(shù)不能處理的。

由世界銀行和聯(lián)合國(guó)糧食和農(nóng)業(yè)組織最近的報(bào)告發(fā)現(xiàn)，生物燃料熱潮是當(dāng)前糧食危機(jī)的主要原因。[46 47 ]但轉(zhuǎn)基因作物生產(chǎn)商和經(jīng)銷商繼續(xù)推動(dòng)生物燃料的擴(kuò)張。這表明，他們的首要工作是賺錢，而不是養(yǎng)活世界。

轉(zhuǎn)基因公司專注于生產(chǎn)經(jīng)濟(jì)作物，用作動(dòng)物飼料和在富裕國(guó)家用作生物燃料，而不是為人們生產(chǎn)糧食。

轉(zhuǎn)基因作物促進(jìn)工業(yè)農(nóng)業(yè)在世界各地?cái)U(kuò)張并削弱了小農(nóng)經(jīng)濟(jì)。這是一個(gè)問(wèn)題嚴(yán)重的發(fā)展，有大量證據(jù)顯示，小農(nóng)場(chǎng)比大農(nóng)場(chǎng)更有效率，每公頃土地能生產(chǎn)更多的作物。[48 49 50 51 52]

“氣候?yàn)?zāi)害被用來(lái)推動(dòng)生物機(jī)動(dòng)車能源，但卻造就了糧食災(zāi)難，現(xiàn)在糧食災(zāi)難被用來(lái)啟動(dòng)轉(zhuǎn)基因工業(yè)的財(cái)運(yùn)”。丹尼•侯頓，英國(guó)獨(dú)立日?qǐng)?bào)非洲記者，2008年。[53]

轉(zhuǎn)基因作物是否有增產(chǎn)潛力？

充其量，轉(zhuǎn)基因作物的表現(xiàn)并不比其非轉(zhuǎn)基因的同類作物更好，近十年來(lái)轉(zhuǎn)基因大豆產(chǎn)量一直在下降。[54]受到控制的轉(zhuǎn)基因/非轉(zhuǎn)基因大豆實(shí)地比較試驗(yàn)表明，50％的收益率下降是由轉(zhuǎn)基因改造過(guò)程對(duì)基因的破壞性影響造成的。同樣，實(shí)地測(cè)試Bt殺蟲劑生產(chǎn)雜交玉米表明，它們需要較長(zhǎng)的時(shí)間達(dá)到成熟階段，并且產(chǎn)量比非轉(zhuǎn)基因的同類作物的下降程度達(dá)12％。[56]

一份美國(guó)農(nóng)業(yè)部報(bào)告證實(shí)了轉(zhuǎn)基因作物的產(chǎn)量表現(xiàn)不佳，報(bào)告稱，“用于商業(yè)用途的轉(zhuǎn)基因作物不增加作物品種的產(chǎn)量潛力。事實(shí)上，產(chǎn)量甚至可能下降....或許，這些結(jié)果所提出的最大問(wèn)題是：在農(nóng)業(yè)金融上看來(lái)似乎有混合的甚至是負(fù)面的影響時(shí)，如何解釋轉(zhuǎn)基因作物的迅速普及”。[57]

聯(lián)合國(guó)農(nóng)業(yè)知識(shí)、科學(xué)和技術(shù)促進(jìn)發(fā)展國(guó)際評(píng)估（IAASTD）報(bào)告[58]在2008年強(qiáng)調(diào)，基因改造不增加產(chǎn)量的潛力。這份關(guān)于農(nóng)業(yè)未來(lái)的報(bào)告，由400名科學(xué)家撰寫，并得到58個(gè)政府的支持，該報(bào)告指出，轉(zhuǎn)基因農(nóng)作物的產(chǎn)量“充滿變數(shù)”，并在某些情況下 “產(chǎn)量下降”。報(bào)告同時(shí)指出，“該技術(shù)的評(píng)估滯后于其發(fā)展，信息傳聞矛盾，以及可能帶來(lái)的利益和損害的不確定性是不可避免的。”

失敗的收益率

最終的研究確定，轉(zhuǎn)基因作物和產(chǎn)量是“失敗的收益率：轉(zhuǎn)基因作物性能評(píng)估”。研究結(jié)果在2009年發(fā)表，作者是前美國(guó)環(huán)保署和食品安全中心的科學(xué)家，道格里安·謝爾曼醫(yī)生。研究是根據(jù)公開的信息，由學(xué)術(shù)科學(xué)家進(jìn)行同行評(píng)審，并采用充分的實(shí)驗(yàn)控制進(jìn)行的。

在這項(xiàng)研究中，格里安-謝爾曼醫(yī)生區(qū)分了內(nèi)在收益率（也稱為潛在的收益率）與業(yè)務(wù)收益率，內(nèi)在收益率定義為理想的條件下可達(dá)到的最高產(chǎn)量，業(yè)務(wù)收益率是農(nóng)民由于蟲害，干旱，或其它環(huán)境壓力因素下，減少種植，在正?，F(xiàn)場(chǎng)條件下實(shí)現(xiàn)的收益率。

這項(xiàng)研究還區(qū)分傳統(tǒng)育種方法所造成的產(chǎn)量影響和的基因性狀造成的產(chǎn)量影響。生物科技公司利用常規(guī)育種和分子標(biāo)記輔助育種，生產(chǎn)更高產(chǎn)的作物，最后以基因工程改造為耐除草劑或抗蟲基因已成為常見的現(xiàn)象。在這種情況下，更高的產(chǎn)量不是由于基因工程而是由傳統(tǒng)的育種方法獲得的。 “失敗的收益率” 梳理出這些區(qū)別并分析了基因工程和常規(guī)育種對(duì)增產(chǎn)作出的不同貢獻(xiàn)。

根據(jù)對(duì)玉米和大豆，這兩個(gè)最普遍種植的美國(guó)轉(zhuǎn)基因農(nóng)作物的研究得出結(jié)論認(rèn)為，基因工程抗除草劑大豆和抗除草劑玉米并沒有增加產(chǎn)量。同時(shí)，抗蟲玉米產(chǎn)量的提高很小。對(duì)過(guò)去13年兩種作物產(chǎn)量的增加，報(bào)告認(rèn)為，主要是由于傳統(tǒng)的農(nóng)業(yè)育種或改善措施取得的。

作者得出結(jié)論：“在提高作物的內(nèi)在或潛在的收益率方面，商業(yè)基因作物至今沒有任何進(jìn)展。相比之下，傳統(tǒng)的育種在這方面十分成功；它可以完全歸功于在美國(guó)和世界其它地區(qū)的內(nèi)在增產(chǎn)，這是20世紀(jì)農(nóng)業(yè)的特點(diǎn)。”[59]

這項(xiàng)研究的批評(píng)人士持反對(duì)意見，認(rèn)為它不使用來(lái)自發(fā)展中國(guó)家的數(shù)據(jù)。憂思科學(xué)家聯(lián)盟回應(yīng)說(shuō)，評(píng)價(jià)在發(fā)展中國(guó)家轉(zhuǎn)基因作物對(duì)產(chǎn)量的貢獻(xiàn)，同行評(píng)審的論文很少– 這不足以得出明確和可靠的結(jié)論。然而，發(fā)展中國(guó)家最廣泛種植的食品/飼料作物，耐除草劑大豆，提供了一些線索。來(lái)自阿根廷的數(shù)據(jù)表明，阿根廷轉(zhuǎn)基因大豆的種植增長(zhǎng)超過(guò)了任何其它發(fā)展中國(guó)家，這意味著轉(zhuǎn)基因品種的產(chǎn)量與傳統(tǒng)的非轉(zhuǎn)基因大豆相同，或比傳統(tǒng)的非轉(zhuǎn)基因大豆低。[60]

 “如果我們要戰(zhàn)勝由于人口過(guò)剩和氣候變化導(dǎo)致的饑餓，我們將需要增加作物產(chǎn)量，”古里安-謝爾曼博士說(shuō)， “傳統(tǒng)的育種優(yōu)于基因工程。” [61]

如果轉(zhuǎn)基因工程在富裕的美國(guó)無(wú)法提高內(nèi)在的（潛在）收益率，在那里高投入的、灌溉的、得到大量補(bǔ)貼的農(nóng)業(yè)是一種傳統(tǒng)，那么，假定它將在發(fā)展中世界提高產(chǎn)量似乎不負(fù)責(zé)任的，在這些地區(qū)最需要的是增加糧食生產(chǎn)。

促進(jìn)發(fā)展中世界的轉(zhuǎn)基因作物計(jì)劃是試驗(yàn)性的，而且似乎存在著與西方獲得的數(shù)據(jù)不一致的期望。

在西方，糧食歉收，往往由政府包銷，這種做法對(duì)農(nóng)民給予補(bǔ)償。這種支持系統(tǒng)在發(fā)展中世界是罕見的。在那些地區(qū)，農(nóng)民可能確確實(shí)實(shí)在農(nóng)場(chǎng)上下注，他們的整個(gè)生活依賴于作物，歉收會(huì)產(chǎn)生嚴(yán)重的后果。

非洲的三種轉(zhuǎn)基因作物

轉(zhuǎn)基因甘薯

該抗病毒甘薯一直是非洲的基本轉(zhuǎn)基因展示項(xiàng)目，引發(fā)了大量的全球媒體報(bào)道。負(fù)責(zé)該項(xiàng)目的弗洛倫斯·萬(wàn)布古，孟山都訓(xùn)練有素的科學(xué)家，已被媒體報(bào)道為非洲女英雄和數(shù)以百萬(wàn)計(jì)人的救世主，根據(jù)她的宣稱，轉(zhuǎn)基因馬鈴薯在肯尼亞的產(chǎn)量翻了一番。福布斯雜志甚至宣稱，她是全球各地將“徹底改觀”未來(lái)的極少數(shù)人中的一個(gè)。[62]然而，最后發(fā)現(xiàn)，這項(xiàng)關(guān)于轉(zhuǎn)基因甘薯的宣稱是不真實(shí)的，田間試驗(yàn)結(jié)果顯示，轉(zhuǎn)基因農(nóng)作物是失敗的。[63 64]

在與未經(jīng)證實(shí)的轉(zhuǎn)基因甘薯品種相反，在烏干達(dá)一個(gè)成功的常規(guī)育種項(xiàng)目產(chǎn)生了新的高產(chǎn)抗病毒品種，并“提高了約100％的收益率”。在短短的幾年間，烏干達(dá)項(xiàng)目以低成本取得成功。相反，轉(zhuǎn)基因甘薯在超過(guò)12年的時(shí)間里，消耗了孟山都、世界銀行和美國(guó)國(guó)際開發(fā)署6百萬(wàn)美元的資金。[65]

轉(zhuǎn)基因木薯

木薯是非洲最重要的食物來(lái)源，從20世紀(jì)90年代中期開始，非洲開始大力宣傳基因工程的前景，通過(guò)對(duì)抗木薯中的某種致命性病毒而實(shí)現(xiàn)大規(guī)模增產(chǎn)。甚至有種說(shuō)法認(rèn)為利用轉(zhuǎn)基因技術(shù)使木薯產(chǎn)量提高10倍就能解決非洲的溫飽問(wèn)題。[66]  但這項(xiàng)技術(shù)成果寥寥。即使轉(zhuǎn)基因木薯已經(jīng)明顯遇到技術(shù)障礙時(shí)[67]，當(dāng)?shù)孛襟w仍繼續(xù)報(bào)道這項(xiàng)技術(shù)會(huì)如何解決非洲人民的吃飯問(wèn)題。[68 69]  同時(shí)，非轉(zhuǎn)基因木薯中已經(jīng)悄然出現(xiàn)抗病毒植株，即使在干旱條件下這種木薯仍顯著增產(chǎn)。[70]

抗蟲棉（Bt棉）

南非的馬卡哈西尼平原地區(qū)被稱為抗蟲棉小規(guī)模種植的示范基地，1998年種植了10萬(wàn)畝抗蟲棉。2002年，這10萬(wàn)畝棉田只剩下22500畝，四年中減少了80%。2004年，85%種植抗蟲棉的農(nóng)戶放棄了這種轉(zhuǎn)基因棉花，因?yàn)槊尢锍霈F(xiàn)了蟲害問(wèn)題，而產(chǎn)量并未增加。繼續(xù)種植抗蟲棉的農(nóng)戶蒙受著經(jīng)濟(jì)損失，僅靠南非政府的經(jīng)濟(jì)補(bǔ)貼和政府扶植的市場(chǎng)勉強(qiáng)維持。[71]

刊登在《作物保護(hù)》上的一項(xiàng)研究表明：“馬卡哈西尼平原地區(qū)種植的抗蟲棉并未像預(yù)期那樣帶來(lái)實(shí)實(shí)在在的可持續(xù)的社會(huì)經(jīng)濟(jì)效益，原因在于作物的管理方法有問(wèn)題。只有在高度集中的土壤系統(tǒng)中種植抗蟲棉才能帶來(lái)收益。”[72]

氣候變暖對(duì)農(nóng)業(yè)的影響

工業(yè)化農(nóng)業(yè)是全球變暖的一大成因，它所排放的溫室氣體高達(dá)總量的20%，而某些增產(chǎn)方式更會(huì)加劇農(nóng)業(yè)對(duì)環(huán)境的負(fù)面影響。例如，實(shí)現(xiàn)本質(zhì)上增產(chǎn)往往需要施加更多用化石燃料制成的氮肥，一些氮肥由土壤微生物轉(zhuǎn)化成一氧化二氮，這種溫室氣體的產(chǎn)生的溫室效應(yīng)約是二氧化碳的300倍。要想最大限度地減少全球農(nóng)業(yè)對(duì)氣候的影響，必須投資建設(shè)對(duì)工業(yè)肥料依賴性小的農(nóng)業(yè)體系，按照農(nóng)業(yè)生態(tài)學(xué)的原則提高土壤的保墑能力和恢復(fù)力。

轉(zhuǎn)基因種子是由農(nóng)用化學(xué)制品公司提供的，很大程度上依賴高昂的額外投入實(shí)現(xiàn)產(chǎn)值，如化肥，除草劑，殺蟲劑。在氣候變暖條件下推行轉(zhuǎn)基因作物是一種危害生態(tài)的危險(xiǎn)行為。

石油峰值和農(nóng)業(yè)

一些分析員認(rèn)為，目前石油峰值（即全球石油開采比率的最大值）已經(jīng)出現(xiàn)。這將會(huì)對(duì)農(nóng)業(yè)的發(fā)展模式造成巨大的影響。種植轉(zhuǎn)基因作物必須輔以人工除草劑和化肥。合成殺蟲劑的原料是石油，合成肥料制造使用天然氣，而目前石油和天然氣這兩種化石燃料儲(chǔ)量銳減。同樣，化肥中的另一大原料，磷酸鹽，也日益稀缺。

因此，基于美國(guó)轉(zhuǎn)基因和化學(xué)性作物（依賴于化石燃料投入）的農(nóng)業(yè)，其代價(jià)將日益高昂，前景堪憂。這在以下數(shù)據(jù)中可見一斑：

美國(guó)的食物系統(tǒng)中，每生產(chǎn)一千卡路里食物需要消耗一萬(wàn)卡路里的化石能源。[73]

·美國(guó)每年種植業(yè)和畜牧業(yè)需要消耗約7.2夸特（能源單位，1夸特相當(dāng)于18000萬(wàn)桶石油的熱能）化石能源。 [74 75]

·每公頃玉米和同類作物的生產(chǎn)平均需要消耗大約80億卡路里（能源）。[76]

·種植業(yè)所消耗的能源的三分之二是用于化肥和農(nóng)械。[77]

為了減少農(nóng)業(yè)中的化石能源消耗，當(dāng)前可用的手段包括減少化肥用量，選用合適的農(nóng)械，土壤保持管理，節(jié)約灌溉，以及推行有機(jī)農(nóng)業(yè)技術(shù)。[78]

在羅戴爾公司的耕作系統(tǒng)試驗(yàn)(FST)中，康奈爾大學(xué)的大衛(wèi)·皮門特爾教授做了一項(xiàng)能源投入的比較分析，結(jié)果表明：有機(jī)耕作系統(tǒng)的能耗僅為傳統(tǒng)耕作系統(tǒng)能耗的63%，主要原因在于傳統(tǒng)耕作系統(tǒng)中使用的氮肥和除草劑需要消耗大量的能源。[79]

研究表明，低投入的有機(jī)耕作試點(diǎn)在非洲國(guó)家中成效顯著。埃塞俄比亞的提格雷州在聯(lián)合國(guó)糧農(nóng)組織(FAO)的部分資助下推行了有機(jī)耕作試點(diǎn)工程，對(duì)使用堆肥和使用化肥的農(nóng)田在六年中的產(chǎn)量進(jìn)行了對(duì)比。對(duì)比結(jié)果顯示，堆肥完全可以取代化肥，并且使用堆肥的農(nóng)田平均可以增產(chǎn)30%以上。此外，農(nóng)戶發(fā)現(xiàn)，堆肥供給的作物更易抵抗病蟲害和抑制頑固性雜草生長(zhǎng)。[80]

轉(zhuǎn)基因作物和氣候變暖

氣候變暖會(huì)引發(fā)突然的、極端的、不可預(yù)測(cè)的天氣變化。為了人類的生存，必須盡可能保證農(nóng)田的靈活性、恢復(fù)能力以及多樣性。而轉(zhuǎn)基因技術(shù)恰恰相反，它與作物多樣性的原則背道而馳，而在靈活性方面更是需要數(shù)年的時(shí)間和幾百萬(wàn)美元的投入來(lái)開發(fā)新品種。

每一種轉(zhuǎn)基因作物都是針對(duì)特定的小環(huán)境“量身定制”。隨著氣候變暖，無(wú)法估計(jì)會(huì)出現(xiàn)怎樣的土壤條件，而特殊的土壤又會(huì)在哪里形成。面對(duì)這種破壞性的氣候變暖，最好的應(yīng)對(duì)策略是種植多種具有遺傳多樣性的高產(chǎn)作物。

轉(zhuǎn)基因產(chǎn)品公司擁有各項(xiàng)已申請(qǐng)專利的作物基因，聲稱能對(duì)抗某一種不利環(huán)境，如干旱，炎熱，洪水和高鹽環(huán)境。但這些公司卻不能利用專利基因培育出同時(shí)擁有上述優(yōu)點(diǎn)的作物新品種，因?yàn)檫@些功能的實(shí)現(xiàn)極為復(fù)雜，需要不同的基因準(zhǔn)確而協(xié)調(diào)地合作。而現(xiàn)有的轉(zhuǎn)基因技術(shù)并不能構(gòu)造出如此精密的、高度協(xié)調(diào)的基因網(wǎng)絡(luò)來(lái)提高作物的抵抗力。

相反，傳統(tǒng)的自然雜交屬于整體作業(yè)，利用抗干旱、耐熱、抗洪水和高鹽分的普通作物進(jìn)行基因整合，更有利于實(shí)現(xiàn)這一目的。

另外，植物育種領(lǐng)域依靠標(biāo)記輔助選擇技術(shù)也取得了進(jìn)步。標(biāo)記輔助選擇，即MAS，是一項(xiàng)基本上被認(rèn)可的生物技術(shù)，通過(guò)識(shí)別出重要的相關(guān)基因來(lái)加快自然育種的速度。而且標(biāo)記輔助選擇不涉及基因工程中的危險(xiǎn)性和不確定因素。

涉及基因?qū)＠麊?wèn)題的MAS技術(shù)存在爭(zhēng)議。MAS作物的專利權(quán)對(duì)于發(fā)展中國(guó)家而言意義非同一般。

特培作物的非轉(zhuǎn)基因研究成效

如果說(shuō)特培作物更能適應(yīng)氣候變暖，那么還有比基因工程更好的方式來(lái)培育這些作物品種。傳統(tǒng)育種和標(biāo)記輔助選擇在這方面的優(yōu)勢(shì)不勝枚舉，盡管相比于沸沸揚(yáng)揚(yáng)的轉(zhuǎn)基因神話它們的優(yōu)勢(shì)鮮為人知。

長(zhǎng)莖水稻就是非轉(zhuǎn)基因技術(shù)的一項(xiàng)成果。這種水稻的莖比普通水稻要長(zhǎng)，從而避免植株被洪水淹沒。[81]基因工程作為一種研究手段用于識(shí)別目的基因，而只有在標(biāo)記輔助選擇技術(shù)的指導(dǎo)下，依靠傳統(tǒng)育種才能培育出長(zhǎng)莖水稻這種百分之百非轉(zhuǎn)基因的作物品種。這很好地體現(xiàn)了包括轉(zhuǎn)基因技術(shù)在內(nèi)的一系列生物技術(shù)，通過(guò)與傳統(tǒng)育種過(guò)程完美結(jié)合，能滿足當(dāng)前對(duì)作物新品種的高端需求。

轉(zhuǎn)基因作物是否環(huán)保？

市場(chǎng)上占主導(dǎo)地位的轉(zhuǎn)基因作物有兩類:

·能抵抗全效除草劑（如美國(guó)的農(nóng)達(dá)牌除草劑）的作物：這種作物可以減少噴灑除草劑的次數(shù)并且不會(huì)被除草劑殺死

·能生成殺蟲劑中蘇云金桿菌毒蛋白的作物：種植這種作物可減少化學(xué)殺蟲劑的噴灑量

然而，上述兩種說(shuō)法都有待進(jìn)一步分析。

轉(zhuǎn)基因作物和除草劑

最普遍的抗殺蟲劑型轉(zhuǎn)基因作物對(duì)農(nóng)達(dá)牌除草劑具有抗藥性。但是隨著農(nóng)達(dá)牌除草劑的廣泛使用，出現(xiàn)了無(wú)數(shù)種對(duì)這種除草劑免疫的雜草，[82]如藜[83]，黑麥草[84]和抗草甘膦杉葉藻[85]等。美國(guó)剛引進(jìn)轉(zhuǎn)基因作物時(shí)，一般除草劑的用量開始下降，而出現(xiàn)抗藥性雜草之后，除草劑重新升溫。[86 87 ]農(nóng)民不得不改變耕作習(xí)慣來(lái)對(duì)付這些抗藥性雜草，瘋狂加大農(nóng)達(dá)的用量。并且市場(chǎng)上開始流行更強(qiáng)效的混合除草劑，而不僅限于農(nóng)達(dá)。[88 89]

這些化學(xué)制劑都有毒性，危害到噴藥的農(nóng)民和食用染毒植物的人和牲畜。農(nóng)達(dá)也不例外。事實(shí)證明，農(nóng)達(dá)除草劑在殺傷植物細(xì)胞方面的毒性類似于抗藥性轉(zhuǎn)基因作物的細(xì)胞所遭受的破壞力。[90]

加拿大政府在2001年的一項(xiàng)研究表明，抗藥性轉(zhuǎn)基因油菜在商業(yè)化種植僅僅4-5年之后，通過(guò)交叉授粉已經(jīng)導(dǎo)致了頑固性雜草的出現(xiàn)，這種雜草對(duì)三種不同的全效除草劑均有抗藥性，成為困擾農(nóng)民的一大問(wèn)題，并波及相鄰農(nóng)田的主人。[91 92 93]

另有發(fā)現(xiàn)表明，轉(zhuǎn)基因油菜能和其它植物（如野芥子和野蘿卜）交叉授粉并把抗藥性基因遺傳給這些植物。這樣一來(lái)，這些植物變種成頑固性雜草的可能性便會(huì)增加。[94]針對(duì)這一情況，業(yè)內(nèi)的回應(yīng)是增加除草劑的用量、使用復(fù)雜的混合除草劑[95 96]、培育能抵抗新型、混合型除草劑的作物。這種對(duì)策顯然會(huì)導(dǎo)致化學(xué)藥劑的惡性循環(huán)，難以讓人接受，尤其對(duì)發(fā)展中國(guó)家的農(nóng)民而言更是如此。

殺蟲劑產(chǎn)生型的轉(zhuǎn)基因作物

殺蟲劑產(chǎn)生型的Bt轉(zhuǎn)基因作物已經(jīng)顯示出能抵御害蟲，是加大了化學(xué)藥劑的應(yīng)用的結(jié)果。[97 98 99]

在中國(guó)和印度，Bt轉(zhuǎn)基因棉花最初在消滅棉花象鼻蟲方面很有效。但是對(duì)第二代的害蟲，特別是像粉蚧科的介殼蟲是高度抵抗Bt毒素的，且迅速代替它的地位。農(nóng)民們承受了大規(guī)模的作物減產(chǎn)，還不得不使用高成本的農(nóng)藥，從而抹掉了他們的的利潤(rùn)數(shù)字。[100 101 102 103]這樣的發(fā)展在發(fā)展中國(guó)家是對(duì)農(nóng)民非常有損害性的，因?yàn)榘l(fā)展中國(guó)家承擔(dān)不起昂貴的投入。

那種聲稱Bt轉(zhuǎn)基因作物能減少殺蟲劑的使用的觀點(diǎn)是愚蠢的，因?yàn)锽t作物是自我殺蟲的。 法國(guó)科恩大學(xué)的吉爾斯•艾瑞克薩拉利尼說(shuō)，Bt作物實(shí)際上是被設(shè)計(jì)出來(lái)要產(chǎn)生毒素來(lái)抵御害蟲的，Bt轉(zhuǎn)基因的茄子（茄子即紫色茄子）產(chǎn)生了大量的毒素，每公斤16-17毫克。它們能毒害動(dòng)物，不幸的是，未能試驗(yàn)來(lái)確定它們對(duì)人類的的影響效力。[104]

轉(zhuǎn)基因作物和野生動(dòng)物

英國(guó)政府資助的農(nóng)場(chǎng)層面農(nóng)業(yè)方面的試驗(yàn)表明，抵制除莠劑（阻礙植物生長(zhǎng)的化學(xué)劑）的作物的生長(zhǎng)（例如糖蘿卜、油菜籽油菜）可以消減野生物的種群數(shù)量。[105 106]

阿根廷的例子

在阿根廷，大量轉(zhuǎn)型農(nóng)業(yè)的轉(zhuǎn)基因黃豆產(chǎn)品已經(jīng)在農(nóng)村社區(qū)和經(jīng)濟(jì)結(jié)構(gòu)方面發(fā)生了災(zāi)難性的后果。它損害了食品安全并且引起了相當(dāng)規(guī)模的環(huán)境問(wèn)題，包括抵御除莠劑的雜草蔓延，土壤質(zhì)量退化和害蟲增加以及作物疾病頻發(fā)。[107 108]

轉(zhuǎn)基因作物和非目標(biāo)性的昆蟲以及有機(jī)生物體

Bt轉(zhuǎn)基因自生殺蟲劑作物傷害無(wú)關(guān)昆蟲群體，包括蝴蝶[109 110 111]和一些有益的撲食其他害蟲的益蟲。[112]從Bt轉(zhuǎn)基因作物中生發(fā)出來(lái)的殺蟲劑還會(huì)污染毒害水中生命[113]和土壤中的生物有機(jī)體[114]。有一項(xiàng)研究披露，Bt轉(zhuǎn)基因自生殺蟲劑作物對(duì)益蟲是有更加負(fù)面的打擊而不是正面的影響。[115]

轉(zhuǎn)基因和非轉(zhuǎn)基因作物能共存嗎

一些搞生物工程的人反駁說(shuō)，如果農(nóng)民愿意，他們應(yīng)該有能力來(lái)選擇種植轉(zhuǎn)基因作物，他們的理由是轉(zhuǎn)基因作物和非轉(zhuǎn)基因作物是可以和平共處的。然而在北美的經(jīng)驗(yàn)已經(jīng)表明，讓轉(zhuǎn)基因作物和非轉(zhuǎn)基因作物“共同存在”很快會(huì)導(dǎo)致非轉(zhuǎn)基因作物被大面積大規(guī)模的污染毒害。

這不僅對(duì)農(nóng)業(yè)生態(tài)學(xué)方面有至關(guān)重要的影響，還對(duì)經(jīng)濟(jì)產(chǎn)生嚴(yán)重影響。損害了原始有機(jī)農(nóng)業(yè)農(nóng)民們收取紅利的能力。也阻礙了國(guó)家間的出口市場(chǎng)發(fā)展，因?yàn)橐恍﹪?guó)家為防止基因污染有嚴(yán)格的進(jìn)口規(guī)定。污染的發(fā)生通過(guò)植物之間的花粉傳播，通過(guò)農(nóng)具上的轉(zhuǎn)基因種子播散，以及沒有間隔分離的混合存儲(chǔ)。轉(zhuǎn)基因作物進(jìn)入一個(gè)國(guó)家就取消了選擇----每個(gè)人都會(huì)逐漸被迫培植轉(zhuǎn)基因作物或者漸漸污染他們的非轉(zhuǎn)基因作物。

這里就有一些轉(zhuǎn)基因污染事件的典型：

·在2006年，轉(zhuǎn)基因大米剛進(jìn)行了一年的領(lǐng)域性試驗(yàn)，就被發(fā)現(xiàn)造成了大面積美國(guó)大米供應(yīng)源和種子苗木[116]污染。被污染的大米甚至出現(xiàn)在了遙遠(yuǎn)的非洲，歐洲和美國(guó)中部。2007年三月路透社報(bào)道，美國(guó)出口大米的銷售量比上一年銳減百分之20，原因就在于轉(zhuǎn)基因污染。[117]

·在加拿大，污染的轉(zhuǎn)基因油菜使得從根本上不可能去栽培有機(jī)的非轉(zhuǎn)基因的油菜了。[118]

·美國(guó)法院推翻了對(duì)轉(zhuǎn)基因紫苜蓿的批準(zhǔn)，因?yàn)樗ㄟ^(guò)交叉花粉傳播威脅非轉(zhuǎn)基因苜蓿。[119]

·由于轉(zhuǎn)基因玉米產(chǎn)品以英畝為單位的增加種植，西班牙的有機(jī)玉米產(chǎn)品顯著下降，也是因?yàn)榻徊婊ǚ蹅鞑?wèn)題造成的。[120]

·2009年，隨著廣泛散播的未經(jīng)批準(zhǔn)的轉(zhuǎn)基因變種所帶來(lái)的污染被發(fā)現(xiàn)，加拿大亞麻種子出口歐洲市場(chǎng)垮掉。[121]

·僅2007年，就有39例新出現(xiàn)的轉(zhuǎn)基因污染事件發(fā)生在23個(gè)國(guó)家，而從2005年以來(lái)，216起相關(guān)污染事件被報(bào)道。[122]

對(duì)轉(zhuǎn)基因的替代

許多權(quán)威機(jī)構(gòu)，包括IAASTD關(guān)于農(nóng)業(yè)前景123的報(bào)告，發(fā)現(xiàn)轉(zhuǎn)基因作物對(duì)全球農(nóng)業(yè)的改善和對(duì)抗貧窮饑饉氣候變化幾乎沒什么貢獻(xiàn)，因?yàn)榇嬖诟玫奶娲?。它們多種多樣可以列舉很多，包括整合害蟲管理，有機(jī)生物，有保障可持續(xù)的，低投入，非化學(xué)害蟲管理和農(nóng)業(yè)生物農(nóng)場(chǎng)，它們的擴(kuò)展可以超越彼此的特別的領(lǐng)域界限。在發(fā)展中世界專門項(xiàng)目應(yīng)用這些經(jīng)過(guò)證實(shí)的戰(zhàn)略已經(jīng)增加了相當(dāng)?shù)漠a(chǎn)量和糧食安全。[124 125 126 127 128 129]

這些戰(zhàn)略應(yīng)用包括：

·有保障可持續(xù)的，低投入，節(jié)省能源的實(shí)踐，保持建設(shè)土壤，加強(qiáng)自然抗害蟲和作物的回彈力。

·創(chuàng)新農(nóng)耕辦法，以減少和消除高成本的化學(xué)殺蟲和施肥。

·應(yīng)用成千上萬(wàn)種傳統(tǒng)農(nóng)業(yè)中每種主糧作物，這些作物自然地適應(yīng)了各種自然壓力例如干旱，燥熱，惡劣天氣條件，水澇，鹽堿地，貧瘠土壤，害蟲和疾病[130]

·應(yīng)用現(xiàn)存的作物和它們的野生家族傳統(tǒng)的育種項(xiàng)目，以實(shí)用的試驗(yàn)來(lái)發(fā)展多樣性

·傳播能使農(nóng)民協(xié)作性地保持和改進(jìn)的傳統(tǒng)種子

·應(yīng)用現(xiàn)代生物學(xué)有益的和高尚的方面。例如標(biāo)記輔助選擇，即用最新遺傳知識(shí)來(lái)加速傳統(tǒng)的繁殖。[131]不同于轉(zhuǎn)基因技術(shù)，標(biāo)記輔助選擇可以安全地生產(chǎn)出新的多種作物，使之產(chǎn)生有價(jià)值地混雜嫁接體，提高營(yíng)養(yǎng)，增加口感，提高產(chǎn)量，抵御害蟲和疾病，以及培養(yǎng)其耐旱耐熱，抗鹽堿抗?jié)车男阅?。[132]

有機(jī)生物農(nóng)業(yè)和低投入耕作在非洲改進(jìn)了產(chǎn)量

好像沒有什么理由來(lái)拿著貧窮農(nóng)民的身家性命來(lái)賭博，即非要迫使他們種植試驗(yàn)性的轉(zhuǎn)基因作物，因?yàn)楝F(xiàn)成地存在試驗(yàn)和嘗試性的廉價(jià)的做法來(lái)增加糧食產(chǎn)量。許多最近的研究表明，在非洲國(guó)家低投入做法如有機(jī)生物可以大幅度地提升產(chǎn)量，同時(shí)還帶來(lái)其他的益處。這樣的做法的優(yōu)勢(shì)是以相關(guān)知識(shí)為基礎(chǔ)，而不是以高投入為基礎(chǔ)。結(jié)果是它們比那些昂貴的高科技（過(guò)去也毫無(wú)補(bǔ)益）更容易被貧窮的農(nóng)民接受。

2008年聯(lián)合國(guó)報(bào)告，“非洲的有機(jī)生物農(nóng)業(yè)和糧食安全”，考察了在24個(gè)非洲國(guó)家。114組農(nóng)業(yè)項(xiàng)目，發(fā)現(xiàn)有機(jī)的或者近似有機(jī)的實(shí)踐，引來(lái)產(chǎn)量的增加超過(guò)100%。在東部非洲，發(fā)現(xiàn)產(chǎn)量增加了128%。[133]進(jìn)一步的研究表述：“這些研究中的證據(jù)支持了這樣的觀點(diǎn)，就是在非洲，有機(jī)農(nóng)業(yè)比非有機(jī)的農(nóng)產(chǎn)品系統(tǒng)可以更有助于糧食安全，在長(zhǎng)遠(yuǎn)上說(shuō)，它也更會(huì)被人們所支持。[134]

有機(jī)和低投入的辦法在發(fā)展中國(guó)家增進(jìn)農(nóng)民的收入

對(duì)于糧食無(wú)保障來(lái)說(shuō)貧窮是主要的實(shí)質(zhì)性因素，根據(jù)2008年的聯(lián)合國(guó)報(bào)告，“非洲的有機(jī)農(nóng)業(yè)和糧食安全”，有機(jī)農(nóng)業(yè)耕作從多方面給予貧窮以正面的改善作用。農(nóng)民主要收益于：

·現(xiàn)金儲(chǔ)蓄，因?yàn)橛袡C(jī)耕作不要求高成本的化學(xué)殺蟲劑和化肥

·額外收入，來(lái)自于賣副產(chǎn)品（因?yàn)橐某捎袡C(jī)耕作）

·對(duì)合格的有機(jī)產(chǎn)品的獎(jiǎng)勵(lì)價(jià)格，最初在非洲取得用于出口，同時(shí)也在國(guó)內(nèi)市場(chǎng)出售。

·通過(guò)各種加工活動(dòng)在有機(jī)產(chǎn)品上附加價(jià)值

這些優(yōu)勢(shì)被非洲和拉丁美洲的研究所證實(shí)。結(jié)論是有機(jī)農(nóng)業(yè)可以環(huán)保地友善地減少貧窮最近的研究表明，合格的有機(jī)農(nóng)場(chǎng)參與了產(chǎn)品出口，比那些常規(guī)的產(chǎn)品（指農(nóng)民的凈收入）更可以獲取相當(dāng)高的利潤(rùn)。[136]在這些例子中，87%的農(nóng)民和家庭表明增加了收入得益于有機(jī)耕作，因此有機(jī)耕作和產(chǎn)品減輕了貧窮增加了區(qū)域性糧食安全。[135]

誰(shuí)擁有高科技

關(guān)于農(nóng)業(yè)高科技可以大有裨益于發(fā)展中世界的觀點(diǎn)，要害是應(yīng)當(dāng)問(wèn)誰(shuí)擁有高科技?；蚋锩灰敕侵迣⑷コ緡?guó)的公共和私人的合作關(guān)系，這個(gè)合作關(guān)系中的公共方面將由是非洲方面提供，而私人方面將是美國(guó)和歐洲的生物技術(shù)公司

在轉(zhuǎn)基因作物中應(yīng)用的植入基因是生物技術(shù)公司的專利和所有。在美國(guó)和加拿大，許多公司打官司把農(nóng)民告上法庭，指責(zé)他們的作物中有所謂這些公司的具有專利權(quán)的轉(zhuǎn)基因。農(nóng)民們辨白說(shuō)他們不是故意地種植了轉(zhuǎn)基因作物，但是沒有辦法阻止法庭對(duì)他們進(jìn)行的巨額罰款。

如果農(nóng)民們買轉(zhuǎn)基因的種子，他們必須簽一個(gè)高科技合同保證不私留和再培育種子。他們每年不得不從生物技術(shù)公司買新種子，從而把對(duì)糧食的控制權(quán)從自己手里轉(zhuǎn)讓給了種子公司，不斷加強(qiáng)的種子產(chǎn)業(yè)意味著農(nóng)民幾乎沒什么選擇而只能買轉(zhuǎn)基因種子。百年來(lái)農(nóng)民的認(rèn)識(shí)要建立當(dāng)?shù)剡m應(yīng)的而且多樣的種子苗木被輕易地抹掉了。

相反，低投入和有機(jī)農(nóng)耕辦法沒有引入專利技術(shù)，糧食控制還保留在農(nóng)民們手上，還可以保持農(nóng)民的種植技術(shù)留存，而且對(duì)食品安全有利。

結(jié)論

轉(zhuǎn)基因作物技術(shù)沒有提供什么大不了的益處。相反，它們卻凸現(xiàn)出了對(duì)人類和動(dòng)物健康、對(duì)環(huán)境對(duì)農(nóng)民，食品安全、出口市場(chǎng)的危害。迄今沒找到一個(gè)有說(shuō)服力的理由去拿農(nóng)民的身家性命去冒險(xiǎn)。特別是當(dāng)被驗(yàn)證了的成功的和被廣泛接受的替代方法容易地廉價(jià)地存在著。這樣的替代方法將保持糧食供應(yīng)的獨(dú)立性，而不受外國(guó)跨國(guó)公司的控制，而且提供最佳的保險(xiǎn)來(lái)反對(duì)氣候變化的挑戰(zhàn)性指責(zé)。

原文

GM CROPS – JUST THE SCIENCE

research documenting the limitations, risks, and alternatives

Proponents claim that genetically modified (GM) crops:

•   are safe to eat and more nutritious

•   benefit the environment

•   reduce use of herbicides and insecticides

•   increase crop yields, thereby helping farmers and solving the food crisis

•   create a more affluent, stable economy

•   are just an extension of natural breeding, and have no risks different from naturally bred crops.

However, a large and growing body of scientific research and on-the-ground experience indicate that GMOs fail to live up to these claims. Instead, GM crops:

•   can be toxic, allergenic or less nutritious than their natural counterparts

•   can disrupt the ecosystem, damage vulnerable wild plant and animal populations and harm biodiversity

•   increase chemical inputs (pesticides, herbicides) over the long term

•   deliver yields that are no better, and often worse, than conventional crops

•   cause or exacerbate a range of social and economic problems

•   are laboratory-made and, once released, harmful GMOs cannot be recalled from the environment.

The scientifically demonstrated risks and clear absence of real benefits have led experts to see GM as a clumsy, outdated technology. They present risks that we need not incur, given the availability of effective, scientifically proven, energy-efficient and safe ways of meeting current and future global food needs.

This paper presents the key scientific evidence – 114 research studies and other authoritative documents – documenting the limitations and risks of GM crops and the many safer, more effective alternatives available today.

Is GM an extension of natural plant breeding?

Natural reproduction or breeding can only occur between closely related forms of life (cats with cats, not cats with dogs; wheat with wheat, not wheat with tomatoes or fish). In this way, the genes that offspring inherit from parents, which carry information for all parts of the body, are passed down the generations in an orderly way.

GM is not like natural plant breeding. GM uses laboratory techniques to insert artificial gene units to re-programme the DNA blueprint of the plant with completely new properties. This process would never happen in nature. The artificial gene units are created in the laboratory by joining fragments of DNA, usually derived from multiple organisms, including viruses, bacteria, plants and animals. For example, the GM gene in the most common herbicide resistant soya beans was pieced together from a plant virus, a soil bacterium and a petunia plant.

The GM transformation process of plants is crude, imprecise, and causes widespread mutations, resulting in major changes to the plant’s DNA blueprint1. These mutations unnaturally alter the genes’ functioning in unpredictable and potentially harmful ways2, as detailed below. Adverse effects include poorer crop performance, toxic effects, allergic reactions, and damage to the environment.

Are GM foods safe to eat?

Contrary to industry claims, GM foods are not properly tested for human safety before they are released for sale^{3 4}. In fact, the only published study directly testing the safety of a GM food on humans found potential problems5. To date, this study has not been followed up.

Typically the response to the safety question is that people have been eating GM foods in the United States and elsewhere for more than ten years without ill effects and that this proves that the products are safe. But GM foods are not labelled in the US and other nations where they are widely eaten and consumers are not monitored for health effects.

Because of this, any health effects from a GM food would have to meet unusual conditions before they would be noticed. The health effects would have to:

•   occur immediately after eating a food that was known to be GM (in spite of its not being labeled). This kind of response is called acute toxicity.

•   cause symptoms that are completely different from common diseases. If GM foods caused a rise in common or slow-onset diseases like allergies or cancer, nobody would know what caused the rise.

•   be dramatic and obvious to the naked eye. Nobody examines a person’s body tissues with a microscope for harm after they eat a GM food. But just this type of examination is needed to give early warning of problems such as pre-cancerous changes.

To detect important but more subtle effects on health, or effects that take time to appear (chronic effects), long-term controlled studies on larger populations are required.

Under current conditions, moderate or slow-onset health effects of GM foods could take decades to become known, just as it took decades for the damaging effects of trans-fats (another type of artificial food) to be recognized. ‘Slow poison’ effects from trans-fats have caused millions of premature deaths across the world6.

Another reason why any harmful effects of GM foods will be slow to surface and less obvious is because, even in the United States, which has the longest history of GM crop consumption, GM foods account for only a small part of the US diet (maize is less than 15% and soya bean products are less than 5%).

Nevertheless, there are signs that all is not well with the US food supply. A report by the US Centers for Disease Control shows that food-related illnesses increased 2- to 10-fold in the years between 1994 (just before GM food was commercialised) and 19997. Is there a link with GM food? No one knows, because studies on humans have not been done.

Animal studies on GM foods give cause for concern

Although studies on humans have not been done, scientists are reporting a growing number of studies that examine the effects of GM foods on laboratory animals. These studies, summarized below, raise serious concerns regarding the safety of GM foods for humans as well as animals.

Small animal feeding studies

•   Rats fed GM tomatoes developed stomach ulcerations8

•   Liver, pancreas and testes function was disturbed in mice fed GM soya9 10 11

•       GM peas caused allergic reactions in mice12

•       Rats fed GM oilseed rape developed enlarged livers, often a sign of toxicity13

•       GM potatoes fed to rats caused excessive growth of the lining of the gut similar to a pre-cancerous condition14 15

•       Rats fed insecticide-producing GM maize grew more slowly, suffered problems with liver and kidney function, and showed higher levels of certain fats in their blood16

•       Rats fed GM insecticide-producing maize over three generations suffered damage to liver and kidneys and showed alterations in blood biochemistry17

•       Old and young mice fed with GM insecticide-producing maize showed a marked disturbance in immune system cell populations and in biochemical activity18

•       Mice fed GM insecticide-producing maize over four generations showed a buildup of abnormal structural changes in various organs (liver, spleen, pancreas), major changes in the pattern of gene function in the gut, reflecting disturbances in the chemistry of this organ system (e.g. in cholesterol production, protein production and breakdown), and, most significantly, reduced fertility19

•       Mice fed GM soya over their entire lifetime (24 months) showed more acute signs of ageing in their liver20

•       Rabbits fed GM soya showed enzyme function disturbances in kidney and heart21.

Feeding studies with farm animals

Farm animals have been fed GM feed for many years. Does this mean that GM feed is safe for livestock? Certainly it means that effects are not acute and do not show up immediately. However, longer-term studies, designed to assess slow-onset and more subtle health effects of GM feed, indicate that GM feed does have adverse effects, confirming the results described above for laboratory animals.

The following problems have been found:

• Sheep fed Bt insecticide-producing GM maize over three generations showed disturbances in the functioning of the digestive system of ewes and in the liver and pancreas of their lambs22.

•  GM DNA was found to survive processing and to be detectable in the digestive tract of sheep fed GM feed. This raises the possibility that antibiotic resistance and Bt insecticide genes can move into gut bacteria23, a process known as horizontal gene transfer. Horizontal gene transfer can lead to antibiotic resistant disease-causing bacteria (“superbugs”) and may lead to Bt insecticide being produced in the gut with potentially harmful consequences. For years, regulators and the biotech industry claimed that horizontal gene transfer would not occur with GM DNA, but this research challenges this claim

•  GM DNA in feed is taken up by the animal’s organs. Small amounts of GM DNA appear in the milk and meat that people eat24 25 26. The effects on the health of the animals and the people who eat them have not been researched.

Do animal feeding studies highlight potential health problems for people?

Before food additives and new medicines can be tested on human subjects, they have to be tested on mice or rats. If harmful effects were to be found in these initial animal experiments, then the drug would likely be disqualified for human use. Only if animal studies reveal no harmful effects can the drug be further tested on human volunteers.

But GM crops that caused ill effects in experimental animals have been approved for commercialization in many countries. This suggests that less rigorous standards are being used to evaluate the safety of GM crops than for new medicines.

In fact, in at least one country – the United States – safety assessment of GMOs is voluntary and not required by law, although, to date, all GMOs have undergone voluntary review. In virtually all countries, safety assessment is not scientifically rigorous. For instance, the animal feeding studies that GM crop developers routinely conduct to demonstrate the safety of their products are too short in duration and use too few subjects to reliably detect important harmful effects.27

While industry conducts less than rigorous studies on its own GM products, 28 it has, in parallel, systematically and persistently interfered with the ability of independent scientists to conduct more rigorous and incisive independent research on GMOs. Comparative and basic agronomic studies on GMOs, assessments of safety and composition, and assessments of environmental impact have all been restricted and suppressed by the biotechnology industry.29 30

Patent rights linked with contracts are used to restrict access of independent researchers to commercialized GM seed. Permission to study patented GM crops is either withheld or made so difficult to obtain that research is effectively blocked. In cases where permission is finally given, biotech companies keep the right to block publication, resulting in much significant research never being published.31 32

The industry and its allies also use a range of public relations strategies to discredit and/or muzzle scientists who do publish research that is critical of GM crops.33

Are GM foods more nutritious?

There are no commercially available GM foods with improved nutritional value. Currently available GM foods are no better and in some cases are less nutritious than natural foods. Some have been proven in tests to be toxic or allergenic.

Examples include:

•       GM soya had 12–14% lower amounts of cancer-fighting isoflavones than non-GM soya34

•       Oilseed rape engineered to have vitamin A in its oil had much reduced vitamin E and altered oil-fat composition35

•       Human volunteers fed a single GM soya bean meal showed that GM DNA can survive processing and is detectable in the digestive tract. There was evidence of horizontal gene transfer to gut bacteria36 37. Horizontal gene transfer of antibiotic resistance and Bt insecticide genes from GM foods into gut bacteria is an extremely serious issue. This is because the modified gut bacteria could become resistant to antibiotics or become factories for Bt insecticide. While Bt in its natural form has been safely used for years as an insecticide in farming, Bt toxin genetically engineered into plant crops has been found to have potential ill health effects on laboratory animals38 39 40

•       In the late 1980s, a food supplement produced using GM bacteria was toxic41, initially killing 37 Americans and making more than 5,000 others seriously ill.

•       Several experimental GM food products (not commercialised) were found to be harmful:

•       People allergic to Brazil nuts had allergic reactions to soya beans modified with a Brazil nut gene42

•       The GM process itself can cause harmful effects. GM potatoes caused toxic reactions in multiple organ systems43 44. GM peas caused a 2-fold allergic reaction  –  the GM protein was allergenic and stimulated an allergic reaction to other food components45. This raises the question of whether GM foods cause an increase in allergies to other substances.

Can GM foods help alleviate the world food crisis?

The root cause of hunger is not a lack of food, but a lack of access to food. The poor have no money to buy food and increasingly, no land on which to grow it. Hunger is fundamentally a social, political, and economic problem, which GM technology cannot address.

Recent reports from the World Bank and the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation have identified the biofuels boom as the main cause of the current food crisis46 47. But GM crop producers and distributors continue to promote the expansion of biofuels. This suggests that their priority is to make a profit, not to feed the world.

GM companies focus on producing cash crops for animal feed and biofuels for affluent countries, not food for people.

GM crops contribute to the expansion of industrial agriculture and the decline of the small farmer around the world. This is a serious development as there is abundant evidence that small farms are more efficient than large ones, producing more crops per hectare of land48 49 50 51 52.

“The climate crisis was used to boost biofuels, helping to create the food crisis; and now the food crisis is being used to revive the fortunes of the GM industry.” Daniel Howden, Africa correspondent, The Independent (London), 200853

Do GM crops increase yield potential?

At best, GM crops have performed no better than their non-GM counterparts, with GM soya beans giving consistently lower yields for over a decade54. Controlled comparative field trials of GM/non-GM soya suggest that 50% of the drop in yield is due to the genetic disruptive effect of the GM transformation process55. Similarly, field tests of Bt insecticide-producing maize hybrids showed that they took longer to reach maturity and produced up to 12% lower yields than their non-GM counterpart56.   

A US Department of Agriculture report confirms the poor yield performance of GM crops, saying, “GE crops available for commercial use do not increase the yield potential of a variety. In fact, yield may even decrease.... Perhaps the biggest issue raised by these results is how to explain the rapid adoption of GE crops when farm financial impacts appear to be mixed or even negative57.” 

The failure of GM to increase yield potential was emphasised in 2008 by the United Nations International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) report58. This report on the future of farming, authored by 400 scientists and backed by 58 governments, stated that yields of GM crops were “highly variable” and in some cases, “yields declined”. The report noted, “Assessment of the technology lags behind its development, information is anecdotal and contradictory, and uncertainty about possible benefits and damage is unavoidable.”

Failure to Yield

The definitive study to date on GM crops and yield is “Failure to Yield: Evaluating the Performance of Genetically Engineered Crops”. Published in 2009, the study is authored by former US EPA and Center for Food Safety scientist, Dr Doug Gurian-Sherman. It is based on published, peer-reviewed studies conducted by academic scientists and using adequate experimental controls.

In the study, Dr Gurian-Sherman distinguishes between intrinsic yield (also called potential yield), defined as the highest yield which can be achieved under ideal conditions, with operational yield, the yield achieved under normal field conditions when the farmer factors in crop reductions due to pests, drought, or other environmental stresses.

The study also distinguishes between effects on yield caused by conventional breeding methods and those caused by GM traits. It has become common for biotech companies to use conventional breeding and marker assisted breeding to produce higher-yielding crops and then finally to engineer in a gene for herbicide tolerance or insect resistance. In such cases, higher yields are not due to genetic engineering but to conventional breeding. “Failure to Yield” teases out these distinctions and analyses what contributions genetic engineering and conventional breeding make to increasing yield.

Based on studies on corn and soybeans, the two most commonly grown GM crops in the United States, the study concludes that genetically engineering herbicide-tolerant soybeans and herbicide-tolerant corn has not increased yields. Insect-resistant corn, meanwhile, has improved yields only marginally. The increase in yields for both crops over the last 13 years, the report finds, was largely due to traditional breeding or improvements in agricultural practices.

The author concludes: “commercial GE crops have made no inroads so far into raising the intrinsic or potential yield of any crop. By contrast, traditional breeding has been spectacularly successful in this regard; it can be solely credited with the intrinsic yield increases in the United States and other parts of the world that characterized the agriculture of the twentieth century.”59

Critics of the study have objected that it does not use data from developing countries. The Union of Concerned Scientists responds that there are few peer-reviewed papers evaluating the yield contribution of GM crops in developing countries – not enough to draw clear and reliable conclusions. However, the most widely grown food/feed crop in developing countries, herbicide-tolerant soybeans, offers some hints. Data from Argentina, which has grown more GM soybeans than any other developing country, suggest that yields for GM varieties are the same or lower than for conventional non-GE soybeans.60

“If we are going to make headway in combating hunger due to overpopulation and climate change, we will need to increase crop yields,” says Dr Gurian-Sherman. “Traditional breeding outperforms genetic engineering hands down.”61

If GM cannot improve intrinsic (potential) yield even in the affluent United States, where high-input, irrigated, heavily subsidized farming is the norm, it would seem irresponsible to assume that it would improve yields in the developing world, where increased food production is most needed. Initiatives promoting GM crops for the developing world are experimental and appear to be founded on expectations that are not consistent with data obtained in the West.

In the West, crop failure is often underwritten by governments, which bail out farmers with compensation. Such support systems are rare in the developing world. There, farmers may literally bet their farms and their entire livelihoods on a crop. Failure can have severe consequences.

Three GM crops for Africa

GM sweet potato

The virus-resistant sweet potato has been the ultimate GM showcase project for Africa, generating a vast amount of global media coverage. Florence Wambugu, the Monsanto-trained scientist fronting the project, has been proclaimed an African heroine and the saviour of millions, based on her claims about the GM sweet potato doubling output in Kenya. Forbes magazine even declared her one of a tiny handful of people around the globe who would “reinvent the future”.62 It eventually emerged, however, that the claims being made for the GM sweet potato were untrue, with field trial results showing the GM crop to be a failure.63 64

In contrast with the unproven GM sweet potato variety, a successful conventional breeding programme in Uganda had produced a new high-yielding variety which is virus-resistant and has “raised yields by roughly 100%”. The Ugandan project achieved success at a small cost and in just a few years. The GM sweet potato, in contrast, in over 12 years in the making, consumed funding from Monsanto, the World Bank, and USAID to the tune of $6 million.65

GM cassava

The potential of genetic engineering to massively boost the production of cassava – one of Africa’s most important foods – by defeating a devastating virus has been heavily promoted since the mid-1990s. There has even been talk of GM solving hunger in Africa by increasing cassava yields as much as tenfold.66 But almost nothing appears to have been achieved. Even after it became clear that the GM cassava had suffered a major technical failure67, media stories continued to appear about its curing hunger in Africa.68 69 Meanwhile, conventional (non-GM) plant breeding has quietly produced virus resistant cassavas that are already making a remarkable difference in farmers’ fields, even under drought conditions.70

Bt cotton

In Makhatini, South Africa, often cited as the showcase Bt cotton project for small farmers, 100,000 hectares were planted with Bt cotton in 1998. By 2002, that had crashed to 22,500 hectares, an 80% reduction in 4 years. By 2004, 85% of farmers who used to grow Bt cotton had given up. The farmers found pest problems and no increase in yield. Those farmers who still grew the crop did so at a loss, continuing only because the South African government subsidized the project and there was a guaranteed market for the cotton.71

A study published in Crop Protection journal concluded, “cropping Bt cotton in Makhathini Flats did not generate sufficient income to expect a tangible and sustainable socioeconomic improvement due to the way the crop is currently managed. Adoption of an innovation like Bt cotton seems to pay only in an agro-system with a sufficient level of intensification.”72

How will climate change impact agriculture?

Industrial agriculture is a major contributor to global warming, producing up to 20 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions, and some methods of increasing yield can exacerbate this negative impact. For example, crops that achieve higher intrinsic yield often need more fossil fuel-based nitrogen fertilizer, some of which is converted by soil microbes into nitrous oxide, a greenhouse gas nearly 300 times more potent than carbon dioxide. Minimizing global agriculture’s future climate impact will require investment in systems of agriculture less dependent on industrial fertilizers and agroecological methods of improving soil water-holding capacity and resilience.

GM seeds are created by agrochemical companies and are heavily dependent on costly external inputs such as synthetic fertilizer, herbicides, and pesticides. It would seem risky to promote such crops in the face of climate change.

Peak oil and agriculture 

According to some analysts, peak oil, when the maximum rate of global petroleum extraction is reached, has already arrived. This will have drastic effects on the type of agriculture we practise. GM crops are designed to be used with synthetic herbicides and fertilizers. But synthetic pesticides are made from oil and synthetic fertilizer from natural gas. Both these fossil fuels are running out fast, as are phosphates, a major ingredient of synthetic fertilizers.

Farming based on the current US GM and chemical model that depends on these fossil fuel-based inputs will become increasingly expensive and unsustainable. The statistics tell the story:

In the US food system, 10 kcal of fossil energy is required for every kcal of food consumed.73

•       Approximately 7.2 quads of fossil energy are consumed in the production of crops and livestock in the U.S. each year.74 75

•       Approximately 8 million kcal/ha are required to produce an average corn crop and other similar crops.76

•   Two-thirds of the energy used in crop production is for fertilizers and mechanization.77

Proven technologies that can reduce the amount of fossil energy used in farming include reducing fertilizer applications, selecting farm machinery appropriate for each task, managing soil for conservation, limiting irrigation, and organic farming techniques.78

In the Rodale Institute Farming Systems Trial (FST), a comparative analysis of energy inputs conducted by Dr David Pimentel of Cornell University found that organic farming systems use just 63% of the energy required by conventional farming systems, largely because of the massive amounts of energy required to synthesize nitrogen fertilizer, followed by herbicide production.79

Studies show that the low-input organic model of farming works well in African countries. The Tigray project in Ethiopia, part-funded by the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), compared yields from the application of compost and chemical fertilizer in farmers’ fields over six years. The results showed that compost can replace chemical fertilizers and that it increased yields by more than 30 percent on average. As side-benefits to using compost, the farmers noticed that the crops had better resistance to pests and disease and that there was a reduction in “difficult weeds”.80

GM crops and climate change

Climate change brings sudden, extreme, and unpredictable changes in weather. If we are to survive, the crop base needs to be as flexible, resilient and diverse as possible. GM technology offers just the opposite – a narrowing of crop diversity and an inflexible technology that requires years and millions of dollars in investment for each new variety.

Each GM crop is tailor-made to fit a particular niche. With climate change, no one knows what kind of niches will exist and where. The best way to insure against the destructive effects of climate change is to plant a wide variety of high-performing crops that are genetically diverse.

GM companies have patented plant genes that they believe are involved in tolerance to drought, heat, flooding, and salinity – but have not succeeded in using these genes to produce a single new crop with these properties. This is because these functions are highly complex and involve many different genes working together in a precisely regulated way. It is beyond existing GM technology to engineer crops with these sophisticated, delicately regulated gene networks for improved tolerance traits.

Conventional natural cross-breeding, which works holistically, is much better adapted to achieving this aim, using the many varieties of virtually every common crop that tolerate drought, heat, flooding, and salinity.

In addition, advances in plant breeding have been made using marker-assisted selection (MAS), a largely uncontroversial branch of biotechnology that can speed up the natural breeding process by identifying important genes. MAS does not involve the risks and uncertainties of genetic engineering.

The controversies that exist around MAS relate to gene patenting issues. It is important for developing countries to consider the implications of patent ownership relating to such crops.

Non-GM successes for niche crops

If it is accepted that niche speciality crops may be useful in helping adaptation to climate change, there are better ways of creating them than genetic engineering. Conventional breeding and marker-assisted selection have produced many advances in breeding speciality crops, though these have garnered only a fraction of the publicity given to often speculative claims of GM miracles.

An example of such a non-GM success is the “Snorkel” rice that adapts to flooding by growing longer stems, preventing the crop from drowning.81 While genetic engineering was used as a research tool to identify the desirable genes, only conventional breeding – guided by Marker Assisted Selection – was used to generate the Snorkel rice line. Snorkel rice is entirely non-GM. This is an excellent example of how the whole range of biotechnology tools, including GM, can be used most effectively to work with the natural breeding process to develop new crops that meet the critical needs of today.

Are GM crops environmentally friendly?

Two kinds of GM crops dominate the marketplace:

•       Crops that resist broad-spectrum (kill-all) herbicides such as Roundup. These are claimed to enable farmers to spray herbicide less frequently to kill weeds but without killing the crop

•       Crops that produce the insecticide Bt toxin. These are claimed to reduce farmers’ need for chemical insecticide sprays.

Both claims require further analysis.

GM crops and herbicide use

The most commonly grown herbicide-resistant GM crops are engineered to be resistant to Roundup. But the increasing use of Roundup has led to the appearance of numerous weeds resistant to this herbicide82. Roundup resistant weeds are now common and include pigweed83, ryegrass84, and marestail85. As a result, in the US, an initial drop in average herbicide use after GM crops were introduced has been followed by a large increase as farmers were forced to change their farming practices to kill weeds that had developed resistance to Roundup86 87. Farmers have increased radically the amounts of Roundup applied to their fields and are being advised to use increasingly powerful mixtures of multiple herbicides and not Roundup alone88 89. 

All of these chemicals are toxic and a threat to both the farmers who apply them and the people and livestock that eat the produce. This is the case even for Roundup, which has been shown to have a range of damaging cellular effects indicating toxicity at levels similar to those found on crops engineered to be resistant to the herbicide90.

A Canadian government study in 2001 showed that after just 4-5 years of commercial growing, herbicide-resistant GM oilseed rape (canola) had cross-pollinated to create “superweeds” resistant to up to three different broad-spectrum herbicides. These superweeds have become a serious problem for farmers both within91 92 and outside their fields93.

In addition, GM oilseed rape has also been found to cross-pollinate with and pass on its herbicide resistant genes to related wild plants, for example, charlock and wild radish/turnip. This raises the possibility that these too may become superweeds and difficult for farmers to control94. The industry’s response has been to recommend use of higher amounts and complex mixtures of herbicides95 96 and to start developing crops resistant to additional or multiple herbicides. These developments are clearly creating a chemical treadmill that would be especially undesirable for farmers in developing countries.

Insecticide-producing GM crops

Bt insecticide-producing GM crops have led to resistance in pests, resulting in rising chemical applications97 98 99.

In China and India, Bt cotton was initially effective in suppressing the boll weevil. But secondary pests, especially mirids and mealy bugs, that are highly resistant to Bt toxin, soon took its place. The farmers suffered massive crop losses and had to apply costly pesticides, wiping out their profit margins100 101 102 103. Such developments are likely to be more damaging to farmers in developing countries, who cannot afford expensive inputs.

The claim that Bt GM crops reduce pesticide use is disingenuous, since Bt crops are in themselves pesticides. Prof Gilles-Eric Séralini of the University of Caen, France states: “Bt plants, in fact, are designed to produce toxins to repel pests. Bt brinjal (eggplant/aubergine) produces a very high quantity of 16-17mg toxin per kg. They affect animals. Unfortunately, tests to ascertain their effect on humans have not been conducted.”104

GM crops and wildlife

Farm-scale trials sponsored by the UK government showed that the growing of herbicide-resistant GM crops (sugar beet, oilseed rape) can reduce wildlife populations105 106.

The case of Argentina

In Argentina, the massive conversion of agriculture to GM soya production has had disastrous effects on rural social and economic structures. It has damaged food security and caused a range of environmental problems, including the spread of herbicide-resistant weeds, soil depletion, and increased pests and diseases107 108.

GM crops and non-target insects and organisms

Bt insecticide-producing GM crops harm non-target insect populations, including butterflies109 110 111 and beneficial pest predators112. Bt insecticide released from GM crops can also be toxic to water life113 and soil organisms114. One study reveals more negative than positive impacts on beneficial insects from GM Bt insecticide-producing crops.115

Can GM and non-GM crops co-exist?

The biotech industry argues that farmers should be able to choose to plant GM crops if they wish. It says GM and non-GM crops can peacefully “co-exist”. But experience in North America has shown that “coexistence” of GM and non-GM crops rapidly results in widespread contamination of non-GM crops.

This not only has significant agroecological effects, but also serious economic effects, damaging the ability of organic farmers to receive premiums, and blocking export markets to countries that have strict regulations regarding GM contamination.

Contamination occurs through cross-pollination, spread of GM seed by farm machinery, and inadvertent mixing during storage. The entry of GM crops into a country removes choice – everyone is gradually forced to grow GM crops or to have their non-GM crop contaminated.

Here are a few examples of GM contamination incidents:

•     In 2006 GM rice grown for only one year in field trials was found to have widely contaminated the US rice supply and seed stocks116. Contaminated rice was found as far away as Africa, Europe, and Central America. In March 2007 Reuters reported that US rice export sales were down by around 20 percent from those of the previous year as a result of the GM contamination117.

•     In Canada, contamination from GM oilseed rape has made it virtually impossible to cultivate organic, non-GM oilseed rape118

•     US courts reversed the approval of GM alfalfa because it threatened the existence of non-GM alfalfa through cross-pollination119

•   Organic maize production in Spain has dropped significantly as the acreage of GM maize production has increased, because of cross-pollination problems120

•   In 2009, the Canadian flax seed export market to Europe collapsed following the discovery of widespread contamination with an unauthorized GM variety121.

•   In 2007 alone, there were 39 new instances of GM contamination in 23 countries, and 216 incidents have been reported since 2005122.

 Alternatives to GM

Many authoritative sources, including the IAASTD report on the future of agriculture123, have found that GM crops have little to offer global agriculture and the challenges of poverty, hunger and climate change, because better alternatives are available. These go by many names, including integrated pest management (IPM), organic, sustainable, low-input, non-chemical pest management (NPM) and agroecological farming, but extend beyond the boundaries of any particular category. Projects employing these sustainable strategies in the developing world have produced dramatic increases in yields and food security124 125 126 127 128 129.

Strategies employed include:

•   Sustainable, low-input, energy-saving practices that conserve and build soil, conserve water, and enhance natural pest resistance and resilience in crops

•   Innovative farming methods that minimise or eliminate costly chemical pesticides and fertilizers

•   Use of thousands of traditional varieties of each major food crop, which are naturally adapted to stresses such as drought, heat, harsh weather conditions, flooding, salinity, poor soil, and pests and diseases130

•   Use of existing crops and their wild relatives in traditional breeding programmes to develop varieties with useful traits

•   Programmes that enable farmers to cooperatively preserve and improve traditional seeds

•   Use of beneficial and holistic aspects of modern biotechnology, such as Marker Assisted Selection (MAS), which uses the latest genetic knowledge to speed up traditional breeding131. Unlike GM technology, MAS can safely produce new varieties of crops with valuable, genetically complex properties such as enhanced nutrition, taste, yield potential, resistance to pests and diseases, and tolerance to drought, heat, salinity, and flooding132.

Organic and low-input methods improve yields in Africa

There seems little reason to gamble with the livelihoods of poor farmers by persuading them to grow experimental GM crops when tried-and-tested, inexpensive methods of increasing food production are readily available. Several recent studies have shown that low-input methods such as organic can dramatically improve yields in African countries, along with other benefits. Such methods have the advantage of being knowledge-based rather than costly input-based. As a result they are more accessible to poor farmers than the more expensive technologies (which often have not helped in the past).

A 2008 United Nations report, “Organic Agriculture and Food Security in Africa”, looked at 114 farming projects in 24 African countries and found that organic or near-organic practices resulted in a yield increase of more than 100 percent. In East Africa, a yield increase of 128 percent was found.133 The Foreword to the study states: “The evidence presented in this study supports the argument that organic agriculture can be more conducive to food security in Africa than most conventional production systems, and that it is more likely to be sustainable in the long term.”134

Organic and low-input methods improve farmer incomes in developing countries

Poverty is a major contributory factor to food insecurity. According to the 2008 United Nations report, “Organic Agriculture and Food Security in Africa”, organic farming has a positive impact on poverty in a variety of ways. Farmers benefit from:

•       cash savings, as organic farming does not require costly pesticides and fertilizers;

•       extra incomes gained by selling the surplus produce (resulting from the change to organic);

•       premium prices for certified organic produce, obtained primarily in Africa for export but also for domestic markets; and

•       added value to organic products through processing activities.

These findings are backed up by studies from Asia and Latin America that concluded that organic farming can reduce poverty in an environmentally friendly way.135

A recent study found that certified organic farms involved in production for export were significantly more profitable than those involved in conventional production (in terms of net farm income earnings).136 Of these cases, 87 per cent showed increases in farmer and household incomes as a result of becoming organic, which contributed to reducing poverty levels and to increasing regional food security.

Who owns the technology?

In considering which agricultural technologies will most benefit the developing world, it is crucial to ask who owns those technologies. The “Gene Revolution” that is proposed for Africa will be rolled out via public-private partnerships. The public side of such partnerships will be provided by Africa, whereas the private side will be provided by biotechnology companies based in the United States and Europe.

The transgenes used in creating GM crops are patented and owned by biotech companies. In the United States and Canada, companies have launched lawsuits against farmers whose crops were alleged to contain a company’s patented GM genes. Farmers’ claims that they have not intentionally planted GM crops have proved no defence in court against large fines being imposed.

When farmers buy GM seed, they sign a technology agreement promising not to save and replant seed. They have to buy new seed each year from the biotech company, thus transferring control of food production from farmers to seed companies. Consolidation of the seed industry increasingly means that farmers have little choice but to buy GM seed. Centuries of farmer knowledge that went into creating locally adapted and varied seed stocks are wiped out.

In contrast, low-input and organic farming methods do not involve patented technologies. Control of food production remains in the hands of farmers, keeping farmer skills alive and favouring food security.

Conclusion

GM crop technologies do not offer significant benefits. On the contrary, they present risks to human and animal health, the environment, farmers, food security, and export markets. There is no convincing reason to take such risks with the livelihoods of farmers when proven successful and widely acceptable alternatives are readily and cheaply available. These alternatives will maintain the independence of the food supply from foreign multinational control and offer the best insurance against the challenges of climate change.

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