別再讓我們做小白鼠了

Stop Making Us Guinea Pigs

別再讓我們做小白鼠了

The issues surrounding G.M.O.s — genetically modified organisms — have never been simple. They became more complicated last week when the International Agency for Research on Cancer declared that glyphosate, the active ingredient in the widely used herbicide Roundup, probably causes cancer in humans. Two insecticides, malathion and diazinon, were also classified as “probable” carcinogens by the agency, a respected arm of the World Health Organization.

關(guān)于轉(zhuǎn)基因技術(shù)的問題向來都不簡單。上周，這些問題變得更加復(fù)雜了，因?yàn)閲H癌癥研究機(jī)構(gòu)(International Agency for Research on Cancer，簡稱IARC)宣布，廣為使用的除草劑“農(nóng)達(dá)”(Roundup)的有效成分草甘膦，可能會(huì)導(dǎo)致人類患上癌癥。而馬拉硫磷和二嗪磷這兩種殺蟲劑，也被世界衛(wèi)生組織下轄的這個(gè)受人信賴的機(jī)構(gòu)，列為“可能”的致癌物。

Roundup, made by Monsanto for both home and commercial use, is crucial in the production of genetically engineered corn and soybean crops, so it was notable that the verdict on its dangers came nearly simultaneously with an announcement by the Food and Drug Administration that new breeds of genetically engineered potato and apple are safe to eat. Which they probably are, as are the genetically engineered papayas we’ve been eating for some time. In fact, to date there’s little credible evidence that any food grown with genetic engineering techniques is dangerous to human health — unless, like much corn and soybeans, it’s turned into junk food. But, really, let’s be fair.

農(nóng)達(dá)是孟山都(Monsanto)開發(fā)的家用及商用產(chǎn)品，也是轉(zhuǎn)基因玉米和大豆作物生產(chǎn)的關(guān)鍵。所以值得注意的一件事是，在國際機(jī)構(gòu)宣布農(nóng)達(dá)具有危險(xiǎn)性的幾乎同時(shí)，美國食品與藥品管理局(Food and Drug Administration，簡稱FDA)也宣布，新品種的轉(zhuǎn)基因土豆和蘋果可以安全食用。它們可能的確安全，就像我們已經(jīng)吃過一段時(shí)間的轉(zhuǎn)基因木瓜。事實(shí)上，迄今為止，幾乎沒有可信的證據(jù)表明任何轉(zhuǎn)基因食物，對人類健康造成了危害——除非它們像大多數(shù)玉米和大豆一樣，被制作成了垃圾食品。不過，說真的，我們要公平一點(diǎn)。

Fair, too, is a guess that few people are surprised that an herbicide in widespread use is probably toxic at high doses or with prolonged exposure, circumstances that may be common among farmers and farmworkers. Nor is it surprising that it took so long — Roundup has been used since the 1970s — to discover its likely carcinogenic properties. There is a sad history of us acting as guinea pigs for the novel chemicals that industry develops. For this we have all too often paid with our damaged health.

一種同樣公平的猜想是，如果說一種廣泛使用的除草劑，可能會(huì)在高劑量或長時(shí)間接觸的情況下，對人體產(chǎn)生毒害，恐怕很少有人會(huì)對此感到吃驚。這正是農(nóng)民和農(nóng)場工人所處的情況。農(nóng)達(dá)自上世紀(jì)70年代就開始使用了，花了這么久才發(fā)現(xiàn)它可能會(huì)致癌，當(dāng)然也不會(huì)讓人感到吃驚。還有我們?yōu)槭称饭I(yè)推出的新奇化學(xué)品充當(dāng)小白鼠的辛酸歷史，代價(jià)常常都是我們的健康受到損害。

Rarely is that damage instantaneous, but it’s safe to say that novel biotechnologies broadly deployed may well have unexpected consequences. Yet unlike Europeans, Canadians, Australians and others, we don’t subscribe to the precautionary principle, which maintains that it’s better to prevent damage than repair it.

這種損害基本上都不是立刻發(fā)生的，但是廣泛施用新的生物技術(shù)很可能會(huì)有意想不到的后果，這樣說并不為過。然而，和歐洲人、加拿大人、澳大利亞人以及其他人不同的是，我們并沒有遵循“事前避免好過事后彌補(bǔ)”的防范原則。

We ask not whether a given chemical might cause cancer but whether we’re certain that it does. Since it’s unethical to test the effects of new chemicals and food additives on humans, we rely on the indirect expedient of extensive and expensive animal testing. But the job of the F.D.A. should be to guarantee a reasonable expectation of protection from danger, not to wait until people become sick before taking products off the market. (You might have thought that government’s job was to make sure products were safe before they were marketed. You’d have been wrong — Rezulin, thalidomide or phthalates, anyone?)

我們不是在問，某種特定的化學(xué)品是否可能致癌，而是在問我們能否肯定它的確致癌。由于對新的化學(xué)品和食品添加劑開展人體試驗(yàn)是不道德的，我們依靠大量成本高昂的動(dòng)物試驗(yàn)，作為間接的權(quán)宜之計(jì)。但FDA應(yīng)當(dāng)滿足公眾不受危害的合理預(yù)期，而不是等到人們患病之后，才勒令產(chǎn)品退出市場。(你可能會(huì)以為，政府的工作是在產(chǎn)品上市前，確保它們的安全性。但你想錯(cuò)了——看看曲格列酮、沙利度胺或鄰苯二甲酸鹽的例子，還有什么可說?)

Even now, when it’s clear that more research must be done to determine to what degree glyphosate may be carcinogenic, it’s not clear whose responsibility it is to conduct that research. The public health agencies of other countries? Independent researchers who just happen to be interested in the causes of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, the cancer with which glyphosate is associated, according to the I.A.R.C.?

即使到了現(xiàn)在，情況已經(jīng)很明顯，必須開展更多的研究來確定草甘膦在多大程度上可能致癌，但該由誰來負(fù)責(zé)這項(xiàng)研究卻仍不明確。其他國家的公共衛(wèi)生機(jī)構(gòu)嗎?對非霍奇金淋巴瘤的成因碰巧感興趣的獨(dú)立研究者嗎?IARC的資料顯示，這種淋巴瘤與草甘膦有關(guān)。

Or — here’s an idea — how about Monsanto, which has made billions of dollars selling glyphosate and the associated seed technology. (The company produces crop seeds that are resistant to glyphosate, which can thus be freely sprayed onto fields, in theory killing all plants but the crop. This scheme isn’t working as well as it once did for weed control, because many weeds have become glyphosate-tolerant. But that’s another story.)

我有個(gè)點(diǎn)子——讓孟山都來出資開展研究怎么樣?它已經(jīng)通過銷售草甘膦及相關(guān)的種子技術(shù)，賺取了豐厚的利潤。(該公司生產(chǎn)耐受草甘膦的農(nóng)作物種子，理論上你可以大膽地把草甘膦噴灑在田間，除了作物之外，其他雜草都會(huì)被殺死。但這種控制雜草的方法效果已經(jīng)大不如前，因?yàn)楹芏嚯s草也變得耐受草甘膦了。不過這是另外一個(gè)故事了。)

Now that the safety of glyphosate is clearly in question, perhaps it’s time to mandate that the corporation — not the taxpaying public — bear the brunt of determining whether it should still be sold. Since the Environmental Protection Agency doesn’t have the resources to test, let Monsanto pay for the necessary, and independent, research.

既然草甘膦的安全性顯然受到了質(zhì)疑，也許現(xiàn)在是時(shí)候強(qiáng)制該公司來承擔(dān)研究費(fèi)用——而不是使用公眾繳納的稅款——來確定這種產(chǎn)品是否應(yīng)該出售。由于美國國家環(huán)境保護(hù)局(Environmental Protection Agency，簡稱EPA)沒有足夠的資源來開展試驗(yàn)，那就讓孟山都來買單，開展必要的獨(dú)立研究吧。

While we’re at it, let’s finally start labeling products made with genetically engineered food. Right now, the only way we can be sure to avoid them is to buy organic food. If G.M.O.s were largely beneficial to eaters, manufacturers would proudly boast of products containing them. The fact is that they have not. To date, G.M.O.s and other forms of biotech have done nothing but enrich their manufacturers and promote a system of agriculture that’s neither sustainable nor for the most part beneficial.

既然說到這里，不如我們也終于開始在轉(zhuǎn)基因糧食加工的產(chǎn)品上，如此明確標(biāo)注吧?，F(xiàn)在，我們真正可以避免它們的唯一方法，就是購買有機(jī)食品。如果轉(zhuǎn)基因作物基本上有利于消費(fèi)者，廠商自然會(huì)在產(chǎn)品的包裝上自豪地夸耀。事實(shí)是，他們沒有這么做。迄今為止，轉(zhuǎn)基因和其他形式的生物技術(shù)，只是讓生產(chǎn)廠商發(fā)了大財(cái)，并推廣了一個(gè)既不可持續(xù)，也對大多數(shù)人無益的農(nóng)業(yè)系統(tǒng)，除此之外沒起到什么作用。

We don’t need better, smarter chemicals along with crops that can tolerate them; we need fewer chemicals. And it’s been adequately demonstrated that crop rotation, the use of organic fertilizers, interplanting of varieties of crops, and other ecologically informed techniques commonly grouped together under the term “agroecology” can effectively reduce the use of chemicals.

我們不需要更好、更聰明的化學(xué)品，以及耐受它們的作物;我們需要的是減少化學(xué)品的使用。而且事實(shí)已經(jīng)充分證明，采用作物輪作、有機(jī)肥料、間作套種，以及通常用“生態(tài)農(nóng)業(yè)”來形容的其他生態(tài)友好技術(shù)，可以有效地減少化學(xué)品的使用。