Dr. Thierry Vrainspent most of his working life advocating for biotechnology companies, as a soil biologist and genetic engineering enthusiast. In his recent TED talk Vrain systematically unravels the biotech spin, from the perspective of a scientist who can no longer ignore a growing body of evidence thatGMOs导致问题。无论化学公司多么拼命地想把批评者描绘成反科学,现实总会以证据为依据:考虑到我们自1996年以来所了解到的一切,转基因粮食作物值得我们最好、最热情的怀疑。
TED Who?
For those unfamiliar with its excellent work,TEDis a nonprofit organization dedicated to highlighting and sharing ‘ideas worth spreading’ — originally focused on technology, entertainment, and design, its scope has spread to all domains of human endeavor. The designation ‘TEDx’ indicates an independently organized event, within the organization’s guidelines, rather than material presented at one of TED’s biannual conferences. TED video talks attract a global audience of millions.
Biotech Fairy Tales vs. Reality
当第一批转基因作物在20世纪90年代中期被引入市场时,它们被称为“魔法”——一种完全安全、几乎像水一样的物质,在不改变食品质量的情况下消除了害虫问题。
Enter pest resistance, pesticide escalation, andsuperweedsstage right!
Vrain uses the term ‘genetic pollution’ to describe the inevitable contamination of rogue genes, transported from GM fields to the surrounding ecosphere.
他还在抗生素耐药细菌的背景下提出了转基因生物的问题。你知道吗,cafo并不是唯一的罪魁祸首!题:在中国,每条被测试的河流都携带着与转基因作物有关的抗抗生素细菌。
自转基因渗透到我们的食物系统以来,食物过敏也急剧增加,一些研究(发表在《免疫学杂志》(Journal of Immunology)这样激进和反科学的场所)表明,Bt玉米会导致小鼠和大鼠的过敏反应。
Vrain also points out:
- Mice fed GM soy have damaged testicles, uterus, and ovaries (European Journal of Histochemistry)
- Rats fed RoundUp Ready corn have damaged liver and kidneys (Food and Chemical Toxicology)
As research piles up, it has become increasingly clear that‘the impact [of RoundUp] on the body is insidious and manifests slowly over time, as inflammation dmages cellular systems throughout the body.’
Vrain explores the biotech-industry-embraced fallacy that one gene equals coding for one and only one protein. Not so!
‘There are many many proteins that are created [from each gene], and we really don’t know what they are… and we are just waking up to these problems.’
‘So this is the status of genetic engineering today… my conclusion would be that the future of agriculture is not necessarily engineered.’
When a genetic scientist makes that assertion, the technology in question deserves our most serious and skeptical scrutiny.
Alexsays
Hi,
Please sign and help promote the change.org petition for Dr Thierry Vrain!
” Petition CBC News, The National to Interview Dr Thierry Vrain Regarding GMO & The Future of Agriculture ”
http://www.change.org/en-CA/petitions/petition-cbc-news-the-national-to-interview-dr-thierry-vrain-regarding-gmo-the-future-of-agriculture
Valentine Dyallsays
你就在那里。我们得自己拿主意。我们是相信Thierry Vrain所说的,还是其他科学家所接受的相反观点,显然是基于同样的证据?为什么他们中的大多数,以及所有的管理者和科研机构,都认为法国的老鼠研究和转基因大豆实验毫无意义,而Vrain却接受了他们的观点?全世界的科学家、学术机构和监管机构都在孟山都的手下吗?Vrain是由反转基因运动者和有机游说团体资助的吗?或者他们都给出了诚实的评估,没有任何一方的资助?那么,为什么会有这种差异呢?只是为了生活的丰富多彩还是别的什么?
Tanya Sittonsays
‘The opposite views that all the other scientists accept’?! Really?! … there is no scientific consensus among researchers about the health effects of GM food consumption — that would be impossible, since it has never been studied. The toxicology and epidemiology research Vrain cites clearly indicate that he’s not alone in his concerns… in addition to health concerns related to the absolute vacuum of research on safety for human consumption, there’s also a large and growing body of research about pest resistance, genetic pollution, increasing pesticide use, and lack of positive impact of GMO-driven agriculture on world hunger. The chemical companies who profit from biotech product sales do their own research and (surprise!) always report glowing results; there is undoubtedly a consensus among researchers currently employed by such companies (or they would no longer be so)… but consensus among scientists is not the same thing as focused PR messaging, and the two should never be conflated.
No, not all world scientists and regulators are on industry’s payroll — generally the researchers who are allowed to find and report GMO problems ar not, nor are the regulators in the 60 or so countries that (unlike the US) DON’T let Monsanto et al write their own rules re: national food policy.
It’s not a simple difference of opinion: science is about demonstrable reality. Industry interests like to assert that ‘all scientists accept’ the premise they’re selling. But when ample evidence controverts it, and genetic researchers are going ‘hey! wait! no!’ … clearly that consensus is imaginary.
See alsohttp://earthopensource.org/index.php/reports/58.
Robert Wagersays
“No scientific consensus’ My eye.
http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2012/1025gm_statement.shtml
http://www.ama-assn.org//resources/doc/csaph/a12-csaph2-bioengineeredfoods.pdf
The main conclu-
sion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research
projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research,
and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is
that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are not
per se more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies…Now, after 25 years of field trials without evidence of harm,
恐惧情绪继续引发预防原则。But
Europeans need to abandon this knowingly one-sided stance
and strike a balance between the advantages and disadvan-
tages of the technology on the basis of scientifically sound
risk assessment analysis. fromhttp://ec.europa.eu/research/biosociety/pdf/a_decade_of_eu-funded_gmo_research.pdf
WHO:
GM foods currently available on the international market have passed risk assessments and are not likely to present risks for human health. In addition, no effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of such foods by the general population in the countries where they have been approved.
and
目前在国际市场上销售的转基因产品均已通过国家主管部门的风险评估。这些不同的评估通常遵循相同的基本原则,包括对环境和人类健康风险的评估。这些评估是彻底的,它们没有表明对人类健康有任何风险。
I could go on and on if you like.
Tanya Sittonsays
Ok, first: take it up with the increasing number of your fellow researchers who disagree with you! There clearly isn’t a consensus, or Vrain and others saying ‘HOUSTON WE HAVE A PROBLEM’ wouldn’t be.
As a consumer, here are some of the reasons that I think Vrain’s perspective is worth sharing. If we’re going to have this debate, please address all of them:
1) High level of dependence on fossil fuels, to develop/ market/ grow GM crops — the opposite of where we need to be looking for sustainable food production in the age of global climate change.
2) High level of dependence on monocropping, which erodes soil and guarantees the need for pesticide escalation.
3) High probability of genetic contamination of surrounding ecosphere, with unpredictable environmental impacts.
4) At least for some crops (lately corn), we’re seeing steadily increasing levels of pesticide/ herbicide, in response to (completely predictable) pest resistance. Slated-for-fast-track-approval new double-poison GM crops (Roundup + dicamba resistance, for example) seem well-designed to worsen this trend.
5) Studies on safety and environmental impact typically left up to corporate entities, with a history of particularly hideous behavior (journalist suppression, bribery, dousing VA towns with toxins illegally and trying to dodge accountability for same, etc etc etc etc) — with suppression of any data that isn’t flattering (as happened with rBGH) …bias guaranteed/ results suspect by default.
6) Said corporate entities allowed to staff our allegedly ‘regulatory’ agencies, such that every single biotech product ever submitted gets approved, and national food policy is effectively set by biotech profiteers.
7)工业界的研究集中在急性和亚慢性毒性上,忽略了慢性/发育/生殖毒性——在处理草甘膦等已知的内分泌干扰物时,后者是一个特别的问题。而且:只有啮齿类动物模型,科学界完全知道这与人类研究并不一定相关。想象一下,一种含有杀虫剂的药物,只在老鼠身上做过急性毒性测试,就获得了美国食品及药物管理局(FDA)的批准,在美国销售:你必须满足于想象,因为它永远不会发生!只有在食品方面,因为在布什政府首次批准转基因生物销售时,孟山都等人就被允许真正制定他们想要的国家食品政策。#problem
8) Since the biotech companies have used their vast resources to fight labeling so very desperately, it’s impossible to even design simple correlational studies to begin to assess whether GMOs could be linked to any of the health problems that have spiked in incidence since the invisible introduction of GMOs to our food supply in the mid-90’s.
9)GMO ag products areexpensive expensive expensiveto develop, and as such absolutely will be used to extract money from farmers. That’s good for shareholders, but bad for farming families — and devastating to poor communities historically dependent at least to some degree on farming actual food for their own consumption, vs. continual growing of one cash-crop over and over in order to be able to buy GM seeds and the related patented chemistry.
10) It’s a trade issue — domestically GMO crops contaminate surrounding areas, diminishing freedom of choice among those who prefer organic/ nonGMO foods. And it’s an export problem for US farmers, because (whether you approve of their decision making or not) many countries simply don’t want to buy GMO-contaminated food products.
我注意到,到目前为止,你对这个博客的评论次数为0次,所以你可能不知道这一点;但在EDB,只要我们给任何东西贴上“转基因”的标签,喷子就会冒出来……我知道你是研究人员,我尊重你的资质。我很开放,也很感兴趣,想听听你对这些事情的看法。但是请不要在这里做我们经常看到的事情,而只是谈论为什么一项研究是好的/坏的,而忽略我刚才提到的所有其他事情,这些(所有)使转基因作物在越来越多的公民和研究人员看来有潜在的问题……这场辩论涉及的不仅仅是一个主题类别。
All of these factors are relevant, when we’re talking about potential problems related to a GMO-driven agricultural model.
With all of that in mind, I look forward to your response.
Best,
Tanya
Bensays
The problem with the ongoing PR war (in which I would include the articles you linked) is that we conflate all GM organisms, and tend to focus on the the actual modification, rather than individual crops and cultivation methods. Advocates do this to avoid talking about chemicals, and opponents do it so they can say “frankenfoods” on the evening news.
You’re right that there is a scientific consensus around the idea that the genetic alteration in RR crops is not inherently bad, which would be great if that were all we have to worry about. RoundUp Ready means farmers spray their fields heavily with glyphosate, and often other chemicals, like atrazine, to kill weeds and RR-adapted weeds. That does end up in our bodies, and there is an emerging body of research to support the common-sense idea that putting a ton of poison, even if it’s plant poison, in our bodies is a bad thing.
There is also a tendency to conflate other concerns about GMOs into discussions of health impacts, as the author is doing in her comments. Tanya, I agree that there are many, many issues with the way Monsanto in particular markets their products, but human health impacts are still a touchy subject. Let’s focus on those, first.
Tanya Sittonsays
Hi Ben,
I’m not sure I see where we disagree, exactly, based on your remarks. I think there’s a problem with the perception of GM crop issues as strictly PR wars — there’s actual data, which is often complex and lends itself to multiple interpretations; but it’s beyond not a ‘he said/ she said/ whoever has the best PR team “wins”‘ kinda deal. And part of my point, which maybe you didn’t pick up on — it was part of the presenter’s issue with GM ag, too — is that you CAN’T conflate all GM organisms. In other words, saying ‘all GM crops are safe’ is scientifically meaningless, as is saying the opposite: each must be considered and tested on it’s own merit. I’m quite aware there’s more than one area to worry about; hence my desire for non-industry-based testing and regulation of each new GM crop.
And regarding your usage again of ‘conflate,’ I really don’t know if it’s the word you’re looking for, or if I’m just not following your line of thought:
"还有一种趋势是将对转基因生物的其他关切并入对健康影响的讨论…" "但人类健康影响仍然是一个敏感的话题。首先,让我们关注这些。”
Um. It’s not conflating those concerns with anything when we identify them. Those concerns are a touchy subject b/c they haven’t been addressed, and folks are increasingly peeved about that. We can talk about environmental impacts and effects of GMO ag on impoverished farming communities; those are important topics too, in their own rights. But that doesn’t make the health risks any less extant, when we release new things into the food supply that have never been there before without unbiased independent research on human health impacts. No conflation, here: there are at least three separate areas of concern, and imo they each deserve our attention.
Thanks for your comment, but I’m not sure exactly what you mean to convey by it.
Cheers,
Tanya
Ireshasays
Please help me spread the word
Take the pledge
And we CAN make a difference
http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/pledge-to-boycott-all
Tanya Sittonsays
Will do, Iresha — thanks!
Valentine Dyallsays
Tanya Sitton是否真的读过那些声称发现食用转基因食品对动物(也就是说,对人类)有毒害作用的科学文献,这将是一个有趣的问题。2022欧洲杯葡萄牙vs德国如果有,她能理解并分析吗?
She has, apparently, an “M.S. in a health profession, with strong interests in biology, nutrition, and healthy living.” Does that equip her to appreciate technical papers in biology and its specialisms or has she gone further in her studies, formal and informal? Into biochemistry. perhaps? Or chemical pathology?
She might try a recent paper of comments on and analysis of the French study purporting to show the effects of GM-corn and glyphosate on the prevalence of tumors in rats; she can find it athttp://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11248-013-9692-9.
Or did she form her opinions on the advice and suggestions of somebody else? If so, from whom? And since she asks such questions and is sensitive to such issues, did she inquire as to the source of funding for her informant? If we knew all this, we might appreciate her position and her article more sensitively.
Tanya Sittonsays
Um, you know you’re talking to me directly, right? Tanya Sitton chooses not to talk about herself in the third person — I certainly hope that won’t interfere with our ability to understand each other.
I’m not a genetic engineer, but even if I were you’d disregard my perspective — as you did Dr. Vrain’s — since it fails to conform with your pre-selected position.
不缺比我学历高的人不同意你的观点。但是,即使是地位较低的理科硕士也知道,即使是最好的研究也会受到偏见的影响,而完全依靠自己产品的秘密行业研究肯定会制造问题——就像为了利润而故意操纵数据一样,比如生物技术公司被发现试图贿赂加拿大官员或压制调查记者关于rBGH问题的报道……你觉得这听起来像好的科学技术吗?我不是基因工程师,但在我看来,这听起来很像贪婪的公司试图操纵科学上幼稚的公众。
However condescending you try to be, the fact remains that not one single study has been conducted on the safety of GM crops for human consumption. NOT ONE: that is a problem, whether or not you think I have the credentials to say so.
The environmental impact of fossil-fuel-dependent GMO farming techniques, with their reliance on extensive monocropping and ever-escalating pesticide use and genetic pollution of surrounding ecosystems, are fundamentally different than other farming methods — and if it would matter, I could point you towards environmental scientists and ecologists who would argue the same point.
The privatization and corporate monopolization of access to seed for food crops offers only a recipe for disaster, for poor farming communities. As physicist Vandana Shiva often points out — would you like me to cite her credentials? — GMO ag is a devastatingly efficient method by which global megacorporations extract money from poor communities. I don’t think that’s an ag model likely to do anything but aggravate already dire resource inequality in hungry parts of the world, and I care not one whit whether or not you think I have sufficient credentials to entertain that opinion.
You’ve brought a red herring to the table, here: you don’t give a flip about the curriculum vitae of anyone expressing an opinion on this topic that differs from your own, as evidenced by your very first comment on this thread. If you don’t like it when former biotech industry employees and genetic engineers see problems in the failing GMO-ag model, take it up with them!
Meanwhile I’ll happily continue sharing their work — it offers a valuable perspective on the problems facing modern agriculture, and they’re well-qualified to address the topic under current debate within the scientific and sustainable-ag communities. If you don’t like my interpretation of the issues at hand, or blogs that share such things, perhaps eatdrinkbetter.com was a poor choice for you. Please feel free to surf around the interwebs for more industry-friendly pro-GMO writers, who will agree with you and leave biotech-dependent agriculture unchallenged.
I’m sure Tanya Sitton won’t mind.
Have a nice day!
Alexsays
像瓦伦丁·戴尔这样的人最大的共同点就是他们不愿承认转基因农业存在任何问题,即使是那些我们可以用眼睛看到的问题。
The problems happening in India with GM cotton with poor farmers suffering, animals dying after grazing on the cotton leaves as the traditionally do and farmers protesting against the GM cottom.
http://www.france24.com/en/20130705-wb-en-reporters-india-transgenic-cotton-fields-monsanto-farmers-maharastra-state?page=1
The clear problems with weed resistance reported by the BBC illustrating a failing technology destined to be defeated by the evolution of nature.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19594335
And rootworm resistance:
http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/episode/2013/05/29/gm-resistant-rootworms-and-the-future-of-farming/
As well according to academic studies from Kansas and Wisconsin state University the Ht corn and Soy technology suffers from 5-10% yield drag because the creation of the new proteins requires energy and data from USDA do not showing increasing yields as GMO supporters are always on about.
So Monsanto’s technologies although showing promise in the early days are increasingly failing to work effectively, while making famers quite depedent on a failing technology through a dominatnt market share and the need to enter into legal agreements do to patented seeds. Certainly that dependency is made worse when the technologies patented are not working as effectively.
他们不再减少农药的使用,现在FDA不得不提高食品中草甘膦残留的允许限度,因为农民需要使用越来越多的草甘膦。
Why Valentine would you want to strongly support these technologies and patented seeds that are increasingly being shown to be less abd ess effective than promised?
David Gibbssays
Way to go, Tanya, well said!