面对转基因食品，我们该何去何从？
How I Got Converted to G.M.O. Food
ByMARK LYNAS
Mohammed Rahman doesn’t know it yet, but hissmall farm in central Bangladesh is globally significant. Mr. Rahman, asmallholder farmer in Krishnapur, about 60 miles northwest of the capital,Dhaka, grows eggplant on his meager acre of waterlogged land.
Aswe squatted in the muddy field, examining the lush green foliage and shinypurple fruits, he explained how, for the first time this season, he had beenable to stop using pesticides. This was thanks to a new pest-resistant varietyof eggplant supplied by the government-run Bangladesh Agricultural ResearchInstitute.
Despitea recent hailstorm, the weather had been kind, and the new crop flourished.Productivity nearly doubled. Mr. Rahman had already harvested the small plot 10times, he said, and sold the brinjal (eggplant’s name in the region) labeled“insecticide free” at a small premium in the local market. Now, with increasedprofits, he looked forward to being able to lift his family further out ofpoverty. I could see why this was so urgent: Half a dozen shirtless kidsgathered around, clamoring for attention. They all looked stunted bymalnutrition.
Ina rational world, Mr. Rahman would be receiving support from all sides. He isimproving the environment and tackling poverty. Yet the visit was rushed, andmy escorts from the research institute were nervous about permitting me tospeak with him at all.
Thenew variety had been subjected to incendiary coverage in the local press, andcampaign groups based in Dhaka were suing to have the pest-resistant eggplantbanned. Activists had visited some of the fields and tried to pressure thefarmers to uproot their crops. Our guides from the institute warned that therewas a continuing threat of violence — and they were clearly keen to leave.
Whywas there such controversy? Because Mr. Rahman’s pest-resistant eggplant wasproduced using genetic modification. A gene transferred from a soil bacterium,Bacillus thuringiensis (more commonly known by the abbreviation “Bt”), producesa protein that kills the Fruit and Shoot Borer, a species of moth whose larvaefeed on the eggplant, without the need for pesticide sprays. (The protein isentirely nontoxic to other insects and indeed humans.)
StartingMonday, nothing at Chipotle’s more than 1,800 restaurants will containgenetically modified organisms, or G.M.O.s. Chipotle to Stop Using GeneticallyAltered Ingredients.
Conventionaleggplant farmers in Bangladesh are forced to spray their crops as many as 140times during the growing season, and pesticide poisoning is a chronic healthproblem in rural areas. But because Bt brinjal is a hated G.M.O., orgenetically modified organism, it is Public Enemy No.1 to environmental groupseverywhere.
Thestakes are especially high because Mr. Rahman is one of only 108 farmers inBangladesh currently permitted to try out the new variety. Moreover, this isamong the first genetically modified food crops to be grown by farmers anywherein the developing world. Virtually every crop, in every other country, has sofar been blocked.
Inneighboring India, green campaigners managed to secure a nationwide moratoriumagainst the genetically modified eggplant in 2010. In the Philippines, aGreenpeace-led coalition has tied up the variety in litigation for two years.Greenpeace activists took the precaution of wrecking field trials first, bypulling up the plants.
I,too, was once in that activist camp. A lifelong environmentalist, I opposedgenetically modified foods in the past. Fifteen years ago, I even participatedin vandalizing field trials in Britain. Then I changed my mind.
Afterwriting two books on the science of climate change, I decided I could no longercontinue taking a pro-science position on global warming and an anti-scienceposition on G.M.O.s.
Thereis an equivalent level of scientific consensus on both issues, I realized, thatclimate change is real and genetically modified foods are safe. I could notdefend the expert consensus on one issue while opposing it on the other.
InAfrica, however, countries have fallen like dominoes to anti-G.M. campaigns. Iam writing this at a biotechnology conference in Nairobi, where the governmentslapped a G.M.O. import ban in 2012 after activists brandished pictures of ratswith tumors and claimed that G.M. foods caused cancer.
Theorigin of the scare was a French scientific paper that was later retracted bythe journal in which it was originally published because of numerous flaws inmethodology. Yet Kenya’s ban remains, creating a food-trade bottleneck thatwill raise prices, worsening malnutrition and increasing poverty for millions.
InUganda, the valuable banana crop is being devastated by a new disease calledbacterial wilt, while the starchy cassava, a subsistence staple, has been hitby two deadly viruses. Biotech scientists have produced resistant varieties ofboth crops using genetic modification, but anti-G.M.O. groups have successfullyprevented the Ugandan Parliament from passing a biosafety law necessary fortheir release.
Aneminent Ghanaian scientist whom I met recently had received such a high level ofharassment from campaigners that he was considering taking a dossier to thepolice. Activists in his country have also gone to court to stall progress inbiotech development.
Theenvironmental movement’s war against genetic engineering has led to a deepeningrift with the scientific community. A recent survey by the Pew Research Centerand the American Association for the Advancement of Science showed a greatergap between scientists and the public on G.M.O.s than on any other scientificcontroversy: While 88 percent of association scientists agreed it was safe toeat genetically modified foods, only 37 percent of the public did — a gap inperceptions of 51 points. (The gap on climate change was 37 points; onchildhood vaccinations, 18 points.)
Ongenetic engineering, environmentalists have been markedly more successful thanclimate change deniers or anti-vaccination campaigners in undermining publicunderstanding of science. The scientific community is losing this battle. Ifyou need visual confirmation of that, try a Google Images search for the term“G.M.O.” Scary pictures proliferate, from an archetypal evil scientistinjecting tomatoes with a syringe — an utterly inaccurate representation of thereal process of genetic engineering — to tumor-riddled rats and ghoulishchimeras like fish-apples.
InEurope, leaders in Brussels propose to empower all member states of theEuropean Union to ban genetically modified crops, if they so wish. Hungary haseven written anti-G.M.O. ideology into its Constitution. Peru has enacted a10-year moratorium.
Assomeone who participated in the early anti-G.M.O. movement, I feel I owe a debtto Mr. Rahman and other farmers in developing countries who could benefit fromthis technology. At Cornell, I am working to amplify the voices of farmers andscientists in a more informed conversation about what biotechnology can bringto food security and environmental protection.
Noone claims that biotech is a silver bullet. The technology of geneticmodification can’t make the rains come on time or ensure that farmers in Africahave stronger land rights. But improved seed genetics can make a contributionin all sorts of ways: It can increase disease resistance and drought tolerance,which are especially important as climate change continues to bite; and it canhelp tackle hidden malnutritional problems like vitamin A deficiency.
Weneed this technology. We must not let the green movement stand in its way.
How I Got Converted to G.M.O. Food
ByMARK LYNAS
Mohammed Rahman doesn’t know it yet, but hissmall farm in central Bangladesh is globally significant. Mr. Rahman, asmallholder farmer in Krishnapur, about 60 miles northwest of the capital,Dhaka, grows eggplant on his meager acre of waterlogged land.
Aswe squatted in the muddy field, examining the lush green foliage and shinypurple fruits, he explained how, for the first time this season, he had beenable to stop using pesticides. This was thanks to a new pest-resistant varietyof eggplant supplied by the government-run Bangladesh Agricultural ResearchInstitute.
Despitea recent hailstorm, the weather had been kind, and the new crop flourished.Productivity nearly doubled. Mr. Rahman had already harvested the small plot 10times, he said, and sold the brinjal (eggplant’s name in the region) labeled“insecticide free” at a small premium in the local market. Now, with increasedprofits, he looked forward to being able to lift his family further out ofpoverty. I could see why this was so urgent: Half a dozen shirtless kidsgathered around, clamoring for attention. They all looked stunted bymalnutrition.
Ina rational world, Mr. Rahman would be receiving support from all sides. He isimproving the environment and tackling poverty. Yet the visit was rushed, andmy escorts from the research institute were nervous about permitting me tospeak with him at all.
Thenew variety had been subjected to incendiary coverage in the local press, andcampaign groups based in Dhaka were suing to have the pest-resistant eggplantbanned. Activists had visited some of the fields and tried to pressure thefarmers to uproot their crops. Our guides from the institute warned that therewas a continuing threat of violence — and they were clearly keen to leave.
Whywas there such controversy? Because Mr. Rahman’s pest-resistant eggplant wasproduced using genetic modification. A gene transferred from a soil bacterium,Bacillus thuringiensis (more commonly known by the abbreviation “Bt”), producesa protein that kills the Fruit and Shoot Borer, a species of moth whose larvaefeed on the eggplant, without the need for pesticide sprays. (The protein isentirely nontoxic to other insects and indeed humans.)
StartingMonday, nothing at Chipotle’s more than 1,800 restaurants will containgenetically modified organisms, or G.M.O.s. Chipotle to Stop Using GeneticallyAltered Ingredients.
Conventionaleggplant farmers in Bangladesh are forced to spray their crops as many as 140times during the growing season, and pesticide poisoning is a chronic healthproblem in rural areas. But because Bt brinjal is a hated G.M.O., orgenetically modified organism, it is Public Enemy No.1 to environmental groupseverywhere.
Thestakes are especially high because Mr. Rahman is one of only 108 farmers inBangladesh currently permitted to try out the new variety. Moreover, this isamong the first genetically modified food crops to be grown by farmers anywherein the developing world. Virtually every crop, in every other country, has sofar been blocked.
Inneighboring India, green campaigners managed to secure a nationwide moratoriumagainst the genetically modified eggplant in 2010. In the Philippines, aGreenpeace-led coalition has tied up the variety in litigation for two years.Greenpeace activists took the precaution of wrecking field trials first, bypulling up the plants.
I,too, was once in that activist camp. A lifelong environmentalist, I opposedgenetically modified foods in the past. Fifteen years ago, I even participatedin vandalizing field trials in Britain. Then I changed my mind.
Afterwriting two books on the science of climate change, I decided I could no longercontinue taking a pro-science position on global warming and an anti-scienceposition on G.M.O.s.
Thereis an equivalent level of scientific consensus on both issues, I realized, thatclimate change is real and genetically modified foods are safe. I could notdefend the expert consensus on one issue while opposing it on the other.
InAfrica, however, countries have fallen like dominoes to anti-G.M. campaigns. Iam writing this at a biotechnology conference in Nairobi, where the governmentslapped a G.M.O. import ban in 2012 after activists brandished pictures of ratswith tumors and claimed that G.M. foods caused cancer.
Theorigin of the scare was a French scientific paper that was later retracted bythe journal in which it was originally published because of numerous flaws inmethodology. Yet Kenya’s ban remains, creating a food-trade bottleneck thatwill raise prices, worsening malnutrition and increasing poverty for millions.
InUganda, the valuable banana crop is being devastated by a new disease calledbacterial wilt, while the starchy cassava, a subsistence staple, has been hitby two deadly viruses. Biotech scientists have produced resistant varieties ofboth crops using genetic modification, but anti-G.M.O. groups have successfullyprevented the Ugandan Parliament from passing a biosafety law necessary fortheir release.
Aneminent Ghanaian scientist whom I met recently had received such a high level ofharassment from campaigners that he was considering taking a dossier to thepolice. Activists in his country have also gone to court to stall progress inbiotech development.
Theenvironmental movement’s war against genetic engineering has led to a deepeningrift with the scientific community. A recent survey by the Pew Research Centerand the American Association for the Advancement of Science showed a greatergap between scientists and the public on G.M.O.s than on any other scientificcontroversy: While 88 percent of association scientists agreed it was safe toeat genetically modified foods, only 37 percent of the public did — a gap inperceptions of 51 points. (The gap on climate change was 37 points; onchildhood vaccinations, 18 points.)
Ongenetic engineering, environmentalists have been markedly more successful thanclimate change deniers or anti-vaccination campaigners in undermining publicunderstanding of science. The scientific community is losing this battle. Ifyou need visual confirmation of that, try a Google Images search for the term“G.M.O.” Scary pictures proliferate, from an archetypal evil scientistinjecting tomatoes with a syringe — an utterly inaccurate representation of thereal process of genetic engineering — to tumor-riddled rats and ghoulishchimeras like fish-apples.
InEurope, leaders in Brussels propose to empower all member states of theEuropean Union to ban genetically modified crops, if they so wish. Hungary haseven written anti-G.M.O. ideology into its Constitution. Peru has enacted a10-year moratorium.
Assomeone who participated in the early anti-G.M.O. movement, I feel I owe a debtto Mr. Rahman and other farmers in developing countries who could benefit fromthis technology. At Cornell, I am working to amplify the voices of farmers andscientists in a more informed conversation about what biotechnology can bringto food security and environmental protection.
Noone claims that biotech is a silver bullet. The technology of geneticmodification can’t make the rains come on time or ensure that farmers in Africahave stronger land rights. But improved seed genetics can make a contributionin all sorts of ways: It can increase disease resistance and drought tolerance,which are especially important as climate change continues to bite; and it canhelp tackle hidden malnutritional problems like vitamin A deficiency.
Weneed this technology. We must not let the green movement stand in its way.
