轉基因：閱讀美國國家科學院的最新報告

轉基因：閱讀美國國家科學院的最新報告。
直言了，2010-04-17。
http://zhiyanle.blog.hexun.com/48637107_d.html

種種跡象表明美國開始了第二次轉基因作物商業化的反思反省。其中許多動作之一，是美國國家科學院于本月13日在網媒發表的一個最新報告：《轉基因作物對美國農業可持續性的影響》（Impact of Genetically Engineered Crops on Farm Sustainability in the United States）。就該報告，美國紐約時報發表了報道：Study Says Overuse Threatens Gains From Modified Crops（NYT，April 13, 2010, By ANDREW POLLACK）。

國內一些媒體和組織機構翻譯轉發了那個報告和報道，卻是“各取所需”地翻譯轉發。譬如，有的取其贊揚、說是轉基因作物帶來顯著經濟效益；有的則取其警告，說是過多種植會給環境保護帶來副作用，等等。本人認為，那些做法可能造成誤解誤導。就此，本人把自己和紐約時報相關記者的意見交換放到這里與各位分享，期望能有助于公正和確切地閱讀美國國家科學院的那份報告。


紐約時報發表報道后，本人隨即跟撰寫該報道的記者波拉克（ANDREW POLLACK）做了意見交換。


一、看了報道后，本人給該記者波拉克做了個簡單留言，說：顯然，美國國家科學院的研究結論沒有充分的統計數據支持。如果他們看到路透社關于美國轉基因種植使農藥用量開支增加而不是減少的報道及數據的話，他們的誠實結論可能與已發報告結論是完全不同的。

留言背景介紹：美國國家科學院的報告說，他們的那個研究是從農民角度而做的。通讀后，可明顯看到，該報告試圖“兩面不得罪”，即：不得罪轉基因公司利益，也不得罪越來越不滿的美國農民和環保界。譬如，就轉基因作物種植是否能減少農藥需用來說，該報告一方面贊揚轉基因公司提供的技術，一方面又承認轉基因種植減少了某些農藥使用、但增加了除草劑農藥的用量，還做了長期種植轉基因對環境可能造成負面影響的警告。

可仔細看那報告的圖表，轉基因作物種植數量的統計一直到2009年，而農藥數據卻只到2006/2007農業年度。就是說，有兩個農業年度數據是空白。然而，據路透社報道，就是過去這兩年或三年，美國農業的農藥使用量和開支都大幅增加。就是說，如果路透社報道屬實，那么，美國國家科學院的那個報告中關于轉基因種植能否減少農藥用量的結論就難以成立。有幸不幸的是，美國農業部后來更新的數據說明，那兩個農業年度的農藥用量開支是持續增加、路透社報道屬實：

二、很快，撰寫該報道的紐約時報記者波拉克針對本人留言做了認真回復。

該記者回復說：你（本人）的說法可能是對的。我（該記者）發的報道引用路透社報道的批評者的意見申明，美國國家科學院的那份研究報告可能很快就失去真實性意義。然而，我（該記者）看到，路透社報道使用的數據來自反轉基因組織，而該組織提供的數據來自對美國農業部數據的計算而并不是直接來自美國農業部原始數據，其計算很復雜、無法在新聞報道時效內做到完全核實。因此，路透社的報道及看法沒有過硬數據支持，可靠性是有問題的。

該記者的回復還說：美國科學院的報告說明了轉基因種植增加了農藥需用量（本人注：即沒有能兌現減少農藥用量的承諾），與此同時，該報告也說明，增加的農藥是毒性小的、對環境影響不大的種類。只根據籠統的農藥統計而不看具體哪種農藥，是不能得到確切觀察的。[原文附后]。


三、本人回復討論說：在路透社報道發表前，美國農業部關于2006-2009年的農業年度農藥統計數據很不完整、甚至是空白；而美國國家科學院的研究及結論所使用的數據，也是主要依靠美國農業部的統計。既然兩者數據來源一樣，那么，若路透社報道因數據問題而不可靠，那美國國家科學院的研究結論也因同樣數據問題而不可靠了。把事后美國農業部更新的各項統計數據放到一起，如此，盡管統計還是不夠完整且有模糊之處，但可以看到一個大體圖景：轉基因作物種植非但沒有減少農藥用量開支，反而使其大幅和持續地增加。

本人回復說：為什么起初時候的2006-2009農業年度的農藥統計數據很不完整？有沒有為利益公司和利益官員而掩蓋真相的問題呢（譬如，掩蓋轉基因種植使農藥用量開支大幅增加）？我不想看到我們的政府運作有什么故意搞錯的事情，但相關重要統計數據不完整讓人感到擔憂。

本人回復說：美國國家科學院那份報告說，轉基因種植使農民的種子和農藥等開支減少，從而獲得經濟效益。然而，美國農業部等聯邦政府部門的統計說明，自轉基因種植商業化以來，美國農民的種子和農藥開支等是逐漸增加的（譬如，2006年的種子開支是110億美元、2009年是171億美元；2006年的農藥開支是90億美元、2009年是121億美元）；美國聯邦政府的統計數據并不支持美國國家科學院的相關結論。

本人回復還說：就美國社會特別關注和熱議的問題，譬如：轉基因種植使農業生產成本持續增加；轉基因作物種植使農田雜草失控；轉基因食品上市后、過敏明顯增加；美國衛生部發表論文說明BT轉基因作物傷害動物內臟；轉基因科研缺乏公正獨立性，……，等等問題，美國國家科學院發表的研究報道都沒有給出有過硬數據支持的分析評論、或干脆就不涉及。本人并無一般化的“挺轉基因”或“反轉基因”的傾向，本人只是因堅信實事求是而發發議論。

本人回復中沒有提到的問題是：美國學界有個很重要的規范慣例做法：科研學術報告作者要聲明自己與研究項目和報告內容是否有利益沖突；沒做“沒有利益沖突”聲明的，通常會被理解為有利益沖突（意味著該研究項目及報告的公正性、真實性和可靠性都可能要大打折扣）。而美國國家科學院的那份研究報告沒有提供作者利益沖突關系的明確聲明（可能有聲明，但目前頒布的版本沒清晰說明）；更麻煩的是：查閱其研究機構的理事成員，有孟山都公司等轉基因利益公司的代表。


本人跟紐約時報記者做的意見交流原文附后，供您分享參考。本人是微不足道的客戶網民，紐約時報是全球大名鼎鼎的超級媒體；然而，本人和超級媒體之間的那種平等自由、充分開放、認真負責和不同見解的讀編交流，在美國社會是司空見慣的平常事（相反，沒有那種自由開放和平等交流，倒是反常）。顯然，本人和那記者的見解有所不同，但我們的討論有個共同基礎，那就是：任何新聞報道和科研結論都必須有足夠過硬的證據數據支持，否則，且不說道德規范問題，僅其新聞價值或學術價值就要大打折扣甚至完全喪失。對比看看中國社會上流傳的有關部門官員和媒體關于轉基因作物的說法，有幾個有過硬證據數據的支持？不但幾乎沒有，且甚至不少是他們搞的虛假信息。


附圖：美國國家科學院發表的最新研究報告的關于大豆、棉花和玉米三種轉基因作物種植的農藥用量圖表。它們的注解說：隨著種植面積的增加和年度更替，某些農藥的用量下降、但除草劑的用量卻持續增加；這種統計關系如何還需要進一步研究。圖中，虛線表示轉基因種植面積占該作物種植面積的比例，加重加黑的實線是除草劑平均用量，未加重加黑的實線表示其它農藥。

說明：需要注意的是：[1] 該統計圖表的轉基因種植面積比例數據到2009/10農業年度，而農藥用量數據卻有兩個農業年度的空白；[2] 圖表把除草劑單列，沒殺蟲劑內容（作為“其它”籠統數據的一部分？）；[3] 沒有天然種植的殺蟲劑使用和與轉基因種植套種的“避難種植”的成本對比。就學術報告而言，數據不完整就下結論是個很大的忌諱。不管怎樣，該研究報告的這些圖表說明，14年來的實踐事實證明轉基因種植沒能兌現減少農藥用量開支的承諾。（按照美國法規規定，所謂“避難種植”是在種植轉基因作物同時、拿出20%面積做天然種植，以此為害蟲提供“食物避難所”、防止它們成為使轉基因技術無效的超級害蟲。）。


  

附件：本人與紐約時報記者波拉克（ ANDREW POLLACK ）的意見交換英文原文：


附件一：本人給記者波拉克的回復：

RE: READER MAIL: Andrew Pollack;
From: zyl. zyl.
To: Andrew Pollack
Sent: Thu 4/15/10 10:37 PM
- -- - - - - - - - - - - - -

Thank you for your email. I certainly agree with your [report] point: the NRC/NAP report might no longer hold true.

What I am thinking is this: If Reuters (about the advocacy groups) does not have strong USDA data to support its news report, neither would the NRC/NAP, whose study/conclusion relies on USDA data. A serious matter is that something is wrong with USDA data regarding chemical usage in GMO fields. In other words: Is our government trying to cover up?


Reading the Reuters report, I carefully checked the data source: The advocacy groups stated that their calculation was based on USDA data; and here is one example that carries details rather than generalities:

http://www.nass.usda.gov/QuickStats/PullData_US.jsp  ,
http://www.nass.usda.gov/QuickStats/Create_Federal_All.jsp   .

It is seriously incomplete. And:

Pesticide Data Program, Annual Summary, Calendar Year 2007,
http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5074338   .

Table 16. Indices of pesticide consumption by State, 1960-2004,
http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/AgProductivity/table16.xls . 

USDA Outlook for the 2010 U.S. Farm Economy,
http://www.usda.gov/oce/forum/2010_Speeches/Presentations/CoveyT.pdf  .

U.S. farm sector production expenses, 2006-2010F,
http://www.ers.usda.gov/briefing/farmincome/data/pe_t4.xls  .

Farm Income: Data Files,
http://www.ers.usda.gov/data/FarmIncome/finfidmu.htm  .

Putting all this together may produce a somewhat clearer picture showing that the chemical usage has been increased since the GMO commercialization. However, the USDA data is seriously incomplete or fuzzy (particularly from 2006 to 2009). Thus, neither Reuters nor NRC/NAP had a strong foundation to support their views.

My questions: Why is the USDA chemical usage data incomplete, while positive data for GMO are so complete? Is it because the chemical usage data may be negative about GMO? Could opening negative data hurt some politicians who have interests with GMO companies? Notably, a Hillary Clinton adviser and the Monsanto people co-published an article in Science Magazine (Feb. 2010) calling U.S. government agencies to give stronger support for GMO. Is this accidental?

In fact, I supported Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama during their presidential campaigns. I do not want to see something wrong with our government operations. However, the mentioned serious lack of accurate/complete data causes concern.


Other doubts about the NRC/NAP study:

[1] It concluded that GMO helped farmers to reduce expenditure in seed and chemicals. However, the USDA data shows a yearly increase in general:

U.S. farm sector production expenses (bil.usd, 2006-2010F; 02/11/10.
http://www.ers.usda.gov/briefing/farmincome/data/pe_t4.htm

It shows:
- Seed: 2006: 11 bil.usd; 2009: 17.2 bil.usd.
- Pesticides: 2006: 9.0 bil.usd; 2009: 12.1 bil. usd.

The data does not support the conclusion by NRC/NAP Study.


[2] According to ABC-News, planting GMO makes weed out of control:

super weed can't be killed, ABC-News, 02:16| 10/06/2009
http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=8767877  

GM crops created superweed, say scientists
Modified rape crosses with wild plant to create tough pesticide-resistant strain
The Guardian, Monday 25 July 2005 01.04 BST
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2005/jul/25/gm.food  

The picture is not as beautiful as what the NRC/NAP Study told about the GMO impact on the environment.


[3] The NRC/NAP Study concluded that Bt crops have no risks for human health. However, the NIH.GOV published a paper indicating that Bt crop damages rat organs. See:

A Comparison of the Effects of Three GM Corn Varieties on Mammalian Health.
PMID: 20011136 /PMCID: PMC2793308,
U.S. National Library of Medicine /National Institutes of Health,
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20011136   ..

And so on. But the NRC/NAP Study did not address or respond to those issues which are widely printed and discussed all over the internet where a great many people take America as a model for GMO projections.
 

Also, The Washington Post re-printed a recent special report by Reuters:

Special Report: Are regulators dropping the ball on biocrops?
Tuesday, April 13, 2010; 9:48 AM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/13/AR2010041301509.html
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE63C2AJ20100413  

Seems our government is facing growing international pressure on changes that the Obama Administration may bring to the GMO management.


I should point out that: [1] I am not particularly pro- or against GMO. I simply have a habit of wanting to find the truth by digging out the facts.（后幾點是本人關于紐約時報經營的議論，與本文主題無關且涉及私人信息，故而暫不公開。）。

Thank you again for your report and email.

Best Regards,
Z.Y.L.

 #



附件二： 記者波拉克針對本人留言的回復：

From: Pollack, Andrew
Thu 4/15/10 12:14 AM
RE: READER MAIL:

Thank you for your note and for reading the New York Times.

What you say may be true. In fact I quoted Charles Benbrook, the author of the report cited by Reuters, in my article as saying the conclusions of the National Research Council report might no longer hold true.

However, the report cited by Reuters was done by advocacy groups that oppose the biotech crops. There are similar reports from industry groups or proponents of the crops that show a decrease in chemical use. That is why the National Research Council report was so valuable, because it assessed the data more objectively.

I read the report you cite when it came out. The huge jump in chemical use, as Reuters reports, came just in 2007 and 2008. But the report did not actually have direct USDA data on chemical use for those years, as it had for the prior years. So it tried to extrapolate how much chemical was used based on other data. It explained its methodology but it was extremely complicated and difficult to understand. So how much of the big jump in 2007 and 2008 was real and how much was due to a change in the data source? To me it meant the conclusions were not as reliable as they would have been had the same data set been used for all years.

Also, most of the big increase in chemicals was accounted for by glyphosate, the herbicide. Use of insecticides went down, I think. The figures were based on total poundage. But as the National Research Council report noted, glyphosate is less toxic than many of the herbicides it replaced. And I bet it's less toxic than insecticides. So just looking at pounds applied might not be telling the whole story.

Indeed, the National Research Council report states that glyphosate is used in higher doses and greater frequency than the herbicides it replaced. So the actual poundage of herbicide used per acre has gone up since GM crops were introduced for soybeans and cotton. But the National Research Council report says that the net effect of the shift to glyphosate is positive for the environment because glyphosate is less environmentally harmful.

Best regards,
Andrew Pollack

#



附件三：本人給記者波拉克的留言：

-----Original Message-----
From: NYTimes.com
Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2010 8:47 PM
To: Pollack, Andrew
Subject: READER MAIL: Andrew Pollack

To: ANDREW POLLACK
READER'S MESSAGE:

Thanks for your timely report regarding a hot-debate-issue. My view:

The NAP study obviously lacks effective data, say, chemical usage in 2008 and 2009. According to Reuters, the U.S. farm use of chemicals has been significantly increased since the GMO commercialization. And USDA data supports Reuters report. Should the NAP [study] have complete info/data, its honest opinion may be very different. Here is the Reuters report:

Biotech crops cause big jump in pesticide use
Tue Nov 17, 2009 12:09am EST
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5AG0QY20091117  

(Reuters) - The rapid adoption by U.S. farmers of genetically engineered corn, soybeans and cotton has promoted increased use of pesticides, an epidemic of herbicide-resistant weeds and more chemical residues in foods, according to a report issued Tuesday by health and environmental protection groups. The groups said research showed that herbicide use grew by 383 million pounds from 1996 to 2008, with 46 percent of the total increase occurring in 2007 and 2008. The report was released by nonprofits The Organic Center (TOC), the Union for Concerned Scientists (UCS) and the Center for Food Safety (CFS).

ARTICLE REFERENCED (if any):
Study Says Overuse Threatens Gains From Modified Crops

× 烏有之鄉 WYZXWK.COM

您的打賞將用于網站日常運行與維護。
幫助我們辦好網站，宣傳紅色文化！

歡迎掃描下方二維碼，訂閱烏有之鄉網刊微信公眾號