Madsen Kathrine Hauge, Sandøe Peter
Centre for Bioethics and Risk Assessment, Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Crop Protection, Research Centre Flakkebjerg, DK-4200 Slagelse, Denmark.
Pest Manag Sci. 2005 Mar;61(3):318-25. doi: 10.1002/ps.976.
The introduction of genetically modified (GM) crops has caused a fierce public debate in Europe. Much of the controversy centres on possible risks to the environment. A specific problem here is that risk perception of the scientific experts differs from that of the public. In this paper, risks associated with herbicide-resistant crops are presented from the point of view of experts and lay people. In the public perception, herbicide-resistant (HR) crops are troublesome because of their association with two technologies: genetic engineering of crops and the use of herbicides. These technologies are perceived as risky because they seem to share certain features: in particular, their long-term effects are unknown and they are dreaded. Other value questions also come into play. The public seems to be concerned that risks are not outweighed by usefulness, that using HR crops is the wrong path to sustainable agriculture, that the individual's right to choose GM-free products may be violated, and that these crops are unnatural. In contrast, on the issue of the uncertainty inherent in risk assessment, experts and the public seem to share a good deal of ground.
转基因作物的引入在欧洲引发了激烈的公众辩论。大部分争议集中在对环境可能造成的风险上。这里的一个具体问题是，科学专家对风险的认知与公众不同。本文从专家和普通民众的角度阐述了与抗除草剂作物相关的风险。在公众认知中，抗除草剂（HR）作物令人头疼，因为它们与两项技术有关联：作物基因工程和除草剂的使用。这些技术被视为有风险，因为它们似乎有某些共同特征：特别是，它们的长期影响未知且令人恐惧。其他价值问题也开始发挥作用。公众似乎担心风险没有被益处所抵消，使用HR作物并非实现可持续农业的正确途径，个人选择非转基因产品的权利可能会受到侵犯，以及这些作物是非自然的。相比之下，在风险评估中固有的不确定性问题上，专家和公众似乎有很多共识。
