Mauro Ian J, McLachlan Stéphane M, Van Acker Rene C
Environmental Conservation Lab, Clayton H. Riddell Faculty of Environment, Earth, and Resources, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, R3T 2N2.
Environ Sci Pollut Res Int. 2009 Sep;16(6):689-701. doi: 10.1007/s11356-009-0177-6. Epub 2009 May 28.
BACKGROUND, AIM, AND SCOPE: The controversy over the world's first genetically modified (GM) wheat, Roundup Ready wheat (RRW), challenged the efficacy of 'science-based' risk assessment, largely because it excluded the public, particularly farmers, from meaningful input. Risk analysis, in contrast, is broader in orientation as it incorporates scientific data as well as socioeconomic, ethical, and legal concerns, and considers expert and lay input in decision-making. Local knowledge (LK) of farmers is experience-based and represents a rich and reliable source of information regarding the impacts associated with agricultural technology, thereby complementing the scientific data normally used in risk assessment. The overall goal of this study was to explore the role of farmer LK in the a priori risk analysis of RRW.
In 2004, data were collected from farmers using mail surveys sent across the three prairie provinces (i.e., Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta) in western Canada. A stratified random sampling approach was used whereby four separate sampling districts were identified in regions where wheat was grown for each province. Rural post offices were randomly selected in each sampling district using Canada Post databases such that no one post office exceeded 80 farms and that each sampling district comprised 225-235 test farms (n = 11,040). In total, 1,814 people responded, representing an adjusted response rate for farmers of 33%. A subsequent telephone survey showed there was no non-response bias.
The primary benefits associated with RRW were associated with weed control, whereas risks emphasized the importance of market harm, corporate control, agronomic problems, and the likelihood of contamination. Overall, risks were ranked much higher than benefits, and the great majority of farmers were highly critical of RRW commercialization. In total, 83.2% of respondents disagreed that RRW should have unconfined release into the environment. Risk was associated with distrust in government and corporations, previous experience with GM canola, and a strong belief in the importance of community and environment. Farmers were critical of expert-based risk assessment, particularly RRW field trials, and believed that their LK was valuable for assessing agbiotechnology as a whole.
Over 90% of canola production across the Canadian prairies makes use of herbicide-tolerant (HT) varieties. Yet, respondents were generally uniform in their criticism of RRW, regardless whether they were HT users, non-HT-users, conservation tillage or organic in approach. They had a sophisticated understanding of how GM trait confinement was intrinsically tied to grain system segregation and, ultimately, market accessibility, and were concerned that gene flow in RRW would not be contained. Organic farmers were particularly critical of RRW, in large part because certification standards prohibit the presence of GM traits. Farmers practicing conservation tillage were also at relatively great risk, in part because their dependence on glyphosate to control weeds increases the likelihood that RRW volunteer would become more difficult and costly to control.
This research is the first of its kind to include farmer knowledge in the a priori risk analysis of GM crops and, arguably, given its prairie-wide scope, is the largest scale, independent-farmer-focused study on GM crops ever conducted. The surprising uniformity in attitudes between users and non-users of GM technology and among organic, conventional, conservation tillage and GM using farmers speaks to the ability of farmers to discriminate among HT varieties. Our results clearly show that prairie farmers recognize that the risks associated with RRW commercialization outweigh any benefits.
Farmer knowledge systems are holistic in nature, incorporating socioeconomic, cultural, political, and agroecological factors that all can contribute meaningfully to the pre-release evaluation of GM crops. The inclusion of farmers and other stakeholders in risk assessment will also help enhance and even restore public confidence in science-focused approaches to risk assessment. Although farmers are highly knowledgeable regarding RRW and arguably any agricultural technology, their expertise continues to be overlooked by decision-makers and regulators across North America.
背景、目的与范围：全球首例转基因小麦——抗草甘膦转基因小麦（RRW）引发的争议，对“基于科学”的风险评估的有效性提出了挑战，这主要是因为该评估将公众（尤其是农民）排除在外，未让他们参与有意义的意见输入。相比之下，风险分析的导向更为宽泛，它不仅纳入科学数据，还涵盖社会经济、伦理和法律等方面的考量，并在决策过程中考虑专家和外行的意见。农民的地方知识（LK）基于经验，是有关农业技术相关影响的丰富且可靠的信息来源，从而对风险评估中通常使用的科学数据起到补充作用。本研究的总体目标是探讨农民地方知识在RRW的事前风险分析中的作用。
2004年，通过邮件调查从加拿大西部三个草原省份（即曼尼托巴省、萨斯喀彻温省和艾伯塔省）的农民那里收集数据。采用分层随机抽样方法，在每个省份种植小麦的地区确定四个独立的抽样区。利用加拿大邮政数据库在每个抽样区随机选择农村邮局, 确保没有一个邮局对应的农场超过80个，且每个抽样区包含225 - 235个试验农场（n = 11,040）。总共有1,814人回复，农民的调整后回复率为33%。随后的电话调查表明不存在无回应偏差。
与RRW相关的主要益处与杂草控制有关，而风险则强调了市场损害、企业控制、农艺问题以及污染可能性的重要性。总体而言，风险的排名远高于益处，绝大多数农民对RRW商业化持高度批评态度。总计83.2%的受访者不同意RRW应无限制地释放到环境中。风险与对政府和企业的不信任、之前种植转基因油菜的经验以及对社区和环境重要性的坚定信念有关。农民对基于专家的风险评估，尤其是RRW田间试验持批评态度，并认为他们的地方知识对于评估整个农业生物技术很有价值。
加拿大草原地区超过90%的油菜生产使用耐除草剂（HT）品种。然而，无论受访者是HT使用者、非HT使用者、采用保护性耕作还是有机种植方式，他们对RRW的批评总体上是一致的。他们深刻理解转基因性状的限制如何与谷物系统隔离以及最终的市场准入内在地联系在一起，并担心RRW中的基因流动无法得到控制。有机农户对RRW尤为批评，很大程度上是因为认证标准禁止转基因性状的存在。采用保护性耕作的农民也面临相对较大的风险，部分原因是他们对草甘膦控制杂草的依赖增加了RRW自生苗更难控制且成本更高的可能性。
本研究首次将农民知识纳入转基因作物的事前风险分析，并且可以说，鉴于其在整个草原地区的范围，这是有史以来规模最大、以独立农民为重点的转基因作物研究。转基因技术使用者和非使用者之间以及有机、传统、保护性耕作和使用转基因技术的农民之间态度惊人地一致，这表明农民有能力区分不同的HT品种。我们的结果清楚地表明，草原地区的农民认识到与RRW商业化相关的风险超过任何益处。
农民知识体系本质上是全面的，包含社会经济、文化、政治和农业生态等因素，所有这些因素都可以对转基因作物的上市前评估做出有意义的贡献。让农民和其他利益相关者参与风险评估也将有助于增强甚至恢复公众对以科学为重点的风险评估方法的信心。尽管农民对RRW以及可以说对任何农业技术都非常了解，但他们的专业知识在北美各地的决策者和监管者那里仍然被忽视。
