Goldstein Daniel A
Regulatory Affairs, Monsanto Company, Monsanto, Mail Zone C3ND, 800 N.Blvd. St. Louis, Lindbergh, MO, 63167, USA,
J Med Toxicol. 2014 Jun;10(2):194-201. doi: 10.1007/s13181-014-0402-7.
The debate over genetically modified (GM) crops has raged in Europe since 1996, but had barely risen above a whisper in the USA until recent labeling debates raised public attention. This article will explain GM crops and traits discuss safety assessment provide a view on safety from authoritative organizations discuss selected issues of current debate, and provide the author's perspective as to why the public debate has drifted so far from scientific reality. The economic and environmental benefits of GM crops are beyond scope, but references are provided. GM food and feed undergo comprehensive assessments using recognized approaches to assure they are as safe as the conventional congener. Issues of food safety and nutrition, unrelated to the GM process, may arise when GM foods display novel components or composition. Unanticipated genetic effects in GM crops appear to be limited in contrast to existing variations among conventional varieties resulting from breeding, mutation, and natural mobile genetic elements. Allergenic potential is assessed when selecting genes for introduction into GM crops and remains a theoretical risk to date. Emerging weed and insect resistance is not unique to GM technology and will require the use of integrated pest management/best practices for pest control. Gene flow from GM crops to wild relatives is limited by existing biological barriers but can at time be a relevant consideration in gene selection and planting practices. Insect-resistant GM crops have significantly reduced use of chemical insecticides and appear to have reduced the incidence of pesticide poisoning in areas where small scale farming and hand application are common. Changes in herbicide patterns are more complex and are evolving over time in response to weed resistance management needs. Recent public debate is driven by a combination of unfounded allegations about the technology and purveyors, pseudoscience, and attempts to apply a strict precautionary principle.
自1996年以来，关于转基因作物的争论在欧洲愈演愈烈，但在美国，直到最近关于转基因食品标签的争论引发公众关注之前，相关讨论一直悄无声息。本文将解释转基因作物及其特性，讨论安全性评估，呈现权威组织对安全性的看法，探讨当前争论中的若干问题，并阐述作者对于公众争论为何与科学现实脱节如此之远的观点。转基因作物的经济和环境效益不在本文讨论范围内，但会提供相关参考文献。转基因食品和饲料采用公认的方法进行全面评估，以确保它们与传统同类产品一样安全。当转基因食品呈现出新的成分或组成时，可能会出现与转基因过程无关的食品安全和营养问题。与传统品种因育种、突变和天然移动遗传元件而产生的现有变异相比，转基因作物中意外的基因效应似乎有限。在选择导入转基因作物的基因时会评估其致敏潜力，而迄今为止这仍然是一种理论上的风险。杂草和昆虫产生抗性并非转基因技术所独有，未来需要采用综合虫害管理/最佳虫害防治方法。转基因作物向野生近缘种的基因流动受到现有生物屏障的限制，但在基因选择和种植实践中有时可能是一个需要考虑的相关因素。抗虫转基因作物显著减少了化学杀虫剂的使用，而且在小规模种植和人工喷洒农药普遍的地区，似乎降低了农药中毒的发生率。除草剂使用模式的变化更为复杂，并且随着时间的推移，为了应对杂草抗性管理的需求而不断演变。最近的公众争论是由对该技术及其推广者毫无根据的指控、伪科学以及试图应用严格的预防原则等多种因素共同驱动的。
