您现在的位置: 纽约时报中英文网 >> 纽约时报中英文版 >> 科学 >> 正文

百名诺奖得主联署,呼吁绿色和平停止反转基因

更新时间:2016-7-2 10:44:40 来源:纽约时报中文网 作者:佚名

Stop Bashing G.M.O. Foods, More Than 100 Nobel Laureates Say
百名诺奖得主联署,呼吁绿色和平停止反转基因

More than 100 Nobel laureates have a message for Greenpeace: Quit the GMO-bashing.

上百名诺贝尔奖获得者向绿色和平组织(Greenpeac)发出了一个讯息:不要再抨击转基因生物。

Genetically modified organisms and foods are a safe way to meet the demands of a ballooning global population, the 109 laureates wrote in a letter posted online and officially unveiled at a news conference on Thursday in Washington, D.C.

这109名诺贝尔奖获得者在发布于网上的一封信中表示,转基因生物和粮食是满足不断膨胀的全球人口需求的一种安全的办法。这封信本周四在华盛顿举行的一场新闻发布会上正式公之于众。

Opponents, they say, are standing in the way of getting nutritious food to those who need it.

他们表示,反对者是在妨碍需要营养食物的人获得这些东西。

“Greenpeace has spearheaded opposition to Golden Rice, which has the potential to reduce or eliminate much of the death and disease caused by a vitamin A deficiency (VAD), which has the greatest impact on the poorest people in Africa and Southeast Asia,” the laureates wrote in the letter.

“绿色和平是反对‘黄金大米’(Golden Rice)的先锋,而这种大米有可能减轻或消除因维生素A不足(VAD)导致的许多死亡和疾病。VAD对非洲和东南亚最贫穷人口的生活造成了非常巨大的影响,”这些诺贝尔奖获得者在信中表示。

Proponents of genetically modified foods such as Golden Rice, which contains genes from corn and a bacterium, argue that they are efficient vehicles for needed nutrients. Opponents fear that foods whose genes are manipulated in ways that do not naturally occur might contaminate existing crops. And, they say, the debate distracts from the only guaranteed solution to malnutrition: promoting diverse, healthy diets.

“黄金大米”中包含来自玉米和一种细菌的基因。支持这类转基因食品的人表示,它们是补充必需营养物的高效工具。反对者则担心,这些基因以某种非自然方式经过篡改的食物,可能会污染现有的作物。他们还表示,这种争论使人们注意不到对营养不良唯一有保障的解决方案:推广多样而健康的饮食。

“Corporations are overhyping ‘Golden’ rice to pave the way for global approval of other more profitable genetically engineered crops,” Wilhelmina Pelegrina, a campaigner with Greenpeace Southeast Asia, said in a statement. “This costly experiment has failed to produce results for the last 20 years and diverted attention from methods that already work.”

“大企业大肆宣传‘黄金’大米,是为了给其他更有利可图的转基因作物在全球获批铺路,”绿色和平东南亚分部的宣传专员威廉明娜·佩莱格里纳(Wilhelmina Pelegrina)在一份声明中表示。“在过去20年里,这种代价不菲的试验未能产生效果,反倒转移了人们对已经起作用的一些方法的注意力。”

Richard J. Roberts, one of two winners of the 1993 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, spearheaded the letter-writing effort to set the record straight.

为给转基因正名,1993年诺贝尔生理学与医学奖两名获得者之一理查德·J·罗伯茨(Richard J. Roberts)提出了写这封信的倡议。

“There’s been a tremendous amount of misinformation being put out by Greenpeace,” he said. Some plant scientists have been “attacked so fiercely” over their views that they’ve gone silent, Dr. Roberts said.

罗伯茨博士表示,“绿色和平发出了数量庞大的错误信息,”他说。一些植物科学家因自己的观点被“猛烈地攻击”,因此陷入沉默。

In the letter, the laureates — all but 10 of whom earned their prizes in the fields of physics, chemistry or medicine — contend that GMOs have consistently been found to be safe. The Washington Post covered the group’s efforts on Wednesday.

在信中,这些诺贝尔奖获得者——除了其中10名,其他都是物理学、化学或医学领域的获奖者——认为,转基因生物一直被证明是安全的。《华盛顿邮报》(The Washington Post)周三对他们的努力进行了报道。

“Scientific and regulatory agencies around the world have repeatedly and consistently found crops and foods improved through biotechnology to be as safe as, if not safer than those derived from any other method of production,” the group of laureates wrote. “There has never been a single confirmed case of a negative health outcome for humans or animals from their consumption. Their environmental impacts have been shown repeatedly to be less damaging to the environment, and a boon to global biodiversity.”

“世界各地的科学与监管机构反复而持续地得出结论,与通过其他生产方式获得的作物与食物相比,通过生物科技改良的那些就算不会更加安全,至少也一样安全,”这些获奖者写道。“从来不曾有过一例人类或动物食用它们带来负面健康问题的确诊病例。它们对环境的影响也一再被证明对环境的危害比较小,而且有利于全球多样性。”

In a report released in May, the influential National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine found that genetically engineered crops appear to be generally safe to eat and safe for the environment. It resisted broad proclamations, however, calling such sweeping statements “problematic” because of a variety of factors that affect such an analysis.

在今年5月发布的一份报告中,颇具影响力的美国国家科学、工程和医学学院(National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine )得出结论,转基因作物似乎大体上可以安全食用,对环境而言也是安全的。不过,该学院反对做宽泛的解读,称此类笼统的声明“是有问题的”,因为有多种多样的因素会对这样一种分析产生影响。

Consumers Union, a policy division of the nonprofit Consumer Reports, has approached the issue with caution, calling for labeling and federal scrutiny to better understand foods that contain genetically modified components.

非营利期刊《消费者报告》(Consumer Reports)的政策机构消费者联盟(Consumers Union)谨慎地谈及这一议题,呼吁加强标识和联邦审查,以便人们更好地理解包含转基因成分的食品。

In 2014, the Pew Research Center found an enormous gap between the public and scientists on the issue. Just 37 percent of adults in the United States said genetically modified foods were safe to eat, while 88 percent of scientists connected to the American Association for the Advancement of Science said the same.

在2014年,皮尤研究中心(Pew Research Center)发现公众与科学家对这一问题的认识存在巨大的差距。只有37%的美国成年人表示,转基因食品可以安全食用,而与美国科学促进会(American Association for the Advancement of Science)有关联的科学家则有88%认同这一观点。

“全文请访问纽约时报中文网,本文发表于纽约时报中文网(http://cn.nytimes.com),版权归纽约时报公司所有。任何单位及个人未经许可,不得擅自转载或翻译。订阅纽约时报中文网新闻电邮:http://nytcn.me/subscription/”

相关文章列表