转基因：阅读美国国家科学院的最新报告

转基因：阅读美国国家科学院的最新报告。
直言了，2010-04-17。
http://zhiyanle.blog.hexun.com/48637107_d.html

种种迹象表明美国开始了第二次转基因作物商业化的反思反省。其中许多动作之一，是美国国家科学院于本月13日在网媒发表的一个最新报告：《转基因作物对美国农业可持续性的影响》（Impact of Genetically Engineered Crops on Farm Sustainability in the United States）。就该报告，美国纽约时报发表了报道：Study Says Overuse Threatens Gains From Modified Crops（NYT，April 13, 2010, By ANDREW POLLACK）。

国内一些媒体和组织机构翻译转发了那个报告和报道，却是“各取所需”地翻译转发。譬如，有的取其赞扬、说是转基因作物带来显著经济效益；有的则取其警告，说是过多种植会给环境保护带来副作用，等等。本人认为，那些做法可能造成误解误导。就此，本人把自己和纽约时报相关记者的意见交换放到这里与各位分享，期望能有助于公正和确切地阅读美国国家科学院的那份报告。


纽约时报发表报道后，本人随即跟撰写该报道的记者波拉克（ANDREW POLLACK）做了意见交换。


一、看了报道后，本人给该记者波拉克做了个简单留言，说：显然，美国国家科学院的研究结论没有充分的统计数据支持。如果他们看到路透社关于美国转基因种植使农药用量开支增加而不是减少的报道及数据的话，他们的诚实结论可能与已发报告结论是完全不同的。

留言背景介绍：美国国家科学院的报告说，他们的那个研究是从农民角度而做的。通读后，可明显看到，该报告试图“两面不得罪”，即：不得罪转基因公司利益，也不得罪越来越不满的美国农民和环保界。譬如，就转基因作物种植是否能减少农药需用来说，该报告一方面赞扬转基因公司提供的技术，一方面又承认转基因种植减少了某些农药使用、但增加了除草剂农药的用量，还做了长期种植转基因对环境可能造成负面影响的警告。

可仔细看那报告的图表，转基因作物种植数量的统计一直到2009年，而农药数据却只到2006/2007农业年度。就是说，有两个农业年度数据是空白。然而，据路透社报道，就是过去这两年或三年，美国农业的农药使用量和开支都大幅增加。就是说，如果路透社报道属实，那么，美国国家科学院的那个报告中关于转基因种植能否减少农药用量的结论就难以成立。有幸不幸的是，美国农业部后来更新的数据说明，那两个农业年度的农药用量开支是持续增加、路透社报道属实：

二、很快，撰写该报道的纽约时报记者波拉克针对本人留言做了认真回复。

该记者回复说：你（本人）的说法可能是对的。我（该记者）发的报道引用路透社报道的批评者的意见申明，美国国家科学院的那份研究报告可能很快就失去真实性意义。然而，我（该记者）看到，路透社报道使用的数据来自反转基因组织，而该组织提供的数据来自对美国农业部数据的计算而并不是直接来自美国农业部原始数据，其计算很复杂、无法在新闻报道时效内做到完全核实。因此，路透社的报道及看法没有过硬数据支持，可靠性是有问题的。

该记者的回复还说：美国科学院的报告说明了转基因种植增加了农药需用量（本人注：即没有能兑现减少农药用量的承诺），与此同时，该报告也说明，增加的农药是毒性小的、对环境影响不大的种类。只根据笼统的农药统计而不看具体哪种农药，是不能得到确切观察的。[原文附后]。


三、本人回复讨论说：在路透社报道发表前，美国农业部关于2006-2009年的农业年度农药统计数据很不完整、甚至是空白；而美国国家科学院的研究及结论所使用的数据，也是主要依靠美国农业部的统计。既然两者数据来源一样，那么，若路透社报道因数据问题而不可靠，那美国国家科学院的研究结论也因同样数据问题而不可靠了。把事后美国农业部更新的各项统计数据放到一起，如此，尽管统计还是不够完整且有模糊之处，但可以看到一个大体图景：转基因作物种植非但没有减少农药用量开支，反而使其大幅和持续地增加。

本人回复说：为什么起初时候的2006-2009农业年度的农药统计数据很不完整？有没有为利益公司和利益官员而掩盖真相的问题呢（譬如，掩盖转基因种植使农药用量开支大幅增加）？我不想看到我们的政府运作有什么故意搞错的事情，但相关重要统计数据不完整让人感到担忧。

本人回复说：美国国家科学院那份报告说，转基因种植使农民的种子和农药等开支减少，从而获得经济效益。然而，美国农业部等联邦政府部门的统计说明，自转基因种植商业化以来，美国农民的种子和农药开支等是逐渐增加的（譬如，2006年的种子开支是110亿美元、2009年是171亿美元；2006年的农药开支是90亿美元、2009年是121亿美元）；美国联邦政府的统计数据并不支持美国国家科学院的相关结论。

本人回复还说：就美国社会特别关注和热议的问题，譬如：转基因种植使农业生产成本持续增加；转基因作物种植使农田杂草失控；转基因食品上市后、过敏明显增加；美国卫生部发表论文说明BT转基因作物伤害动物内脏；转基因科研缺乏公正独立性，……，等等问题，美国国家科学院发表的研究报道都没有给出有过硬数据支持的分析评论、或干脆就不涉及。本人并无一般化的“挺转基因”或“反转基因”的倾向，本人只是因坚信实事求是而发发议论。

本人回复中没有提到的问题是：美国学界有个很重要的规范惯例做法：科研学术报告要声明自己与研究项目和报告内容是否有利益冲突；没做“没有利益冲突”声明的，通常会被理解为有利益冲突（意味着该研究项目及报告的公正性、真实性和可靠性都可能要大打折扣）。而美国国家科学院的那份研究报告没有提供利益冲突关系的明确声明（可能有声明，但目前颁布的版本没清晰说明）；更麻烦的是：查阅其研究机构的理事成员，有孟山都公司等转基因利益公司的代表。


本人跟纽约时报记者做的意见交流原文附后，供您分享参考。本人是微不足道的客户网民，纽约时报是全球大名鼎鼎的超级媒体；然而，本人和超级媒体之间的那种平等自由、充分开放、认真负责和不同见解的读编交流，在美国社会是司空见惯的平常事（相反，没有那种自由开放和平等交流，倒是反常）。显然，本人和那记者的见解有所不同，但我们的讨论有个共同基础，那就是：任何新闻报道和科研结论都必须有足够过硬的证据数据支持，否则，且不说道德规范问题，仅其新闻价值或学术价值就要大打折扣甚至完全丧失。对比看看中国社会上流传的有关部门官员和媒体关于转基因作物的说法，有几个有过硬证据数据的支持？不但几乎没有，且甚至不少是他们搞的虚假信息。


附图：美国国家科学院发表的最新研究报告的关于大豆、棉花和玉米三种转基因作物种植的农药用量图表。它们的注解说：随着种植面积的增加和年度更替，某些农药的用量下降、但除草剂的用量却持续增加；这种统计关系如何还需要进一步研究。图中，虚线表示转基因种植面积占该作物种植面积的比例，加重加黑的实线是除草剂平均用量，未加重加黑的实线表示其它农药。

说明：需要注意的是：[1] 该统计图表的转基因种植面积比例数据到2009/10农业年度，而农药用量数据却有两个农业年度的空白；[2] 图表把除草剂单列，没杀虫剂内容（作为“其它”笼统数据的一部分？）；[3] 没有天然种植的杀虫剂使用和与转基因种植套种的“避难种植”的成本对比。就学术报告而言，数据不完整就下结论是个很大的忌讳。不管怎样，该研究报告的这些图表说明，14年来的实践事实证明转基因种植没能兑现减少农药用量开支的承诺。（按照美国法规规定，所谓“避难种植”是在种植转基因作物同时、拿出20%面积做天然种植，以此为害虫提供“食物避难所”、防止它们成为使转基因技术无效的超级害虫。）。


  

附件：本人与纽约时报记者波拉克（ ANDREW POLLACK ）的意见交换英文原文：


附件一：本人给记者波拉克的回复：

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.（后几点是本人关于纽约时报经营的议论，与本文主题无关且涉及私人信息，故而暂不公开。）。

Thank you again for your report and email.

Best Regards,
Z.Y.L.

 #



附件二： 记者波拉克针对本人留言的回复：

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：本人给记者波拉克的留言：

-----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

×  WYZXWK.COM

您的打赏将用于网站日常运行与维护。
帮助我们办好网站，宣传红色文化！

欢迎扫描下方二维码，订阅网刊微信公众号