最好情況下，轉(zhuǎn)基因作物在產(chǎn)量方面并不比它們的非轉(zhuǎn)基因?qū)?yīng)方表現(xiàn)更好，8200個(gè)大學(xué)為基礎(chǔ)的不同品種大豆試驗(yàn)進(jìn)行的檢查發(fā)現(xiàn)抗草甘膦大豆產(chǎn)量一貫比非轉(zhuǎn)基因大豆產(chǎn)量較低。產(chǎn)量下降原因的一半來自于轉(zhuǎn)基因轉(zhuǎn)換程序?qū)ψ魑锏臄_亂影響。2010年6月，美國西佛吉尼亞州對孟山都聲稱更高產(chǎn)量作假廣告開展法律調(diào)查。

http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_4bb17e9d0100mfz0.html

《轉(zhuǎn)基因大豆：可持續(xù)？負(fù)責(zé)任？》研究報(bào)告：

轉(zhuǎn)基因作物的產(chǎn)量高不準(zhǔn)確！

“GM Soy: Sustainable?Responsible?” Report:

The claim that GM crops give higher yields is notaccurate！

Monday, 13 September 2010 19:01

《歐洲轉(zhuǎn)基因觀察》網(wǎng)站 2010年9月13日發(fā)布

Pdf文件下載鏈接：http://www.gmwatch.org/files/GMsoy_SustainableResponsible_Sept2010_Summary.pdf

陳一文譯（cheniwan@mx.cei.gov.cn）

***

陳一文顧問按：

《科技日報(bào)》2010年02月24日《違反自然規(guī)律?方舟子:食用轉(zhuǎn)基因農(nóng)作物風(fēng)險(xiǎn)被高估》對方舟子的觀點(diǎn)進(jìn)行報(bào)道。其中對于“為什么許多國家，特別是部分歐洲國家至今反對轉(zhuǎn)基因農(nóng)作物？”的解釋如下：

http://news.sciencenet.cn/htmlnews/2010/2/228489.shtm?id=228489

“除了政治、文化、經(jīng)濟(jì)等原因外，歐洲部分國家對引進(jìn)轉(zhuǎn)基因農(nóng)作物猶豫不決的重要原因是這些國家的糧食自給有余，不急于通過轉(zhuǎn)基因技術(shù)提高糧食產(chǎn)量。”

“如果現(xiàn)在停止前進(jìn)，中國將失去爭奪轉(zhuǎn)基因技術(shù)領(lǐng)先者的機(jī)會(huì)，”方舟子說。

在方舟子看來，發(fā)展轉(zhuǎn)基因農(nóng)作物的主要原因與首位目的顯然是“提高糧食產(chǎn)量”。這種說法與黃大昉（中國農(nóng)業(yè)科學(xué)院生物技術(shù)所研究員）2010年06月25日向十一屆全國人大常委會(huì)專題講座第十六講《農(nóng)業(yè)轉(zhuǎn)基因技術(shù)和安全管理》講稿的宣傳一致：

“轉(zhuǎn)基因技術(shù)是保障糧食安全與農(nóng)業(yè)可持續(xù)發(fā)展的重要措施……眾所周知，我國農(nóng)業(yè)生產(chǎn)也面臨人口增加、資源短缺、環(huán)境惡化、氣候異常、市場競爭等越來越大的壓力，糧食中長期供求形勢依然非常嚴(yán)峻。多年來我國糧食增產(chǎn)主要依靠單產(chǎn)的提高，……但要想進(jìn)一步提高則面臨越來越大的困難，必須突破現(xiàn)有技術(shù)的瓶頸。因此，我國要實(shí)現(xiàn)2020年增產(chǎn)糧食1000億斤的目標(biāo)，保障14.5億人口的糧食安全；……這些目標(biāo)的實(shí)現(xiàn)仍然離不開常規(guī)技術(shù)，但更需發(fā)展轉(zhuǎn)基因技術(shù)，將轉(zhuǎn)基因技術(shù)和常規(guī)技術(shù)緊密結(jié)合，尤其要加快高產(chǎn)、優(yōu)質(zhì)、抗逆、抗病蟲、多功能、高附加值等作物新品種的培育。”

方舟子與黃大昉的宣傳提出了一個(gè)最為簡單但是至關(guān)重要的問題：“轉(zhuǎn)基因農(nóng)作物產(chǎn)量高”是真實(shí)情況，還是虛假廣告彌天大謊？

本節(jié)揭示的大量事實(shí)對這個(gè)問題給出了清楚無誤的回答！

***

AGRONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF GM RRSOY

抗草甘膦除草劑大豆的園藝學(xué)與環(huán)境影響

Many of the promised benefits to farmers of GMcrops, including GM RR soy, have not materialized. On the otherhand, unexpected problems have arisen.

包括抗草甘膦除草劑大豆在內(nèi)的關(guān)于轉(zhuǎn)基因作物對農(nóng)民有益的許多允諾，并沒有實(shí)現(xiàn)。另外以方面，出現(xiàn)了許多未預(yù)料的問題。

==Yield==

==產(chǎn)量==

The claim that GM crops give higher yields isoften uncritically repeated in the media. But this claim is notaccurate.

媒體往往不加鑒別的重復(fù)聲稱轉(zhuǎn)基因作物提供更高的產(chǎn)量的說法。但是這種說法并不準(zhǔn)確。

At best, GM crops have performed no better thantheir non-GM counterparts, with GM RR soy giving consistently loweryields. A review of over 8,200 university-based soybean varietaltrials found a yield drag of between 6 and 10 per cent for GM RRsoy compared with non-GM soy. [145] Controlled comparative field trials of GM andnon-GM soy suggest that half the drop in yield is due to thedisruptive effect of the GM transformation process.[146]

在最好的情況下，轉(zhuǎn)基因作物在產(chǎn)量方面并不比它們的非轉(zhuǎn)基因?qū)?yīng)方表現(xiàn)的更好，其中抗草甘膦除草劑大豆的產(chǎn)量一貫比非轉(zhuǎn)基因大豆的產(chǎn)量較低。對于8200個(gè)大學(xué)為基礎(chǔ)的不同品種大豆試驗(yàn)進(jìn)行的檢查發(fā)現(xiàn)，抗草甘膦除草劑大豆產(chǎn)量比對應(yīng)的非轉(zhuǎn)基因大豆低6%至 10%。[145]轉(zhuǎn)基因大豆與非轉(zhuǎn)基因大豆對照比較田地試驗(yàn)表明這種產(chǎn)量下降的一半來自于轉(zhuǎn)基因轉(zhuǎn)換程序的擾亂性影響。[146]

Data from Argentina show that GM RR soy yields arethe same as, or lower than, non-GM soybean yields.[147] In 2009, Brazilian farmer organization FARSULpublished the results of trials on 61 varieties of soybean (40 GM and 21 non-GM),showing that the average yield of non-GM soybeans was 9 percent higher than GM, at a cost equivalent production.[148]

阿根廷的數(shù)據(jù)顯示那里的抗草甘膦除草劑大豆產(chǎn)量與對應(yīng)的非轉(zhuǎn)基因大豆產(chǎn)量或者相同或者低。[147] 2009年，巴西的農(nóng)民組織FARSUL公布了61個(gè)品種大豆的試驗(yàn)結(jié)果（40種轉(zhuǎn)基因大豆與21種非轉(zhuǎn)基因品種），表明同樣成本生產(chǎn)條件下非轉(zhuǎn)基因大豆的平均產(chǎn)量比轉(zhuǎn)基因高9%。[148]

Claims of higher yields from Monsanto’s newgeneration of RR soybeans, RR 2 Yield, have not been borne out. Astudy carried out in five US states involving 20 farm managers whoplanted RR 2 soybeans in 2009 concluded that the new varieties“didn’t meet their [yield] expectations”. [149]In June 2010 the state of West Virginia launchedan investigation of Monsanto for false advertising claims that RR 2soybeans gave higher yields. [150]

聲稱孟山都公司新一代RR 2 Yield抗草甘膦大豆具有更高產(chǎn)量的說法，并沒有實(shí)現(xiàn)。在美國五個(gè)州進(jìn)行了涉及2009年種植了RR 2 Yield轉(zhuǎn)基因大豆的20位農(nóng)場經(jīng)理的一項(xiàng)研究，他們的結(jié)論，新的品種“未能夠滿足他們（對產(chǎn)量）的期望”。[149] 2010年6月，美國西佛吉尼亞州對孟山都公司聲稱新一代RR 2 Yield抗草甘膦大豆具有更高產(chǎn)量的作假廣告內(nèi)容開展法律調(diào)查。[150]

A possible explanation for the lower yields of GMRR soy is that the transgenic modification alters the plant’sphysiology so that it takes up nutrients less effectively. Onestudy found that GM RR soy takes up the important plant nutrientmanganese less efficiently than non-GM soy. [151] Another possibility is that the glyphosate usedwith GM RR soy is responsible for the yield decrease, as it reducesnutrient uptake in plants and makes them more susceptible todisease. A third possibility is that the new added biologicalfunction that enables the GM soy to resist glyphosate involvesadditional energy consumption by the plant. As a result, lessenergy could be left over for grain formation and maturity. Thegenetic engineering process permitted a new function, but nevermade available additional energy.

對抗草甘膦除草劑大豆較低產(chǎn)量的可能的解釋是，轉(zhuǎn)基因改造改變了作物的生理學(xué)使它低效吸收養(yǎng)分。一項(xiàng)研究發(fā)現(xiàn)，抗草甘膦除草劑大豆比非轉(zhuǎn)基因大豆較低效吸收錳這個(gè)重要作物養(yǎng)分。[151] 另外一種可能性是，與抗草甘膦除草劑大豆一起使用的草甘膦除草劑對產(chǎn)量降低有責(zé)任，因?yàn)樗鼫p少作物的養(yǎng)分吸收從而使它們對病害更為脆弱。第三項(xiàng)可能性是，增加了的允許轉(zhuǎn)基因大豆抵抗草甘膦的額外生物功能對作物涉及消耗額外的能量。作為結(jié)果，剩余較少的能量用于谷粒與成熟?；蚬こ踢^程允許了新的功能，但是沒有創(chuàng)造額外的能量。

A US Department of Agriculture report confirms thepoor yield performance of GM crops, saying, “GE crops available forcommercial use do not increase the yield potential of a variety. Infact, yield may even decrease.... Perhaps the biggest issue raisedby these results is how to explain the rapid adoption of GE cropswhen farm financial impacts appear to be mixed or evennegative.” [152]

美國農(nóng)業(yè)部的一個(gè)報(bào)告確認(rèn)了轉(zhuǎn)基因大豆作物低劣的產(chǎn)量表現(xiàn)，該報(bào)告說，“適合于商業(yè)使用的轉(zhuǎn)基因作物并不增加一個(gè)品種的產(chǎn)量潛力，產(chǎn)量甚至可能降低……也許這些結(jié)果提出的最大問題是如何解釋轉(zhuǎn)基因作物快速的應(yīng)用，而農(nóng)場財(cái)務(wù)影響顯示混合或甚至負(fù)面。”[152]

The failure of GM to increase yield potential isemphasised in 2008 by the United Nations IAASTD report on thefuture of farming. [153] This report, authored by 400 internationalscientists and backed by 58 governments, says that yields of GMcrops are “highly variable” and in some cases, “yields declined”.The report notes, “Assessment of the technology lags behind itsdevelopment, information is anecdotal and contradictory, anduncertainty about possible benefits and damage isunavoidable.”

2008年，聯(lián)合國的IAASTD關(guān)于未來農(nóng)業(yè)的報(bào)告強(qiáng)調(diào)了轉(zhuǎn)基因未能夠?qū)崿F(xiàn)增加產(chǎn)量潛力的失敗。[153]獲得58個(gè)國家政府支持的400位國際科學(xué)家為作者的該報(bào)告說，轉(zhuǎn)基因作物的產(chǎn)量“高度不同”而且在某些情況下“產(chǎn)量下降”。報(bào)告表明，“對該項(xiàng)技術(shù)的評估落在它的發(fā)展的后面，信息趣聞多而相互矛盾，對可能的益處沒有把握以及損害是不可避免的?！?/strong>

The definitive study to date on GM crops and yieldis “Failure to yield: Evaluating the performance of geneticallyengineered crops”, [154] by former US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)scientist, Dr Doug Gurian-Sherman. It uses data frompublished,peer-reviewed studies with well-designed experimentalcontrols. The studydistinguishes between intrinsic yield (also called potentialyield), defined as the highest yield which can be achieved underideal conditions, and operational yield, the final yield achievedunder normal field conditions when crop losses due to pests,drought, or other environmental stresses are factoredin.

對轉(zhuǎn)基因作物與產(chǎn)量到目前為止的決定性研究是美國環(huán)境保護(hù)局（EPA）前任科學(xué)家Doug Gurian-Sherman博士的“未能實(shí)現(xiàn)的產(chǎn)量：評價(jià)基因工程作物的表現(xiàn)”。[154] 它使用的數(shù)據(jù)來自公開發(fā)表的經(jīng)同行審查的良好涉及的試驗(yàn)對照。該項(xiàng)研究識別了本質(zhì)產(chǎn)量（也稱為潛在產(chǎn)量），界定為在理想條件下能夠?qū)崿F(xiàn)的最高產(chǎn)量；以及操作產(chǎn)量，即正常農(nóng)田條件下蟲害、干旱或其他環(huán)境影響因素涉及在內(nèi)的最終產(chǎn)量。

The study also separates out effects on yieldcaused by conventional breeding methods and those caused by GMtraits. It has become common for biotech companies to useconventional breeding and marker assisted breeding to producehigher-yielding crops and to engineer in their own patented genesfor herbicide tolerance or insect resistance. In such cases, higheryields are not due to genetic engineering but to conventionalbreeding. “Failure to yield” teases out these distinctions andanalyzes the contributions made by genetic engineering andconventional breeding to increasing yield.

該項(xiàng)研究同時(shí)分開了傳統(tǒng)繁育方法對產(chǎn)量的影響與轉(zhuǎn)基因特征對產(chǎn)量造成的影響。生物技術(shù)公司普遍利用常規(guī)育種和分子標(biāo)記輔助育種來實(shí)現(xiàn)更高的產(chǎn)量作物，并且將這些包括在自己的耐除草劑或抗蟲基因?qū)＠?/b>中。在這種情況下，更高的產(chǎn)量不是由于基因工程而是由于傳統(tǒng)繁殖?！?/b>未能實(shí)現(xiàn)的產(chǎn)量”梳理出這些區(qū)別并且分析了基因工程的貢獻(xiàn)與傳統(tǒng)繁殖對增加產(chǎn)量的貢獻(xiàn)。

The study concludes that GM herbicide-resistantsoybeans have not increased yields. It further concludes that GMcrops in general “have made no inroads so far into raising theintrinsic or potential yield of any crop. By contrast, traditionalbreeding has been spectacularly successful in this regard; it canbe solely credited with the intrinsic yield increases in the UnitedStates and other parts of the world that characterized theagriculture of the twentieth century.”

該項(xiàng)研究結(jié)論，轉(zhuǎn)基因抗除草劑大豆并沒有增加產(chǎn)量。它進(jìn)一步結(jié)論，轉(zhuǎn)基因作物一般來說“沒有開辟任何一種作物提高本質(zhì)或者潛在產(chǎn)量的進(jìn)展。與此相反，傳統(tǒng)繁殖在這一方面尤其有效；成為20世紀(jì)農(nóng)業(yè)特征的美國以及世界其他地方本質(zhì)產(chǎn)量的增加可以獨(dú)一無二地歸功于它（傳統(tǒng)繁殖）。

The author comments, “If we are going to makeheadway in combating hunger due to overpopulation and climatechange, we will need to increase crop yields. Traditional breedingoutperforms genetic engineering hands down.” [155]

作者的看法，“如果我們要戰(zhàn)勝人口過多與氣候變化導(dǎo)致的饑餓，我們需要增加作物產(chǎn)量。傳統(tǒng)繁殖勝過基因工程看似容易的結(jié)果。”[155]

References

參考文獻(xiàn)：

[145] Benbrook C. 1999. Evidence of the magnitude andconsequences of the Roundup Ready soybean yield drag fromuniversity-based varietal trials in 1998. Ag BioTech InfoNetTechnical Paper No 1, Jul 13.

[145] Benbrook C. 1999。1988年進(jìn)行的以大學(xué)為基礎(chǔ)不同品種抗草甘膦除草劑大豆試驗(yàn)產(chǎn)量低的證據(jù)與后果。農(nóng)業(yè)生物技術(shù)網(wǎng)技術(shù)論文第1號，7月13日。

http://www.mindfully.org/GE/RRS-Yield-Drag.htm

[146] Elmore R.W., Roeth, F.W., Nelson, L.A., Shapiro,C.A., Klein, R.N., Knezevic,S.Z., Martin, A. 2001. Glyphosate-resistant soyabeancultivar yields compared with sister lines. Agronomy Journal 93,408–412. 2001。

[146] Elmore R.W., Roeth, F.W., Nelson, L.A., Shapiro,C.A., Klein, R.N., Knezevic,S.Z., Martin, A.2001.抗草甘膦除草劑大豆栽培品種與姊妹系比較的產(chǎn)量。園藝學(xué)雜志，93，408-412.

[147] Qaim, M. and G. Traxler. 2005. Roundup Readysoybeans in Argentina: farm level and aggregate welfareeffects. Agricultural Economics 32, 73–86.

[147] Qaim, M. and G. Traxler. 2005。在阿根廷的抗草甘膦除草劑大豆：農(nóng)場層次與聚集福利影響。農(nóng)業(yè)經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)，32，73-86。

[148] FARSUL. 2009. Divulgados resultados do Programa deAvaliação de Cultivares de Soja (Published results of the Program Evaluation ofsoybean cultivars). 17/06/2009.

[148] FARSUL. 2009。對大豆栽培品種計(jì)劃評價(jià)的公布結(jié)果，17/06/2009。

http://www.farsul.org.br/pg_informes.php?id_noticia=870

[149] Kaskey, J. 2009. Monsanto facing “distrust” as itseeks to stop DuPont. Bloomberg, November 11.

[149] Kaskey, J. 2009。孟山都公司面臨“不信任”隨著它尋求終止杜邦。Bloomberg，11月11日。

[150] Gillam, C. 2010. Virginia probing Monsanto soybeanseed pricing. WestVirginia investigatingMonsanto for consumer fraud. Reuters, June25.

[150] Gillam, C. 2010。維吉尼亞深入調(diào)查孟山都公司大豆種子的定價(jià)制度。西維吉尼亞州因欺詐消費(fèi)者調(diào)查孟山都公司。路透社，6月25日。

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2515475920100625

[151] Gordon, B., 2006. Manganese nutrition ofglyphosate resistant and conventional soybeans. Better Crops 91,April.

[151] Gordon, B., 2006?？共莞熟⒋蠖古c傳統(tǒng)大豆的錳養(yǎng)分。優(yōu)良作物，91，4月。

http://www.ipni.net/ppiweb/bcrops.nsf/$webindex/70ABDB50A75463F085257394001B157F/$file/07-4p12.pdf

[152] US Department of Agriculture. 2002. The adoptionof bioengineered crops.

[152] 美國農(nóng)業(yè)部，2002。生物工程作物的應(yīng)用。

http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/aer810/aer810.pdf

[153] Beintema, N. et al. 2008. International Assessmentof Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development:Global Summary for Decision Makers (IAASTD).

[153] Beintema, N. et al. 2008。對農(nóng)業(yè)知識、科學(xué)與技術(shù)發(fā)展的國際評估：供決策者的全球概述（IAASTD）。

http://www.agassessment.org/index.cfm?Page=IAASTDReports&ItemID=2713

[154] Gurian-Sherman, D. 2009. Failure to yield:Evaluating the performance of genetically engineered crops. Unionof Concerned Scientists.

[154] Gurian-Sherman, D. 2009。產(chǎn)量的失?。涸u價(jià)基因工程作物的表現(xiàn)，擔(dān)心的科學(xué)家聯(lián)盟。

http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/food_and_agriculture/failure-to-yield.pdf

[155] Gurian-Sherman, D. 2009. Press release, Union ofConcerned Scientists, April 14.

[155] Gurian-Sherman, D. 2009。未能實(shí)現(xiàn)的產(chǎn)量：評價(jià)基因工程作物的表現(xiàn)，有所擔(dān)心的科學(xué)家聯(lián)盟。

http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ge-fails-to-increase-yields-0219.html