注册 登录  
 加关注
   显示下一条  |  关闭
温馨提示!由于新浪微博认证机制调整,您的新浪微博帐号绑定已过期,请重新绑定!立即重新绑定新浪微博》  |  关闭

蒋高明的博客

中国科学院植物研究所研究员,从事植物生态学研究

 
 
 

日志

 
 
关于我

联合国教科文组织人与生物圈中国国家委员会副秘书长、中国科学院植物研究所首席研究员、博士生导师、山东省人民政府泰山学者、中国科学院研究生院教授、联合国教科文组织人与生物圈计划城市组委员、中国生态学会副秘书长、中国生物多样性保护基金会副秘书长、中国环境文化促进会理事、中国植物学会植物生态学专业委员会委员、北京植物学会常务理事、青年工作委员会主任、中国生态系统研究网络生物分中心学术委员、中国科学院植物研究所学位委员会委员、

网易考拉推荐

《科学》登出刘实对标示转基因食品的评论  

2012-11-03 19:34:00|  分类: 建言新农村 |  标签: |举报 |字号 订阅

  下载LOFTER 我的照片书  |

2012年11月2日《科学》发表了一篇题为“Scientists Spar Over Wisdom of California Ballot Effort to Require Labeling of Genetically Modified Foods”(科学家争论加州公投是否需要标示转基因食品)的新闻。就美国加州即将发生的公民投票决定是否标示转基因食品发表不同看法。该文提到AAAS(美国科学促进会)发表的关于转基因食品标示的声明。该声明声称“mandatory GM labeling is unnecessary and "can only serve to mislead and falsely alarm consumers." (强行标示转基因食品没必要而且只会产生误导和错误地吓唬消费者)”。该声明还声称“"the science is quite clear: crop improvement by the modern molecular techniques of biotechnology is safe."(科学清楚表明用现代分子技术改进的作物是安全的)”。

 

对此,刘实发表了如下评论被登在该新闻下

 

Shi V. Liu ·                                                       

I have read the AAAS statement and found it truly disgusting.

In normal market practice, manufactures would not only intentionally identify their products but also spend big money to advertise their identified products when they think their products are good and thus would be liked by the consumers. Thus, it does not make any sense to not label GM foods if they are truly good products. It is even craze for the manufactures of GM foods to waste money on preventing their "good" products being "proudly" identified.

If GM foods are really "safe" as claimed to be so the actual safety test results that can prove their safety of long-term consumption which is the reality the consumers will face.

AAAS's statement is arrogant considering the fact that the world-first long-term safety test has reported some health risks with eating a kind of GM corn. Even though people can criticize the deficiency of this study it nevertheless expose the lack of much needed tests to confirm the safety claim made for GM foods.

When the real safety assurance of GM foods is indeed lacking, please give people a freedom for making their own choice. To achieve this goal it is essential to label the GM foods as they are. Such labeling practice should bring manufacturers benefits if their GM foods are truly good because they can perform some studies to prove at least the lack of health risks associated with consuming their identifiable products.

So, label GM good please! It will serve even (such as the exposure research) science only the good things.

 

刘实评论的大意是:

我读了美国科学促进会的声明并发现它真恶心。

在正常的市场行为里,如果厂家觉得它的产品好并会被消费者喜欢,厂家一定会把它的产品标出并还愿意花钱为标出的产品做广告。因此,如果转基因食品真的是好,那不标示转基因食品就说不过去了。而转基因食品厂家花钱阻止将它们的好东西自豪地标出,那不是疯了吗?

如果转基因食品真像所称的那样安全,请出示安全试验的结果来证明消费者会面临的长期食用的安全。

考虑到世界第一个长期食用转基因玉米的试验已报告一些安全问题,美国科学促进会的声明就是傲慢了。人们可以批评该研究的缺陷,但它毕竟暴露了缺乏证明转基因食品安全的所需的试验。

而当这种真能证明转基因食品安全的保证还没有时,最好给消费者选择的自由。而要达到这一目的,标示转基因食品就是最基本的。

如果转基因食品真是好,这种标示应当给厂家带来利益。因为他们可通过一些研究来证明消费他们的有标记的转基因食品就是无害。

所以,请标示转基因食品!这将给(暴露研究)科学带来好处。

 

附:

http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/11/scientists-spar-over-wisdom-of-c.html?ref=hp Scientists Spar Over Wisdom of California Ballot Effort to Require Labeling of Genetically Modified Foods

by Meghna Sachdev on 2 November 2012, 5:00 PM | 0 Comments

On 6 November, California residents will vote on Proposition 37, which would require genetically modified (GM) food products sold in the state to carry special labels. Vote's result could have knock-on effects in the rest of the United States, and the initiative has been the subject of heated debate in recent months.

Some science groups, including the governing board of AAAS (publisher of ScienceInsider), have opposed the measure. Now, a group of 21 scientists led by Patricia Hunt of Washington State University is pushing back. Yesterday, they released a statement challenging the AAAS position, calling it "paternalistic" and "Orwellian."

The AAAS statement, released on 20 October, argued that mandatory GM labeling is unnecessary and "can only serve to mislead and falsely alarm consumers." As for the safety of GM food, the AAAS board wrote, "the science is quite clear: crop improvement by the modern molecular techniques of biotechnology is safe."

Critics of the AAAS position, however, say it "tramples the rights of consumers to make informed choices." Some consumers make purchasing decisions based on sustainability and farming practices, they argue, others want to eat "the food their forebears ate," and GM labeling may better allow them to make these decisions. AAAS also "ignores the broader life-cycle impacts" of genetically modified crops, write Hunt and her colleagues, in particular the safety of herbicides used to grow herbicide-resistant GM crops, and the potential spread of herbicide-resistance to other plants and weeds.

The 21 scientists also take issue with AAAS's assertion that "contrary to popular misconceptions, GM crops are the most extensively tested crops ever added to our food supply." AAAS, they write, "should have included the fact that the Food and Drug Administration's testing program is voluntary." The two groups appear to be emphasizing two different issues: The U.S. government does not require special testing for food products containing GM ingredients; the government does extensively regulate the introduction of new GM crop varieties.

Ultimately, the issue lies in the hands of California's voters. Recent polls suggest that support for Prop 37 is waning, with a slim majority indicating that they will vote against mandatory labeling.

 



本文引用地址:http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-475-628934.html
  评论这张
 
阅读(33)| 评论(0)
推荐 转载

历史上的今天

在LOFTER的更多文章

评论

<#--最新日志,群博日志--> <#--推荐日志--> <#--引用记录--> <#--博主推荐--> <#--随机阅读--> <#--首页推荐--> <#--历史上的今天--> <#--被推荐日志--> <#--上一篇,下一篇--> <#-- 热度 --> <#-- 网易新闻广告 --> <#--右边模块结构--> <#--评论模块结构--> <#--引用模块结构--> <#--博主发起的投票-->
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

页脚

网易公司版权所有 ©1997-2017