Stop Making Us Guinea Pigs

别再让我们做小白鼠了

The issues surrounding G.M.O.s — genetically modified organisms — have never been simple. They became more complicated last week when the International Agency for Research on Cancer declared that glyphosate, the active ingredient in the widely used herbicide Roundup, probably causes cancer in humans. Two insecticides, malathion and diazinon, were also classified as “probable” carcinogens by the agency, a respected arm of the World Health Organization.

关于转基因技术的问题向来都不简单。上周，这些问题变得更加复杂了，因为国际癌症研究机构(International Agency for Research on Cancer，简称IARC)宣布，广为使用的除草剂“农达”(Roundup)的有效成分草甘膦，可能会导致人类患上癌症。而马拉硫磷和二嗪磷这两种杀虫剂，也被世界卫生组织下辖的这个受人信赖的机构，列为“可能”的致癌物。

Roundup, made by Monsanto for both home and commercial use, is crucial in the production of genetically engineered corn and soybean crops, so it was notable that the verdict on its dangers came nearly simultaneously with an announcement by the Food and Drug Administration that new breeds of genetically engineered potato and apple are safe to eat. Which they probably are, as are the genetically engineered papayas we’ve been eating for some time. In fact, to date there’s little credible evidence that any food grown with genetic engineering techniques is dangerous to human health — unless, like much corn and soybeans, it’s turned into junk food. But, really, let’s be fair.

农达是孟山都(Monsanto)开发的家用及商用产品，也是转基因玉米和大豆作物生产的关键。所以值得注意的一件事是，在国际机构宣布农达具有危险性的几乎同时，美国食品与药品管理局(Food and Drug Administration，简称FDA)也宣布，新品种的转基因土豆和苹果可以安全食用。它们可能的确安全，就像我们已经吃过一段时间的转基因木瓜。事实上，迄今为止，几乎没有可信的证据表明任何转基因食物，对人类健康造成了危害——除非它们像大多数玉米和大豆一样，被制作成了垃圾食品。不过，说真的，我们要公平一点。

Fair, too, is a guess that few people are surprised that an herbicide in widespread use is probably toxic at high doses or with prolonged exposure, circumstances that may be common among farmers and farmworkers. Nor is it surprising that it took so long — Roundup has been used since the 1970s — to discover its likely carcinogenic properties. There is a sad history of us acting as guinea pigs for the novel chemicals that industry develops. For this we have all too often paid with our damaged health.

一种同样公平的猜想是，如果说一种广泛使用的除草剂，可能会在高剂量或长时间接触的情况下，对人体产生毒害，恐怕很少有人会对此感到吃惊。这正是农民和农场工人所处的情况。农达自上世纪70年代就开始使用了，花了这么久才发现它可能会致癌，当然也不会让人感到吃惊。还有我们为食品工业推出的新奇化学品充当小白鼠的辛酸历史，代价常常都是我们的健康受到损害。

Rarely is that damage instantaneous, but it’s safe to say that novel biotechnologies broadly deployed may well have unexpected consequences. Yet unlike Europeans, Canadians, Australians and others, we don’t subscribe to the precautionary principle, which maintains that it’s better to prevent damage than repair it.

这种损害基本上都不是立刻发生的，但是广泛施用新的生物技术很可能会有意想不到的后果，这样说并不为过。然而，和欧洲人、加拿大人、澳大利亚人以及其他人不同的是，我们并没有遵循“事前避免好过事后弥补”的防范原则。

We ask not whether a given chemical might cause cancer but whether we’re certain that it does. Since it’s unethical to test the effects of new chemicals and food additives on humans, we rely on the indirect expedient of extensive and expensive animal testing. But the job of the F.D.A. should be to guarantee a reasonable expectation of protection from danger, not to wait until people become sick before taking products off the market. (You might have thought that government’s job was to make sure products were safe before they were marketed. You’d have been wrong — Rezulin, thalidomide or phthalates, anyone?)

我们不是在问，某种特定的化学品是否可能致癌，而是在问我们能否肯定它的确致癌。由于对新的化学品和食品添加剂开展人体试验是不道德的，我们依靠大量成本高昂的动物试验，作为间接的权宜之计。但FDA应当满足公众不受危害的合理预期，而不是等到人们患病之后，才勒令产品退出市场。(你可能会以为，政府的工作是在产品上市前，确保它们的安全性。但你想错了——看看曲格列酮、沙利度胺或邻苯二甲酸盐的例子，还有什么可说?)

Even now, when it’s clear that more research must be done to determine to what degree glyphosate may be carcinogenic, it’s not clear whose responsibility it is to conduct that research. The public health agencies of other countries? Independent researchers who just happen to be interested in the causes of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, the cancer with which glyphosate is associated, according to the I.A.R.C.?

即使到了现在，情况已经很明显，必须开展更多的研究来确定草甘膦在多大程度上可能致癌，但该由谁来负责这项研究却仍不明确。其他国家的公共卫生机构吗?对非霍奇金淋巴瘤的成因碰巧感兴趣的独立研究者吗?IARC的资料显示，这种淋巴瘤与草甘膦有关。

Or — here’s an idea — how about Monsanto, which has made billions of dollars selling glyphosate and the associated seed technology. (The company produces crop seeds that are resistant to glyphosate, which can thus be freely sprayed onto fields, in theory killing all plants but the crop. This scheme isn’t working as well as it once did for weed control, because many weeds have become glyphosate-tolerant. But that’s another story.)

我有个点子——让孟山都来出资开展研究怎么样?它已经通过销售草甘膦及相关的种子技术，赚取了丰厚的利润。(该公司生产耐受草甘膦的农作物种子，理论上你可以大胆地把草甘膦喷洒在田间，除了作物之外，其他杂草都会被杀死。但这种控制杂草的方法效果已经大不如前，因为很多杂草也变得耐受草甘膦了。不过这是另外一个故事了。)

Now that the safety of glyphosate is clearly in question, perhaps it’s time to mandate that the corporation — not the taxpaying public — bear the brunt of determining whether it should still be sold. Since the Environmental Protection Agency doesn’t have the resources to test, let Monsanto pay for the necessary, and independent, research.

既然草甘膦的安全性显然受到了质疑，也许现在是时候强制该公司来承担研究费用——而不是使用公众缴纳的税款——来确定这种产品是否应该出售。由于美国国家环境保护局(Environmental Protection Agency，简称EPA)没有足够的资源来开展试验，那就让孟山都来买单，开展必要的独立研究吧。

While we’re at it, let’s finally start labeling products made with genetically engineered food. Right now, the only way we can be sure to avoid them is to buy organic food. If G.M.O.s were largely beneficial to eaters, manufacturers would proudly boast of products containing them. The fact is that they have not. To date, G.M.O.s and other forms of biotech have done nothing but enrich their manufacturers and promote a system of agriculture that’s neither sustainable nor for the most part beneficial.

既然说到这里，不如我们也终于开始在转基因粮食加工的产品上，如此明确标注吧。现在，我们真正可以避免它们的唯一方法，就是购买有机食品。如果转基因作物基本上有利于消费者，厂商自然会在产品的包装上自豪地夸耀。事实是，他们没有这么做。迄今为止，转基因和其他形式的生物技术，只是让生产厂商发了大财，并推广了一个既不可持续，也对大多数人无益的农业系统，除此之外没起到什么作用。

We don’t need better, smarter chemicals along with crops that can tolerate them; we need fewer chemicals. And it’s been adequately demonstrated that crop rotation, the use of organic fertilizers, interplanting of varieties of crops, and other ecologically informed techniques commonly grouped together under the term “agroecology” can effectively reduce the use of chemicals.

我们不需要更好、更聪明的化学品，以及耐受它们的作物;我们需要的是减少化学品的使用。而且事实已经充分证明，采用作物轮作、有机肥料、间作套种，以及通常用“生态农业”来形容的其他生态友好技术，可以有效地减少化学品的使用。