【編者按】本文是英國倫敦國王學院醫(yī)學與分子遺傳學系邁克爾•安東尼博士，從《中國日報》上了解到中國百名學者上書反對轉基因主糧商業(yè)化的消息后，懷著科學的良知和對人類前途的責任，從專業(yè)技術角度，援引了大量的科學研究的實證依據和權威性文件，論述了轉基因作物的風險、局限性以及更佳的替代方案。希望能夠為我們的政府和人民提供更多的事實和真相，以便做出正確的判斷。翻譯過程難免錯漏之處，故而將英文原文附在后面，讀者可自行甄別。下面楷體字附上邁克爾博士的信件正文部分。

親愛的XXX教授，

我懷著極大的興趣閱讀了標題為《學者們激烈反對轉基因證書》的文章，其出現在3月11日的《中國日報》上。

正如一些一直批評轉基因遺傳改造作物之價值、并強調它們現在已被證明是健康和環(huán)境之危險的人，我高興地看到一批知名學者反對在中國推出轉基因水稻。雖然我很理解中國政府關切于為了貴國龐大人口的糧食生產，但重要的是：他們意識到一種轉基因作物方法將會引起的危害遠遠超過其可提供的任何好處，以及滿足我們糧食生產需求的安全、可靠、天然的替代品已經存在。

……

若我可看到這份學者請愿書并且在你們的允許下把它傳閱給志同道合的朋友，這將是非常令人振奮的。

如果你們在宣傳活動中需要來自像我自己一樣持續(xù)批評轉基因作物的西方科學家的任何幫助，請隨時聯系我而不要猶豫。我附加了一份文件，我協(xié)助編制了這份文件，并希望它將對你們有所幫助。

謹以最良好的祝愿，祝你和你的家人在虎年健康、成功、幸福！

邁克爾

轉基因作物——僅僅是“科學”

研究證明其局限性、風險和替代物

GM CROPS – JUST THE SCIENCE

research documenting the limitations, risks, and alternatives

作者：邁克爾·安東尼 博士

Dr. Michael Antoniou

倫敦國王學院醫(yī)學院醫(yī)學與分子遺傳學系

King’s College London School of Medicine Department

of Medical and Molecular Genetics

翻譯：義成 莎莎 mountriver nicename

支持者聲稱轉基因（遺傳改造）作物（具有如下優(yōu)點）：

·安全且更有營養(yǎng)；

·有利于環(huán)境；

·減少除草劑與殺蟲劑的使用；

·提高作物產量，因此可幫助農民并可解決糧食危機；

·創(chuàng)造一個更加富裕、穩(wěn)定的經濟；

·只是一種自然育種的延伸，并且沒有與自然育種作物不同的任何風險。

然而，不斷壯大且越來越多的科學團體以及實地經驗顯示轉基因生物未能符合這些聲稱。相反，轉基因作物（具有以下弊端）：

• 有毒性，可引起過敏癥，或者比它們的自然相關物種更少營養(yǎng)；

• 能夠破壞生態(tài)系統(tǒng)，傷害脆弱的植物和野生動物種群，并且損害生物多樣性

• 從長期看，增加了（農藥、除草劑）化學品的投放；

• 與傳統(tǒng)作物相比，實現產量不是更好，而是往往更糟糕；

• 造成或加劇了社會和經濟問題的范圍；

• 是實驗室制造的，一旦被釋放，有害的轉基因生物不能被從環(huán)境中召回。

被科學證明的風險與明確的實際利益缺乏，已經使得專家們視轉基因技術為一種粗陋、過時的技術。鑒于有效供應、科學證明、能源效率以及滿足當今和未來的全球糧食需求的安全方式，我們不必蒙受它們呈現的風險。

本文介紹了關鍵的科學證據——114項研究和其他權威性文件——證明轉基因作物的局限性與風險，以及當前可用的許多更安全、更有效的替代品。

目錄

轉基因是一種自然的植物育種的延伸嗎？...

吃轉基因食品安全嗎？...

關于轉基因食品的動物研究引起關注...

家畜的飼養(yǎng)研究...

動物飼養(yǎng)研究突出了對人的潛在健康問題嗎？...

轉基因食品是否更有營養(yǎng)？...

轉基因食品可以幫助緩解世界糧食危機？...

轉基因作物是否有增產潛力？...

失敗的收益率...

非洲的三種轉基因作物...

轉基因甘薯...

轉基因木薯...

抗蟲棉（Bt棉）...

氣候變暖對農業(yè)的影響...

石油峰值和農業(yè)...

轉基因作物和氣候變暖...

特培作物的非轉基因研究成效...

轉基因作物是否環(huán)保？...

轉基因作物和除草劑...

殺蟲劑產生型的轉基因作物...

轉基因作物和野生動物...

阿根廷的例子...

轉基因作物和非目標性的昆蟲以及有機生物體...

轉基因和非轉基因作物能共存嗎...

對轉基因的替代...

有機生物農業(yè)和低投入耕作在非洲改進了產量...

有機和低投入的辦法在發(fā)展中國家增進農民的收入...

誰擁有高科技...

結論...

原文...

注釋：References.

轉基因是一種自然的植物育種的延伸嗎？

自然繁殖或育種只能發(fā)生于密切相關的生命體之間（貓與貓，而不是貓與狗；小麥與小麥，而不是小麥與番茄或魚）。就這樣，子代從親代繼承的攜帶生命體各部分信息的基因（群），以一種有序的方式一代一代傳下去。

轉基因不像自然的植物育種。轉基因用實驗室技術以插入人工改造的基因單元，重新規(guī)劃了植物DNA藍圖而使之帶有全新的屬性。這種過程在自然界從未發(fā)生過。通過加入來自多種生物包括病毒、細菌、植物和動物的DNA片段，人工改造的基因單元在實驗室中被創(chuàng)造出來。例如，在最常見的可耐受除草劑的大豆中的遺傳改造基因（轉基因），是用來自一種植物病毒、一種土壤細菌和一種矮牽牛植物的基因拼裝起來的。

植物的轉基因轉化過程是不成熟的、不精確的，并導致廣泛的突變，導致植物DNA藍圖的重大變化[1]。這些突變以非預期的和潛在危害的方式，非自然地改變了基因（群）的功能[2]，詳情見下文；不利影響包括作物生長情況較差、毒性作用、過敏反應以及對環(huán)境的破壞。

吃轉基因食品安全嗎？

與該行業(yè)者的宣稱相反，轉基因食品在被釋放銷售之前，其對人類的安全性沒有被適當地測試[3,4]。實際上，唯一發(fā)表的研究報告，其直接測試轉基因食品對人類的安全性，發(fā)現了潛在的問題[5]。到目前為止，這項研究并沒有跟進。

對于安全性質問的典型回答是，在美國和其他地區(qū)，人們已吃了轉基因食品超過10年而無不良影響，這證明這些產品是安全的。但轉基因食品在被廣泛食用的美國和其他國家，并沒有被標簽；其對消費者健康的影響并沒有被監(jiān)測。

正因為如此，來自轉基因食品對健康的任何影響，必須滿足不同尋常的條件才會被注意到。對健康的影響還必須是：

• 立即出現于食用一種已知是轉基因（盡管其不被標記）的食品之后，這種反應被稱作急性毒性。

• 引起完全不同于常見疾病的癥狀；如果轉基因食品造成了普通的或緩慢發(fā)作的象過敏或癌癥之類疾病的上升，則沒有人會知道是什么引起這樣的上升。

• 是肉眼可見的強烈而明顯；沒有人用顯微鏡去檢查個人身體組織的損害，在他們吃了轉基因食品之后。但是，需要這樣的檢查類型以便對諸如癌前變化等問題發(fā)出預警。

為了檢測對健康是重要卻更微妙的影響、或者需要時間來顯示的影響（慢性影響），對更大人口的長期、可控研究是必需的。

在目前情況下，轉基因食品對健康的溫和或緩慢發(fā)作的影響可能需要數十年才會廣為人知，正如反式脂肪（另一種人工食品類型）的危害作用經過幾十年才被認識。來自反式脂肪的“慢性毒藥“的影響，造成了世界各地數以百萬計人過早死亡[6]。

轉基因食品的任何有害影響將是緩慢浮出表面且不太明顯的另一個原因是因為，即使在轉基因作物消費歷史最悠久的美國，轉基因食品只占美國飲食的一小部分（玉米少于15％，大豆產品不到5％）。

然而，有跡象表明美國食品供應并非很好。由美國疾病控制中心提供的報告顯示，在1994年（就在轉基因食品商業(yè)化之前）至1999年的幾年中，與食物有關的疾病增加了2至10倍 [7]。是否與轉基因食品有關聯？沒有人知道，因為其對人類（健康影響）的研究還沒有完成。

關于轉基因食品的動物研究引起關注

雖然對人類的研究還沒有完成，但是科學家正在報導越來越多的檢測轉基因食品對實驗動物影響的研究。這些研究，總結如下，提出了關于轉基因食品對人以及動物的安全性的嚴重關切。

小動物飼養(yǎng)研究

• 被喂食轉基因西紅柿的大鼠產生了胃潰瘍[8]；

• 被喂食轉基因大豆的小鼠，其肝臟、胰腺、睪丸功能受到擾亂[9,10,11]；

• 轉基因豌豆給小鼠造成過敏反應[12]；

• 被喂食轉基因油菜的大鼠得了肝臟腫大，這往往是毒性標志[13]；

• 用轉基因馬鈴薯喂食大鼠造成其腸道內壁的過度增長，類似癌前狀態(tài)[14,15]；

• 被喂食可產生抗蟲成分轉基因玉米的大鼠生長很慢，遭受肝、腎功能問題折磨，并在其血液中顯示某些脂肪的更高水平[16]；

• 超過三代被喂食可產生抗蟲成分轉基因玉米的大鼠，遭受肝、腎傷害的折磨，并且出現了血液生化指標的變更[17]；

• 被喂食可產生抗蟲成分轉基因玉米的年老與年幼的小鼠，在免疫系統(tǒng)細胞群和生化活力方面出現了顯著的紊亂[18]；

• 超過四代被喂食可產生抗蟲成分轉基因玉米的小鼠，顯示出在各器官（肝、脾、胰腺）中異常結構變化的增加，重大變化在于其內臟中基因功能的模式，反映了這個器官系統(tǒng)的化學反應的紊亂（例如，在膽固醇制造，蛋白質制造和降解），以及最重要的，生育率下降[19]；

• 終生（24個月）被喂食轉基因大豆的小鼠在它們的肝臟中顯示更嚴重的衰老跡象[20]；

• 被喂食轉基因大豆的兔子表現出腎和心臟中酶功能的紊亂[21]。

家畜的飼養(yǎng)研究

家畜已被轉基因飼料喂養(yǎng)許多年。這是否意味著用于牲畜的轉基因飼料是安全的？當然，這意味著影響不是急性的并且不會馬上顯示出來。然而，旨在評估轉基因飼料緩慢發(fā)生、更微妙的對健康影響的長期研究，表明轉基因飼料（對家畜）確有不利影響，證實了上述實驗動物（呈現）的結果。

下面的問題已被發(fā)現：

• 超過三代被喂食可產生抗蟲成分轉基因Bt玉米的綿羊顯示母羊的消化系統(tǒng)功能紊亂而其羔羊的肝臟和胰腺功能紊亂[22]。

• 在轉基因飼料喂養(yǎng)的羊的消化道中，轉基因DNA被發(fā)現存在處理情況并被檢測到。這就提出了一個可能性，即抗生素耐藥性與Bt殺蟲基因可以進入腸道細菌[23]，一種已知的水平基因轉移。水平基因轉移能夠導致對抗生素有抗藥性的致病細菌（“超級細菌”）以及可能導致帶有潛在有害后果的Bt殺蟲成分在腸道中產生。多年來管理者和生物技術行業(yè)聲稱水平基因轉移不會發(fā)生于轉基因DNA；但這一研究挑戰(zhàn)了這種聲稱。

• 飼料中的轉基因DNA被動物的器官吸納。少量的轉基因DNA出現在人們食用的牛奶和肉類中[24,25,26]。（轉基因DNA）對動物與食用它們的人群的健康影響還沒有被研究。

動物飼養(yǎng)研究突出了對人的潛在健康問題嗎？

食品添加劑和新的藥物在做人體試驗之前，必須先在小鼠或大鼠身上測試。如果有害作用在這些初步的動物實驗中被發(fā)現，然后這樣的藥物很可能會被取消人用資格。只有當動物研究顯示沒有不良影響，該藥物才可以進一步對人類志愿者進行測試。

但在實驗動物中引起不良影響的轉基因作物已在許多國家被批準商業(yè)化。這表明，與新藥相比，更不嚴格的標準被用來評價轉基因作物的安全性。

事實上，至少在一個國家――美國――轉基因生物的安全評價是自愿的，而不是由法律規(guī)定；不過，迄今為止，所有轉基因生物已自愿接受審查。在幾乎所有國家，安全評估并不科學嚴謹。例如，被轉基因作物開發(fā)人員通常進行展示其產品安全性的動物飼養(yǎng)研究，就是持續(xù)時間太短且使用科目太少以至于無法可靠地檢測到重要的有害影響[27]。

雖然該行業(yè)對其自己的轉基因產品進行不嚴謹的研究[28]，但與此并行，是系統(tǒng)且持續(xù)地妨礙著獨立科學家對轉基因生物進行更嚴格和深入的獨立研究的能力。關于轉基因生物的比較和基本農藝研究，安全和組成的評估，環(huán)境影響的評估，都受到生物技術工業(yè)的限制和壓制[29,30]。

與合同相聯系的專利授權被用于限制獨立研究人員使用商業(yè)化轉基因種子。對已被授予專利的轉基因作物的研究許可或被隱瞞或難以獲取，以至于研究被有效阻止。在（研究）許可被最終給予的情況下，生物技術公司持有權力阻止出版物，導致許多重大研究永遠無法被發(fā)表[31,32]。

該業(yè)界和其同盟也使用廣泛的公共關系戰(zhàn)略，以抹黑和/或鉗制那些發(fā)表對轉基因持批評研究的科學家[33]。

轉基因食品是否更有營養(yǎng)？

商業(yè)化的轉基因改良食品沒有營養(yǎng)價值。目前，現有的轉基因食品并沒有更好的營養(yǎng)價值，在某些情況下還低于天然食品的營養(yǎng)。有些轉基因食品在測試中被證明有毒性或過敏反應。

這些例子包括：

·轉基因大豆的抗癌異黃酮含量比非轉基因大豆低12-14％[34]

·經過基因改造含有維生素A的油菜大大減少了維生素E在油脂中的含量，并且改變了油脂成分[35]

·人類志愿者試吃轉基因大豆豆粕表明，轉基因的DNA在加工過程中能夠生存，并在消化道中可以檢測到。有證據表明基因橫向轉移到了腸道細菌中。[36 37]抗生素耐藥性的基因橫向轉移和通過轉基因食品進入腸道細菌的Bt殺蟲基因是一個極其嚴重的問題。這是因為經過基因改造后的腸道細菌能對抗生素產生抗藥性，或成為Bt殺蟲劑工廠。雖然Bt的自然形態(tài)已被安全地作為農業(yè)殺蟲劑使用多年，轉基因的Bt毒素已進入農作物，在實驗室動物試驗中被發(fā)現對健康有潛在的不良影響[38 39 40]

·在80年代后期，使用轉基因細菌生產的補充食品含有毒素41，最初造成37個美國人死亡，然后使超過5000名美國人患了重病。

·幾種試驗性轉基因食品（非商業(yè)化的）被發(fā)現有害：

·對巴西堅果過敏的人對由巴西堅果基因改造過的大豆也有過敏反應42

·基因改造過程本身可能導致有害的影響。轉基因馬鈴薯引起多個器官系統(tǒng)的毒性反應。[43 44]轉基因豌豆引起了2倍的過敏反應 - 轉基因蛋白有過敏性，刺激對其它食品成分的過敏反應。[45]這就提出了一個問題，轉基因食品是否會導致增加對其它物質的過敏。

轉基因食品可以幫助緩解世界糧食危機？

饑餓的根源不是缺乏食物，而是缺少獲得食物的途徑。窮人沒有錢購買食物，并且越來越沒有土地種植食物。饑餓基本上是社會、政治和經濟的問題，這是轉基因技術不能處理的。

由世界銀行和聯合國糧食和農業(yè)組織最近的報告發(fā)現，生物燃料熱潮是當前糧食危機的主要原因。[46 47 ]但轉基因作物生產商和經銷商繼續(xù)推動生物燃料的擴張。這表明，他們的首要工作是賺錢，而不是養(yǎng)活世界。

轉基因公司專注于生產經濟作物，用作動物飼料和在富裕國家用作生物燃料，而不是為人們生產糧食。

轉基因作物促進工業(yè)農業(yè)在世界各地擴張并削弱了小農經濟。這是一個問題嚴重的發(fā)展，有大量證據顯示，小農場比大農場更有效率，每公頃土地能生產更多的作物。[48 49 50 51 52]

“氣候災害被用來推動生物機動車能源，但卻造就了糧食災難，現在糧食災難被用來啟動轉基因工業(yè)的財運”。丹尼•侯頓，英國獨立日報非洲記者，2008年。[53]

轉基因作物是否有增產潛力？

充其量，轉基因作物的表現并不比其非轉基因的同類作物更好，近十年來轉基因大豆產量一直在下降。[54]受到控制的轉基因/非轉基因大豆實地比較試驗表明，50％的收益率下降是由轉基因改造過程對基因的破壞性影響造成的。同樣，實地測試Bt殺蟲劑生產雜交玉米表明，它們需要較長的時間達到成熟階段，并且產量比非轉基因的同類作物的下降程度達12％。[56]

一份美國農業(yè)部報告證實了轉基因作物的產量表現不佳，報告稱，“用于商業(yè)用途的轉基因作物不增加作物品種的產量潛力。事實上，產量甚至可能下降....或許，這些結果所提出的最大問題是：在農業(yè)金融上看來似乎有混合的甚至是負面的影響時，如何解釋轉基因作物的迅速普及”。[57]

聯合國農業(yè)知識、科學和技術促進發(fā)展國際評估（IAASTD）報告[58]在2008年強調，基因改造不增加產量的潛力。這份關于農業(yè)未來的報告，由400名科學家撰寫，并得到58個政府的支持，該報告指出，轉基因農作物的產量“充滿變數”，并在某些情況下 “產量下降”。報告同時指出，“該技術的評估滯后于其發(fā)展，信息傳聞矛盾，以及可能帶來的利益和損害的不確定性是不可避免的。”

失敗的收益率

最終的研究確定，轉基因作物和產量是“失敗的收益率：轉基因作物性能評估”。研究結果在2009年發(fā)表，作者是前美國環(huán)保署和食品安全中心的科學家，道格里安·謝爾曼醫(yī)生。研究是根據公開的信息，由學術科學家進行同行評審，并采用充分的實驗控制進行的。

在這項研究中，格里安-謝爾曼醫(yī)生區(qū)分了內在收益率（也稱為潛在的收益率）與業(yè)務收益率，內在收益率定義為理想的條件下可達到的最高產量，業(yè)務收益率是農民由于蟲害，干旱，或其它環(huán)境壓力因素下，減少種植，在正常現場條件下實現的收益率。

這項研究還區(qū)分傳統(tǒng)育種方法所造成的產量影響和的基因性狀造成的產量影響。生物科技公司利用常規(guī)育種和分子標記輔助育種，生產更高產的作物，最后以基因工程改造為耐除草劑或抗蟲基因已成為常見的現象。在這種情況下，更高的產量不是由于基因工程而是由傳統(tǒng)的育種方法獲得的。 “失敗的收益率” 梳理出這些區(qū)別并分析了基因工程和常規(guī)育種對增產作出的不同貢獻。

根據對玉米和大豆，這兩個最普遍種植的美國轉基因農作物的研究得出結論認為，基因工程抗除草劑大豆和抗除草劑玉米并沒有增加產量。同時，抗蟲玉米產量的提高很小。對過去13年兩種作物產量的增加，報告認為，主要是由于傳統(tǒng)的農業(yè)育種或改善措施取得的。

作者得出結論：“在提高作物的內在或潛在的收益率方面，商業(yè)基因作物至今沒有任何進展。相比之下，傳統(tǒng)的育種在這方面十分成功；它可以完全歸功于在美國和世界其它地區(qū)的內在增產，這是20世紀農業(yè)的特點。”[59]

這項研究的批評人士持反對意見，認為它不使用來自發(fā)展中國家的數據。憂思科學家聯盟回應說，評價在發(fā)展中國家轉基因作物對產量的貢獻，同行評審的論文很少– 這不足以得出明確和可靠的結論。然而，發(fā)展中國家最廣泛種植的食品/飼料作物，耐除草劑大豆，提供了一些線索。來自阿根廷的數據表明，阿根廷轉基因大豆的種植增長超過了任何其它發(fā)展中國家，這意味著轉基因品種的產量與傳統(tǒng)的非轉基因大豆相同，或比傳統(tǒng)的非轉基因大豆低。[60]

 “如果我們要戰(zhàn)勝由于人口過剩和氣候變化導致的饑餓，我們將需要增加作物產量，”古里安-謝爾曼博士說， “傳統(tǒng)的育種優(yōu)于基因工程。” [61]

如果轉基因工程在富裕的美國無法提高內在的（潛在）收益率，在那里高投入的、灌溉的、得到大量補貼的農業(yè)是一種傳統(tǒng)，那么，假定它將在發(fā)展中世界提高產量似乎不負責任的，在這些地區(qū)最需要的是增加糧食生產。

促進發(fā)展中世界的轉基因作物計劃是試驗性的，而且似乎存在著與西方獲得的數據不一致的期望。

在西方，糧食歉收，往往由政府包銷，這種做法對農民給予補償。這種支持系統(tǒng)在發(fā)展中世界是罕見的。在那些地區(qū)，農民可能確確實實在農場上下注，他們的整個生活依賴于作物，歉收會產生嚴重的后果。

非洲的三種轉基因作物

轉基因甘薯

該抗病毒甘薯一直是非洲的基本轉基因展示項目，引發(fā)了大量的全球媒體報道。負責該項目的弗洛倫斯·萬布古，孟山都訓練有素的科學家，已被媒體報道為非洲女英雄和數以百萬計人的救世主，根據她的宣稱，轉基因馬鈴薯在肯尼亞的產量翻了一番。福布斯雜志甚至宣稱，她是全球各地將“徹底改觀”未來的極少數人中的一個。[62]然而，最后發(fā)現，這項關于轉基因甘薯的宣稱是不真實的，田間試驗結果顯示，轉基因農作物是失敗的。[63 64]

在與未經證實的轉基因甘薯品種相反，在烏干達一個成功的常規(guī)育種項目產生了新的高產抗病毒品種，并“提高了約100％的收益率”。在短短的幾年間，烏干達項目以低成本取得成功。相反，轉基因甘薯在超過12年的時間里，消耗了孟山都、世界銀行和美國國際開發(fā)署6百萬美元的資金。[65]

轉基因木薯

木薯是非洲最重要的食物來源，從20世紀90年代中期開始，非洲開始大力宣傳基因工程的前景，通過對抗木薯中的某種致命性病毒而實現大規(guī)模增產。甚至有種說法認為利用轉基因技術使木薯產量提高10倍就能解決非洲的溫飽問題。[66]  但這項技術成果寥寥。即使轉基因木薯已經明顯遇到技術障礙時[67]，當地媒體仍繼續(xù)報道這項技術會如何解決非洲人民的吃飯問題。[68 69]  同時，非轉基因木薯中已經悄然出現抗病毒植株，即使在干旱條件下這種木薯仍顯著增產。[70]

抗蟲棉（Bt棉）

南非的馬卡哈西尼平原地區(qū)被稱為抗蟲棉小規(guī)模種植的示范基地，1998年種植了10萬畝抗蟲棉。2002年，這10萬畝棉田只剩下22500畝，四年中減少了80%。2004年，85%種植抗蟲棉的農戶放棄了這種轉基因棉花，因為棉田出現了蟲害問題，而產量并未增加。繼續(xù)種植抗蟲棉的農戶蒙受著經濟損失，僅靠南非政府的經濟補貼和政府扶植的市場勉強維持。[71]

刊登在《作物保護》上的一項研究表明：“馬卡哈西尼平原地區(qū)種植的抗蟲棉并未像預期那樣帶來實實在在的可持續(xù)的社會經濟效益，原因在于作物的管理方法有問題。只有在高度集中的土壤系統(tǒng)中種植抗蟲棉才能帶來收益。”[72]

氣候變暖對農業(yè)的影響

工業(yè)化農業(yè)是全球變暖的一大成因，它所排放的溫室氣體高達總量的20%，而某些增產方式更會加劇農業(yè)對環(huán)境的負面影響。例如，實現本質上增產往往需要施加更多用化石燃料制成的氮肥，一些氮肥由土壤微生物轉化成一氧化二氮，這種溫室氣體的產生的溫室效應約是二氧化碳的300倍。要想最大限度地減少全球農業(yè)對氣候的影響，必須投資建設對工業(yè)肥料依賴性小的農業(yè)體系，按照農業(yè)生態(tài)學的原則提高土壤的保墑能力和恢復力。

轉基因種子是由農用化學制品公司提供的，很大程度上依賴高昂的額外投入實現產值，如化肥，除草劑，殺蟲劑。在氣候變暖條件下推行轉基因作物是一種危害生態(tài)的危險行為。

石油峰值和農業(yè)

一些分析員認為，目前石油峰值（即全球石油開采比率的最大值）已經出現。這將會對農業(yè)的發(fā)展模式造成巨大的影響。種植轉基因作物必須輔以人工除草劑和化肥。合成殺蟲劑的原料是石油，合成肥料制造使用天然氣，而目前石油和天然氣這兩種化石燃料儲量銳減。同樣，化肥中的另一大原料，磷酸鹽，也日益稀缺。

因此，基于美國轉基因和化學性作物（依賴于化石燃料投入）的農業(yè)，其代價將日益高昂，前景堪憂。這在以下數據中可見一斑：

美國的食物系統(tǒng)中，每生產一千卡路里食物需要消耗一萬卡路里的化石能源。[73]

·美國每年種植業(yè)和畜牧業(yè)需要消耗約7.2夸特（能源單位，1夸特相當于18000萬桶石油的熱能）化石能源。 [74 75]

·每公頃玉米和同類作物的生產平均需要消耗大約80億卡路里（能源）。[76]

·種植業(yè)所消耗的能源的三分之二是用于化肥和農械。[77]

為了減少農業(yè)中的化石能源消耗，當前可用的手段包括減少化肥用量，選用合適的農械，土壤保持管理，節(jié)約灌溉，以及推行有機農業(yè)技術。[78]

在羅戴爾公司的耕作系統(tǒng)試驗(FST)中，康奈爾大學的大衛(wèi)·皮門特爾教授做了一項能源投入的比較分析，結果表明：有機耕作系統(tǒng)的能耗僅為傳統(tǒng)耕作系統(tǒng)能耗的63%，主要原因在于傳統(tǒng)耕作系統(tǒng)中使用的氮肥和除草劑需要消耗大量的能源。[79]

研究表明，低投入的有機耕作試點在非洲國家中成效顯著。埃塞俄比亞的提格雷州在聯合國糧農組織(FAO)的部分資助下推行了有機耕作試點工程，對使用堆肥和使用化肥的農田在六年中的產量進行了對比。對比結果顯示，堆肥完全可以取代化肥，并且使用堆肥的農田平均可以增產30%以上。此外，農戶發(fā)現，堆肥供給的作物更易抵抗病蟲害和抑制頑固性雜草生長。[80]

轉基因作物和氣候變暖

氣候變暖會引發(fā)突然的、極端的、不可預測的天氣變化。為了人類的生存，必須盡可能保證農田的靈活性、恢復能力以及多樣性。而轉基因技術恰恰相反，它與作物多樣性的原則背道而馳，而在靈活性方面更是需要數年的時間和幾百萬美元的投入來開發(fā)新品種。

每一種轉基因作物都是針對特定的小環(huán)境“量身定制”。隨著氣候變暖，無法估計會出現怎樣的土壤條件，而特殊的土壤又會在哪里形成。面對這種破壞性的氣候變暖，最好的應對策略是種植多種具有遺傳多樣性的高產作物。

轉基因產品公司擁有各項已申請專利的作物基因，聲稱能對抗某一種不利環(huán)境，如干旱，炎熱，洪水和高鹽環(huán)境。但這些公司卻不能利用專利基因培育出同時擁有上述優(yōu)點的作物新品種，因為這些功能的實現極為復雜，需要不同的基因準確而協(xié)調地合作。而現有的轉基因技術并不能構造出如此精密的、高度協(xié)調的基因網絡來提高作物的抵抗力。

相反，傳統(tǒng)的自然雜交屬于整體作業(yè)，利用抗干旱、耐熱、抗洪水和高鹽分的普通作物進行基因整合，更有利于實現這一目的。

另外，植物育種領域依靠標記輔助選擇技術也取得了進步。標記輔助選擇，即MAS，是一項基本上被認可的生物技術，通過識別出重要的相關基因來加快自然育種的速度。而且標記輔助選擇不涉及基因工程中的危險性和不確定因素。

涉及基因專利問題的MAS技術存在爭議。MAS作物的專利權對于發(fā)展中國家而言意義非同一般。

特培作物的非轉基因研究成效

如果說特培作物更能適應氣候變暖，那么還有比基因工程更好的方式來培育這些作物品種。傳統(tǒng)育種和標記輔助選擇在這方面的優(yōu)勢不勝枚舉，盡管相比于沸沸揚揚的轉基因神話它們的優(yōu)勢鮮為人知。

長莖水稻就是非轉基因技術的一項成果。這種水稻的莖比普通水稻要長，從而避免植株被洪水淹沒。[81]基因工程作為一種研究手段用于識別目的基因，而只有在標記輔助選擇技術的指導下，依靠傳統(tǒng)育種才能培育出長莖水稻這種百分之百非轉基因的作物品種。這很好地體現了包括轉基因技術在內的一系列生物技術，通過與傳統(tǒng)育種過程完美結合，能滿足當前對作物新品種的高端需求。

轉基因作物是否環(huán)保？

市場上占主導地位的轉基因作物有兩類:

·能抵抗全效除草劑（如美國的農達牌除草劑）的作物：這種作物可以減少噴灑除草劑的次數并且不會被除草劑殺死

·能生成殺蟲劑中蘇云金桿菌毒蛋白的作物：種植這種作物可減少化學殺蟲劑的噴灑量

然而，上述兩種說法都有待進一步分析。

轉基因作物和除草劑

最普遍的抗殺蟲劑型轉基因作物對農達牌除草劑具有抗藥性。但是隨著農達牌除草劑的廣泛使用，出現了無數種對這種除草劑免疫的雜草，[82]如藜[83]，黑麥草[84]和抗草甘膦杉葉藻[85]等。美國剛引進轉基因作物時，一般除草劑的用量開始下降，而出現抗藥性雜草之后，除草劑重新升溫。[86 87 ]農民不得不改變耕作習慣來對付這些抗藥性雜草，瘋狂加大農達的用量。并且市場上開始流行更強效的混合除草劑，而不僅限于農達。[88 89]

這些化學制劑都有毒性，危害到噴藥的農民和食用染毒植物的人和牲畜。農達也不例外。事實證明，農達除草劑在殺傷植物細胞方面的毒性類似于抗藥性轉基因作物的細胞所遭受的破壞力。[90]

加拿大政府在2001年的一項研究表明，抗藥性轉基因油菜在商業(yè)化種植僅僅4-5年之后，通過交叉授粉已經導致了頑固性雜草的出現，這種雜草對三種不同的全效除草劑均有抗藥性，成為困擾農民的一大問題，并波及相鄰農田的主人。[91 92 93]

另有發(fā)現表明，轉基因油菜能和其它植物（如野芥子和野蘿卜）交叉授粉并把抗藥性基因遺傳給這些植物。這樣一來，這些植物變種成頑固性雜草的可能性便會增加。[94]針對這一情況，業(yè)內的回應是增加除草劑的用量、使用復雜的混合除草劑[95 96]、培育能抵抗新型、混合型除草劑的作物。這種對策顯然會導致化學藥劑的惡性循環(huán)，難以讓人接受，尤其對發(fā)展中國家的農民而言更是如此。

殺蟲劑產生型的轉基因作物

殺蟲劑產生型的Bt轉基因作物已經顯示出能抵御害蟲，是加大了化學藥劑的應用的結果。[97 98 99]

在中國和印度，Bt轉基因棉花最初在消滅棉花象鼻蟲方面很有效。但是對第二代的害蟲，特別是像粉蚧科的介殼蟲是高度抵抗Bt毒素的，且迅速代替它的地位。農民們承受了大規(guī)模的作物減產，還不得不使用高成本的農藥，從而抹掉了他們的的利潤數字。[100 101 102 103]這樣的發(fā)展在發(fā)展中國家是對農民非常有損害性的，因為發(fā)展中國家承擔不起昂貴的投入。

那種聲稱Bt轉基因作物能減少殺蟲劑的使用的觀點是愚蠢的，因為Bt作物是自我殺蟲的。 法國科恩大學的吉爾斯•艾瑞克薩拉利尼說，Bt作物實際上是被設計出來要產生毒素來抵御害蟲的，Bt轉基因的茄子（茄子即紫色茄子）產生了大量的毒素，每公斤16-17毫克。它們能毒害動物，不幸的是，未能試驗來確定它們對人類的的影響效力。[104]

轉基因作物和野生動物

英國政府資助的農場層面農業(yè)方面的試驗表明，抵制除莠劑（阻礙植物生長的化學劑）的作物的生長（例如糖蘿卜、油菜籽油菜）可以消減野生物的種群數量。[105 106]

阿根廷的例子

在阿根廷，大量轉型農業(yè)的轉基因黃豆產品已經在農村社區(qū)和經濟結構方面發(fā)生了災難性的后果。它損害了食品安全并且引起了相當規(guī)模的環(huán)境問題，包括抵御除莠劑的雜草蔓延，土壤質量退化和害蟲增加以及作物疾病頻發(fā)。[107 108]

轉基因作物和非目標性的昆蟲以及有機生物體

Bt轉基因自生殺蟲劑作物傷害無關昆蟲群體，包括蝴蝶[109 110 111]和一些有益的撲食其他害蟲的益蟲。[112]從Bt轉基因作物中生發(fā)出來的殺蟲劑還會污染毒害水中生命[113]和土壤中的生物有機體[114]。有一項研究披露，Bt轉基因自生殺蟲劑作物對益蟲是有更加負面的打擊而不是正面的影響。[115]

轉基因和非轉基因作物能共存嗎

一些搞生物工程的人反駁說，如果農民愿意，他們應該有能力來選擇種植轉基因作物，他們的理由是轉基因作物和非轉基因作物是可以和平共處的。然而在北美的經驗已經表明，讓轉基因作物和非轉基因作物“共同存在”很快會導致非轉基因作物被大面積大規(guī)模的污染毒害。

這不僅對農業(yè)生態(tài)學方面有至關重要的影響，還對經濟產生嚴重影響。損害了原始有機農業(yè)農民們收取紅利的能力。也阻礙了國家間的出口市場發(fā)展，因為一些國家為防止基因污染有嚴格的進口規(guī)定。污染的發(fā)生通過植物之間的花粉傳播，通過農具上的轉基因種子播散，以及沒有間隔分離的混合存儲。轉基因作物進入一個國家就取消了選擇----每個人都會逐漸被迫培植轉基因作物或者漸漸污染他們的非轉基因作物。

這里就有一些轉基因污染事件的典型：

·在2006年，轉基因大米剛進行了一年的領域性試驗，就被發(fā)現造成了大面積美國大米供應源和種子苗木[116]污染。被污染的大米甚至出現在了遙遠的非洲，歐洲和美國中部。2007年三月路透社報道，美國出口大米的銷售量比上一年銳減百分之20，原因就在于轉基因污染。[117]

·在加拿大，污染的轉基因油菜使得從根本上不可能去栽培有機的非轉基因的油菜了。[118]

·美國法院推翻了對轉基因紫苜蓿的批準，因為它通過交叉花粉傳播威脅非轉基因苜蓿。[119]

·由于轉基因玉米產品以英畝為單位的增加種植，西班牙的有機玉米產品顯著下降，也是因為交叉花粉傳播問題造成的。[120]

·2009年，隨著廣泛散播的未經批準的轉基因變種所帶來的污染被發(fā)現，加拿大亞麻種子出口歐洲市場垮掉。[121]

·僅2007年，就有39例新出現的轉基因污染事件發(fā)生在23個國家，而從2005年以來，216起相關污染事件被報道。[122]

對轉基因的替代

許多權威機構，包括IAASTD關于農業(yè)前景123的報告，發(fā)現轉基因作物對全球農業(yè)的改善和對抗貧窮饑饉氣候變化幾乎沒什么貢獻，因為存在更好的替代。它們多種多樣可以列舉很多，包括整合害蟲管理，有機生物，有保障可持續(xù)的，低投入，非化學害蟲管理和農業(yè)生物農場，它們的擴展可以超越彼此的特別的領域界限。在發(fā)展中世界專門項目應用這些經過證實的戰(zhàn)略已經增加了相當的產量和糧食安全。[124 125 126 127 128 129]

這些戰(zhàn)略應用包括：

·有保障可持續(xù)的，低投入，節(jié)省能源的實踐，保持建設土壤，加強自然抗害蟲和作物的回彈力。

·創(chuàng)新農耕辦法，以減少和消除高成本的化學殺蟲和施肥。

·應用成千上萬種傳統(tǒng)農業(yè)中每種主糧作物，這些作物自然地適應了各種自然壓力例如干旱，燥熱，惡劣天氣條件，水澇，鹽堿地，貧瘠土壤，害蟲和疾病[130]

·應用現存的作物和它們的野生家族傳統(tǒng)的育種項目，以實用的試驗來發(fā)展多樣性

·傳播能使農民協(xié)作性地保持和改進的傳統(tǒng)種子

·應用現代生物學有益的和高尚的方面。例如標記輔助選擇，即用最新遺傳知識來加速傳統(tǒng)的繁殖。[131]不同于轉基因技術，標記輔助選擇可以安全地生產出新的多種作物，使之產生有價值地混雜嫁接體，提高營養(yǎng)，增加口感，提高產量，抵御害蟲和疾病，以及培養(yǎng)其耐旱耐熱，抗鹽堿抗?jié)车男阅堋132]

有機生物農業(yè)和低投入耕作在非洲改進了產量

好像沒有什么理由來拿著貧窮農民的身家性命來賭博，即非要迫使他們種植試驗性的轉基因作物，因為現成地存在試驗和嘗試性的廉價的做法來增加糧食產量。許多最近的研究表明，在非洲國家低投入做法如有機生物可以大幅度地提升產量，同時還帶來其他的益處。這樣的做法的優(yōu)勢是以相關知識為基礎，而不是以高投入為基礎。結果是它們比那些昂貴的高科技（過去也毫無補益）更容易被貧窮的農民接受。

2008年聯合國報告，“非洲的有機生物農業(yè)和糧食安全”，考察了在24個非洲國家。114組農業(yè)項目，發(fā)現有機的或者近似有機的實踐，引來產量的增加超過100%。在東部非洲，發(fā)現產量增加了128%。[133]進一步的研究表述：“這些研究中的證據支持了這樣的觀點，就是在非洲，有機農業(yè)比非有機的農產品系統(tǒng)可以更有助于糧食安全，在長遠上說，它也更會被人們所支持。[134]

有機和低投入的辦法在發(fā)展中國家增進農民的收入

對于糧食無保障來說貧窮是主要的實質性因素，根據2008年的聯合國報告，“非洲的有機農業(yè)和糧食安全”，有機農業(yè)耕作從多方面給予貧窮以正面的改善作用。農民主要收益于：

·現金儲蓄，因為有機耕作不要求高成本的化學殺蟲劑和化肥

·額外收入，來自于賣副產品（因為要改成有機耕作）

·對合格的有機產品的獎勵價格，最初在非洲取得用于出口，同時也在國內市場出售。

·通過各種加工活動在有機產品上附加價值

這些優(yōu)勢被非洲和拉丁美洲的研究所證實。結論是有機農業(yè)可以環(huán)保地友善地減少貧窮最近的研究表明，合格的有機農場參與了產品出口，比那些常規(guī)的產品（指農民的凈收入）更可以獲取相當高的利潤。[136]在這些例子中，87%的農民和家庭表明增加了收入得益于有機耕作，因此有機耕作和產品減輕了貧窮增加了區(qū)域性糧食安全。[135]

誰擁有高科技

關于農業(yè)高科技可以大有裨益于發(fā)展中世界的觀點，要害是應當問誰擁有高科技。基因革命被引入非洲將去除本國的公共和私人的合作關系，這個合作關系中的公共方面將由是非洲方面提供，而私人方面將是美國和歐洲的生物技術公司

在轉基因作物中應用的植入基因是生物技術公司的專利和所有。在美國和加拿大，許多公司打官司把農民告上法庭，指責他們的作物中有所謂這些公司的具有專利權的轉基因。農民們辨白說他們不是故意地種植了轉基因作物，但是沒有辦法阻止法庭對他們進行的巨額罰款。

如果農民們買轉基因的種子，他們必須簽一個高科技合同保證不私留和再培育種子。他們每年不得不從生物技術公司買新種子，從而把對糧食的控制權從自己手里轉讓給了種子公司，不斷加強的種子產業(yè)意味著農民幾乎沒什么選擇而只能買轉基因種子。百年來農民的認識要建立當地適應的而且多樣的種子苗木被輕易地抹掉了。

相反，低投入和有機農耕辦法沒有引入專利技術，糧食控制還保留在農民們手上，還可以保持農民的種植技術留存，而且對食品安全有利。

結論

轉基因作物技術沒有提供什么大不了的益處。相反，它們卻凸現出了對人類和動物健康、對環(huán)境對農民，食品安全、出口市場的危害。迄今沒找到一個有說服力的理由去拿農民的身家性命去冒險。特別是當被驗證了的成功的和被廣泛接受的替代方法容易地廉價地存在著。這樣的替代方法將保持糧食供應的獨立性，而不受外國跨國公司的控制，而且提供最佳的保險來反對氣候變化的挑戰(zhàn)性指責。

原文

GM CROPS – JUST THE SCIENCE

research documenting the limitations, risks, and alternatives

Proponents claim that genetically modified (GM) crops:

•   are safe to eat and more nutritious

•   benefit the environment

•   reduce use of herbicides and insecticides

•   increase crop yields, thereby helping farmers and solving the food crisis

•   create a more affluent, stable economy

•   are just an extension of natural breeding, and have no risks different from naturally bred crops.

However, a large and growing body of scientific research and on-the-ground experience indicate that GMOs fail to live up to these claims. Instead, GM crops:

•   can be toxic, allergenic or less nutritious than their natural counterparts

•   can disrupt the ecosystem, damage vulnerable wild plant and animal populations and harm biodiversity

•   increase chemical inputs (pesticides, herbicides) over the long term

•   deliver yields that are no better, and often worse, than conventional crops

•   cause or exacerbate a range of social and economic problems

•   are laboratory-made and, once released, harmful GMOs cannot be recalled from the environment.

The scientifically demonstrated risks and clear absence of real benefits have led experts to see GM as a clumsy, outdated technology. They present risks that we need not incur, given the availability of effective, scientifically proven, energy-efficient and safe ways of meeting current and future global food needs.

This paper presents the key scientific evidence – 114 research studies and other authoritative documents – documenting the limitations and risks of GM crops and the many safer, more effective alternatives available today.

Is GM an extension of natural plant breeding?

Natural reproduction or breeding can only occur between closely related forms of life (cats with cats, not cats with dogs; wheat with wheat, not wheat with tomatoes or fish). In this way, the genes that offspring inherit from parents, which carry information for all parts of the body, are passed down the generations in an orderly way.

GM is not like natural plant breeding. GM uses laboratory techniques to insert artificial gene units to re-programme the DNA blueprint of the plant with completely new properties. This process would never happen in nature. The artificial gene units are created in the laboratory by joining fragments of DNA, usually derived from multiple organisms, including viruses, bacteria, plants and animals. For example, the GM gene in the most common herbicide resistant soya beans was pieced together from a plant virus, a soil bacterium and a petunia plant.

The GM transformation process of plants is crude, imprecise, and causes widespread mutations, resulting in major changes to the plant’s DNA blueprint1. These mutations unnaturally alter the genes’ functioning in unpredictable and potentially harmful ways2, as detailed below. Adverse effects include poorer crop performance, toxic effects, allergic reactions, and damage to the environment.

Are GM foods safe to eat?

Contrary to industry claims, GM foods are not properly tested for human safety before they are released for sale^{3 4}. In fact, the only published study directly testing the safety of a GM food on humans found potential problems5. To date, this study has not been followed up.

Typically the response to the safety question is that people have been eating GM foods in the United States and elsewhere for more than ten years without ill effects and that this proves that the products are safe. But GM foods are not labelled in the US and other nations where they are widely eaten and consumers are not monitored for health effects.

Because of this, any health effects from a GM food would have to meet unusual conditions before they would be noticed. The health effects would have to:

•   occur immediately after eating a food that was known to be GM (in spite of its not being labeled). This kind of response is called acute toxicity.

•   cause symptoms that are completely different from common diseases. If GM foods caused a rise in common or slow-onset diseases like allergies or cancer, nobody would know what caused the rise.

•   be dramatic and obvious to the naked eye. Nobody examines a person’s body tissues with a microscope for harm after they eat a GM food. But just this type of examination is needed to give early warning of problems such as pre-cancerous changes.

To detect important but more subtle effects on health, or effects that take time to appear (chronic effects), long-term controlled studies on larger populations are required.

Under current conditions, moderate or slow-onset health effects of GM foods could take decades to become known, just as it took decades for the damaging effects of trans-fats (another type of artificial food) to be recognized. ‘Slow poison’ effects from trans-fats have caused millions of premature deaths across the world6.

Another reason why any harmful effects of GM foods will be slow to surface and less obvious is because, even in the United States, which has the longest history of GM crop consumption, GM foods account for only a small part of the US diet (maize is less than 15% and soya bean products are less than 5%).

Nevertheless, there are signs that all is not well with the US food supply. A report by the US Centers for Disease Control shows that food-related illnesses increased 2- to 10-fold in the years between 1994 (just before GM food was commercialised) and 19997. Is there a link with GM food? No one knows, because studies on humans have not been done.

Animal studies on GM foods give cause for concern

Although studies on humans have not been done, scientists are reporting a growing number of studies that examine the effects of GM foods on laboratory animals. These studies, summarized below, raise serious concerns regarding the safety of GM foods for humans as well as animals.

Small animal feeding studies

•   Rats fed GM tomatoes developed stomach ulcerations8

•   Liver, pancreas and testes function was disturbed in mice fed GM soya9 10 11

•       GM peas caused allergic reactions in mice12

•       Rats fed GM oilseed rape developed enlarged livers, often a sign of toxicity13

•       GM potatoes fed to rats caused excessive growth of the lining of the gut similar to a pre-cancerous condition14 15

•       Rats fed insecticide-producing GM maize grew more slowly, suffered problems with liver and kidney function, and showed higher levels of certain fats in their blood16

•       Rats fed GM insecticide-producing maize over three generations suffered damage to liver and kidneys and showed alterations in blood biochemistry17

•       Old and young mice fed with GM insecticide-producing maize showed a marked disturbance in immune system cell populations and in biochemical activity18

•       Mice fed GM insecticide-producing maize over four generations showed a buildup of abnormal structural changes in various organs (liver, spleen, pancreas), major changes in the pattern of gene function in the gut, reflecting disturbances in the chemistry of this organ system (e.g. in cholesterol production, protein production and breakdown), and, most significantly, reduced fertility19

•       Mice fed GM soya over their entire lifetime (24 months) showed more acute signs of ageing in their liver20

•       Rabbits fed GM soya showed enzyme function disturbances in kidney and heart21.

Feeding studies with farm animals

Farm animals have been fed GM feed for many years. Does this mean that GM feed is safe for livestock? Certainly it means that effects are not acute and do not show up immediately. However, longer-term studies, designed to assess slow-onset and more subtle health effects of GM feed, indicate that GM feed does have adverse effects, confirming the results described above for laboratory animals.

The following problems have been found:

• Sheep fed Bt insecticide-producing GM maize over three generations showed disturbances in the functioning of the digestive system of ewes and in the liver and pancreas of their lambs22.

•  GM DNA was found to survive processing and to be detectable in the digestive tract of sheep fed GM feed. This raises the possibility that antibiotic resistance and Bt insecticide genes can move into gut bacteria23, a process known as horizontal gene transfer. Horizontal gene transfer can lead to antibiotic resistant disease-causing bacteria (“superbugs”) and may lead to Bt insecticide being produced in the gut with potentially harmful consequences. For years, regulators and the biotech industry claimed that horizontal gene transfer would not occur with GM DNA, but this research challenges this claim

•  GM DNA in feed is taken up by the animal’s organs. Small amounts of GM DNA appear in the milk and meat that people eat24 25 26. The effects on the health of the animals and the people who eat them have not been researched.

Do animal feeding studies highlight potential health problems for people?

Before food additives and new medicines can be tested on human subjects, they have to be tested on mice or rats. If harmful effects were to be found in these initial animal experiments, then the drug would likely be disqualified for human use. Only if animal studies reveal no harmful effects can the drug be further tested on human volunteers.

But GM crops that caused ill effects in experimental animals have been approved for commercialization in many countries. This suggests that less rigorous standards are being used to evaluate the safety of GM crops than for new medicines.

In fact, in at least one country – the United States – safety assessment of GMOs is voluntary and not required by law, although, to date, all GMOs have undergone voluntary review. In virtually all countries, safety assessment is not scientifically rigorous. For instance, the animal feeding studies that GM crop developers routinely conduct to demonstrate the safety of their products are too short in duration and use too few subjects to reliably detect important harmful effects.27

While industry conducts less than rigorous studies on its own GM products, 28 it has, in parallel, systematically and persistently interfered with the ability of independent scientists to conduct more rigorous and incisive independent research on GMOs. Comparative and basic agronomic studies on GMOs, assessments of safety and composition, and assessments of environmental impact have all been restricted and suppressed by the biotechnology industry.29 30

Patent rights linked with contracts are used to restrict access of independent researchers to commercialized GM seed. Permission to study patented GM crops is either withheld or made so difficult to obtain that research is effectively blocked. In cases where permission is finally given, biotech companies keep the right to block publication, resulting in much significant research never being published.31 32

The industry and its allies also use a range of public relations strategies to discredit and/or muzzle scientists who do publish research that is critical of GM crops.33

Are GM foods more nutritious?

There are no commercially available GM foods with improved nutritional value. Currently available GM foods are no better and in some cases are less nutritious than natural foods. Some have been proven in tests to be toxic or allergenic.

Examples include:

•       GM soya had 12–14% lower amounts of cancer-fighting isoflavones than non-GM soya34

•       Oilseed rape engineered to have vitamin A in its oil had much reduced vitamin E and altered oil-fat composition35

•       Human volunteers fed a single GM soya bean meal showed that GM DNA can survive processing and is detectable in the digestive tract. There was evidence of horizontal gene transfer to gut bacteria36 37. Horizontal gene transfer of antibiotic resistance and Bt insecticide genes from GM foods into gut bacteria is an extremely serious issue. This is because the modified gut bacteria could become resistant to antibiotics or become factories for Bt insecticide. While Bt in its natural form has been safely used for years as an insecticide in farming, Bt toxin genetically engineered into plant crops has been found to have potential ill health effects on laboratory animals38 39 40

•       In the late 1980s, a food supplement produced using GM bacteria was toxic41, initially killing 37 Americans and making more than 5,000 others seriously ill.

•       Several experimental GM food products (not commercialised) were found to be harmful:

•       People allergic to Brazil nuts had allergic reactions to soya beans modified with a Brazil nut gene42

•       The GM process itself can cause harmful effects. GM potatoes caused toxic reactions in multiple organ systems43 44. GM peas caused a 2-fold allergic reaction  –  the GM protein was allergenic and stimulated an allergic reaction to other food components45. This raises the question of whether GM foods cause an increase in allergies to other substances.

Can GM foods help alleviate the world food crisis?

The root cause of hunger is not a lack of food, but a lack of access to food. The poor have no money to buy food and increasingly, no land on which to grow it. Hunger is fundamentally a social, political, and economic problem, which GM technology cannot address.

Recent reports from the World Bank and the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation have identified the biofuels boom as the main cause of the current food crisis46 47. But GM crop producers and distributors continue to promote the expansion of biofuels. This suggests that their priority is to make a profit, not to feed the world.

GM companies focus on producing cash crops for animal feed and biofuels for affluent countries, not food for people.

GM crops contribute to the expansion of industrial agriculture and the decline of the small farmer around the world. This is a serious development as there is abundant evidence that small farms are more efficient than large ones, producing more crops per hectare of land48 49 50 51 52.

“The climate crisis was used to boost biofuels, helping to create the food crisis; and now the food crisis is being used to revive the fortunes of the GM industry.” Daniel Howden, Africa correspondent, The Independent (London), 200853

Do GM crops increase yield potential?

At best, GM crops have performed no better than their non-GM counterparts, with GM soya beans giving consistently lower yields for over a decade54. Controlled comparative field trials of GM/non-GM soya suggest that 50% of the drop in yield is due to the genetic disruptive effect of the GM transformation process55. Similarly, field tests of Bt insecticide-producing maize hybrids showed that they took longer to reach maturity and produced up to 12% lower yields than their non-GM counterpart56.   

A US Department of Agriculture report confirms the poor yield performance of GM crops, saying, “GE crops available for commercial use do not increase the yield potential of a variety. In fact, yield may even decrease.... Perhaps the biggest issue raised by these results is how to explain the rapid adoption of GE crops when farm financial impacts appear to be mixed or even negative57.” 

The failure of GM to increase yield potential was emphasised in 2008 by the United Nations International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) report58. This report on the future of farming, authored by 400 scientists and backed by 58 governments, stated that yields of GM crops were “highly variable” and in some cases, “yields declined”. The report noted, “Assessment of the technology lags behind its development, information is anecdotal and contradictory, and uncertainty about possible benefits and damage is unavoidable.”

Failure to Yield

The definitive study to date on GM crops and yield is “Failure to Yield: Evaluating the Performance of Genetically Engineered Crops”. Published in 2009, the study is authored by former US EPA and Center for Food Safety scientist, Dr Doug Gurian-Sherman. It is based on published, peer-reviewed studies conducted by academic scientists and using adequate experimental controls.

In the study, Dr Gurian-Sherman distinguishes between intrinsic yield (also called potential yield), defined as the highest yield which can be achieved under ideal conditions, with operational yield, the yield achieved under normal field conditions when the farmer factors in crop reductions due to pests, drought, or other environmental stresses.

The study also distinguishes between effects on yield caused by conventional breeding methods and those caused by GM traits. It has become common for biotech companies to use conventional breeding and marker assisted breeding to produce higher-yielding crops and then finally to engineer in a gene for herbicide tolerance or insect resistance. In such cases, higher yields are not due to genetic engineering but to conventional breeding. “Failure to Yield” teases out these distinctions and analyses what contributions genetic engineering and conventional breeding make to increasing yield.

Based on studies on corn and soybeans, the two most commonly grown GM crops in the United States, the study concludes that genetically engineering herbicide-tolerant soybeans and herbicide-tolerant corn has not increased yields. Insect-resistant corn, meanwhile, has improved yields only marginally. The increase in yields for both crops over the last 13 years, the report finds, was largely due to traditional breeding or improvements in agricultural practices.

The author concludes: “commercial GE crops have made no inroads so far into raising the intrinsic or potential yield of any crop. By contrast, traditional breeding has been spectacularly successful in this regard; it can be solely credited with the intrinsic yield increases in the United States and other parts of the world that characterized the agriculture of the twentieth century.”59

Critics of the study have objected that it does not use data from developing countries. The Union of Concerned Scientists responds that there are few peer-reviewed papers evaluating the yield contribution of GM crops in developing countries – not enough to draw clear and reliable conclusions. However, the most widely grown food/feed crop in developing countries, herbicide-tolerant soybeans, offers some hints. Data from Argentina, which has grown more GM soybeans than any other developing country, suggest that yields for GM varieties are the same or lower than for conventional non-GE soybeans.60

“If we are going to make headway in combating hunger due to overpopulation and climate change, we will need to increase crop yields,” says Dr Gurian-Sherman. “Traditional breeding outperforms genetic engineering hands down.”61

If GM cannot improve intrinsic (potential) yield even in the affluent United States, where high-input, irrigated, heavily subsidized farming is the norm, it would seem irresponsible to assume that it would improve yields in the developing world, where increased food production is most needed. Initiatives promoting GM crops for the developing world are experimental and appear to be founded on expectations that are not consistent with data obtained in the West.

In the West, crop failure is often underwritten by governments, which bail out farmers with compensation. Such support systems are rare in the developing world. There, farmers may literally bet their farms and their entire livelihoods on a crop. Failure can have severe consequences.

Three GM crops for Africa

GM sweet potato

The virus-resistant sweet potato has been the ultimate GM showcase project for Africa, generating a vast amount of global media coverage. Florence Wambugu, the Monsanto-trained scientist fronting the project, has been proclaimed an African heroine and the saviour of millions, based on her claims about the GM sweet potato doubling output in Kenya. Forbes magazine even declared her one of a tiny handful of people around the globe who would “reinvent the future”.62 It eventually emerged, however, that the claims being made for the GM sweet potato were untrue, with field trial results showing the GM crop to be a failure.63 64

In contrast with the unproven GM sweet potato variety, a successful conventional breeding programme in Uganda had produced a new high-yielding variety which is virus-resistant and has “raised yields by roughly 100%”. The Ugandan project achieved success at a small cost and in just a few years. The GM sweet potato, in contrast, in over 12 years in the making, consumed funding from Monsanto, the World Bank, and USAID to the tune of $6 million.65

GM cassava

The potential of genetic engineering to massively boost the production of cassava – one of Africa’s most important foods – by defeating a devastating virus has been heavily promoted since the mid-1990s. There has even been talk of GM solving hunger in Africa by increasing cassava yields as much as tenfold.66 But almost nothing appears to have been achieved. Even after it became clear that the GM cassava had suffered a major technical failure67, media stories continued to appear about its curing hunger in Africa.68 69 Meanwhile, conventional (non-GM) plant breeding has quietly produced virus resistant cassavas that are already making a remarkable difference in farmers’ fields, even under drought conditions.70

Bt cotton

In Makhatini, South Africa, often cited as the showcase Bt cotton project for small farmers, 100,000 hectares were planted with Bt cotton in 1998. By 2002, that had crashed to 22,500 hectares, an 80% reduction in 4 years. By 2004, 85% of farmers who used to grow Bt cotton had given up. The farmers found pest problems and no increase in yield. Those farmers who still grew the crop did so at a loss, continuing only because the South African government subsidized the project and there was a guaranteed market for the cotton.71

A study published in Crop Protection journal concluded, “cropping Bt cotton in Makhathini Flats did not generate sufficient income to expect a tangible and sustainable socioeconomic improvement due to the way the crop is currently managed. Adoption of an innovation like Bt cotton seems to pay only in an agro-system with a sufficient level of intensification.”72

How will climate change impact agriculture?

Industrial agriculture is a major contributor to global warming, producing up to 20 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions, and some methods of increasing yield can exacerbate this negative impact. For example, crops that achieve higher intrinsic yield often need more fossil fuel-based nitrogen fertilizer, some of which is converted by soil microbes into nitrous oxide, a greenhouse gas nearly 300 times more potent than carbon dioxide. Minimizing global agriculture’s future climate impact will require investment in systems of agriculture less dependent on industrial fertilizers and agroecological methods of improving soil water-holding capacity and resilience.

GM seeds are created by agrochemical companies and are heavily dependent on costly external inputs such as synthetic fertilizer, herbicides, and pesticides. It would seem risky to promote such crops in the face of climate change.

Peak oil and agriculture 

According to some analysts, peak oil, when the maximum rate of global petroleum extraction is reached, has already arrived. This will have drastic effects on the type of agriculture we practise. GM crops are designed to be used with synthetic herbicides and fertilizers. But synthetic pesticides are made from oil and synthetic fertilizer from natural gas. Both these fossil fuels are running out fast, as are phosphates, a major ingredient of synthetic fertilizers.

Farming based on the current US GM and chemical model that depends on these fossil fuel-based inputs will become increasingly expensive and unsustainable. The statistics tell the story:

In the US food system, 10 kcal of fossil energy is required for every kcal of food consumed.73

•       Approximately 7.2 quads of fossil energy are consumed in the production of crops and livestock in the U.S. each year.74 75

•       Approximately 8 million kcal/ha are required to produce an average corn crop and other similar crops.76

•   Two-thirds of the energy used in crop production is for fertilizers and mechanization.77

Proven technologies that can reduce the amount of fossil energy used in farming include reducing fertilizer applications, selecting farm machinery appropriate for each task, managing soil for conservation, limiting irrigation, and organic farming techniques.78

In the Rodale Institute Farming Systems Trial (FST), a comparative analysis of energy inputs conducted by Dr David Pimentel of Cornell University found that organic farming systems use just 63% of the energy required by conventional farming systems, largely because of the massive amounts of energy required to synthesize nitrogen fertilizer, followed by herbicide production.79

Studies show that the low-input organic model of farming works well in African countries. The Tigray project in Ethiopia, part-funded by the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), compared yields from the application of compost and chemical fertilizer in farmers’ fields over six years. The results showed that compost can replace chemical fertilizers and that it increased yields by more than 30 percent on average. As side-benefits to using compost, the farmers noticed that the crops had better resistance to pests and disease and that there was a reduction in “difficult weeds”.80

GM crops and climate change

Climate change brings sudden, extreme, and unpredictable changes in weather. If we are to survive, the crop base needs to be as flexible, resilient and diverse as possible. GM technology offers just the opposite – a narrowing of crop diversity and an inflexible technology that requires years and millions of dollars in investment for each new variety.

Each GM crop is tailor-made to fit a particular niche. With climate change, no one knows what kind of niches will exist and where. The best way to insure against the destructive effects of climate change is to plant a wide variety of high-performing crops that are genetically diverse.

GM companies have patented plant genes that they believe are involved in tolerance to drought, heat, flooding, and salinity – but have not succeeded in using these genes to produce a single new crop with these properties. This is because these functions are highly complex and involve many different genes working together in a precisely regulated way. It is beyond existing GM technology to engineer crops with these sophisticated, delicately regulated gene networks for improved tolerance traits.

Conventional natural cross-breeding, which works holistically, is much better adapted to achieving this aim, using the many varieties of virtually every common crop that tolerate drought, heat, flooding, and salinity.

In addition, advances in plant breeding have been made using marker-assisted selection (MAS), a largely uncontroversial branch of biotechnology that can speed up the natural breeding process by identifying important genes. MAS does not involve the risks and uncertainties of genetic engineering.

The controversies that exist around MAS relate to gene patenting issues. It is important for developing countries to consider the implications of patent ownership relating to such crops.

Non-GM successes for niche crops

If it is accepted that niche speciality crops may be useful in helping adaptation to climate change, there are better ways of creating them than genetic engineering. Conventional breeding and marker-assisted selection have produced many advances in breeding speciality crops, though these have garnered only a fraction of the publicity given to often speculative claims of GM miracles.

An example of such a non-GM success is the “Snorkel” rice that adapts to flooding by growing longer stems, preventing the crop from drowning.81 While genetic engineering was used as a research tool to identify the desirable genes, only conventional breeding – guided by Marker Assisted Selection – was used to generate the Snorkel rice line. Snorkel rice is entirely non-GM. This is an excellent example of how the whole range of biotechnology tools, including GM, can be used most effectively to work with the natural breeding process to develop new crops that meet the critical needs of today.

Are GM crops environmentally friendly?

Two kinds of GM crops dominate the marketplace:

•       Crops that resist broad-spectrum (kill-all) herbicides such as Roundup. These are claimed to enable farmers to spray herbicide less frequently to kill weeds but without killing the crop

•       Crops that produce the insecticide Bt toxin. These are claimed to reduce farmers’ need for chemical insecticide sprays.

Both claims require further analysis.

GM crops and herbicide use

The most commonly grown herbicide-resistant GM crops are engineered to be resistant to Roundup. But the increasing use of Roundup has led to the appearance of numerous weeds resistant to this herbicide82. Roundup resistant weeds are now common and include pigweed83, ryegrass84, and marestail85. As a result, in the US, an initial drop in average herbicide use after GM crops were introduced has been followed by a large increase as farmers were forced to change their farming practices to kill weeds that had developed resistance to Roundup86 87. Farmers have increased radically the amounts of Roundup applied to their fields and are being advised to use increasingly powerful mixtures of multiple herbicides and not Roundup alone88 89. 

All of these chemicals are toxic and a threat to both the farmers who apply them and the people and livestock that eat the produce. This is the case even for Roundup, which has been shown to have a range of damaging cellular effects indicating toxicity at levels similar to those found on crops engineered to be resistant to the herbicide90.

A Canadian government study in 2001 showed that after just 4-5 years of commercial growing, herbicide-resistant GM oilseed rape (canola) had cross-pollinated to create “superweeds” resistant to up to three different broad-spectrum herbicides. These superweeds have become a serious problem for farmers both within91 92 and outside their fields93.

In addition, GM oilseed rape has also been found to cross-pollinate with and pass on its herbicide resistant genes to related wild plants, for example, charlock and wild radish/turnip. This raises the possibility that these too may become superweeds and difficult for farmers to control94. The industry’s response has been to recommend use of higher amounts and complex mixtures of herbicides95 96 and to start developing crops resistant to additional or multiple herbicides. These developments are clearly creating a chemical treadmill that would be especially undesirable for farmers in developing countries.

Insecticide-producing GM crops

Bt insecticide-producing GM crops have led to resistance in pests, resulting in rising chemical applications97 98 99.

In China and India, Bt cotton was initially effective in suppressing the boll weevil. But secondary pests, especially mirids and mealy bugs, that are highly resistant to Bt toxin, soon took its place. The farmers suffered massive crop losses and had to apply costly pesticides, wiping out their profit margins100 101 102 103. Such developments are likely to be more damaging to farmers in developing countries, who cannot afford expensive inputs.

The claim that Bt GM crops reduce pesticide use is disingenuous, since Bt crops are in themselves pesticides. Prof Gilles-Eric Séralini of the University of Caen, France states: “Bt plants, in fact, are designed to produce toxins to repel pests. Bt brinjal (eggplant/aubergine) produces a very high quantity of 16-17mg toxin per kg. They affect animals. Unfortunately, tests to ascertain their effect on humans have not been conducted.”104

GM crops and wildlife

Farm-scale trials sponsored by the UK government showed that the growing of herbicide-resistant GM crops (sugar beet, oilseed rape) can reduce wildlife populations105 106.

The case of Argentina

In Argentina, the massive conversion of agriculture to GM soya production has had disastrous effects on rural social and economic structures. It has damaged food security and caused a range of environmental problems, including the spread of herbicide-resistant weeds, soil depletion, and increased pests and diseases107 108.

GM crops and non-target insects and organisms

Bt insecticide-producing GM crops harm non-target insect populations, including butterflies109 110 111 and beneficial pest predators112. Bt insecticide released from GM crops can also be toxic to water life113 and soil organisms114. One study reveals more negative than positive impacts on beneficial insects from GM Bt insecticide-producing crops.115

Can GM and non-GM crops co-exist?

The biotech industry argues that farmers should be able to choose to plant GM crops if they wish. It says GM and non-GM crops can peacefully “co-exist”. But experience in North America has shown that “coexistence” of GM and non-GM crops rapidly results in widespread contamination of non-GM crops.

This not only has significant agroecological effects, but also serious economic effects, damaging the ability of organic farmers to receive premiums, and blocking export markets to countries that have strict regulations regarding GM contamination.

Contamination occurs through cross-pollination, spread of GM seed by farm machinery, and inadvertent mixing during storage. The entry of GM crops into a country removes choice – everyone is gradually forced to grow GM crops or to have their non-GM crop contaminated.

Here are a few examples of GM contamination incidents:

•     In 2006 GM rice grown for only one year in field trials was found to have widely contaminated the US rice supply and seed stocks116. Contaminated rice was found as far away as Africa, Europe, and Central America. In March 2007 Reuters reported that US rice export sales were down by around 20 percent from those of the previous year as a result of the GM contamination117.

•     In Canada, contamination from GM oilseed rape has made it virtually impossible to cultivate organic, non-GM oilseed rape118

•     US courts reversed the approval of GM alfalfa because it threatened the existence of non-GM alfalfa through cross-pollination119

•   Organic maize production in Spain has dropped significantly as the acreage of GM maize production has increased, because of cross-pollination problems120

•   In 2009, the Canadian flax seed export market to Europe collapsed following the discovery of widespread contamination with an unauthorized GM variety121.

•   In 2007 alone, there were 39 new instances of GM contamination in 23 countries, and 216 incidents have been reported since 2005122.

 Alternatives to GM

Many authoritative sources, including the IAASTD report on the future of agriculture123, have found that GM crops have little to offer global agriculture and the challenges of poverty, hunger and climate change, because better alternatives are available. These go by many names, including integrated pest management (IPM), organic, sustainable, low-input, non-chemical pest management (NPM) and agroecological farming, but extend beyond the boundaries of any particular category. Projects employing these sustainable strategies in the developing world have produced dramatic increases in yields and food security124 125 126 127 128 129.

Strategies employed include:

•   Sustainable, low-input, energy-saving practices that conserve and build soil, conserve water, and enhance natural pest resistance and resilience in crops

•   Innovative farming methods that minimise or eliminate costly chemical pesticides and fertilizers

•   Use of thousands of traditional varieties of each major food crop, which are naturally adapted to stresses such as drought, heat, harsh weather conditions, flooding, salinity, poor soil, and pests and diseases130

•   Use of existing crops and their wild relatives in traditional breeding programmes to develop varieties with useful traits

•   Programmes that enable farmers to cooperatively preserve and improve traditional seeds

•   Use of beneficial and holistic aspects of modern biotechnology, such as Marker Assisted Selection (MAS), which uses the latest genetic knowledge to speed up traditional breeding131. Unlike GM technology, MAS can safely produce new varieties of crops with valuable, genetically complex properties such as enhanced nutrition, taste, yield potential, resistance to pests and diseases, and tolerance to drought, heat, salinity, and flooding132.

Organic and low-input methods improve yields in Africa

There seems little reason to gamble with the livelihoods of poor farmers by persuading them to grow experimental GM crops when tried-and-tested, inexpensive methods of increasing food production are readily available. Several recent studies have shown that low-input methods such as organic can dramatically improve yields in African countries, along with other benefits. Such methods have the advantage of being knowledge-based rather than costly input-based. As a result they are more accessible to poor farmers than the more expensive technologies (which often have not helped in the past).

A 2008 United Nations report, “Organic Agriculture and Food Security in Africa”, looked at 114 farming projects in 24 African countries and found that organic or near-organic practices resulted in a yield increase of more than 100 percent. In East Africa, a yield increase of 128 percent was found.133 The Foreword to the study states: “The evidence presented in this study supports the argument that organic agriculture can be more conducive to food security in Africa than most conventional production systems, and that it is more likely to be sustainable in the long term.”134

Organic and low-input methods improve farmer incomes in developing countries

Poverty is a major contributory factor to food insecurity. According to the 2008 United Nations report, “Organic Agriculture and Food Security in Africa”, organic farming has a positive impact on poverty in a variety of ways. Farmers benefit from:

•       cash savings, as organic farming does not require costly pesticides and fertilizers;

•       extra incomes gained by selling the surplus produce (resulting from the change to organic);

•       premium prices for certified organic produce, obtained primarily in Africa for export but also for domestic markets; and

•       added value to organic products through processing activities.

These findings are backed up by studies from Asia and Latin America that concluded that organic farming can reduce poverty in an environmentally friendly way.135

A recent study found that certified organic farms involved in production for export were significantly more profitable than those involved in conventional production (in terms of net farm income earnings).136 Of these cases, 87 per cent showed increases in farmer and household incomes as a result of becoming organic, which contributed to reducing poverty levels and to increasing regional food security.

Who owns the technology?

In considering which agricultural technologies will most benefit the developing world, it is crucial to ask who owns those technologies. The “Gene Revolution” that is proposed for Africa will be rolled out via public-private partnerships. The public side of such partnerships will be provided by Africa, whereas the private side will be provided by biotechnology companies based in the United States and Europe.

The transgenes used in creating GM crops are patented and owned by biotech companies. In the United States and Canada, companies have launched lawsuits against farmers whose crops were alleged to contain a company’s patented GM genes. Farmers’ claims that they have not intentionally planted GM crops have proved no defence in court against large fines being imposed.

When farmers buy GM seed, they sign a technology agreement promising not to save and replant seed. They have to buy new seed each year from the biotech company, thus transferring control of food production from farmers to seed companies. Consolidation of the seed industry increasingly means that farmers have little choice but to buy GM seed. Centuries of farmer knowledge that went into creating locally adapted and varied seed stocks are wiped out.

In contrast, low-input and organic farming methods do not involve patented technologies. Control of food production remains in the hands of farmers, keeping farmer skills alive and favouring food security.

Conclusion

GM crop technologies do not offer significant benefits. On the contrary, they present risks to human and animal health, the environment, farmers, food security, and export markets. There is no convincing reason to take such risks with the livelihoods of farmers when proven successful and widely acceptable alternatives are readily and cheaply available. These alternatives will maintain the independence of the food supply from foreign multinational control and offer the best insurance against the challenges of climate change.

注釋：References

1. The Mutational Consequences of Plant Transformation. Latham J.R. et al. J Biomed Biotech. 2006, Article ID 25376, 1-7, 2006.

2. Transformation-induced mutations in transgenic plants: Analysis and biosafety implications. Wilson A.K. et al. Biotechnol Genet Eng Rev., 23: 209-234, 2006.

3. Safety testing and regulation of genetically engineered foods. Freese W and Schubert D. Biotechnol Genet Eng Rev., 21: 299-324, 2004.

4. GMO in animal nutrition: potential benefits and risks. Pusztai A. and Bardocz S. In: Biology of Nutrition in Growing Animals, eds. R. Mosenthin, J. Zentek and T. Zebrowska, Elsevier Limited, pp. 513-540, 2006.

5. Assessing the survival of transgenic plant DNA in the human gastrointestinal tract. Netherwood T. et al. Nat Biotech., 22: 204-209, 2004.

6. Experts Weigh In: Will Trans Fat Bans Affect Obesity Trends? Meir Stampfer. DOC News, Volume 4 (Number 5): p. 1, 1 May 2007.

7. Food related illness and death in the United States. Mead P.S. et al. Emerging Infectious Diseases, 5: 607-625, 1999.

8. Food Safety - Contaminants and Toxins. Unpublished study reviewed in J.P.F. D’Mello, CABI Publishing, 2003.

9. Fine structural analysis of pancreatic acinar cell nuclei from mice fed on GM soybean. Malatesta M. et al. Eur J Histochem., 47: 385-388, 2003.

10. Ultrastructural morphometrical and immunocytochemical analyses of hepatocyte nuclei from mice fed on genetically modified soybean. Malatesta M et al. Cell Struct Funct., 27: 173-180, 2002.

11. Ultrastructural analysis of testes from mice fed on genetically modified soybean. Vecchio L. et al. Eur J Histochem., 48: 448-454, 2004.

12. Transgenic expression of bean alpha-amylase inhibitor in peas results in altered structure and immunogenicity. Prescott V.E. et al. J Agric Food Chem., 53: 9023-9030, 2005.

13. Biotechnology Consultation Note to the File BNF No 00077. Office of Food Additive Safety, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, US Food and Drug Administration, 4 September 2002.

14. GMO in animal nutrition: potential benefits and risks. Pusztai A. and Bardocz S. In: Biology of Nutrition in Growing Animals, eds. R. Mosenthin, J. Zentek and T. Zebrowska, Elsevier Limited, pp. 513-540, 2006.

15. Effects of diets containing genetically modified potatoes expressing Galanthus nivalis lectin on rat small intestine. Ewen S.W. and Pusztai A. The Lancet, 354: 1353-1354, 1999.

16. New analysis of a rat feeding study with a genetically modified maize reveals signs of hepatorenal toxicity. Séralini, G.-E. et al. Arch. Environ Contam Toxicol., 52: 596-602, 2007.

17. A three generation study with genetically modified Bt corn in rats: Biochemical and histopathological investigation. Kilic A and Akay MT. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 46: 1164-1170, 2008.

18. Intestinal and Peripheral Immune Response to MON810 Maize Ingestion in Weaning and Old Mice. Finamore A et al. J. Agric. Food Chem., 56: 11533-11539, 2008.

19. Biological effects of transgenic maize NK603xMON810 fed in long term reproduction studies in mice. Velimirov A et al. Bundesministerium für Gesundheit, Familie und Jugend Report, Forschungsberichte der Sektion IV Band 3/2008, Austria, 2008. http://bmgfj.cms.apa.at/cms/site/attachments/3/2/9/ CH0810/CMS1226492832306/forschungsbericht_3-2008_letztfassung.pdf

20. A long-term study on female mice fed on a genetically modified soybean: effects on liver ageing. Malatesta M. et al. Histochem Cell Biol., 130: 967-977, 2008.

21. Genetically modified soya bean in rabbit feeding: detection of DNA fragments and evaluation of metabolic effects by enzymatic analysis. R. Tudisco et al. Animal Science, 82: 193-199, 2006.

22. A three-year longitudinal study on the effects of a diet containing genetically modified Bt176 maize on the health status and performance of sheep. Trabalza-Marinucci M. et al. Livestock Science, 113: 178-190, 2008.

23. Fate of genetically modified maize DNA in the oral cavity and rumen of sheep. Duggan P.S. et al. Br J Nutr., 89: 159-166, 2003.

24. Detection of genetically modified DNA sequences in milk from the Italian market. Agodi A. et al. Int J Hyg Environ Health, 209: 81-88, 2006.

25. Assessing the transfer of genetically modified DNA from feed to animal tissues. Mazza R. et al. Transgenic Res., 14: 775-784, 2005.

26. Detection of Transgenic and Endogenous Plant DNA in Digesta and Tissues of Sheep and Pigs Fed Roundup Ready Canola Meal. Mazza R. et al. J Agric Food Chem. 54: 1699-1709, 2006.

27. How Subchronic and Chronic Health Effects can be Neglected for GMOs, Pesticides or Chemicals. Séralini, G-E, et al. International Journal of Biological Sciences, 2009; 5(5):438-443.

28. How Subchronic and Chronic Health Effects can be Neglected for GMOs, Pesticides or Chemicals. Séralini, G-E, et al. International Journal of Biological Sciences, 2009; 5(5):438-443.

29. Under wraps – Are the crop industry’s strong-arm tactics and close-fisted attitude to sharing seeds holding back independent research and undermining public acceptance of transgenic crops? Waltz, E., Nature Biotechnology, Vol. 27, No. 10, October 2009.

30. Crop Scientists Say Biotechnology Seed Companies Are Thwarting Research. Pollack, A., New York Times, 20 February 2009.

31. The Genetic Engineering of Food and the Failure of Science – Part 1: The Development of a Flawed Enterprise. Lotter, D., Int. Jrnl. of Soc. of Agr. & Food, Vol. 16, No. 1, 2007, pp. 31–49.

32. The Genetic Engineering of Food and the Failure of Science – Part 2: Academic Capitalism and the Loss of Scientific Integrity. Lotter, D., Int. Jrnl. of Soc. of Agr. & Food, Vol. 16, No. 1, 2008, pp. 50–68.

33. Biotech proponents aggressively attack independent research papers: GM crops: Battlefield. Waltz, E., Nature 461, 2009, 27–32.

34. Alterations in clinically important phytoestrogens in genetically modified, herbicide-tolerant soybeans. Lappe M.A. et al. J Med Food, 1: 241-245, 1999.

35. Seed-specific overexpression of phytoene synthase: increase in carotenoids and other metabolic effects. Shewmaker CK et al. Plant J, 20: 401-412, 1999.

36. Assessing the survival of transgenic plant DNA in the human gastrointestinal tract. Netherwood T. et al. Nat Biotech., 22: 204-209, 2004.

37. The fate of transgenes in the human gut. Heritage J. Nat Biotech., 22: 170-172, 2004.

38. Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1Ac Protoxin is a Potent Systemic and Mucosal Adjuvant. Vázquez RI et al. Scand J Immunol., 49: 578-584, 1999.

39. Intragastric and intraperitoneal administration of Cry1Ac protoxin from Bacillus thuringiensis induces systemic and mucosal antibody responses in mice. Vázquez-Padrón, RI et al. Life Sci., 64: 1897-1912, 1999.

40. Cry1Ac Protoxin from Bacillus thuringiensis sp. kurstaki HD73 Binds to Surface Proteins in the Mouse Small Intestine. Vázquez-Padrón, RI et al. Biochem Biophys Res Comm.,  271: 54-58, 2000.

41. Eosinophilia-myalgia syndrome and tryptophan production: a cautionary tale. Mayeno A.N and Gleich G.J. Tibtech, 12: 346-352, 1994.

42. Identification of a Brazil-nut allergen in transgenic soybeans. Nordlee J.E. et al. N England J Med., 334: 688-692, 1996.

43. GMO in animal nutrition: potential benefits and risks. Pusztai A. and Bardocz S. In: Biology of Nutrition in Growing Animals, eds. R. Mosenthin, J. Zentek and T. Zebrowska, Elsevier Limited, pp. 513-540, 2006.

44. Effects of diets containing genetically modified potatoes expressing Galanthus nivalis lectin on rat small intestine. Ewen S.W. and Pusztai A. The Lancet, 354: 1353-1354, 1999.

45. Transgenic expression of bean alpha-amylase inhibitor in peas results in altered structure and immunogenicity. Prescott V.E. et al. J Agric Food Chem., 53: 9023-9030, 2005.

46. A Note on Rising Food Prices. Donald Mitchell. World Bank report, 2008. http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Environment/documents/2008/07/10/Biofuels.PDF

47. Soaring Food Prices: Facts, Perspectives, Impacts and Actions Required. United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation conference and report, Rome, 3-5 June 2008. http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/foodclimate/HLCdocs/HLC08-inf-1-E.pdf

48. Small Is Beautiful: Evidence of Inverse Size Yield Relationship in Rural Turkey. Ünal, FG. The Levy Economics Institute of Bard College, October 2006, updated December 2008. http://www.levy.org/pubs/wp_551.pdf.

49. Farm Size, Land Yields and the Agricultural Production function: An Analysis for Fifteen Developing Countries. Cornia, G. World Development, 13: 513-34, 1985.

50. Rural market imperfections and the farm size-productivity relationship: Evidence from Pakistan. Heltberg, R. World Development 26: 1807-1826, 1998.

51. Is there a future for small farms? Hazell, P. Agricultural Economics, 32: 93-101, 2005.

52. Is Small Beautiful? Farm Size, Productivity and Poverty in Asian Agriculture. Fan S and Chan-Kang C. Agricultural Economics, 32: 135-146, 2005.

53. Hope for Africa lies in political reforms. Daniel Howden, Africa correspondent, The Independent (London), 8 September 2008, http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/daniel-howden-hope-for-africa-lies-in-political-reforms-922487.html

54. Evidence of the Magnitude and Consequences of the Roundup Ready Soybean Yield Drag from University-Based Varietal Trials in 1998. Benbrook C. Benbrook Consulting Services Sandpoint, Idaho. Ag BioTech InfoNet Technical Paper, Number 1, 13 Jul 1999. http://www.mindfully.org/GE/RRS-Yield-Drag.htm

55. Glyphosate-resistant soyabean cultivar yields compared with sister lines. Elmore R.W. et al. Agronomy Journal, 93: 408-412, 2001.

56. Development, yield, grain moisture and nitrogen uptake of Bt corn hybrids and their conventional near-isolines. Ma B.L. and Subedi K.D. Field Crops Research, 93: 199-211, 2005.

57. The Adoption of Bioengineered Crops. US Department of Agriculture Report, May 2002, www.ers.usda.gov/publications/aer810/aer810.pdf.

58. International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development: Global Summary for Decision Makers (IAASTD); Beintema, N. et al., 2008. http://www.agassessment.org/index.cfm?Page=IAASTD%20Reports&ItemID=2713

59. Failure to Yield: Evaluating the Performance of Genetically Engineered Crops. Doug Gurian-Sherman. Union of Concerned Scientists, April 2009, p. 13

60. Roundup ready Soybeans in Argentina: farm level and aggregate welfare effects. Qaim, M. and G. Traxler. 2005. Agricultural Economics 32: 73–86.

61. Doug Gurian-Sherman, quoted on Union of Concerned Scientists website, http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/science_and_impacts/science/failure-to-yield.html.

62. Millions served. Lynn J. Cook. Forbes magazine, 23 December 2002.

63. GM technology fails local potatoes. Gatonye Gathura. The Daily Nation (Kenya), 29 January 2004.

64. Monsanto’s showcase project in Africa fails. New Scientist, Vol. 181, No. 2433, 7 February 2004.

65. Genetically modified crops and sustainable poverty alleviation in sub-Saharan Africa: An assessment of current evidence. Aaron deGrassi. Third World Network-Africa, June 2003.

66. Plant Researchers Offer Bumper Crop of Humanity. Martha Groves. LA Times, 26 December 1997.

67. Danforth Center cassava viral resistance update. Donald Danforth Plant Science Center, 30 June 2006.

68. Can biotech from St. Louis solve hunger in Africa? Kurt Greenbaum. St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 9 December 2006.

69. St. Louis team fights crop killer in Africa. Eric Hand. St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 10 December 2006.

70.  Farmers get better yields from new drought-tolerant cassava. IITA, 3 November 2008; Cassava’s comeback. United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation, 13 November 2008.

71. A Disaster in Search of Success: Bt Cotton in Global South. Film by Community Media Trust, Pastapur, and Deccan Development Society, Hyderabad, India, February 2007.

72. Impact of Bt cotton adoption on pesticide use by smallholders: A 2-year survey in Makhatini Flats (South Africa). Hofs, J-L, et al. Crop Protection, Volume 25, Issue 9, September 2006, pp. 984–988.

73. Food, energy and society. Pimentel, D., and M. Pimentel. Niwot: Colorado University Press, 1996. Cited in Energy efficiency and conservation for individual Americans. D. Pimentel, Environ Dev Sustain, 1996.

74. Energy and economic inputs in crop production: Comparison of developed, developing countries. Pimentel, D., Doughty, R., Carothers, C., Lamberson, S., Bora, N., & Lee, K. In L. Lal, D. Hansen, N. Uphoff, & S. Slack (Eds.), Food security & environmental quality in the developing world (pp. 129–151). Boca Raton: CRC Press, 2002.

75. U.S. energy conservation and efficiency: Benefits and costs. Pimentel, D., Pleasant, A., Barron, J., Gaudioso, J., Pollock, N., Chae, E., Kim, Y., Lassiter, A., Schiavoni, C., Jackson, A., Lee, M., & Eaton, A. Environment Development and Sustainability, 6, 279–305, 2004.

76. Ethanol production using corn, switchgrass, and wood; and biodiesel production using soybean and sunflower. Pimentel, D., & Patzek, T. Natural Resources Research, 14(1), 65–76, 2005.

77. Energy and economic inputs in crop production: Comparison of developed, developing countries. Pimentel, D., Doughty, R., Carothers, C., Lamberson, S., Bora, N., & Lee, K. In L. Lal, D. Hansen, N. Uphoff, & S. Slack (Eds.), Food security & environmental quality in the developing world (pp. 129–151). Boca Raton: CRC Press, 2002.

78. Energy efficiency and conservation for individual Americans. D. Pimentel et al. Environ Dev Sustain., Vol. 11, No. 3, June 2009.

79. Environmental, Energetic, and Economic Comparisons of Organic and Conventional Farming Systems. Pimentel, D. et al. Bioscience, Vol. 55, No. 7, July 2005, pp. 573–582, http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.1641/0006-3568(2005)055%5B0573%3AEEAECO%5D2.0.CO%3B2#references

80. The impact of compost use on crop yields in Tigray, Ethiopia. Institute for Sustainable Development (ISD). Edwards, S. Proceedings of the International Conference on Organic Agriculture and Food Security. FAO, Rom, 2007, ftp://ftp.fao.org/paia/organicag/ofs/02-Edwards.pdf.

81. The ethylene response factors SNORKEL1 and  SNORKEL2 allow rice to adapt to deep water. Hattori, Y. et al. Nature, Vol 460, 20 August 2009: 1026–1030.

82. Glyphosate-Resistant Weeds: Current Status and Future Outlook. Nandula V.K. et al. Outlooks on Pest Management, August 2005: 183–187.

83. Syngenta module helps manage glyphosate-resistant weeds. Delta Farm Press, 30 May 2008, http://deltafarmpress.com/mag/farming_syngenta_module_helps/index.html.

84. Resistant ryegrass populations rise in Mississippi.  Robinson R. Delta Farm Press, Oct 30, 2008. http://deltafarmpress.com/wheat/resistant-ryegrass-1030/

85. Glyphosate Resistant Horseweed (Marestail) Found in 9 More Indiana Counties. Johnson B and Vince Davis V. Pest & Crop, 13 May 2005. http://extension.entm.purdue.edu/pestcrop/2005/issue8/index.html

86. Genetically Engineered Crops and Pesticide Use in the United States: The First Nine Years. Benbrook CM.  BioTech InfoNet Technical Paper Number 7, October 2004. http://www.biotech-info.net/Full_version_first_nine.pdf

87. Agricultural Pesticide Use in US Agriculture. Center for Food Safety, May 2008, www.centerforfoodsafety.org/pubs/USDA%20NASS%20Backgrounder-FINAL.pdf.

88. A Little Burndown Madness. Nice G et al. Pest & Crop, 7 Mar 2008. http://extension.entm.purdue.edu/pestcrop/2008/issue1/index.html

89. To slow the spread of glyphosate resistant marestail, always apply with 2,4-D. Pest & Crop, issue 23, 2006. http://extension.entm.purdue.edu/pestcrop/2006/issue23/table1.html

90. Glyphosate Formulations Induce Apoptosis and Necrosis in Human Umbilical, Embryonic, and Placental Cells. Benachour, N. and Gilles-Eric Séralini. Chem. Res. Toxicol., 2009, 22 (1), pp 97–105.

91. Genetically-modified superweeds “not uncommon”.  Randerson J. New Scientist, 05 February 2002. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1882-geneticallymodified-superweeds-not-uncommon.html

92. Elements of Precaution: Recommendations for the Regulation of Food Biotechnology in Canada. An Expert Panel Report on the Future of Food Biotechnology prepared by The Royal Society of Canada at the request of Health Canada Canadian Food Inspection Agency and Environment Canada, 2001. http://www.rsc.ca//files/publications/ expert_panels/foodbiotechnology/GMreportEN.pdf

93. Gene Flow and Multiple Herbicide Resistance in Escaped Canola Populations. Knispel AL et al. Weed Science, 56: 72-80, 2008.

94. Do escaped transgenes persist in nature? The case of an herbicide resistance transgene in a weedy Brassica rapa population. Warwick SI et al. Molecular Ecology, 17: 1387-1395, 2008.

95. A Little Burndown Madness. Nice G et al. Pest & Crop, 7 Mar 2008. http://extension.entm.purdue.edu/pestcrop/2008/issue1/index.html

96. To slow the spread of glyphosate resistant marestail, always apply with 2,4-D. Pest & Crop, issue 23, 2006. http://extension.entm.purdue.edu/pestcrop/2006/issue23/table1.html

97. First report of field resistance by the stem borer, Busseola fusca (Fuller) to Bt-transgenic maize. Rensburg J.B.J. S. Afr J Plant Soil., 24: 147-151,  2007.

98. Resistance of sugarcane borer to Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1Ab toxin. Huang F et al. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 124: 117-123, 2007.

99. Insect resistance to Bt crops: evidence versus theory. Tabashnik BE et al. Nat Biotech., 26: 199-202, 2008.

100. Transgenic cotton drives insect boom. Pearson H. NatureNews. Published online 25 July 2006. http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060724/full/news060724-5.html

101. Bt-cotton and secondary pests. Wang S et al. Int. J. Biotechnology, 10: 113-121, 2008.

102. India: Bt cotton devastated by secondary pests. Bhaskar Goswami. Grain, 01 Sept 2007. http://www.grain.org/btcotton/?id=398

103. Bt cotton not pest resistant. Gur Kirpal Singh Ashk. The Times of India, 24 Aug 2007, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Chandigarh/Bt_cotton_not_pest_resistant/articleshow/2305806.cms

104. Prof Gilles-Eric Séralini, in an interview with Savvy Soumya Misra, Down to Earth, 15 April 2009, http://downtoearth.org.in/full6.asp?foldername=20091031&filename=inv&sec_id=14&sid=1

105. Transgenic crops take another knock. Giles J. NatureNews, published online: 21 March 2005. http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050321/full/050321-2.html

106. Effects on weed and invertebrate abundance and diversity of herbicide management in genetically modified herbicide-tolerant winter-sown oilseed rape. Bohan DA et al. Proc R Soc B, 272: 463-474, 2005.

107. Argentina’s bitter harvest. Branford S. New Scientist, 17 April 2004.

108. Rust, resistance, run down soils, and rising costs  –  Problems facing soybean producers in Argentina. Benbrook C.M. AgBioTech InfoNet, Technical Paper No 8, Jan 2005.

109. Transgenic pollen harms monarch larvae. Losey J.E. et al. Nature, 399: 214, 1999.

110. Field deposition of Bt transgenic corn pollen: lethal effects on the monarch butterfly. Hansen L. C. and J. Obrycki J. Oecologia, 125: 241-245, 2000.

111. The effects of pollen consumption of transgenic Bt maize on the common swallowtail, Papilio machaon L. (Lepidoptera, Papilionidae). Lang A and Vojtech E. Basic and Applied Ecology, 7: 296-306, 2006.

112. A meta-analysis of effects of Bt cotton and maize on nontarget invertebrates. Marvier M. et al. Science, 316: 1475-1477, 2007.

113. Toxins in transgenic crop byproducts may affect headwater stream ecosystems. Rosi-Marshall E.J. et al. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 104: 16204-16208, 2007.

114. Impact of Bt Corn on Rhizospheric and Soil Eubacterial Communities and on Beneficial Mycorrhizal Symbiosis in Experimental Microcosms. M. Castaldini M. et al. Appl Environ Microbiol., 71: 6719-6729, 2005.

115. The impact of transgenic plants on natural enemies: a critical review of laboratory studies. Lövei, G.L. and S. Arpaia, 2004. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata vol. 114: 1–14.

116. Risky business: Economic and regulatory impacts from the unintended release of genetically engineered rice varieties into the rice merchandising system of the US. Report for Greenpeace, 2007.

117. Mexico Halts US Rice Over GMO Certification. Reuters, 16 March 2007.

118. Organic farmers seek Supreme Court hearing. Press release, Organic Agriculture Protection Fund Committee, Saskatoon, Canada, 1 August 2007.

119. The United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Case 3:06-cv-01075-CRB Document 199 Filed 05/03/2007: Memorandum and Order Re: Permanent Injunction.

120. Coexistence of plants and coexistence of farmers: Is an individual choice possible? Binimelis, R., Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 21: 437-457, 2008.

121. CDC Triffid Flax Scare Threatens Access To No. 1 EU Market. Allan Dawson. Manitoba Co-operator, 17 September 2009; Changes Likely For Flax Industry. Allan Dawson. Manitoba Cooperator, 24 September 2009.

122. Biotech companies fuel GM contamination spread. Greenpeace International, 29 February 2008. http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/gm-ge-contamination-report290208

123. International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development: Global Summary for Decision Makers (IAASTD); Beintema, N. et al., 2008. http://www.agassessment.org/index.cfm?Page=IAASTD%20Reports&ItemID=2713

124. Applying Agroecology to Enhance the Productivity of Peasant Farming Systems in Latin America. Altieri M.A. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 1: 197-217, 1999.

125. More Productivity with Fewer External Inputs: Central American Case Studies of Agroecological Development and their Broader Implications. Bunch R. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 1: 219-233, 1999.

126. Can Sustainable Agriculture Feed Africa? New Evidence on Progress, Processes and Impacts. Pretty J. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 1: 253-274, 1999.

127. Organic Agriculture and Food Security in Africa. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, United Nations Environment Programme, 2008. http://www.unep-unctad.org/cbtf/publications/UNCTAD_DITC_TED_2007_15.pdf

128. Ecologising rice-based systems in Bangladesh. Barzman M. & Das L. ILEIA Newsletter, 2: 16-17, 2000. http://www.leisa.info/index.php?url=magazine-details.tpl&p[_id]=12434

129. Genetic diversity and disease control in rice. Zhu Y et al. Nature, 406: 718-722, 2000.

130. Lost Crops of Africa, Vol.1: Grains. National Research Council (Washington DC, USA) Report, 1996. http://www7.nationalacademies.org/dsc/LostCropsGrains_Brief.pdf

131. Marker-assisted selection: an approach for precision plant breeding in the twenty-first century. Collard BCY and Mackill DJ. Phil Trans R Soc B, 363: 557-572, 2008.

132. Breeding for abiotic stresses for sustainable agriculture. Witcombe J.R. et al. Phil Trans R Soc B, 363: 703-716, 2008.

133. “Organic Agriculture and Food Security in Africa”. Foreword by Supachai Panitchpakdi, Secretary-General of UNCTAD, and Achim Steiner, Executive Director of UNEP. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), 2008, p. 16, http://www.unep-unctad.org/cbtf/publications/UNCTAD_DITC_TED_2007_15.pdf

134. “Organic Agriculture and Food Security in Africa”. Foreword by Supachai Panitchpakdi, Secretary-General of UNCTAD, and Achim Steiner, Executive Director of UNEP. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), 2008, http://www.unep-unctad.org/cbtf/publications/UNCTAD_DITC_TED_2007_15.pdf

135. Certified organic export production. Implications for economic welfare and gender equity among smallholder farmers in tropical Africa. UNCTAD. 2008, http://www.unctad.org/trade_env/test1/publications/UNCTAD_DITC_TED_2007_7.pdf; The economics of certified organic farming in tropical Africa: A preliminary analysis. Gibbon P and Bolwig S. 2007. SIDA DIIS Working Paper no 2007/3, Subseries on Standards and Agro-Food-Exports (SAFE) No. 7; Organic Agriculture: A Trade and Sustainable Development Opportunity for Developing Countries. Twarog. 2006. In UNCTAD. 2006. Trade and Environment Review, UN, 2006, http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/ditcted200512_en.pdf.

136. The economics of certified organic farming in tropical Africa: A preliminary analysis. Gibbon P and Bolwig S. 2007. SIDA DIIS Working Paper no 2007/3, Subseries on Standards and Agro-Food-Exports (SAFE) No. 7; Certified organic export production. Implications for economic welfare and gender equity among smallholder farmers in tropical Africa. UNCTAD. 2008, http://www.unctad.org/trade_env/test1/publications/UNCTAD_DITC_TED_2007_7.pdf.

× 烏有之鄉(xiāng) WYZXWK.COM

您的打賞將用于網站日常運行與維護。
幫助我們辦好網站，宣傳紅色文化！

歡迎掃描下方二維碼，訂閱烏有之鄉(xiāng)網刊微信公眾號