轉基因食品爭議

轉基因食品爭議（英語：Genetically modified food controversies）是指關於食用轉基因作物及其副產品、在食品生產中利用基因工程技術而非植物配種等方面的爭議。這場爭議與消費者、生物技術公司、政府管理者、非政府組織和科學家都密切相關。關於基因改造食品的爭論核心包括：轉基因食品的上市標註、政府管理者的責任、相關科學研究的目的、轉基因作物對環境和健康的影響、對害蟲之抗藥性（英語：Pesticide resistance）的影響、對農業生產者的影響和轉基因作物對滿足全球糧食需求的作用。

公眾對轉基因食品的具體擔憂包括對於轉基因食品與非轉基因食品在供應上的影響^[1]，轉基因食品對環境造成的影響^[2][3]，監督者是否會瀆職^[4][5]。食品安全中心（英語：Center for Food Safety）、有機產品消費者協會（英語：Organic Consumers Association）、相關科學家聯合會（英語：Union of Concerned Scientists）及綠色和平等相關利益團體認為轉基因相關的風險並沒有被正確認識和應對，同時質疑監管機構的客觀性。

目前的科學共識是此類轉基因作物及其副產品的健康安全風險並不高於傳統食品^[6][7]，也就是說轉基因作物的安全性是可以保證的^[8][9]，不過即便如此目前對轉基因的安全評估依然十分嚴格^[10]。對轉基因食品的安全評估始於鑑定該食品是否與同類非轉基因食品實質性等同（英語：Substantial equivalence），即確認轉基因食品是否與已經被確認無害的傳統食品是否本質相同，且目前還沒有報告稱轉基因食品在人身上造成疾病^[11][12][13]，但公眾還是擔心轉基因食品有害健康^[14][15]。雖然針對轉基因生物產品的標註在許多國家是強制性的，但美國和加拿大並不執行類似政策，在市場上轉基因食品和傳統食品是沒有差別的。

公眾認知

儘管重視食品衛生的思想自古已有之，但在美國，直到厄普頓·辛克萊的小說《屠場》出版以及純淨食品藥物法案（英語：Pure Food and Drug Act）出世後，這一問題才正式被公眾所廣泛討論^[16]。這進一步導致了人們對食品純度、食品「天然度」的長期關注，這種關注隨後演變到了對防腐劑、香料、甜味劑、農藥殘留物的擔憂，有機食品的崛起以及最終對轉基因食品的擔憂。許多消費者認為轉基因食品是「非天然的」並對轉基因食品充滿負面聯想和恐懼（這被認為是一種逆向的暈輪效應）^[17][18]。

公眾的看法包括但不限於將基因工程視為干預自然進化的生物過程，以及認為科學在潛在危害的評估時有局限^[19]。不過，一種反對的看法認為基因工程就是傳統選擇性育種的演變，且現有證據證明轉基因食品在營養價值和健康方面與傳統食品相同（即實質性等同）^[20][21]。

一系列的研究指出，人們擔憂進食轉基因食品對身體有害^[22][23][24]；擔憂生物技術的風險十分高；擔憂自己了解的資訊不足，不敢冒着風險進食^[25][26]。

參考文獻

1. Proposals for managing the coexistence of GM, conventional and organic crops Response to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs consultation paper (PDF). Chartered Institute of Environmental Health. 2006-10 [2021-03-14]. （原始內容存檔 (PDF)於2017-05-25）.
2. Statement on Genetically Modified Organisms in the Environment and the Marketplace. Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment. October 2013 [2014-03-25]. （原始內容存檔於2014-03-26）.
3. Genetically Modified Maize: Doctors' Chamber Warns of "Unpredictable Results" to Humans.. PR Newswire. 2013-11-11 [2021-03-14]. （原始內容存檔於2021-02-25）.
4. IDEA Position on Genetically Modified Foods.. Irish Doctors' Environmental Association. [2014-03-25]. （原始內容存檔於26 March 2014）.
5. Report 2 of the Council on Science and Public Health: Labeling of Bioengineered Foods. (PDF). American Medical Association: 7. 2012 [2014-05-21]. （原始內容 (PDF)存檔於2012-09-07）. 為了更好地檢測轉基因食品對人類的潛在影響，研究委員會認為售前安全評估應從建議性措施轉為強制性措施（To better detect potential harms of bioengineered foods, the Council believes that pre-market safety assessment should shift from a voluntary notification process to a mandatory requirement）
6. Ronald, Pamela. Plant Genetics, Sustainable Agriculture and Global Food Security. Genetics. May 1, 2011, 188 (1): 11–20. PMC 3120150 . PMID 21546547. doi:10.1534/genetics.111.128553. There is broad scientific consensus that genetically engineered crops currently on the market are safe to eat. After 14 years of cultivation and a cumulative total of 2 billion acres planted, no adverse health or environmental effects have resulted from commercialization of genetically engineered crops (Board on Agriculture and Natural Resources, Committee on Environmental Impacts Associated with Commercialization of Transgenic Plants, National Research Council and Division on Earth and Life Studies 2002). Both the U.S. National Research Council and the Joint Research Centre (the European Union's scientific and technical research laboratory and an integral part of the European Commission) have concluded that there is a comprehensive body of knowledge that adequately addresses the food safety issue of genetically engineered crops (Committee on Identifying and Assessing Unintended Effects of Genetically Engineered Foods on Human Health and National Research Council 2004; European Commission Joint Research Centre 2008). These and other recent reports conclude that the processes of genetic engineering and conventional breeding are no different in terms of unintended consequences to human health and the environment (European Commission Directorate-General for Research and Innovation 2010).
7. Nicolia, Alessandro; Manzo, Alberto; Veronesi, Fabio; Rosellini, Daniele. An overview of the last 10 years of genetically engineered crop safety research (PDF). Critical Reviews in Biotechnology. 2013, 34 (1): 77–88 [2020-05-07]. PMID 24041244. doi:10.3109/07388551.2013.823595. （原始內容存檔 (PDF)於2021-03-08）. 我們回顧了自轉基因植物在全球廣泛種植以來近十年有關轉基因作物安全性的科學文獻，我們得出結論：目前進行的科學研究並未發現任何與轉基因作物直接相關的重大危害。
   
   關於生物多樣性和轉基因食品/飼料消費的文獻常引起激烈爭論，這涉及到了實驗設計的適用性、統計方法的選擇以及數據的公眾可獲取性。然而，在這場爭論中即便是科學界內常態的、自然的同行評審也常常被媒體歪曲並常用於政治化和扭曲轉基因相關技術。（We have reviewed the scientific literature on GE crop safety for the last 10 years that catches the scientific consensus matured since GE plants became widely cultivated worldwide, and we can conclude that the scientific research conducted so far has not detected any significant hazard directly connected with the use of GM crops.
   
   The literature about Biodiversity and the GE food/feed consumption has sometimes resulted in animated debate regarding the suitability of the experimental designs, the choice of the statistical methods or the public accessibility of data. Such debate, even if positive and part of the natural process of review by the scientific community, has frequently been distorted by the media and often used politically and inappropriately in anti-GE crops campaigns.）
8. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), Board of Directors (2012). Legally Mandating GM Food Labels Could Mislead and Falsely Alarm Consumers （頁面存檔備份，存於互聯網檔案館）
9. A decade of EU-funded GMO research (2001-2010) (PDF). Directorate-General for Research and Innovation. Biotechnologies, Agriculture, Food. European Union. 2010 [2014-05-21]. ISBN 978-92-79-16344-9. doi:10.2777/97784. （原始內容存檔 (PDF)於2019-08-17）. 「過去超過25年間的研究，有着超過130個研究項目，多餘500個獨立研究小組參與，都得出結論，生物技術，特別是轉基因食品，並不比傳統育種的食物有更大的風險。」("The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research, and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are not per se more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies.")(p. 16)
10. 关于转基因食品的常见问题. 世界衛生組織. [August 30, 2019]. （原始內容存檔於2020-10-19）. 不同的轉基因生物包括以不同方式插入的各種基因。這意味着應逐案評估各別轉基因食品及其安全性，並且不可能就所有轉基因食品的安全性發表總體聲明。目前在國際市場上可獲得的轉基因食品已通過安全性評估並且可能不會對人類健康產生危險。此外，在此類食品獲得批准的國家普通大眾對這些食品的消費未顯示對人類健康的影響。不斷利用以食品法典委員會原則為基礎的安全性評估並酌情包括上市銷售後監測，應構成評價轉基因食品安全性的基礎。
11. American Medical Association (2012). Report 2 of the Council on Science and Public Health: Labeling of Bioengineered Foods，archived from Wayback Machine： 「轉基因食物已經被食用了近二十年，在此期間，沒有一個經過同行評審的科學報告表明它對人類健康有不良效應。」("Bioengineered foods have been consumed for close to 20 years, and during that time, no overt consequences on human health have been reported and/or substantiated in the peer-reviewed literature.")(page 1)
12. United States Institute of Medicine and National Research Council (2004). Safety of Genetically Engineered Foods: Approaches to Assessing Unintended Health Effects. National Academies Press. Free full-text （頁面存檔備份，存於互聯網檔案館）. National Academies Press. pp R9-10: 「相比傳統食物生產造成的健康危害，類似的嚴重健康影響還沒能被證明同樣會由轉基因技術產生。這可能是因為轉基因生物的研發者進行了大量分析，驗證每個生物表現型都是令人滿意的，並確保食物關鍵成分中不會產生不在計劃中的變化。」 （"In contrast to adverse health effects that have been associated with some traditional food production methods, similar serious health effects have not been identified as a result of genetic engineering techniques used in food production. This may be because developers of bioengineered organisms perform extensive compositional analyses to determine that each phenotype is desirable and to ensure that unintended changes have not occurred in key components of food."）
13. Key S, Ma JK, Drake PM. Genetically modified plants and human health. J R Soc Med. June 2008, 101 (6): 290–8. PMC 2408621 . PMID 18515776. doi:10.1258/jrsm.2008.070372. +pp 292-293. 超過15年間，轉基因作物及其副產品被全世界千百萬人消費，沒有造成疾病效應。（Foods derived from GM crops have been consumed by hundreds of millions of people across the world for more than 15 years, with no reported ill effects (or legal cases related to human health).）
14. Funk, Cary; Rainie, Lee. Public and Scientists' Views on Science and Society. Pew Research Center. January 29, 2015 [August 30, 2019]. （原始內容存檔於2019-01-09）. 在美國，公眾與美國科學促進會科學家之間對轉基因食品安全性的認知存在顯著差異。接近90%（88%）的科學家認為轉基因食品是大概安全的，但只有37%的大眾持這一觀點，雙方差值達到51%。（The largest differences between the public and the AAAS scientists are found in beliefs about the safety of eating genetically modified (GM) foods. Nearly nine-in-ten (88%) scientists say it is generally safe to eat GM foods compared with 37% of the general public, a difference of 51 percentage points.）
15. Marris, Claire. Public views on GMOs: deconstructing the myths. EMBO Reports. 2001, 2 (7): 545–548. PMC 1083956 . PMID 11463731. doi:10.1093/embo-reports/kve142.
16. Swann JP. The 1906 Food and Drugs Act and Its Enforcement. FDA History – Part I. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. [10 April 2013]. （原始內容存檔於2021-01-03）.
17. Konnikova M. The Psychology of Distrusting G.M.O.s. New Yorker. August 8, 2013 [2020-05-06]. （原始內容存檔於2014-04-25）. G.M.O.s, in contrast, suffer from a reverse halo effect, whereby one negative-seeming attribute (unnaturalness, in this case) skews over-all perception. In a 2005 study conducted at Maastricht University, in the Netherlands, researchers found that the more unnatural a genetically modified product seemed, the less likely it would be to gain acceptance. A hundred and forty-four University of Maastricht undergraduates were asked to visualize seven products, including butter, tomatoes, and fish fingers, and rate them on naturalness, health, and necessity.
18. 人们惧怕转基因食品的心理原因. 《中國食品學報》. 2013, 13 (12): 88. 並且人們在判斷兩者孰優孰劣時會存在認知上的偏見，即天然的一定是好的，而非天然的就是壞的。而任何事物，只要進行了人為干涉都會被定義為「非天然」，比如轉基因食品。
19. Brody, Jane E. Are G.M.O. Foods Safe?. The New York Times. 2018-04-23 [2019-01-07]. ISSN 0362-4331. （原始內容存檔於2021-04-18） （美國英語）.
20. Pollack, Andrew. Genetically Engineered Crops Are Safe, Analysis Finds. The New York Times. 2016-05-17 [2019-01-07]. ISSN 0362-4331. （原始內容存檔於2021-05-03） （美國英語）.
21. Borel B. Can Genetically Engineered Foods Harm You?. Huffington Post. 1 November 2012 [7 September 2013]. （原始內容存檔於2017-05-31）.
22. Editors of Nature. Editorial: Fields of gold. Nature. 2 May 2013, 497 (5–6): 5–6. PMID 23646363. doi:10.1038/497005b.
23. Harmon A. A Lonely Quest for Facts on Genetically Modified Crops. The New York Times. 4 January 2014 [2020-07-24]. （原始內容存檔於2021-05-18）.
24. Johnson N. The genetically modified food debate: Where do we begin?. Grist. July 8, 2013 [2020-07-24]. （原始內容存檔於2021-03-17）.
25. Hunt L. Factors determining the public understanding of GM technologies (PDF). AgBiotechNet. 2004, 6 (128): 1–8 [2012-09-16]. （原始內容 (Review Article)存檔於2013-11-02）.
26. Lazarus RJ. The Tragedy of Distrust in the Implementation of Federal Environmental Law. Law and Contemporary Problems. 1991, 54 (4): 311–74 [2020-07-24]. JSTOR 1191880. doi:10.2307/1191880. （原始內容存檔於2021-03-11）.

外部連結

一般看法

• GMO Compass Information on the use of genetic engineering in the agri-food industry. Authorization database with all GM plants in the EU.
• Center for Environmental Risk Assessment Database detailing all currently accepted GM crops.
• Coextra Research project on coexistence and traceability of GM and non-GM supply chains. Archived from the original on February 28, 2007.
• Labeling of Genetically Engineered Foods （頁面存檔備份，存於互聯網檔案館） A website posted by P. Bryne of the Colorado State University Extension, provides a concise list of pros and cons of labeling food derived from genetically modified organisms
• Genetic Imperialism?: the First and Third World's face-off on the frontiers of science from the Dean Peter Krogh Foreign Affairs Digital Archives
• Intelligence Squared. Debate on Should We Genetically Modify Foods? （頁面存檔備份，存於互聯網檔案館） "Arguing for the motion is Monsanto's Executive VP and Chief Technology Officer, Robert Fraley, and genomics and biotechnology researcher at UC Davis, Alison Van Eenennaam. Arguing against the motion is research professor at the Center for Sustaining Agriculture and Natural Resources, Charles Benbrook, and science policy consultant and former senior scientist of Union of Concerned Scientists, Margaret Mellon." April 2015

反對看法

• Soil Association （頁面存檔備份，存於互聯網檔案館）
• Center for Food Safety
• Greenpeace
• Sierra Club （頁面存檔備份，存於互聯網檔案館）
• Institute for Responsible Technology （頁面存檔備份，存於互聯網檔案館）

擁護者

• Council for Biotechnology Information （頁面存檔備份，存於互聯網檔案館）
• AgBioWorld （頁面存檔備份，存於互聯網檔案館）
• BioTech Now （頁面存檔備份，存於互聯網檔案館）
• Bill Gates Agricultural Development Golden Rice. [3 Feb 2016]. （原始內容存檔於2016-02-03）.
• Bill Nye Proof he's the Science Guy: Bill Nye is changing his mind about GMOs. 3 March 2015 [3 Feb 2016]. （原始內容存檔於2021-02-16）.

政府觀點

• German Federal Ministry of Education and Research
• UK Food Standards Agency （頁面存檔備份，存於互聯網檔案館）
• European Food Safety Authority
• EU legislation documents on genetically modified organisms （頁面存檔備份，存於互聯網檔案館）
• Government of Canada BioPortal

醫療及科學做法

• NIH National Library of Medicine （頁面存檔備份，存於互聯網檔案館）
• Royal Society, Genetically modified plants for food use and human health—an update （頁面存檔備份，存於互聯網檔案館）. 2002

Template:Emerging technologies