Health Risks And Benefits
-Genetically Modified Food Controversies
1．The genetically modified foods controversy is a dispute over the relative advantages and disadvantages of genetically modified (GM) food crops. The dispute involves biotechnology companies, governmental regulators, non-governmeosysterm, gene flow into non GM crops, moral or religious concerns. And corporate control of food supply. Food safety is the primary issue of this controversy.
1.转基因食物争议是一场就转基因粮食作物的相对利弊的辩论。这场争辩牵涉到生物技术公司、政府监管机构及非政府XX系统，基因流入了非转基因作物，道德或宗教事务。就企业的食品供应控制而言，食品安全才是这争议的基本问题。
2．Worldwide， there are a range of perspectives within non-governmental organizations on the safety of GM foods. For example, the US pro-GM group Ag Bio World has argued that GM foods have been proven safe. Other pressure and consumer rights groups, such as the Organic Consumers Association, and Greenpeace claim the long term health risks which GM could pose, or the environmental risks associated with GM, have not yet been adequately investigated. In Japan, Consumers Union of Japan is opposed to GMO foods. They also claim that truly independent research in this areas is systematically blocked by the GM corporations which own the GM seeds and reference materials.
2. 世界范围内，关于转基因食品的安全，在非政府组织内部有一些观点。例如，the US pro-GM group Ag Bio World认为转基因食品已经被证明是安全的。另外的压力和消费者权利团体，如有机消费者协会（the OCA）和绿色空间（Greenpeace）声称转基因能造成长期的健康风险，还有环境风险也与转基因联系到一起，这些还未经充分地调查研究。在日本，日本消费者联盟（CUJ）与基因改造食品势不两立，他们也宣称，在这一区域，真实独立的调查被掌
控有转基因种子和参考资料的企业系统化地组织了。
3．A 2008 review published by the Royal Society of Medicine noted that GM foods have been eaten by millions of people worldwide for over 15 years, with no reports ill effects. Similarly a 2004 report from the US National Academies of Sciences stated that to date. No adverse health effects attributed to genetic engineering have been documented in the human population. A 2004 review of feeding trials in the Italian Journal of Animal Science found no differences among animals eating genetically modified plants. A 2005 review in Archives of Animal Nutrition concluded that first-generation genetically modified foods had been found to be similar in nutrition and safety to non –GM foods, but noted that second-generation foods with significant changes in constituents would be more difficult to test, and would require further animal studies. However, a 2009 review in Nutrition Reviews found that although most studies concluded that GM foods do not differ in nutrition or cause any detectable toxic effects in animals, some studies did report adverse changes at a cellular level caused by some GM foods, concluding that more scientific effort and investigation is needed to ensure that consumption of GM foods is not likely to provoke any from of health problem.
3. 由英国皇家医学会公布于2008年的审查指出，全世界成千上万人食用转基因食品超过15年，并无不良影响报告。同样地，美国国家科学院于2004的一篇报告阐明，迄今为止，无不良健康影响归因于遗传工程已经在全人类群落中记录下来。2004年，一篇刊登在《意大利动物科学》的杂志的饲养试验的发现，在食用转基因植物的试验样本中并无差异。回顾2005年《动物营养档案》得出的结论：第一代转基因食物已被发现其营养与安全性与无转基因食物是相类似的，但也指出，在成分上发生显著变化的第二代食物将会更难试验，且需要更进一步的动物研究。然而，2009年的《营养评论》发现:尽管绝大多数研究得出转基因食物不会使营养发生差异或引起动物任何可检测的有毒影响，一些研究报告了由转基因食物引起的细胞层面上的恶性改变，断定需要更多科技上的努力和调研以确保转基因食物的消
费没有可能引发任何健康问题。
4. The starting point for the safety assessment of genetically engineered food products is to assess if the food is substantially equivalent to its natural counterpart. To decide if a modified product is substantially equivalent, the product is tested by the manufacturer for unexpected changes in a limited set of components such as allergens that are present in the unmodified food, If these tests show no significant difference between the modified and unmodified products, then no further food safety testing is required. The manufacture’ date are then assessed by an independent regulatory body, such as the U. S. Food and Drug Administration.
4.经基因工程处理食物产品的安全评估的出发点是去评估这食品是否大体上等同于他的自然态副本，要判定改良产品是否大体等值，需要由制造商进行测试其成分的有限集合里的预期外的变化，诸如存在于未改良食物中的过敏原，如果这些测试没有显示出改良和未改良产品间明显的区别，那么更深层的食品安全性测试就不是必须的。接下来，生产日期需要由一个像美国食品药品管理局这样的独立的监察机构来进行评估。
5. However, if the product has no natural equivalent, or shows significant differences from the unmodified food, then further safety testing is carried out.
A 2003 review identified the main parts of a standard safety test: to study the introduced DNA and the new proteins or metabolites that it produces; to analysize the chemical composition of the relevant plant parts, measuring nutrients, anti-nutrients as well as any natural toxins or known allergens; to assess the risk of gene transfer from the food to microorganisms in the human gut; to study the possibility that any new components in the food might be allergens; to estimate how much of a normal diet the food will make up; to estimate any toxicological or nutritional problems revealed by this date; and to do additional animal toxicity tests if there is the possibility that the food might pose a risk.
5.然而，如果该产品没有自然的相等物，或与未改良产品表现出明显的区别，那么，就需要执行更进一步的安全测试。2003年的审查确定了一个标准的安全测试的主体：研究导入DNA和新的蛋白质或代谢物的产生；分析有关植物机体结构的化学成分，和所有的自然毒素或已知的过敏原一样，测量其营养素和非营养素；评估食物基因导入人体肠道微生物的风险；研究食物中任何一种新的成分导致过敏的可能性；预估这食物会组成多少标准饮食；判断这时表现出的毒物学和营养学上的所有问题；当这食物有可能造成危险时要做附加的动物毒副反应试验。
6. This process was examined further in a review published by Kuiper et al. 2002 in the journal Toxicology, which stated that substantial equivalence does not itself measure risks, but instead identifies differences between existing products and new foods, which might pose dangers to health. If differences do exist, identifying these differences is a starting point for a full safety assessment, rather than an end point. The authors concluded that the concept of substantial equivalence is an adequate tool in order to identify safety issues related to genetically modified products that have a traditional counterpart. However, the review also noted difficulties in applying this standard in practice, including the fact that traditional foods contain many chemicals that have toxic or carcinogenic effects and that our existing diets therefore have not been proven to be safe. This lack of knowledge on unmodified food poses a problem, as GM foods may have differences in anti-nutrients and natural toxins that have never been identified in the original plant, raising the possibility that harmful changes could be missed.
6. 2002年，Kuiper发表在《毒物学》杂志上的报告更进一步的调查了这一过程，阐述了实质等同性本身并不能衡量风险，而是代替识别现存产品和新食物间会造成健康风险的差异。如果差异存在，识别这些差异只是一个完整的安全评估的开始，而不是结束。作者得出结论，实质等同性的概念是为了鉴定有关有传统副本的转基因食品的安全性议题的适当工具。然而，这份报告也指出这一标准在实践中应用的难点，包括传统食物含有许多有毒和有致癌效应的
化学物的事实，我们目前的饮食因此也不能被证明是安全的。有关未改良食品的知识的缺乏造成了一个难题，如同转基因食品在基源植物中从未被鉴定出过的反营养素和自然毒素方面可能有所差别一样，提升了有害变异被忽略的可能性。
7. The application of substantial equivalence has also been more strongly criticized. For example, in a speech in 1999, Andrew Chesson of the University of Aberdeen, stated that substantial equivalence testing could be flawed in some cases and that some current safety tests could allow harmful substances to enter the human food chain. In a commentary in Nature Millstone argued that all GM foods should have extensive biological, toxicological and immunological tests and that the concept of substantial equivalence based solely on chemical analysis of the components of a food should be abandoned. They stated that this is necessary since it is currently impossible to predict the biological properties of a substance only from knowledge of its chemistry, This commentary was controversial and was criticized for misleading presentation of data and presenting an over-simplified version of safety assessments. For example, Kuiper et al. responded to this criticism by noting that equivalency testing does involve more than chemical tests and may include toxicity testing.
7.实质等同性的应用也受到激烈的批评。举例来说，1999年的一场演讲，亚伯丁大学的Andrew Chesson，阐明实质等同性试验在一些情况下可能是有缺陷的，一些现行的安全性试验会容许有害物质进入到人类食物链中。在《Nature Millstone》的一份评论中辩称，所有的转基因食物应当经过生物学的、毒物学的和免疫学的大量试验，并且单独基于食物成分的化学分析的实质等同性的概念应当被遗弃。他们阐述自从其当前不可能仅仅从化学知识上预知某一物质的生物特质上来说，这就是必须的。这个评论是有争议的并被批评为有误导性的数据显示，且呈现出一个过于简化了的安全性评估版本。举列来说，Kuiper回应了这一批评，通过注解同等测试涉及到的化学试验及可能包括的毒性试验。
8. The value of current independent studies is problematic as researchers are forbidden by law from publishing independent research in peer reviewed
journals without the approval of the agritech companies. Cornell University’s Elson Shields, the spokesperson for a group of scientists who oppose this practice, submitted a statement to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) protesting that as a result of restrictive assess, no truly independent research can be legally conducted on many critical questions regarding the technology. Scientific American noted that several studies that were initially approved by seed companies were later blocked from publication when they returned unflattering results. While recognizing that seed companies intellectual property rights need to be protected. Scientific American calls the practice dangerous and has called for the restrictions on research in the End-user agreements to be lifted immediately and for the EPA to require, as a condition of approval, that independent researchers have unfettered access to GM products for testing. The Welsh pressure group GM Free Cymru argues that governments should use independent studies rather than industry studies to assess crop safety.
8. 目前的独立研究的价值是不确定的，因为研究者们未经agritech公司同意，法律禁止其在同行评议的学术期刊上发表独立研究结果。康奈尔大学的Elson Shields，作为科学家中的代言人，反对这个实践，向美国环境保护署递交了一份声明，抗议限制性的评估结果，没有独立研究能在许多关于技术的关键性问题上受到合法地引导。《科学美国人》注意到几项研究最初经种子公司批准，随后又在其回报准确结果时遭遇出版阻碍。当认识到种子公司的知识产权需要受到保护时。《科学美国人》呼吁危险的实践并已要求美国环境保护署需要立即在终端用户协议下解除研究中的受限制条件，作为许可条件独立研究已经有无限制的权限去试验转基因产品。威尔士压力集团——GM Free Cymru说服政府应当利用独立研究而不是工业研究来评估作物安全性。
Health Risks And Benefits
-Genetically Modified Food Controversies
1．The genetically modified foods controversy is a dispute over the relative advantages and disadvantages of genetically modified (GM) food crops. The dispute involves biotechnology companies, governmental regulators, non-governmeosysterm, gene flow into non GM crops, moral or religious concerns. And corporate control of food supply. Food safety is the primary issue of this controversy.
1.转基因食物争议是一场就转基因粮食作物的相对利弊的辩论。这场争辩牵涉到生物技术公司、政府监管机构及非政府XX系统，基因流入了非转基因作物，道德或宗教事务。就企业的食品供应控制而言，食品安全才是这争议的基本问题。
2．Worldwide， there are a range of perspectives within non-governmental organizations on the safety of GM foods. For example, the US pro-GM group Ag Bio World has argued that GM foods have been proven safe. Other pressure and consumer rights groups, such as the Organic Consumers Association, and Greenpeace claim the long term health risks which GM could pose, or the environmental risks associated with GM, have not yet been adequately investigated. In Japan, Consumers Union of Japan is opposed to GMO foods. They also claim that truly independent research in this areas is systematically blocked by the GM corporations which own the GM seeds and reference materials.
2. 世界范围内，关于转基因食品的安全，在非政府组织内部有一些观点。例如，the US pro-GM group Ag Bio World认为转基因食品已经被证明是安全的。另外的压力和消费者权利团体，如有机消费者协会（the OCA）和绿色空间（Greenpeace）声称转基因能造成长期的健康风险，还有环境风险也与转基因联系到一起，这些还未经充分地调查研究。在日本，日本消费者联盟（CUJ）与基因改造食品势不两立，他们也宣称，在这一区域，真实独立的调查被掌
控有转基因种子和参考资料的企业系统化地组织了。
3．A 2008 review published by the Royal Society of Medicine noted that GM foods have been eaten by millions of people worldwide for over 15 years, with no reports ill effects. Similarly a 2004 report from the US National Academies of Sciences stated that to date. No adverse health effects attributed to genetic engineering have been documented in the human population. A 2004 review of feeding trials in the Italian Journal of Animal Science found no differences among animals eating genetically modified plants. A 2005 review in Archives of Animal Nutrition concluded that first-generation genetically modified foods had been found to be similar in nutrition and safety to non –GM foods, but noted that second-generation foods with significant changes in constituents would be more difficult to test, and would require further animal studies. However, a 2009 review in Nutrition Reviews found that although most studies concluded that GM foods do not differ in nutrition or cause any detectable toxic effects in animals, some studies did report adverse changes at a cellular level caused by some GM foods, concluding that more scientific effort and investigation is needed to ensure that consumption of GM foods is not likely to provoke any from of health problem.
3. 由英国皇家医学会公布于2008年的审查指出，全世界成千上万人食用转基因食品超过15年，并无不良影响报告。同样地，美国国家科学院于2004的一篇报告阐明，迄今为止，无不良健康影响归因于遗传工程已经在全人类群落中记录下来。2004年，一篇刊登在《意大利动物科学》的杂志的饲养试验的发现，在食用转基因植物的试验样本中并无差异。回顾2005年《动物营养档案》得出的结论：第一代转基因食物已被发现其营养与安全性与无转基因食物是相类似的，但也指出，在成分上发生显著变化的第二代食物将会更难试验，且需要更进一步的动物研究。然而，2009年的《营养评论》发现:尽管绝大多数研究得出转基因食物不会使营养发生差异或引起动物任何可检测的有毒影响，一些研究报告了由转基因食物引起的细胞层面上的恶性改变，断定需要更多科技上的努力和调研以确保转基因食物的消
费没有可能引发任何健康问题。
4. The starting point for the safety assessment of genetically engineered food products is to assess if the food is substantially equivalent to its natural counterpart. To decide if a modified product is substantially equivalent, the product is tested by the manufacturer for unexpected changes in a limited set of components such as allergens that are present in the unmodified food, If these tests show no significant difference between the modified and unmodified products, then no further food safety testing is required. The manufacture’ date are then assessed by an independent regulatory body, such as the U. S. Food and Drug Administration.
4.经基因工程处理食物产品的安全评估的出发点是去评估这食品是否大体上等同于他的自然态副本，要判定改良产品是否大体等值，需要由制造商进行测试其成分的有限集合里的预期外的变化，诸如存在于未改良食物中的过敏原，如果这些测试没有显示出改良和未改良产品间明显的区别，那么更深层的食品安全性测试就不是必须的。接下来，生产日期需要由一个像美国食品药品管理局这样的独立的监察机构来进行评估。
5. However, if the product has no natural equivalent, or shows significant differences from the unmodified food, then further safety testing is carried out.
A 2003 review identified the main parts of a standard safety test: to study the introduced DNA and the new proteins or metabolites that it produces; to analysize the chemical composition of the relevant plant parts, measuring nutrients, anti-nutrients as well as any natural toxins or known allergens; to assess the risk of gene transfer from the food to microorganisms in the human gut; to study the possibility that any new components in the food might be allergens; to estimate how much of a normal diet the food will make up; to estimate any toxicological or nutritional problems revealed by this date; and to do additional animal toxicity tests if there is the possibility that the food might pose a risk.
5.然而，如果该产品没有自然的相等物，或与未改良产品表现出明显的区别，那么，就需要执行更进一步的安全测试。2003年的审查确定了一个标准的安全测试的主体：研究导入DNA和新的蛋白质或代谢物的产生；分析有关植物机体结构的化学成分，和所有的自然毒素或已知的过敏原一样，测量其营养素和非营养素；评估食物基因导入人体肠道微生物的风险；研究食物中任何一种新的成分导致过敏的可能性；预估这食物会组成多少标准饮食；判断这时表现出的毒物学和营养学上的所有问题；当这食物有可能造成危险时要做附加的动物毒副反应试验。
6. This process was examined further in a review published by Kuiper et al. 2002 in the journal Toxicology, which stated that substantial equivalence does not itself measure risks, but instead identifies differences between existing products and new foods, which might pose dangers to health. If differences do exist, identifying these differences is a starting point for a full safety assessment, rather than an end point. The authors concluded that the concept of substantial equivalence is an adequate tool in order to identify safety issues related to genetically modified products that have a traditional counterpart. However, the review also noted difficulties in applying this standard in practice, including the fact that traditional foods contain many chemicals that have toxic or carcinogenic effects and that our existing diets therefore have not been proven to be safe. This lack of knowledge on unmodified food poses a problem, as GM foods may have differences in anti-nutrients and natural toxins that have never been identified in the original plant, raising the possibility that harmful changes could be missed.
6. 2002年，Kuiper发表在《毒物学》杂志上的报告更进一步的调查了这一过程，阐述了实质等同性本身并不能衡量风险，而是代替识别现存产品和新食物间会造成健康风险的差异。如果差异存在，识别这些差异只是一个完整的安全评估的开始，而不是结束。作者得出结论，实质等同性的概念是为了鉴定有关有传统副本的转基因食品的安全性议题的适当工具。然而，这份报告也指出这一标准在实践中应用的难点，包括传统食物含有许多有毒和有致癌效应的
化学物的事实，我们目前的饮食因此也不能被证明是安全的。有关未改良食品的知识的缺乏造成了一个难题，如同转基因食品在基源植物中从未被鉴定出过的反营养素和自然毒素方面可能有所差别一样，提升了有害变异被忽略的可能性。
7. The application of substantial equivalence has also been more strongly criticized. For example, in a speech in 1999, Andrew Chesson of the University of Aberdeen, stated that substantial equivalence testing could be flawed in some cases and that some current safety tests could allow harmful substances to enter the human food chain. In a commentary in Nature Millstone argued that all GM foods should have extensive biological, toxicological and immunological tests and that the concept of substantial equivalence based solely on chemical analysis of the components of a food should be abandoned. They stated that this is necessary since it is currently impossible to predict the biological properties of a substance only from knowledge of its chemistry, This commentary was controversial and was criticized for misleading presentation of data and presenting an over-simplified version of safety assessments. For example, Kuiper et al. responded to this criticism by noting that equivalency testing does involve more than chemical tests and may include toxicity testing.
7.实质等同性的应用也受到激烈的批评。举例来说，1999年的一场演讲，亚伯丁大学的Andrew Chesson，阐明实质等同性试验在一些情况下可能是有缺陷的，一些现行的安全性试验会容许有害物质进入到人类食物链中。在《Nature Millstone》的一份评论中辩称，所有的转基因食物应当经过生物学的、毒物学的和免疫学的大量试验，并且单独基于食物成分的化学分析的实质等同性的概念应当被遗弃。他们阐述自从其当前不可能仅仅从化学知识上预知某一物质的生物特质上来说，这就是必须的。这个评论是有争议的并被批评为有误导性的数据显示，且呈现出一个过于简化了的安全性评估版本。举列来说，Kuiper回应了这一批评，通过注解同等测试涉及到的化学试验及可能包括的毒性试验。
8. The value of current independent studies is problematic as researchers are forbidden by law from publishing independent research in peer reviewed
journals without the approval of the agritech companies. Cornell University’s Elson Shields, the spokesperson for a group of scientists who oppose this practice, submitted a statement to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) protesting that as a result of restrictive assess, no truly independent research can be legally conducted on many critical questions regarding the technology. Scientific American noted that several studies that were initially approved by seed companies were later blocked from publication when they returned unflattering results. While recognizing that seed companies intellectual property rights need to be protected. Scientific American calls the practice dangerous and has called for the restrictions on research in the End-user agreements to be lifted immediately and for the EPA to require, as a condition of approval, that independent researchers have unfettered access to GM products for testing. The Welsh pressure group GM Free Cymru argues that governments should use independent studies rather than industry studies to assess crop safety.
8. 目前的独立研究的价值是不确定的，因为研究者们未经agritech公司同意，法律禁止其在同行评议的学术期刊上发表独立研究结果。康奈尔大学的Elson Shields，作为科学家中的代言人，反对这个实践，向美国环境保护署递交了一份声明，抗议限制性的评估结果，没有独立研究能在许多关于技术的关键性问题上受到合法地引导。《科学美国人》注意到几项研究最初经种子公司批准，随后又在其回报准确结果时遭遇出版阻碍。当认识到种子公司的知识产权需要受到保护时。《科学美国人》呼吁危险的实践并已要求美国环境保护署需要立即在终端用户协议下解除研究中的受限制条件，作为许可条件独立研究已经有无限制的权限去试验转基因产品。威尔士压力集团——GM Free Cymru说服政府应当利用独立研究而不是工业研究来评估作物安全性。