西西河

主题:中国式转基因谣言:美国FDA不允许食品标注非转基因 -- 别来无样

共:💬46 🌺307 🌵4
全看分页树展 · 主题 跟帖
家园 先给Ambrossi拍个照,暂时关小黑屋,用个马甲,见谅

这篇文章有管理推荐,我很震惊,大概是所谓君子可欺以方 [ Ambrossi ] 于:2011-08-16 19:58:27 复:3535164

文章的本质就是节选翻译了一下FDA的那篇《自愿标示是否生化手段转基因食物的业界指南草样》。结论是“科学新闻,南方周末,方舟子"都撒了谎,欺骗了中国百姓。潜台词就是转基因是有害的,更深一步的潜台词,我没法证明就不说了。

这里就说说我能证明的。第一,根到底生化手段转基因食物(下简:转基因)是不是在美国被大量生产和普遍消费。很简单,看以下USDA权威数据。

http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/BiotechCrops/

看图说话,“大量生产”不言自明,“普遍消费”现在有两种挑战:间接消费说和有钱人不吃说。“间接消费说”指的是这些转基因主要是给动物当饲料吃,美国人主要是靠吃肉来间接消费的,所以比较安全。为什么安全?不知道,反正感觉安全。这种说法我没法证伪,就算是吧,不过“普遍消费”总是没错,也就是直接/间接“普遍消费”的问题。还有“有钱人不吃说”现在也非常热门,就是说高级美国人都是吃organic的食物,避免转基因。这个我还没有“渗透到美国权贵阶层”,说话不权威,不过不管什么国家,“高级”的人都是少数,这个说法不能推翻“普遍消费”大概没什么问题。

所以改一下这个主要的论点:转基因食物在美国被大量生产和普遍消费(直接/间接)。这个论点欢迎挑战。当然,本来最重要最根本的论点是“转基因食物是否安全”,不过老是有人要扯上美国,我也没办法。

第二,“科学新闻,南方周末,方舟子"撒了谎没有。也许是我too simple sometimes naive,总觉得白纸黑字的东西,自己读一读不就得了?不过好像同样的东西不同人读也会不同的,听说和屁股有关。难道是我自己屁股有问题?这里就把我看到的白纸黑字和大家分享一下,希望自己的屁股不要有什么问题。

“科学新闻”的链接里写道:“在同一份指南上,FDA还提出,禁止刻意标注“非转基因食品”,原因是这样的标识会误导消费者,让消费者认为转基因食品和非转基因食品有区别,而标注“非转基因食品”的厂家会因此不平等获利。”

这个写错了,同意楼主。

“南方周末”的链接里写道:“按照美国食品药品监督管理局(FDA)发布的食品标签指南,食品标注或不标注“转基因”由食品公司自愿决定。如果某一食品标签标有“非转基因食物或不含转基因成分”,其隐含的意思是这种食品优于其他食品,从而导致消费者产生歧义。法规不允许这种误导性的食品标注。”

这句话首先说了“标注或不标注...自愿决定”,然后说如果有“如果标有“非转基因食物或不含转基因成分”的“隐含的意思”“产生歧义”则“法规不允许”。这个完全符合FDA指南里的原话。大概楼主觉得“歧义”和“法规”之间应该是逗号,这个可以商榷。不过结合上下文,“南方周末”的原文没有“法规不允许标注转基因”的意思。不知道各位看官以为如何?

“方舟子”的链接写道:“FDA不要求对转基因食品做特殊标志”。

看到这个地方,我再看看主帖里义愤填膺的语句,不知道自己是不是看错了这么一个简单的句子,这句话有什么不妥么?和主帖自己写的“如果是转基因的食品,你可以自愿标注或者不标注,同样,如果是非转基因食品,你也可以自愿标注或者不标注。”有什么不同么?为什么说人家方舟子撒谎啊,真是躺着也中枪。

2比1,我觉得主帖关于“科学新闻,南方周末,方舟子撒谎”的结论不成立。最多是“科学新闻的作者英文四级没过;南方周末逗号句号没用好,不过不妨碍意思;方舟子和我说的意思一模一样。”不知道这样的结论写出来,能拿多少花多少通宝。说实话,我写的时候都不敢相信,自己什么研究都不要做,就是把同样的话重复一遍,就得出不同的结论,真得很怀疑自己有屁股问题,望达人指教。

第三,开始翻FDA的指南了,我很激动了一下,这个我在行啊。我的结论是这个这个翻译还可以,就是有选择性,还有对某些语句理解有歧义。

“Consumer focus group data indicate that consumers do not understand the acronyms "GMO" and " GM" and prefer label statements with spelled out words that mean bioengineering (Ref. 1).”

这个楼主理解的没什么错,“广大消费者consumers认为看不懂GMO和GM是啥意思,希望用更明确的词组来表达转基因技术bioengineering”

不过这才一句耶,为什么后面三大段不翻了?

“Terms like "not genetically modified" and "GMO free," that include the word "modified" are not technically accurate(GMO free 等说法严格的从技术上说是不正确的) unless they are clearly in a context that refers to bioengineering technology. "Genetic modification" means the alteration of the genotype of a plant using any technique, new or traditional. "Modification" has a broad context that means the alteration in the composition of food that results from adding, deleting, or changing hereditary traits, irrespective of the method. Modifications may be minor, such as a single mutation that affects one gene, or major alterations of genetic material that affect many genes.(这段太长了,基本上是说传统的育种也是“基因改造”) Most, if not all, cultivated food crops have been genetically modified. (绝大多数,如果不是全部的,种植作物都被基因改造过)Data indicate that consumers do not have a good understanding that essentially all food crops have been genetically modified and that bioengineering technology is only one of a number of technologies used to genetically modify crops.(数据表明,消费者并不理解基本上所有的作物都被基因改造过,而生物工程手段只不过是基因改造的方法之一) Thus, while it is accurate to say that a bioengineered food was "genetically modified," it likely would be inaccurate to state that a food that had not been produced using biotechnology was "not genetically modified" without clearly providing a context so that the consumer can understand that the statement applies to bioengineering.

The term "GMO free" may be misleading on most foods, because most foods do not contain organisms (seeds and foods like yogurt that contain microorganisms are exceptions). It would likely be misleading to suggest that a food that ordinarily would not contain entire "organisms" is "organism free." (这个是说大多数情况下GMO free-不含基因改造生物体 这个词组有语病。)

There is potential for the term "free" in a claim for absence of bioengineering to be inaccurate. Consumers assume that "free" of bioengineered material means that "zero" bioengineered material is present. Because of the potential for adventitious presence of bioengineered material, it may be necessary to conclude that the accuracy of the term "free" can only be ensured when there is a definition or threshold above which the term could not be used. FDA does not have information with which to establish a threshold level of bioengineered constituents or ingredients in foods for the statement "free of bioengineered material." FDA recognizes that there are analytical methods capable of detecting low levels of some bioengineered materials in some foods, but a threshold would require methods to test for a wide range of genetic changes at very low levels in a wide variety of foods. Such test methods are not available at this time. The agency suggests that the term "free" either not be used in bioengineering label statements or that it be in a context that makes clear that a zero level of bioengineered material is not implied. However, statements that the food or its ingredients, as appropriate, was not developed using bioengineering would avoid or minimize such implications. ”(这段比较专业,也比较重要,FDA的意思是,你要说什么东西“不含有(生物工程基因改造作物)”你要能证明,现在这个检测手段还不明朗,你要避免说“不含有”这么绝对的话。比方说我今年种了一亩非生物工程基因改造玉米,我怎么知道我的种子有没有被污染了几颗?有没有邻居恶作剧在田角上掉包了几株?)

还有“Therefore, a label statement that expresses or implies that a food is superior (e.g., safer or of higher quality) because it is not bioengineered would be misleading.

想想某人说得转基因食品更安全,hoho,这个才是被美国FDA明确禁止的。”

这个理解是错误的,“不能说非转基因食品更安全”并不等同于“不能说转基因食品更安全”。FDA明确禁止“说非转基因食品更安全”但没有明确禁止“说转基因食品更安全”。最少这个指南里没有这样的语句。

通宝推:酸酸,

全看分页树展 · 主题 跟帖


有趣有益,互惠互利;开阔视野,博采众长。
虚拟的网络,真实的人。天南地北客,相逢皆朋友

Copyright © cchere 西西河