Translate the following into Chinese
The Observer view on the GM crops debate
Europe can no longer turn its back on the benefits of genetically modified crops
For a generation, a campaign by the green movement against the growing of
genetically modified crops has held sway across Europe. These foodstuffs are a
threat to health, the environment and the small independent farmer, NGOs have
argued. As result, virtually no GM crops have been grown on Europe’s farms for
the past 25 years. Yet hard evidence to support what is, in all but name, a ban
on these vilified forms of plant life is thin on the ground. In fact, most
scientific reports have indicated that they are generally safe, both to humans
and the environment.
This point was endorsed last week when a 20-strong committee of experts from the
US National Academies of Science announced the results of its trawl of three
decades of scientific studies for “persuasive evidence of adverse health effects
directly attributable to consumption of foods derived from genetically
engineered crops”. It found none. Instead the group uncovered evidence that GM
crops have the potential to bestow considerable health benefits. An example is
provided by golden rice, a genetically modified rice that contains beta
carotene, a source of vitamin A. Its use could save the lives of hundreds of
thousands of children who suffer from vitamin A deficiency in the third world,
say scientists.
The publication of the NAS study is timely. New techniques – in particular the
gene-editing technology CRISPR – promise to make the genetic manipulation of
plants even easier to achieve in the near future. There is therefore an urgent
need for Europe to reappraise its opposition to GM crops at a time when the rest
of the world is embracing the technology. Europe is already becoming a backwater
for new breeding technologies and needs to move swiftly to prevent this
situation worsening, UK scientists warned last week. The restrictive regulations
that are blocking the growing of GM crops need to be stripped away as soon as
possible.
The importance of changing attitudes to GM crops is equally pressing for the
green movement. Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and other NGOs are happy to
accept scientific consensus when it suits their purposes. They triumphantly
quote academic research that backs their claim that climate change, brought
about by increasing use of fossil fuels, now threatens major changes to sea
levels, coral reefs, shorelines and global temperatures. Yet they are equally
willing to say that scientists – who they are pleased to endorse as a profession
elsewhere – are utterly wrong about GM crops. This is a dishonest act of cherry
picking that makes a nonsense of the green movement’s claim to hold a superior
moral position about the health of the planet..
The green movement also complains that GM crop technology is the prerogative of
big industry and should therefore be treated with suspicion. But it is the very
actions of NGOs – who have demanded strict regulations to block GM crop
cultivation – that have achieved this state of affairs. Only major corporations,
with large legal departments, can afford to get their products into the field
while small outfits – often those with novel technologies that could help
starving countries – are thwarted by cumbersome regulations.
Last week’s NAS report was not a total vindication for the growing of GM crops,
of course. Their use, said the study, was found to bring generally positive
economic outcomes for farmers – by decreasing crop losses and insecticide use
while providing food that was no less safe than conventional food. However, it
was also noted there was a major problem with the development of
herbicide-resistant weeds. This latter issue requires close monitoring but it is
certainly not a cause for outlawing an entire scientific technique. We need to
regulate products not the processes that are used to create them.
This last point is illustrated by the host of crops being developed through
genetic modification that promise to make lives better for Earth’s population as
it swells towards 11 billion by the end of the century. An example is provided
by one crop – now ready for trials – which has been engineered to grow omega-3,
a fatty acid food supplement said to have considerable health benefits but whose
sources, mainly fish and other sea creatures, are now being over-exploited. Thus
the health of both humanity and the planet could be improved by a single plant.
GM crops are not the only way to solve humanity’s woes but they have
considerable potential. The inference is therefore clear. We can no longer
afford to turn our backs on the cultivation of genetically modified crops in our
fields in coming years.