The European Commission launched a proposal in July 2023 to deregulate a large number of plants manufactured using new genetic techniques.
於2023年7月，歐盟委員會發起了一項，解除對使用新遺傳技術，來生產植物之管制的提議。
Despite extraordinary attempts by the Spanish presidency to force a breakthrough, EU members have not yet reached a consensus on this plan. But if the proposal were to be approved, these plants would be treated the same as conventional plants, eliminating the need for safety tests and the labelling of genetically modified food products.
儘管由西班牙輪值主席國推動諸多特別的嘗試，來迫使有所突破。歐洲聯盟(EU：European Union)成員國，尚未就該計劃達成共識。不過，倘若該提議獲得認可，此些植物將與傳統植物一樣被處置，免除對基因改造食物，進行安全檢測及加標籤的需求。
The European public has refused to blindly accept genetically modified food from the moment the technology was developed, largely due to concerns about corporate control, health and the environment.
歐洲大眾從該科技被開發的時候，一直拒絕盲目接受基改食物。主要由於擔憂公司的管制、健康及環境。
Biotech firms have been trying to sell genetically modified crops to Europeans for decades. But most European citizens remain convinced that crops made with both old and new genetic techniques should be tested and labelled.
幾十年來，生技公司一直試圖向歐洲人出售基改作物。不過，大多數歐洲公民仍然確信，用新、舊遺傳技術生產的作物，應該被檢測及加標籤。
So, where has this proposal come from? Biotech firms seem to have succeeded in convincing the European Commission that we need new genetically modified crops to tackle climate change. They argue that by enhancing crops’ resistance to drought or improving their ability to capture carbon, climate change may no longer seem such a daunting challenge.
那麼，此提議從何而來？生技公司似乎已經成功說服歐盟委員會，我們需要新的基改作物，來應付氣候變遷。他們辯稱，藉由增強農作物的抗旱能力，或提高其捕獲碳的能力，氣候變遷可能不再看似，如此令人畏懼的挑戰。
If this seems too good to be true, unfortunately, it is. Biotech firms have taken advantage of growing concerns about climate change to influence the European Commission with an orchestrated lobbying campaign.
是否這看起來好得令人難以置信，不幸的是，事實確實如此。生技公司一直利用人們，對氣候變遷的日益擔憂，以精心策劃的遊說活動，來影響歐盟委員會。
圖1. 歐盟理事會已經拒絕，妥協有關基改作物的管理改革。
The EU Council has rejected compromise over genetically modified crop regulation reform.
In 2018, the European Court ruled that plants made with new genetic techniques have to be regulated like any other genetically modified organism. Biotech firms and their allies within biotech research centres have since set out to convince the European Commission of the need for an entirely new legislation.
於2018 年，歐洲法院裁定，使用新遺傳技術生產的植物，必須像其他基改生物一樣，受到管制。此後，生物技術公司及其生物技術研究中心的盟友，開始說服歐盟委員會，需要一項全新的立法。
The first step was to rebrand the techniques they are using, aiming to distance themselves from the bad reputation of genetic modification. Biotech firms started to use more innocent terms like gene editing and precision breeding instead.
第一步是重新命名他們正在使用的此些技術，旨在遠離基因改造的壞名聲。生技公司開始使用基因編輯及精準育種等，較無害的術語。
They then argued that their processes are not really any different from what happens in nature, portraying them as an advanced version of natural processes. Biotech firms need this argument to eliminate the requirement for labelling, which serves as a barrier for selling their products in a climate of public disapproval.
之後，他們辯稱，其過程與自然界中發生的事，實際上沒有任何不同，且將其描繪成自然過程的先進版本。在公眾反對的氣氛下，生技公司需要此論調，來避開充當銷售其產品之障礙的加標籤要求。
In a third step, they leveraged the urgency of the climate crisis to argue that we cannot afford time-consuming safety tests. They contended that such tests would hinder innovation in a period of accelerating climate change.
於第三步中，他們利用了氣候危機的迫切性辯稱，我們經不起耗時的安全檢測。他們認為，在加速的氣候變遷時期，這類檢測會阻礙創新。
There are several flaws in this approach. The terms “gene editing” or “precision breeding” may sound more reassuring, but we argue they are essentially marketing terms and say nothing about the accuracy of the techniques used or their potentially negative effects.
在此方法中，有若干缺陷。“基因編輯”或“精準育種”此些術語，聽起來可能較令人安心。不過，我們認為，本質上它們是行銷術語，並未提及此些被使用之技術的準確性，或其潛在上的負面影響。
Studies have shown that new genetic techniques can alter the traits of a species “to an extent that would be impossible, or at least very unlikely, using conventional breeding”. They can also trigger substantial unintended changes in the genetic material of plants.
諸多研究已經證實，新的遺傳技術會改變物種的諸多特性，“達到使用傳統育種會是不可能，或至少不可能的程度”。於植物的遺傳物質中，它們也會引發重大、非蓄意的改變。
But, perhaps most importantly, genetically modified plants aren’t the solution to the climate crisis. They are a false solution that starts from the wrong question.
不過，或許最重要的是，基因改造的植物，並非氣候危機的解決方案。它們是從錯誤問題，開始的錯誤解決方案。
It is well known that our current agricultural model contributes significantly to climate change. The development of genetically modified crops is being steered largely by the very same agro-chemical giants that established and control this form of agriculture.
眾所周知，我們目前的農業模式，顯著是氣候變遷的部分原因。基改作物的發展正受到，主要由建立及控制此農業形態，極相同之農-化巨頭們的操縱。
Companies like Corteva and Bayer (which acquired US agrochemical company Monsanto in 2018) are leading the race to secure patents on new genetic techniques and their products.
像Corteva及拜耳(於2018年取得了，美國孟山都農化公司)等公司，正引領此競賽以確保，在新遺傳技術及其產品的專利。
Typical examples include patents for soybeans with increased protein content, waxy corn, or rice that is tolerant to herbicides. These crops are designed for an agricultural model centred on the large-scale cultivation of single crop varieties destined for the global market.
典型的例子包括，具增加蛋白質含量的大豆、糯玉米，或耐除草劑之稻子的專利。此些作物是為一種，集中於大規模種植單一作物品種，及銷往全球市場的農業模式設計的。
This agricultural model relies on staggering amounts of fuel for distribution and places farmers in a state of dependence on heavy machinery and farm inputs (like artificial fertilisers and pesticides) derived from fossil fuels.
就分佈地區而言，此農業模式依賴數量驚人的燃料，因此使農民處於一種，依賴源自化石燃料之重型機械及農業投入(如人造肥料及農藥)的狀態。
Research has found that farming in this way causes soil depletion and biodiversity loss. It also increases vulnerability to pests and diseases, necessitating the development of different and potentially more toxic pesticides and herbicides.
研究已經發現，這種耕作方式會導致土壤枯竭及喪失生物多樣性。這也增加了對病-蟲害的脆弱性，因此需要開發不同、潛在上毒性更大的殺蟲劑及除草劑。
Although biotech firms are playing the climate card, only a small proportion of the genetically modified crops being developed deal with concerns related to the climate. In fact, the climate credentials of many of these crops are questionable. Modifications such as an increased shelf life, or being better able to withstand being transported are merely intended to smooth the operation of our unsustainable food system.
雖然，生物技術公司正在打氣候牌。不過，正被開發的基改作物，僅小部分處理與氣候有關的問題。事實上，其中諸多作物的氣候憑證是可疑的。諸如延長貨架期或更能承受運輸等改造，只是意圖使我們不可持續的食物系統，順利運作。
Rather than strengthening our unsustainable agricultural model, the focus should be on restoring what industrial agriculture has destroyed: farmers’ livelihoods, biodiversity and soil health. Only then will farmers be able to cultivate local climates that naturally store carbon and provide optimal conditions for food production without placing so much pressure on the environment.
而不是加強我們不可持續的農業模式，焦點應放在恢復工業化之農業已經破壞的方面：農民的生計、生物多樣性及土壤健康。唯有到那時候，農民才能埋首於自然儲存碳的當地氣候，並為糧食生產提供，不會對環境造成太多壓力的最佳條件。
圖2. 當前，我們的農業模式集中於，單一作物品種的大規模栽種。
Our current agricultural model centres on the large-scale cultivation of single crop varieties.
Biotech firms advocate a no-testing policy as they argue that new genetically modified crops would be safe. But there is a problem. The legislation proposed by the European Commission eliminates the possibility of ever finding out if these claims are correct.
生技公司鼓吹一種，不進行檢測的政策。因為他們辯稱，新的基改作物會是安全的。不過，有一個問題。該歐盟委員會提出的立法刪除了，經常發覺此些說法，是否正確的可能性。
Health and environmental problems are often the result of complex, interacting and largely invisible causes. As tracing and labelling won’t be mandatory, it will be very difficult to trace any adverse outcomes back to their causes.
健康及環境問題往往是由複雜、交互作用且大部分是不可見之原因的後果。由於追蹤及加標籤不會是強制的，這會是很難追溯，任何不利的結果到其原因。
Ultimately, people and the planet will pay the price when untested genetically modified crops penetrate our environments and the food chain.
最終的是，當未經檢測的基改作物，滲透到我們的環境及食物鏈中時，人類及地球將付出代價。
In response to this article, a spokesperson from the American Seed Trade Association said plant breeders need all the tools at their disposal to provide improved plant varieties to farmers so they can continue producing in a challenging environment.
在對這篇文章作出反應時，一名來自美國種子貿易協會的發言人表示，植物育種者需要所有任其使用的工具，來提供經改良的植物品種給農民，以便他們能在充滿挑戰的環境中，持續生產。
The Association said there is consensus among plant breeders and regulatory bodies that innovative techniques, like genome editing, can be safely integrated into breeding programmes to develop plant varieties that are indistinguishable from those developed through conventional breeding.
該協會表示，在植物育種者與諸如，基因體編輯等創新技術的
管理機構之間有共識，能被安全地整合到育種計劃中，來開發與那些經由傳統育種所開發，難以分辨的植物品種。
Bayer and Corteva were contacted for a comment on the issues raised in this article, but had not provided any by the time of publication.
我們聯繫了拜耳及Corteva，請就本文中提出的問題發表評論。不過，截至本文發表時，尚未提供任何評論。
網址：https://theconversation.com/genetically-modified-crops-arent-a-solution-to-climate-change-despite-what-the-biotech-industry-says-219637
翻譯：許東榮
文章定位：
