【博主按】这是昨天（2014-11-21）发表在Science周刊上有关欧盟对待转基因问题的一则新闻，我进行了全文翻译。紧跟其后的是新闻后链接的一个更早些时候（2014-11-12）的新闻报道，我也做了全文翻译。任何翻译都难于保证100%传递信息，为了避免可能的歧义，我将原文附后。如果有翻译不准确或者错误的地方，请善意指出，谢谢！
11月11日，欧洲议会议员通过了一个草案，允许各国政府禁止转基因（GM）作物在其境内种植，即使那个产品已被欧洲层面得到了授权。欧洲食品安全局已经批准了几种转基因作物，但许多消费者却一脚踢开这些食物，而且一些国家的政府试图禁止它们。各国的分歧已经削弱监管决策，为了避免这种僵局，计划给各国政府更多的权力，代价是削弱了泛欧洲市场的一致性。生物技术公司和植物科学家一如既往地警告说，这个提案设定了一个负面先例。但是转基因的反对者则赞扬了议会提案的最新版本——试图给各国政府更多的实权以便在其领土禁止转基因种植。
欧盟准备允许各国对转基因作物的禁令
欧洲议会议员昨日同意了一个草案，允许各国政府拒绝转基因（GM）作物在其领土内种植，即使那个产品已经在欧洲层面得到了授权。该计划有助于协调反转和挺转国家，解除停滞不前的审批流程，让更多的转基因作物在欧洲种植，尽管很多国家有可能借此机会来进行限制。
虽然欧洲食品安全机构（EFSA）已批准了几种转基因作物，许多欧洲消费者却一脚踢开这些食物，而且一些国家的政府试图禁止他们。在过去十年中，各国的分歧已经削弱监管决策，而且一些国家的禁令在法庭上受到了种子生产商的挑战。
为了避免未来的这种僵局，计划给各国政府以更多的权力，代价是削弱了泛欧洲市场的一致性。“作为放弃欧洲共同规则的交换，我们提供了更多的灵活性，让成员国与他们的民意更协调，这是不小的成就”，该问题的议会首席谈判代表Frédérique Ries在投票后发表了这样的声明。
转基因的反对者赞扬了议会的最新版本，昨天得到了负责环境，公共健康和食品安全（ENVI）问题的委员会批准，这比今年6月份成员国同意的文本更进了一步。提案说到“会给欧洲国家一些法律的实权来禁止在其领土的转基因种植，对生物技术产业来说，是很难在法庭上挑战这些禁令的” 欧盟绿色和平组织农业政策主任Marco Contiero在投票后发表了这样的声明。
但是，该计划让一些生物技术公司感到失望，他们认为该提案为其他的科学产业“设定了一个负面先例”。“我们现在从一个缺乏适当实施的系统变成了一个计划不运行的系统”，EuropaBio行业协会农业生物技术公司的主任Beat Späth，今天通过电子邮件向Science Insider发表了这个声明。
许多科学家也响应着业界的关注。10月30日，21名植物科学家给“欧洲的决策者”发表了一封公开信，抱怨政治阻碍了植物科学，并呼吁“立即授权”EFSA认为安全的转基因植物品种。
“我们对产品做了以科学为基础的风险评估，如果它是安全的，我们就使用它，如果它不安全，我们就不用”，瑞典于默奥大学植物科学中心的植物细胞与分子生物学教授Stefan Jansson说，他是这封信的签名者之一。“如果我们开始说为了禁止一个产品是其他理由，我们就会破坏整个系统的科学依据。”
在关键的修正案中，国会议员们提出让成员国禁止某一作物，要给出更广泛的原因，包括环境方面的理由，不需要怀疑EFSA基于科学的风险评估。“它不是让成员国用新的科学证据证明EFSA是错的”，Contiero说，但让政府作为风险管理者，限制了作物的利用，例如避免农药抗性杂草的发展，或转基因与常规或野生植物之间的杂交。
其他显着的变化，环境委员会取消了成员国让种子公司直接参与禁令过程的提案——这个想法激怒了环保团体，他们建议让成员国一次禁止一组作物，而不是一个接一个的。议会的文本还要求各成员国采取“适当的措施以避免转基因生物在其领土的其他产品和邻近成员国的边境地区意外出现”，例如，在转基因与非转基因种植区之间建立缓冲区。
欧洲议会、欧洲委员会和内阁会议已经通过谈判达成了一些联合文字版本，计划在今年年底之前达成一致。
E.U.moves closer to enabling national bans on GM crops
Membersof the European Parliament agreed yesterday on draft rules allowing individualgovernments to refuse growing genetically modified (GM) crops on theirterritory, even if the products have been authorized on the European level. Theplan could help reconcile anti- and pro-GM countries, unlock stalled approvalprocesses, and lead to more GM crops in European fields—although many countriesare likely to take the opportunity to restrict them.
Althoughthe European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has sanctioned several GM crops, manyEuropean consumers spurn these foods, and some national governments have triedoutlawing them. In the past decade, disagreement among states has crippledregulatory decisions, and some countries have seen their bans challenged incourt by seed producers.
Toavoid such impasses in the future, the plan gives more power to nationalgovernments—at the expense of pan-European market congruence. "In exchangefor forgoing a common European rule, we give more flexibility to member statesto be more in tune with their public opinion, and this is no small feat,"said Frédérique Ries, the Parliament's lead negotiator on this matter, in astatement after the vote.
GMopponents have praised the Parliament's latest version of the bill, approvedhere yesterday by the committee in charge of environmental, public health, andfood safety (ENVI) issues, for going further than the text agreed to by memberstates in June. The bill as it stands "would give European countries alegally solid right to ban GM cultivation in their territory, making itdifficult for the biotech industry to challenge such bans in court,” said MarcoContiero, agriculture policy director at Greenpeace EU here in Brussels, in astatement after the vote.
Butthe plan has dismayed biotech companies, which say the proposal “sets anegative precedent” for other science-based industries. “We are now moving froma system that lacks proper enforcement to a system that is designed not towork,” says Beat Späth, director for agricultural biotechnology at the industryassociation EuropaBio here, in a statement sent to ScienceInsider by e-mailtoday.
Manyscientists have echoed industry's concerns. On 30 October, 21 plant scientistsissued an open letter to " decision makers in Europe," complainingthat politics has stalled plant science and calling for the "promptauthorization" of GM plant varieties that EFSA has deemed safe.
"Wemake a science- based risk assessment [of a product], and if it's safe we use itand if it's unsafe, we don't," says Stefan Jansson,a professor of plant cell and molecular biology at Umeå University’s PlantScience Centre in Sweden, who was one of the signatories to the letter."If we start to say there could be other grounds [for banning a product],we undermine the scientific basis of the whole system."
Incrucial amendments, parliamentarians proposed letting member states ban a givencrop for a broader range of reasons, including environmental grounds, withoutputting in question EFSA's science-based risk assessment. "It's not about[member states] proving EFSA wrong" with fresh scientific evidence,Contiero says, but about letting governments, as risk managers, restrict theuse of given crops, for example to avoid the development of pesticide-resistantweeds, or interbreeding between GM and conventional or wild plants.
Inother significant changes, the ENVI committee scrapped the member states'proposal to involve seed companies directly in the banning process—an idea thathad outraged environmental groups—and suggested letting member states bangroups of crops at once, instead of one by one. The Parliament's text alsorequires member states to take "appropriate measures to avoid theunintended presence of GMOs in other products on their territory and in borderareas of neighbouring Member States," for example by creating buffer zonesbetween GM and non-GM fields.
TheParliament, the European Commission, and the Council of Ministers have nowentered negotiations to settle on a joint version of the text, which they aimto agree on before the end of the year.
相关专题：转基因问题
转载本文请联系原作者获取授权，同时请注明本文来自赵斌科学网博客。
链接地址：https://wap.sciencenet.cn/blog-502444-845364.html?mobile=1
收藏
