環境問題
經由基因工程而生產出來的動植物產品，對環境上造成的主要問題，是這些動植物一旦進入野生動物、植物體系時，對生態體系的破壞是永久性的，此生態體系是上億年的進化結果。（若您願意，或可稱為上帝的造化之功。）例如，據最近科學上保守的估計，經由基因工程培植出來的植物，有可能與野生品種雜交，因此生態體系大約會以每年百份之一的速度遭受破壞。這意味著大約在十年之間，即可能引起重大的環境問題。
還有一個潛在的問題是病毒。病毒特有的本質是：當病毒侵入其寄生主體的基因物質中後，經常分化寄生主體的部份基因物質，並與這些物質重新組合而產生新的病毒。當這個過程發生在實驗室以外的經基因工程培植出的動、植物身上時，就能與此動植物基因物質相結合而產生新的病毒。此種病毒一旦散播；這種新生成的病毒，因為不是自然環境中產生的，就可能就沒有自然防衛機能能夠加以抵抗。這種病毒，或許會導致大規模的動植物乃至人類的死亡。
倫理道德問題
基因工程是一門嶄新的科學。以前科學界所關心的是自然界的運作。現在則是自人類有史以來第一次，科學界通過基因工程技術，從最根本上改變自然界的運作。人類對於基因工程的運作是否應該進行，完全不加考慮；也不思索該以何種智慧來管理其運作過程。人類在基因工程之中投入精力，其出發點並非為人類謀福利，亦非是對地球的長期或是短期的福祉作考慮，大都是公司幾乎不惜任何代價地來牟求短期的利潤。當然，短期的或者是驚人的利潤，尤其是在醫學領域，都是可能得到的。但是，由此而帶來的長遠影響，很可能遠遠超過這些利潤。
基因工程研製的食物給各種宗教帶來很特殊的問題。宗教素食者，如七日基督再臨派教徒（Adventists）、印度教徒、佛教徒都希望迴避食用那些含有昆蟲、動物，與人類基因的蔬菜與水果。回教徒與猶太教徒對飲食亦不希望違反它們教裡現有的飲食條律。比如說，回教徒不希望胡蘿蔔裡面含有豬的基因。國內外的各宗教領袖們也反對人類這種藉由基因工程，來對生命模式從最基層處所加以的干涉。其他許多非正式宗教人士亦反對，並避免食用基因食物，因為這與他們的倫理道德觀嚴重抵觸。根據我們現有法律，基因工程研製的肉類、蔬菜、與水果食物可能含有人類的基因，而消費者卻可能全不知情。這種人吃人的行為對於大多數人來說實在很噁心。
要求食物貼標籤－－
自由社會裡公民應有的權利
現行的禁止給基因食物貼標籤的法規，強行剝奪了自由社會中，公民願吃什麼，不願吃什麼的選擇權力。現代人對經由基因工程研製成的食物，通常都無法通過眼觀，口嚐，與感覺來辨別，所以貼標籤對於清楚鑑別此類食物是很有必要的。但是由於法律不要求一定要貼標籤，所以公民的自由選擇的基本權利，就被剝奪了。給基因食物上標籤根本不會限制到那些基因食物之購買及消費者的權利。
我們能做什麼？
就基因工程食物現有與潛在的問題，我們可以教育我們自己、我們的家庭、我們的朋友與社區。在我們的區域範圍內，我們可以在購物時與商店店主與店員交談，他們大部份對這一話題知之甚少。我們可以請他們上標籤時上清楚些，這樣可以使那些不想購買基因工程食物的人，可以迴避這類食物。在國家範圍內，我們讓我們的立法代表知道我們的心聲－－希望政府嚴格審核基因工程食物的研究與發展，並且要給食物上標籤。
地方官員應該立法要求出售基因工程食物的商店掛牌子說明，並極力建議商店提供有關於基因工程食物的資訊。各地教育局（School Board ）應該考慮在學校的午餐計劃中給基因工程牛奶及其他食物上標籤，或者禁止購買這些食物。
關於基因工程食物引發的細微的、技術上的危害，我們身體的防禦系統不足於警告我們。其對於人類及環境的潛在危害之嚴重性與永久性，我們應當深深加以警惕。凡是對於基因工程食物要求強制性貼標籤，或對基因工程食物的研究與發展採取適當防範措施感興趣的人，我都在此期待著攜手一起共同努力。
〔編按〕上期本文中兩處之「DNA（染色體）」句中之「染色體」字樣，為「染色體之化學組成」之誤，特此向讀者致歉。 DNA 之中文譯名為「脫氧核醣核酸」。
完 |
|
Environmental Problems
The main environmental problem with genetically engineered food plants and animals is that, when they escape into the wild, they permanently disrupt ecosystems which are the products of billions of years of evolution (or, if you prefer, of God's perfect creation). For example, the most recent conservative scientific estimates indicate that genetically engineered plants will probably cross-pollinate with wild relatives, thereby escaping into the wild and permanently disrupting ecosystems at about one percent a year. That means they will probably cause major environmental problems in about ten years.
Another potential problem area is viruses. By their very nature, viruses invade the genetic material of their hosts and often break apart and recombine using part of the host's genetic material to create new viruses. When this happens with genetically engineered plants and animals outside of the laboratory, new viruses will be created that incorporate genetically engineered genetic material. The viruses will then spread and, because they could not have been naturally produced, there may be no natural defenses against them. Depending upon the kind of virus, they may then cause widespread death of certain plants or animals, or even of humans.
Ethical Problems
Genetic engineering is a totally new kind of science. Previously science concerned itself with understanding how Nature works. For the first time in human history, through genetic engineering techniques, science is changing Nature on the most fundamental level. Rather than considering whether it should be done at all or what kind of wisdom should govern the process, most of the efforts in the field are fueled not by concern for the short or long term benefits for human beings or the planet, but in most cases by corporate pressures for short term profits at almost any cost. Certainly some short-term and rather spectacular benefits will probably occur, particularly in the medical field; however, the long term problems may far outweigh them.
Genetically engineered foods create specific ethical problems for those of various faiths. Religious vegetarians, such as Seventh Day Adventists, Hindus, and Buddhists, want to be able to avoid fruits and vegetables with insect, animal, or human genes in them. Jews and Muslims, who have special religious dietary laws, want to be able to make sure that genetically engineered foods do not violate their restrictions; for instance, they won't want pig genes in their carrots. Religious leaders from a broad spectrum of faiths, in this country and throughout the world, object to genetically engineered food because they have serious doctrinal objections to the kind of tampering with the basic patterns of life that occurs in most genetic engineering. Many others who are not formally religious wish to avoid genetically engineered foods because they also have serious ethical objections. Under our current laws, meats, vegetables, and fruits can even contain human genes without our knowing it. This kind of cannibalism is repulsive to most people.
Labeling Should Be a Right of Citizens in a Free Society
Current regulations against the labeling of genetically engineered foods blatantly abridge the rights of citizens in a free society to choose what they want to eat and what they do not. You usually cannot rely on looking, tasting, or feeling to identify genetically engineered food. Labeling is necessary for its clear identification. Therefore, because labeling is not now required, citizens are effectively denied their fundamental right of free choice. Labeling genetically engineered foods would in no way restrict the rights of those people who do wish to purchase and consume them
What Can We Do?
We can educate ourselves, our families, friends, and community about current and potential problems with genetically engineered foods. On the local level, we can talk to the grocers and store managers where we shop. Most of them have little awareness of the issues involved. We can ask them to label them clearly so that those who wish to avoid them can. On the national level we can let our elected representatives know that we want both stricter government oversight of research and development and also required labeling.
Local officials should enact legislation both to require stores that sell genetically engineered food to post signs to that effect and to recommend strongly that those stores make information available to their customers about which foods are genetically engineered. Local school boards should consider either labeling genetically engineered milk and other foods used in school lunch programs or banning their purchase.
Our natural defense systems against danger are inadequate to warn us of the subtle, technologically produced hazards of genetically engineered foods. Nevertheless, their potential for doing serious and irreversible harm, both to us and our environment, should be taken very seriously. I personally look forward to working with all of you who are interested in requiring both their mandatory labeling and better safeguards for their research and development.
The End |
