Genetic engineering is used in many fields.

基因工程被用在很多領域。

But even though medical applications like GM insulin are widely accepted, the debate heats up when it comes to food and agriculture.

然而，雖然如基因改造胰島素等醫學應用被廣泛接受，談論到食物和農業時，相關爭議卻再度變得激烈。

Why is that?

那是為什麼呢？

Why is the same thing treated so differently?

為什麼同樣的技術會受到那麼不同的待遇？

Let's try to get to the bottom of this and explore the facts, the fears, and the future of GMOs.

讓我們嘗試追根究底地談討 GMO 相關的實情、隱憂以及未來。

(Kurzgesagt - In a Nutshell)

(Kurzgesagt - In a Nutshell)

(What is natural?)

(「天然的」是什麼？)

Humans have been genetically modifying plants and animals for thousands of years.

人類從事植物、動物的基因改造已經數千年之久。

Maybe a few of your crops had very good yields.

或許你的幾樣農作物收成狀況極好。

Maybe one of your wolves was especially loyal.

或許你有一隻特別忠誠的狼。

So, you did the smart thing and bred the plants and animals that had traits beneficial to you.

所以你做了一件聰明的事，培育特徵對你有益處的植物和動物。

Traits suggest an expression of genes.

特徵就意味著基因的表達。

So, with each generation, those genes got more pronounced.

於是，隨著世代更迭，這些基因變得越來越顯著。

After thousands of years, almost every single plant and animal around us is vastly different from its pre-domesticated state.

經過數千年之後，我們周遭幾乎每一種植物和動物都與其馴化前的狀態大不相同。

If humans have been changing genes for millennia, what makes a so-called "genetically modified organism", or GMO, different?

如果人類改變基因已經有千年之久，那讓所謂 GMO 的基因改造生物不同的要素又是什麼呢？

Selective breeding is basically hoping for lucky hits.

「選育」基本上就是希望可以幸運地命中。

Genetic engineering eliminates this factor.

基因工程會排除這個因素。

We can choose the traits we want, make fruit grow bigger, immune to pests, and so on.

我們可以選擇想要的特徵，讓水果生長更大、對害蟲免疫，等等。

So, why are people concerned about them ?

那麼，人們為何對它們有疑慮？

(Are GMOs bad?)

(GMO 是不好的嗎？)

Let's start with one of the most common objections to GMOs.

我們先從 GMO 最普遍的目標開始談起。

Gene flow, meaning GM crops could mix with traditional crops and introduce unwanted new characteristics into them.

基因流動（又稱「基因遷徙」）意味著基因改造作物可以跟傳統作物混合，並在其中加入不需要的新特徵。

There is a method that might guarantee complete prevention, but is a big anti-GMO argument by itself.

有一個可能保證完全預防的方法，但它本身就是反 GMO 的一大言論。

Terminator seeds.

終結者種子。

The idea is that they could produce sterile plants, requiring farmers to buy new seeds every year.

它的概念是，它們能夠生產不育植株，讓農民每年都必須購買新種子。

The very concept of this, however, caused a public outcry, stopping the technology being put to use.

然而這個概念卻引起大眾反彈，阻止這項科技被實際應用。

This brings us back to the unintentional spreading of engineered DNA.

這讓我們回歸到無意擴散改造的 DNA。

There have been cases of GMOs growing where they weren't planted and traces of modified genes found in foreign crops.

曾經有案例顯示 GMO 出現在它們未被種植之處以及外來物種中找到改造基因的痕跡。

But GM plants can't run wild entirely.

但基因改造植物不能完全猖獗。

Many crops pollinate themselves, and all crops have to be related to mingle.

許多作物會自體授粉，且所有作物都必須要屬於同一種類才能混合。

There are also cultural methods like buffer zones to keep unintentional crossing at a minimum.

也有如緩衝區的農業手段，將非意圖雜交的機率降至最低。

But if it's possible in principle that a GMO could unintentionally cross with a non-GMO, there's actually a more important question.

但如果就原則上來說，GMO 可能非意圖地與非 GMO 雜交，那麼就會有一個更重要的問題。

Is food that comes from GM crops different to food from non-GM crops?

來自基因改造作物的食物跟非基改作物的食物有差別嗎？

This question has been a major concern from the very beginning.

這個問題從最一開始就是一大顧慮。

GM plants that are destined to be eaten are checked for possible dangers, and the results are evaluated by multiple agencies.

針對目的在被食用的基改植物做了潛在危險檢測，其結果也由數個機構進行評估。

After more than 30 years and thousands of studies, the science is in.

經過逾 30 年、數千次研究後，終於有了科學結論。

Eating GMO plants is no more risky than their non-GMO equivalent.

食用 GMO 植物不會比它非 GMO 的同類更危險。

But don't just take it our word for it⏤sources for this and other claims are in the video description.

但不要只採信我們的話，這項資訊來源以及其它的主張都在影片敘述中。

But what about plants that have been engineered to be toxic?

那麼被改造成需要有毒的植物呢？

For example, BT crops.

例如 BT 作物。

A gene borrowed from the bacterium Bacillus Thuringiensis lets engineered plants produce a protein that destroys the digestive system of specific insect pests.

取自蘇雲金芽孢桿菌這種細菌的一個基因讓基改植物生產一種會摧毀特定害蟲消化系統的蛋白質。

The plant makes its own pesticide⏤insects that eat it die.

這個職務會自己製造殺蟲劑，食用它的昆蟲都會死亡。

That sounds alarming.

那聽起來很令人擔憂。

Pesticide sprays could be washed off, while the poison in BT crops is inside the plant.

噴灑的殺蟲劑可以被洗掉，但 BT 作物的毒素是在植物株中。

But actually, it's not a big deal.

但其實這不是這麼嚴重的事。

Poison is really just a question of different perspectives.

毒素說穿了也是不同觀點的問題。

What's harmless to one species might kill another.

對於某一物種無害的東西可能讓另一物種喪命。

Coffee, for example, is a poison that kills insects but is harmless to us.

舉例來說，咖啡是一種會殺昆蟲的毒藥，但對人類卻無害。

Or take chocolate⏤it's dangerous for dogs but a pleasure for humans.

或是說巧克力，它對狗狗有害，但對人類來說卻是一種享受。

BT crops produce a protein that is tailored to the specific design of the digestive tract of certain insects; it's completely harmless for us.

BT 作物生產的蛋白質是根據特定昆蟲消化道的構造所量身訂製，對人類完全無害。

There's also the opposite approach.

也有一個相反的做法。

Plants that are engineered to be resistant to certain weed killers.

改造成對特定除草劑免疫的植物。

This way, farmers can use them widely, killing the other plants competing for resources without harming the crop.

這樣一來，農民可以廣泛使用它們，在殲滅掠取養分的其它植物同時，不傷害到作物。

Here, we get to the dark underbelly of GMOs.

我們在這裡要提到 GMO 最脆弱的陰暗面。

For the pesticide industry, they are big business.

就殺蟲劑產業來說，它們大獲功成。

Over 90% of all cash crops in the US are herbicide resistant, mostly to glyphosate.

美國所有經濟作物中，有 90% 都有除草劑抗性，大多是針對草甘膦。

As a result, the use of glyphosate has increased greatly.

結果導致草甘膦使用量大幅增加。

That isn't only bad, glyphosate is much less harmful to humans than many other herbicides.

那不是只有壞事，畢竟相較於許多其它除草劑，草甘膦對於人類而言較無害。

Still, this means famers have a strong incentive to rely on this one method only, casting more balanced ways of managing weeds aside.

儘管如此，這表示農民會有只依賴這一個方法的強烈傾向，進而拋棄其它更周全的雜草管理方式。

That's one of the most fundamental problems with the GMO debate.

這是 GMO 相關爭辯最根本的問題之一。

Much of the criticism of this technology is actually criticism of modern agriculture and the business practice of the huge corporations that control our food supply.

許多對於這項科技的批評其實是批評了現代農業以及控制食物我們供應的大型企業經營手法。

This criticism is not only valid, it's also important.

這個批評不只有依據，它也很重要。

We need to change agriculture to a more sustainable model.

我們必須把農業轉變為更具永續性的模式。

GMOs as a technology are actually an ally and not an enemy in that fight, helping to save and protect nature and minimize our impact on the environment.

GMO 這項科技在這產戰鬥中，其實是盟友而非敵人，可以幫助拯救並保護自然並降低我們對環境的衝擊。

(What goods GMOs can do)

(好的 GMO 可以做什麼)

Let's look at some positive examples.

我們來看看幾個正面案例。

Eggplant is an important crop in Bangladesh, but⏤often⏤whole harvests are destroyed by pests.

茄子是孟加拉一個重要的作物，但作物很經常被害蟲消滅殆盡。

Farmers had to rely heavily on pesticides.

農民必須高度依賴殺蟲劑。

Not only was this very expensive, farmers also frequently got sick.

這不僅昂貴，農民也很常生病。

The introduction of a new GM eggplant in 2013 stopped this.

2013 年問世的新基改茄子遏止了這個狀況。

The same BT protein we talked about before⏤an effective killer of insects but harmless to humans⏤was engineered into them.

我們稍早提到的 BT 蛋白質（對人體無害的高效殺蟲劑）透過工程植入其中。

This reduced insecticide use on eggplants by more than 80%⏤the health of farmers improved and their income rose dramatically.

這將用在茄子上的殺蟲劑降低超過 80%，農民的健康狀況好轉、收入也大幅提升。

And, sometimes, the GM approach is the only option.

有時基因改造方法是唯一的選擇。

In the 1990s, the papaya industry in Hawaii was under attack from the ringspot virus which threatened to wipe out Hawaiian papaya.

在 1990 年代時，夏威夷的木瓜產業遭受輪點病毒攻擊，威脅了夏威夷所有木瓜的生存。

The solution was a papaya genetically modified to be vaccinated against the virus.

解決方案是透過基因改造木瓜，讓它們對該病毒免疫。

Without it, the state's papaya industry would've collapsed.

沒有它的話，全州的木瓜產業早就已崩塌了。

(The Future)

(未來)

All these stories show a very narrow application⏤99% of all GMOs we use right now produce pesticides or are resistant against them.

這些故事都顯示非常狹隘的運用，我們現在所有的 GMO 有 99% 都會自產殺蟲劑或對殺蟲劑免疫。

There is so much more we could do.

我們可以做的事還多太多了。

Scientists are working on GMOs that could improve our diet.

科學家們正致力發明可以改善我們飲食的 GMO。

Plants that produce more or different nutrients, like fruit with higher antioxidant levels that help to fight diseases or rice with additional vitamins.

能夠生產更多或不同養分的植物，像是可以對抗疾病且抗氧化劑含量更高的水果或是有額外維他命的米飯。

On a larger scale, we're trying to engineer plants that are more resilient to climate change.

在更大的規模上來看，我們正嘗試透過基改生產更能對抗氣候變遷的植物。

Plants that can better adapt to erratic weather and adverse soil conditions, making them resistant to droughts or floods.

更能適應極端天氣以及惡劣土壤狀況的植物，讓它們對於乾旱或水災免疫。

GMOs could also not only reduce agriculture's impact on the environment, but actively help to protect it.

GMO 不只可以減少農業對環境造成的衝擊，更可以積極地保護它。

Scientists are working on crops that can draw nitrogen from the air like microbes.

科學家們也正努力研發能夠像微生物一半從空氣中汲取氮氣的作物。

Nitrogen is a common fertilizer, but its build-up pollutes the ground water and speeds up climate change.

氮是一個普遍的肥料，但它的堆積會污染地面上的水分並加速氣候變遷。

Plants that collect their own nitrogen could fix two problems at once.

能夠自行收集氮氣的植物就能一次解決兩個問題。

The overuse of fertilizers in the developed world as well as the shortage of it in developing countries.

已開發世界的過度使用肥料以及開發中國家的肥料短缺。

We could even modify plants to become super-effective carbon collectors like the American chestnut tree to mitigate and actually reverse climate change.

我們甚至可以將植物改造成像是美洲七葉樹一樣的超高效碳收集器，藉此緩解甚至扭轉氣候變遷。

With the tools we have today, our imagination is the limit.

擁有了今日所有的工具，唯一的限制只有我們的想像。

(Conclusion)

(結論)

The world eats 11 million pounds of food every day.

全球每天消耗約 1 千 1 百萬磅的糧食。

A UN estimate suggests we'll need 70% more by 2050.

一項聯合國數據顯示我們到了 2050 年的需求會多出 70%。

We could grow that food by clearing more and more forests to create fields and pastures, and by using more pesticides.

我們可以透過快砍罰更多數林以創造更多農、牧地以及透過使用更多殺蟲器來種植那些作物。

Or we find a way to do it on the land we've got right now, with more effective methods like GM crops.

或者找一個能夠在我們現有土地上運作的方式，透過像是基改作物等較有效的方法。

Intensifying farming instead of expanding it means GMOs could become the new organic.

強化而非擴展農務表示 GMO 可能成為新的有機產業。

In a nutshell, GMOs have the potential to not only drastically change agriculture but to also dampen the effects of our own irresponsible behavior.

總而言之，GMO 有潛力能夠大幅改變農業，也能夠平定人類不負責任行為的惡果。

GMOs could be our most powerful weapon to save our biosphere.

GMO 可能是我們拯救生態圈最強力的武器。

This video took more than 600 hours to make, which would be impossible without viewer support on Patreon.com.

這部影片耗費超過 600 小時才製作而成，沒有 Patreon.com 觀眾的支持是不可能達成的。

If you'd like to support carefully-researched content made with love, it's really very helpful

如果你也想要支持由愛製作、仔細研究過的內容，那是非常有幫助的。

And you can get your own bird as a reward.

你也可以會的屬於自己的鳥作為獎賞。

If you want to learn more about genetic modification, we have more videos explaining the opportunities and risks of the technology and how it could impact our future.

如果你想要學習更多關於基因改造的知識，我們也有更多影片，當中解釋這項科技的機會與風險以及它可能如何影響我們的未來。