The Colossal Hoax Of Organic Agriculture 有机农业的惊天骗局 作者：Henry I. Miller, Drew L. Kershen @ 2015-7-29

译者：小聂

校对：林翠   陈小乖（@lion_kittyyyyy）

来源：Forbes，http://www.forbes.com/sites/henrymiller/2015/07/29/why-organic-agriculture-is-a-colossal-hoax/

Consumers of organic foods are getting both more and less than they bargained for. On both counts, it’s not good.

对有机食品的消费者来说，现实既多于期望，也少于期望。两样都不是好事。

Many people who pay the huge premium—often more than a hundred percent–for organic foods do so because they’re afraid of pesticides.  If that’s their rationale, they misunderstand the nuances of organic agriculture.

许多人愿意为有机食品支付高额溢价——有时甚至超出原价一倍，是因为他们害怕农药残留。如果这真是基于他们的理性选择，说明他们有机农业的某些细节存在误解。

Although it’s true that synthetic chemical pesticides are generally prohibited, there is a lengthy list of exceptions listed in the Organic Foods Production Act, while most “natural” ones are permitted.

虽然化学合成农药确实通常被禁止用于有机食品生产，但是《有机食品生产法》（Organic Food Production Act）中却有一份长长的例外清单，同时，大部分“天然”农药也被允许使用。

However, “organic” pesticides can be toxic.  As evolutionary biologist Christie Wilcox explained in a 2012 Scientific American article (“Are lower pesticide residues a good reason to buy organic? Probably not.”): “Organic pesticides pose the same health risks as non-organic ones.”

然而，“有机”农药也可能会有毒。正如演化生物学家Christie Wilcox在他2012年发表于《科学美国人》的文章(《农药残留少是购买有机食品的好理由吗？未必》)（http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/pesticides-food-fears/）中解释的那样：“有机农药给健康带来的风险和非有机农药是一样的。”

【插图】SAN FRANCISCO, CA – JUNE 13: A label stating ‘Produce of USA’ is wrapped around a bunch of organic carrots at a farmers market on June 13, 2012 in San Francisco, California. (Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

【插图文字标注】旧金山，加州——6月13日：农贸市场上一捆绑着“美国种植”标签的有机胡萝卜，摄于2012年6月13日，旧金山，加利福尼亚。（照片由Justin Sullivan/Getty Images提供）

Another poorly recognized aspect of this issue is that the vast majority of pesticidal substances that we consume are in our diets “naturally” and are present in organic foods as well as non-organic ones. In a classic study, UC Berkeley biochemist Bruce Ames and his colleagues found that “99.99 percent (by weight) of the pesticides in the American diet are chemicals that plants produce to defend themselves.”

这件事情的另一个鲜为人知的方面是，我们吃下的绝大多数杀虫剂“天然地”存在于我们的饮食中，无论有机还是非有机食品都会包含。在一个经典的研究里，加州大学伯克利分校（UC Berkeley）的生化学家Bruce Ames和他的同事们发现，“美国人的饮食里，99.99%（按重量计）的杀虫剂是植物出于自卫而产生的化合物”。【 译注：pesticide通常译作杀虫剂，但实际上其作用不止是杀死害虫，而是包括了所有帮助农作物抵御天敌的化学物质，这些天敌包括真菌、昆虫、杂草和啮齿类动物等。 】

Moreover, “natural and synthetic chemicals are equally likely to be positive in animal cancer tests.” Thus, consumers who buy organic to avoid pesticide exposure are focusing their attention on just one-hundredth of one percent of the pesticides they consume.

此外，“天然化学物质和合成化学物质在动物肿瘤试验中引发阳性反应的可能性是等同的。”因此，买有机食品以避免农药危害的消费者只是将注意力集中在了他们吃下的杀虫剂总量的0.01%而已。

Some consumers think that the USDA National Organic Program (NOP) requires certified organic products to be free of ingredients from “GMOs,” organisms crafted with molecular techniques of genetic engineering.

有些消费者认为美国农业部（USDA）的全国有机计划（NOP）要求被认证的有机产品中不含“转基因”（GMO）成分，即不含通过基因工程分子技术改造的作物成分。

Wrong again. USDA does not require organic products to be GMO-free. (In any case, the methods used to create so-called GMOs are an extension, or refinement, of older techniques for genetic modification that have been used for a century or more.) As USDA officials have said repeatedly :

又错了。美国农业部没有要求有机产品中不含转基因成分。（不管怎么说，用于制造所谓的转基因产品的方法，无非是对传统的、已被沿用了一个世纪甚至更久的基因改造法的一个延伸或改进）。正如美国农业部官员反复强调的那样： Organic certification is process-based. That is, certifying agents attest to the ability of organic operations to follow a set of production standards and practices which meet the requirements of the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 and the [National Organic Program] regulations . . . If all aspects of the organic production or handling process were followed correctly, then the presence of detectable residue from a genetically modified organism alone does not constitute a violation of this regulation. [emphasis added]

有机认证是基于过程的认证。就是说，认证机构负责认定有机产品的生产操作是否符合1990年《有机食品生产法》以及［国家有机计划］等监管机构所要求的生产标准及操作规范。 如果有机生产及处理的过程完全合规，那么仅凭转基因成分残留并不构成违规 。【粗体由本文作者所加】 Putting it another way, so long as an organic farmer abides by his organic system (production) plan–a plan that an organic certifying agent must approve before granting the farmer organic status–the unintentional presence of GMOs (or, for that matter, prohibited synthetic pesticides) in any amount does not affect the organic status of the farmer’s products or farm.

换句话说，只要生产有机作物的农民遵守自己制定的有机体系（生产）计划（这一有机生产计划必须先得到有机认证机构的批准，农民才会被授予有机生产许可），无论有多少非有意掺入的转基因成分（或者是违禁化学合成农药）都不会影响产品或者农场的有机认证。

Under only two circumstances does USDA sanction the testing of organic products for prohibited residues (such as pesticides, synthetic fertilizers or antibiotics) or excluded substances (e.g., genetically engineered organisms). First, USDA’s National Organic Production Standards support the testing of products if an organic-certifying agent believes that the farmer is intentionally using prohibited substances or practices. And second, USDA requires that certifying agents test five percent of their certified operations each year. The certifying agents themselves determine which operations will be subjected to testing.

只有在两种情况下，美国农业部才会允许对有机产品做违禁成分残余（例如农药，合成化肥，或抗生素）或是例外成分（例如转基因作物）的测试。美国农业部国家有机生产标准支持对产品进行检测的第一种情况是，认证机构认为农民有意使用违禁品或是采取违禁操作。第二种情况是，美国农业部要求，认证机构每年对其所认证的生产计划的5%进行抽检。认证机构自行决定抽检对象。

The organic community, including the International Federation of Organic Agricultural Movements (IFOAM), supports the USDA’s lenient testing protocols and opposes more frequent mandatory testing of organic products for prohibited and excluded substances.

包括国际有机农业运动联盟（IFOAM）在内的有机食品界支持美国农业部的宽松检测协定，并反对对产品中违禁和例外成分做更频繁的强制检测。

The organic community and USDA offer two explanations for such minimal testing. First, they emphasize that organic farming is process-based, not product-based, meaning that what counts for organic certification are the approved organic system (production) plan and the farmer’s intention to comply with that plan as reflected through record-keeping obligations.

有机食品界以及美国农业部对这样小范围的产品检测，给出了两点解释。第一，他们强调有机农业是过程认证，而非产品认证。即对于有机认证来说，最重要的是得到认证的有机体系（生产）计划，和从保存生产记录的责任中所反映出的农民对于遵守该计划的意愿。

Second, widespread testing would impose substantial costs on organic farmers, thereby increasing production costs beyond the already greater expenses that organic farmers incur. Organic farmers offset these higher productions costs by earning large premiums for organic products, but there is always a price point beyond which consumers will shift to cheaper non-organic.

第二，广泛的检测会显著增加生产有机产品的农民的成本，使本已承受高额支出的有机作物农民的生产成本变得更高。从事有机生产的农民会以提高有机产品溢价的方式转移高生产成本，但当价格高到一定程度时，消费者便会转向更便宜的非有机产品。

Few organic consumers are aware that organic agriculture is a “trust-based” or “faith-based” system. With every purchase, they are at risk of the moral hazard that an organic farmer will represent cheaper-to-produce non-organic products as the premium-priced organic product.

很少有有机食品的消费者会意识到，有机农业是“基于信任”甚至是“基于信仰”的体系。每一笔交易都伴随着这样的道德风险：有机农民可以用低成本的非有机产品充当高价的有机产品。

For the vast majority of products, no tests can distinguish organic from non-organic—for example, whether milk labeled “organic” came from a cow within the organic production system or from a cow across the fence from a conventional dairy farm. The higher the organic premium, the stronger the economic incentive to cheat.

对于绝大多数产品，没有什么检测能区分有机和非有机，比如，无法区分标有“有机”的牛奶到底是产自一头来自有机生产体系的奶牛，还是来自传统奶牛场栅栏里的奶牛。有机产品的溢价越高，作假的经济激励就越大。

Think such nefarious behavior is purely theoretical? Think again. USDA reported in 2012 that 43 percent of the 571 samples of “organic” produce that were tested contained prohibited pesticide residues, and that “the findings suggest that some of the samples in violation were mislabeled conventional products, while others were organic products that hadn’t been adequately protected from prohibited pesticides.”

觉得这种恶行只有理论上的可能？再想想吧。据2012年美国农业部报告，在对571份“有机”产品样本的测试中发现，43%含有违禁农药残留，并且“结果显示某些不合格的样本实为被错误贴上有机标签的普通产品，而其余的则是由于保护不到位而导致违禁农药污染有机产品。”

How do organic farmers get away with such chicanery? A 2014 investigation by the Wall Street Journal of USDA inspection records from 2005 on found that 38 of the 81 certifying agents–entities accredited by USDA to inspect and certify organic farms and suppliers—“failed on at least one occasion to uphold basic Agriculture Department standards.”

造就如此骗局的有机农民是如何蒙混过关的？2014年《华尔街日报》对美国农业部自2005年以来的检验记录进行了调查（），结果显示，在81个经美国农业部授权，有资格考核认证有机农场和有机产品供应商资质的有机认证机构中，有38个“至少有一次未能达到农业部标准。”

More specifically, “40% of these 81 certifiers have been flagged by the USDA for conducting incomplete inspections; 16% of certifiers failed to cite organic farms’ potential use of banned pesticides and antibiotics; and 5% failed to prevent potential commingling of organic and non-organic products.”

更确切的说，“81个认证机构中，40%被美国农业部标示为未能完全履行检验职责；16%的认证机构未能提出其认证的有机农场对于违禁农药和抗生素的潜在使用情况；5%未能防止潜在的有机产品和非有机产品混杂的情况。”

Speaking of trust and faith—or lack thereof–in organic foods, there was the example of holier-than-thou Whole Foods importing large amounts of its supposedly “organic” produce from China, of all places. Those imports even included Whole Foods’ house brand, “California Blend.” (Yes, you read that correctly.)

说到有机食品中的信任和信仰问题，或者说信任和信仰缺失问题，有个例子值得一提，那就是高大上的Whole Foods，它从中国，而不是其他地方，进口了大批据说是“有机”的产品。其中甚至包括Whole Foods的自营品牌“加利福尼亚混选”。（是的，你没有看错）

Organic agriculture is an unscientific, heavily subsidized marketing gimmick that misleads and rips off consumers, both because of the nature of the regulations and cheating. The old saying that you get what you pay for doesn’t apply when you buy overpriced organic products.

有机农业是一场不科学的，严重依赖补贴的营销把戏，它误导和敲诈了消费者，其产生的原因归根结底在于食品监管的本性，以及欺骗。当你购买要价过高的有机产品时，一分钱一分货这句老话不再适用。

（编辑：辉格@whigzhou） *注：本译文未经原作者授权，本站对原文不持有也不主张任何权利，如果你恰好对原文拥有权益并希望我们移除相关内容，请私信联系，我们会立即作出响应。 ——海德沙龙·翻译组，致力于将英文世界的好文章搬进中文世界——