TED_Topic10：The case for engineering our food
Pamela Ronald studies the genes that make plants more resistant to disease and stress. In an eye-opening（adj. 令人瞠目的；使人开眼界的） talk, she describes her decade-long（长达10年的) quest(寻求、探索、追求) to help create a variety of rice that can survive prolonged flooding. She shows how the genetic improvement of seeds saved the Hawaiian papaya（木瓜） crop in the 1950s — and makes the case（认为） that it may simply be the most effective way to enhance food security for our planet’s growing population.
# Background about our speaker
Embracing both genetically improved seed and ecologically based farming methods, Pamela Ronald aims to enhance sustainable agriculture（可持续农业）.
# Why you should listen
As a proponent（支持者、拥护者） of sustainable agriculture using the most appropriate technologies, UC Davis researcher Pamela Ronald’s holistic（整体的） vision startles some. But the success of her genetic tinkering（修补、笨拙的修补） is uncontroversial: it shows that genetic improvement is a critical component of feeding the world without further destroying the environment.
Her book Tomorrow’s Table (co-authored with organic farmer Raoul Adamchak) argues that to advance（发展推进） sustainable agriculture, we must not focus on how a seed variety（种子品种） was developed. Instead we must ask what technology most enhances local food security and can provide safe, abundant and nutritious food to consumers.（强调粮食的安全，认为不应该只关注种子的种类，应该共同关注粮食的安全、营养、丰富等因素）
# 视频地址
https://www.ted.com/talks/pamela_ronald_the_case_for_engineering_our_food#
# What others say
“The question to ask about a new crop, she says, 'is not 'Is it GM?' but 'Can it help food security in less developed nations?’'” — Fast Company
#Subtitles and Transcript
I am a plant geneticist（遗传学者）. I study genes that make plants resistant to disease and tolerant of stress（主攻方向）。In recent years, millions of people around the world have come to believe that there's something sinister（灾难性的、凶险的、阴险的） about genetic modification（转基因）. Today, I am going to provide a different perspective.
First, let me introduce my husband, Raoul. He's an organic farmer. On his farm, he plants a variety of different crops. This is one of the many ecological farming practices(农耕方式、农耕实践) he uses to keep his farm healthy. Imagine some of the reactions we get: "Really? An organic farmer and a plant geneticist? Can you agree on anything?"
Well, we can, and it's not difficult, because we have the same goal. We want to help nourish（滋养、提供养分、养育） the growing population without further destroying the environment（目标）。I believe this is the greatest challenge of our time.
Now, genetic modification is not new; virtually everything we eat has been genetically modified in some manner. Let me give you a few examples. On the left is an image of the ancient ancestor of modern corn. You see a single roll of grain（谷粒） that's covered in a hard case（谷壳：不可救药的人、难对付的人、棘手的事情）. Unless you have a hammer, teosinte（墨西哥类玉米） isn't good for making tortillas（墨西哥玉米粉圆饼）. Now, take a look at the ancient ancestor of banana. You can see the large seeds. And unappetizing（引不起食欲的） brussel sprouts（芽甘蓝）, and eggplant, so beautiful.
Now, to create these varieties, breeders have used many different genetic techniques over the years. Some of them are quite creative, like mixing two different species together using a process called grafting（移植、嫁接、贪污） to create this variety that's half tomato and half potato. Breeders have also used other types of genetic techniques, such as random mutagenesis（诱变）, which induces uncharacterized mutations（不典型的基因突变） into the plants. The rice in the cereal（谷类食品、麦片粥） that many of us fed our babies was developed using this approach.
Now, today, breeders have even more options to choose from. Some of them are extraordinarily precise.
I want to give you a couple examples from my own work. I work on rice, which is a staple food（主食） for more than half the world's people. Each year, 40 percent of the potential harvest is lost to pest and disease. For this reason, farmers plant rice varieties that carry genes for resistance. This approach has been used for nearly 100 years. Yet, when I started graduate school（读研究生）, no one knew what these genes were. It wasn't until the 1990s that scientists finally uncovered the genetic basis of resistance. In my laboratory, we isolated a gene for immunity（免疫力、免除） to a very serious bacterial disease in Asia and Africa. We found we could engineer the gene into a conventional rice variety that's normally susceptible, and you can see the two leaves on the bottom here are highly resistant to infection.
Now, the same month that my laboratory published our discovery on（关于…的发现）the rice immunity gene（免疫基因）, my friend and colleague Dave Mackill stopped by（停在…近旁,顺便拜访） my office. He said, "Seventy million rice farmers（稻农） are having trouble growing rice." That's because their fields are flooded, and these rice farmers are living on less than two dollars a day. Although rice grows well in standing water（静水、死水）, most rice varieties will die if they're submerged（浸没在、淹没在） for more than three days. Flooding is expected to be increasingly problematic as the climate changes. He told me that his graduate student（研究生） Kenong Xu and himself were studying an ancient variety of rice that had an amazing property. It could withstand two weeks of complete submergence. He asked if I would be willing to help them isolate this gene. I said yes -- I was very excited, because I knew if we were successful, we could potentially help millions of farmers grow rice even when their fields were flooded.
Kenong spent 10 years looking for this gene. Then one day, he said, "Come look at this experiment. You've got to see it." I went to the greenhouse and I saw that the conventional variety that was flooded for 18 days had died, but the rice variety that we had genetically engineered with a new gene we had discovered, called Sub1, was alive. Kenong and I were amazed and excited that a single gene could have this dramatic effect. But this is just a greenhouse experiment. Would this work in the field?
Now, I'm going to show you a four-month time lapse（时间流逝、时间推移） video taken at the International Rice Research Institute. Breeders there developed a rice variety（水稻品种） carrying the Sub1 gene using another genetic technique called precision breeding. On the left, you can see the Sub1 variety, and on the right is the conventional variety. Both varieties do very well at first, but then the field is flooded（被水淹没，充满水） for 17 days. You can see the Sub1 variety does great. In fact, it produces three and a half times more grain than the conventional variety. I love this video because it shows the power of plant genetics（植物遗传学） to help farmers. Last year, with the help of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, three and a half million farmers grew Sub1 rice.
(Applause)
Thank you.
Now, many people don't mind genetic modification when it comes to moving rice genes around, rice genes in rice plants, or even when it comes to mixing species together through grafting or random mutagenesis. But when it comes to taking genes from viruses and bacteria and putting them into plants, a lot of people say, "Yuck." Why would you do that? The reason is that sometimes it's the cheapest, safest,and most effective technology for enhancing food security and advancing sustainable agriculture. I'm going to give you three examples.
First, take a look at papaya. It's delicious, right? But now, look at this papaya. This papaya is infected with papaya ringspot virus（植物环斑病毒）. In the 1950s, this virus nearly wiped out the entire production of papaya on the island of Oahu in Hawaii. Many people thought that the Hawaiian papaya was doomed, but then, a local Hawaiian, a plant pathologist（植物病理学家） named Dennis Gonsalves, decided to try to fight this disease using genetic engineering. He took a snippet（小片、片段） of viral DNA and he inserted it into the papaya genome. This is kind of like a human getting a vaccination. Now, take a look at his field trial. You can see the genetically engineered papaya in the center. It's immune to infection. The conventional papaya around the outside is severely infected with the virus. Dennis' pioneering work is credited with（被誉为） rescuing the papaya industry. Today, 20 years later, there's still no other method to control this disease. There's no organic method. There's no conventional method. Eighty percent of Hawaiian papaya is genetically engineered.
Now, some of you may still feel a little queasy（呕吐的、反胃的、感觉呕吐的） about viral genes in your food, but consider this: The genetically engineered papaya carries just a trace（一丝） amount of the virus. If you bite into an organic or conventional papaya that is infected with the virus, you will be chewing on tenfold （十倍的）more viral protein（病毒蛋白）.
Now, take a look at this pest feasting on（尽情享受、大吃大喝） an eggplant. The brown you see is frass（幼虫的粪便）, what comes out the back end（背部） of the insect. To control this serious pest, which can devastate the entire eggplant crop in Bangladesh, Bangladeshi farmers spray insecticides（喷射杀虫剂） two to three times a week, sometimes twice a day, when pest pressure is high. But we know that some insecticides are very harmful to human health, especially when farmers and their families cannot afford proper protection, like these children. In less developed countries, it's estimated that 300,000 people die every year because of insecticide misuse and exposure. Cornell and Bangladeshi scientists decided to fight this disease using a genetic technique that builds on（基于、依靠） an organic farming approach. Organic farmers like my husband Raoul spray an insecticide called B.T.,which is based on a bacteria. This pesticide is very specific to caterpillar（毛虫） pests, and in fact, it's nontoxic to humans, fish and birds. It's less toxic than table salt（食盐、调味盐）. But this approach does not work well in Bangladesh. That's because these insecticide sprays are difficult to find, they're expensive, and they don't prevent the insect from getting inside the plants. In the genetic approach, scientists cut the gene out of the bacteria and insert it directly into the eggplant genome. Will this work to reduce insecticide sprays in Bangladesh? Definitely. Last season, farmers reported they were able to reduce their insecticide use by a huge amount, almost down to zero. They're able to harvest and replant for the next season.
Now, I've given you a couple examples of how genetic engineering can be used to fight pests and disease and to reduce the amount of insecticides. My final example is an example where genetic engineering can be used to reduce malnutrition（营养不良、营养失调）. In less developed countries,500,000 children go blind every year because of lack of Vitamin A. More than half will die. For this reason, scientists supported by the Rockefeller Foundation genetically engineered a golden rice to produce beta-carotene, which is the precursor of Vitamin A. This is the same pigment（色素、给..着色） that we find in carrots. Researchers estimate that just one cup of golden rice per day will save the lives of thousands of children.But golden rice is virulently（恶毒的） opposed by activists who are against genetic modification. Just last year, activists invaded and destroyed a field trial in the Philippines. When I heard about the destruction, I wondered if they knew that they were destroying much more than a scientific research project, that they were destroying medicines that children desperately needed to save their sight and their lives.
Some of my friends and family still worry: How do you know genes in the food are safe to eat? I explained the genetic engineering, the process of moving genes between species, has been used for more than 40 years in wines, in medicine, in plants, in cheeses. In all that time, there hasn't been a single case of harm to human health or the environment. But I say, look, I'm not asking you to believe me. Science is not a belief system. My opinion doesn't matter. Let's look at the evidence. After 20 years of careful study and rigorous（严谨的、严格的） peer review（同行评审、同行评议） by thousands of independent（无党派的） scientists, every major scientific organization in the world has concluded that the crops currently on the market are safe to eat and that the process of genetic engineering is no more risky than older methods of genetic modification. These are precisely the same organizations that most of us trust when it comes to other important scientific issues such as global climate change or the safety of vaccines.
Raoul and I believe that, instead of worrying about the genes in our food, we must focus on how we can help children grow up healthy. We must ask if farmers in rural communities can thrive（繁荣、兴旺、茁壮成长）, and if everyone can afford the food. We must try to minimize environmental degradation（环境退化、环境质量下降）.What scares me most about the loud arguments and misinformation（误报、失真） about plant genetics is that the poorest people who most need the technology may be denied access（拒绝访问、使用） because of the vague fears and prejudices of those who have enough to eat.
We have a huge challenge in front of us. Let's celebrate scientific innovation and use it. It's our responsibility to do everything we can to help alleviate human suffering and safeguard the environment.
Thank you.
(Applause)
Thank you.
下面是对话部分！
Chris Anderson: Powerfully argued. The people who argue against GMOs（转基因生物（Genetically Modified Organisms））, as I understand it, the core piece comes from two things. One, complexity and unintended consequence. Nature is this incredibly complex machine. If we put out these brand new genes that we've created, that haven't been challenged by years of evolution, and they started mixing up with the rest of what's going on, couldn't that trigger some kind of cataclysm（灾难、大变动） or problem, especially when you add in the commercial incentive that some companies have to put them out there?The fear is that those incentives mean that the decision is not made on purely scientific grounds, and even if it was, that there would be unintended consequences（意外后果、未预期的后果）. How do we know that there isn't a big risk of some unintended consequence? Often our tinkerings with nature（小修改：If you tinker with something, you make some small changes to it, in an attempt to improve it or repair it.） do lead to big, unintended consequences and chain reactions（连锁反应）.
Pamela Ronald: Okay, so on the commercial aspects, one thing that's really important to understand is that, in the developed world, farmers in the United States, almost all farmers, whether they're organic or conventional, they buy seed produced by seed companies. So there's definitely a commercial interest to sell a lot of seed, but hopefully they're selling seed that the farmers want to buy. It's different in the less developed world. Farmers there cannot afford the seed. These seeds are not being sold. These seeds are being distributed freely through traditional kinds of certification groups, so it is very important in less developed countries that the seed be freely available.
CA: Wouldn't some activists say that this is actually part of the conspiracy? This is the heroin strategy. You seed the stuff, and people have no choice but to be hooked on（迷上了、黏上了） these seeds forever?
PR: There are a lot of conspiracy theories（阴谋论） for sure, but it doesn't work that way. For example, the seed that's being distributed, the flood-tolerant rice, this is distributed freely through Indian and Bangladeshi seed certification agencies, so there's no commercial interest at all.The golden rice was developed through support of the Rockefeller Foundation. Again, it's being freely distributed. There are no commercial profits in this situation. And now to address your other question about, well, mixing genes, aren't there some unintended consequences?Absolutely -- every time we do something different, there's an unintended consequence, but one of the points I was trying to make is that we've been doing kind of crazy things to our plants, mutagenesis using radiation or chemical mutagenesis. This induces thousands of uncharacterized mutations, and this is even a higher risk of unintended consequence than many of the modern methods. And so it's really important not to use the term GMO because it's scientifically meaningless. I feel it's very important to talk about a specific crop and a specific product, and think about the needs of the consumer.
CA: So part of what's happening here is that there's a mental model（心智模式、心理模式） in a lot of people that nature is nature, and it's pure and pristine（纯朴的、原始的）, and to tinker with it is Frankensteinian. It's making something that's pure dangerous in some way, and I think you're saying that that whole model just misunderstands how nature is. Nature is a much more chaotic（无秩序的、混乱的） interplay（| 相互影响、相互作用：The interplay between two or more things or people is the way that they have an effect on each another or react to each other. 互相影响 |） of genetic changes that have been happening all the time anyway.
PR: That's absolutely true, and there's no such thing as pure food. I mean, you could not spray eggplant with insecticides or not genetically engineer it, but then you'd be stuck eating frass（幼虫的粪便）. So there's no purity there.（说得好啊！）
CA: Pam Ronald, thank you. That was powerfully argued. PR: Thank you very much. I appreciate it. (Applause)
# Comments I like（大多数的人还是反对基因工程的啊！！！！！）
Please note we humans come from the nature, technology and engineering are man-made. Experimenting, or any violation with nature has never been appreciated and have never resulted anything good. As you mentioned in the video in mere 40 years of experimenting have not resulted in any harms, but please note nature existed from billions of years... we cannot decide or confirm what is good and what is bad in mere 40 years or even a few centuries. On a commercial aspect we always look at ROI (Return on Investment) and hence we tend to modify/change what is existing. There is always a loss, there is no 100% efficiency in whatever we do and is with plantation or agriculture too, if there is certain loss in any particular crop then it is indeed designed by the nature, we cannot change it. There are natural or traditional ways to tackle any kind of viruses our crops might come across. Humans are growing plants, vegetables, fruits from ancient years and they used to live longer (more than 100 years or 200 years and so on) and today's life expectancy has drastically reduced and only reason is technological advancements and genetic engineering. Technology has never helped us!! I am happy to see most of the comments are disagreements... it is very clear we are concerned citizens of this planet, and I hope we can give a self sustaining and a more greener world to our kids...
I don't think this idea is worth spreading...!!!
I believe Pamela your intentions are well meaning...but do we address the microrganisms in our stomachs....how do they thrive or not thrive...do they know how to break down these new foods...every thing in nature has a reason...cause and effect...if papaya plants were dying...what was the root cause.?( a blight or virus or other disease is nature telling us we could be doing something wrong)...
Before GE we would look at soil health...do we actually look at soil as a living organism teaming with all kinds of life in a scientific way??...Could it not be that we are killing our soil by only giving the plant what we think it needs and not what the soil needs to keep sustaining life?....
A programing analyst would look at a problem from many perspectives.
Problem....Papaya plants are dieing.
Is it the air?water?soil?nutrient?climate?light?
Then each of these would be further brought down sub categories, and sub categories to these until every element could be checked.
I don't know if you go through these diagnostics before you say... well lets change the plant so it can better adapt to this new screwed up environment...
(screwed up... because something is causing disharmony)
Not only are we changing the plant but we are distributing it in huge numbers (monoculturing it)....
Maybe it's better? But ...Do you really know.???..I think nobody knows...You seem to fix the problem because this new plant is thriving....people are being fed...
