评论
打印
The EU prohibits many harmful ingredients America allows. But multinational corporations are looking to change that.
欧盟禁止了许多在美国允许使用的添加剂。但是跨国公司们正在寻求改变这一现状。
A speaker at an event I recently attended asked why U.S. food companies put butylated hydroxyltoluene, a food preservative and endocrine disruptor, in cereal sold stateside, while in Europe the same companies formulate the same product without BHT.
我最近参加的一场活动的发言人提出质疑，为什么美国的食品企业将丁基羟基甲苯（BHT）-一种会干扰内分泌的食品添加剂-加入在美国本土销售的麦片里面，与此同时这一公司在欧洲销售的同种产品中没有添加BHT。
There are three answers to that question:
对于这一质疑有以下三种解释：
1.The European Union prohibits numerous harmful ingredients U.S. regulatory agencies allow.
1. 欧盟禁止添加许多美国管制机构允许添加的有害添加剂。
2.Well-informed European citizens have organized and pushed for those regulations.
2.见多识广的欧洲居民们组织并奋力争取了这些（禁止添加有害添加剂的）条款的实施。
3.U.S. citizens have not yet pushed for such regulations in sufficient numbers.
3.尚未有足够数量的美国居民努力争取过这一类条款的实施。
The precautionary principle is an approach to risk management which places the burden of proof to demonstrate a product or ingredient's safety on the corporations that produces the product— prior to releasing it to the public. Over the last few decades, the U.S. has become lax with this approach while Europe proceeds with a greater amount of caution. But that contrast may not survive efforts by the U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman and multinational corporations, which are currently negotiating super trade treaties behind closed doors.
预防原则是一种企业必须进行的证明某种产品或添加剂安全性的的原则-在企业将某种产品或添加剂推出市场之前。在过去的几十年里，当美国在食品安全方面更加松懈的时候，欧洲在这一方面则越发谨慎。然而这种差别在美国贸易代表Michael Froman及跨国公司们闭门协商超级贸易协定的努力下可能化为泡影。
Such treaties are enacted by Congress through what's known as "fast-track" legislation, meaning that the President negotiates trade agreements and Congress can only approve or disapprove, but cannot amend or filibuster the legislation.
这些协定被利用"快速通道"法案在国会获得通过，意思就是总统协商贸易条款，国会仅能对这些条款进行通过或不通过的批复，而不能对条款进行修改或阻挠立法。
According to sources at the negotiations of these treaties, the provisions in them may well eradicate the EU's higher standards. Instead of getting the BHT and other questionable additives out of American products, the negotiated language will likely "harmonize barriers to trade," meaning corporations can put all the bad stuff in European products that they can't now.
据参加协商的消息来源称，贸易协定中的条款很有可能废除欧洲更高的（食品安全）标准。而不是将BHT和其他有问题的添加剂从美国制造的产品中移除，协商后的条款表述将类似于"和谐贸易障碍"，这意味（食品）企业将被允许在欧洲的产品中添加现在不允许添加的有害物质。
Many Europeans vehemently oppose such trade deals because the mainstream media is extensively covering them. Here in the U.S., however, there's pretty much a coverage blackout except for MSNBC's The Ed Show.
由于主流媒体的极力掩盖，许多欧洲人激烈反对这类交易条款。然而在美国这里，除了MSNBC的The Ed Show之外，（这类消息）全都被墙了。
Despite leaks, side conversations and Wikileaks revelations that have given experts the opportunity to assess the deals, the American media and public don't seem too concerned about the outcome. But important questions remain. Let's begin with the obvious: Why are these deals secret? And why should ordinary citizens go along and trust that the secret handshake devised by corporations will serve the greater public good?
尽管维基解密等渠道给了专家们评估这些条款的机会，美国媒体和大众们却并不关心评估结果。然而问题依然存在。让我们从最明显的开始：为什么这些条款是保密的？而且，为什么普通市民应该支持并信任这些（跨国食品）公司们的秘密协议将服务于广大群众的利益？
To borrow a phrase from the GMO labeling movement, we need to safeguard the public's right to know. It doesn't matter whether we're talking about secret trade deals or the contents of food, shampoo, building products, industrial emissions, knowledge protects us.
借用"转基因标示运动"中的一句话，我们需要保卫大众的知情权。无论我们是否正在讨论这些秘密协定或者食品，洗发水，建筑材料，工业排放物的成分，知识保护我们。
Is Knowledge a Barrier to Trade?
知识是交易的阻碍么？
While the most visible proponents of labeling are groups, like the Organic Consumers Organization, Food Democracy Now!, and Just Label It! which call for mandatory labeling of GMO-containing foods, GMOs are not the only food ingredients some people would like to see labeled in food. A small sample of others include:
正当主要的标示运动支持者结成团体-例如有机产品消费者组织，食物皿煮现在行动！，以及标示起来！-并且呼吁强制标示含转基因成分食品之时，转基因成分并不是一些人们寻求标示出的唯一的食品添加成分。其他被呼吁标出的成分中的一小部分如下：
Allergenic ingredients (like wheat or egg)
致敏成分（例如小麦或鸡蛋）
Pro-inflammatory ingredients (like MSG or food colorings)
导致发炎的成分（例如味精或食品染色剂）
Obesogenic substances (like high fructose corn syrup aka HCFS)
致胖成分（例如果葡糖浆-又称HCFS）
Other stuff that has not been well studied (or studied at all) like certain "flavors" or "fragrances"
其他未被充分研究（或根本未被研究）的物质，例如某些"调味剂"或"芳香剂"
It doesn't end with food. Women purchasing cosmetics or face creams want to know whether they contain methyl parabens which studies find concentrated in cancerous tumors. Parents buying their children's car seats or nursing pillows want assurances that these products don't contain toxic flame retardants. Homeowners and office dwellers want to know if their building materials and furnishings contain toxins like phthalates, which are associated with damage to the liver, thyroid and reproductive system.
并不仅仅是食物。女性购买化妆品或面霜时希望了解这些商品是否含有基苯甲酸甲酯-一种曾在癌症肿瘤中找到的物质。父母为他们的子女购买车用儿童座椅和哺乳枕的时候希望这些产品中不含有有毒阻燃剂。自有房屋者和上班族希望知道他们生活和上班的地方的建筑材料里面是否含有钛酸盐-一种与肝、甲状腺和生殖系统损伤有关的物质。
And let's not forget the chemicals used in fracking, emissions from manufacturing plants and gas pipeline infrastructures, methane and carbon dioxide releases contributing to climate change, and nuclear waste. Whether it's consumer goods, building materials, or the energy industries, toxic outputs need to be monitored for health and environmental impacts. That's impossible to do without the right to know what they contain, emit or produce. The only way to track them is through product labeling.
并且不要忘记水压压裂中用到的化学物质，加工厂和燃气管道建造过程中的排放物，导致气候变化的甲烷和二氧化碳排放以及核废料。为了健康和环境影响，无论是日用品，建筑材料还是能源工业的有毒排放物都需要被监测。如果不知道他们（上述行为和排放物）包含什么，释放什么或者制造出来的是什么，这些监测行动根本无从谈起。追踪这些的唯一办法就是通过产品标示。
Banning the Precautionary Principle
取消"预防原则"
From the perspective of corporations, the less the public knows about what their products contain or emit, the better. When knowledge deters people from a product or process, the industry considers that knowledge a barrier to trade. And the new uber-trade deals, the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) and Trans Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) are poised to be fast-tracked through Congress with a quick up or down vote, even before the treaties' contents are made known to Congress or the public.
从公司的视角来看，大众对于他们生产什么或者排放什么知道的越少越好。当知识阻止人们（购买）产品或（从事）行为时，工业（所有者）就会将知识看成贸易的阻碍。并且新的超级贸易条款，跨太平洋伙伴协议（TPP）以及跨大西洋贸易及投资伙伴协议（TTIP）整时刻准备着通过快速通道在国会中进行迅速直接表决，甚至在协议条款并未被国会或公众知晓之前。
"Big chemical companies, pesticide manufacturers, the manufacturers of products which are associated with cancer, autism, learning disabilities in children, and a host of other serious illnesses are attempting to use these trade regulations to stop government regulations of dangerous chemicals all around the globe," says William Waren, senior trade analyst with Friends of the Earth.
"大型化工企业，杀虫剂制造商，这些制造可能导致癌症，自闭症，儿童学习障碍以及大量其他严重疾病的产品的公司正试图利用这些贸易条款在全球范围内废止政府限制危险化学品的政策。"Friends of the Earth 的高级交易分析员William Waren说。
"When we can't adequately quantify risk, the burden of proof is on the party that would introduce a potentially risky product to show that the risk is low enough to avoid harm public health and the environment," he continues.
"当我们无法充分量化风险时，举证责任就落到了那些愿意介绍一种具有潜在风险的产品来展示其中的风险足够低，且并不会对公众健康或环境造成负面影响的一方头上"他继续说道。
When the precautionary principle is dismantled, as it is in U.S. policy, companies make it the public's responsibility to show harm. Unless people go to extraordinary lengths to demonstrate a safety problem, corporations have no responsibility to guarantee safety.
如预防原则被废止，就如美国现在的政策这样，公司就将发现损害的责任转移到了公众头上。除非人们用足够长（的时间）来证明其确实存在安全隐患，否则公司将不再有保证（产品）安全的责任。
Current federal regulations are riddled with loopholes due to four decades of industry lobbying and legal opposition to proper safeguards. Efforts by major coalitions like Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families have been stalled.
现存联邦法规由于四十年的工业游说和对适当保护措施的合法反对，已经千疮百孔。像"更安全的化工产品"，"健康家庭"这样主要组织的努力已陷入停滞。
In the void left by our nation's failure to regulate, some states, such as California, have taken it upon themselves to regulate toxic chemicals. The California Environmental Quality Act requires that "no projects which would cause significant environmental effects should be approved as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or mitigation measures that would lessen those effects," and "environmental impact reports shall be used to provide full public disclosure of the environmental impacts of a proposed project."
在我们的国家规定失效留下的空白中，一些州，例如加利福尼亚，自行制定了规范有毒化学品的法规。加州环境质量法案要求"没有任何可能造成严重环境影响的工程可以获得通过-如存在可替代或减缓措施以减少这些影响的话"并且"必须提交（拟议计划的）环境影响报告以公开披露拟议计划的环境影响。"
"It's incremental but it's real important, given the incapacity of the EPA to act," notes Waren.
"这增加了成本，但确实非常重要，考虑到环保局的无能为力"，Waren表示。
Waren says that the "Technical Barriers to Trade" chapters in treaties would also enact stringent limits on all governments, rolling back product safety regulations in Europe and elsewhere and freeze in place the current ineffective U.S. federal regulations. In addition, state regulations would be rolled back or nullified.
Waren还说协议中"贸易的技术障碍"一章还会对严格要求（协议相关的）所有政府，在欧洲和其他国家按照现行美国联邦法案来修改其产品安全法规，同时冻结现行美国联邦法规。此外，州法案也将被降低至原来水平或取消。
Europeans would have to eat their BHT and like it. No longer able to study health or environmental impacts, under threat of lawsuits by international trade tribunals, Californians would not be empowered to prevent fracking companies from dumping fracking waste into water aquifers—as recently occurred in Central Valley, California.
欧洲人将被迫使用BHT并且喜欢上它。不再能够了解健康或环境影响，在被国际贸易法庭起诉的风险下，加州将不允许再对页岩气生产企业向地下含水层注入有害化工原料进行限制-正如最近在加州中央山谷发生的。
"This is one of the leading negotiating points for the U.S. and they are making a lot of headway," says Waren. "The whole question of rolling back state and local safeguards on food and the environment is a very, very important one because a lot of states have already acted in various ways, like New York which banned fracking."
"这是美国政府的主要谈判点之一，并且他们取得了很大进步"Waren说，"将州与地方食品安全与环境保护法案降至原来水平这一整个问题非常非常重要，因为许多州已经在用不同方法采取了行动，例如纽约州就禁止使用水力压裂法（采取页岩气）。"
Waren says fast-track trade legislation is a "fundamental attack on democracy. It's frightening."
Waren将快速通过贸易法案形容为"对皿煮的根本攻击。令人恐惧"。
