[雙語(yǔ)翻譯]轉(zhuǎn)基因食品外文翻譯--消費(fèi)者對(duì)轉(zhuǎn)基因食品不了解什么，以及這如何影響人們的信仰

1、3300 英文單詞， 英文單詞，1.8 萬(wàn)英文字符，中文 萬(wàn)英文字符，中文 6000 字文獻(xiàn)出處： 文獻(xiàn)出處：Mcfadden B , Lusk J . What Consumers Don’t Know about GM Food[J]. Faseb Journal, 2016, 30(9):3091-3096.What consumers don’t know about genetically modified food, and

2、 how that affects beliefsBrandon R. McFadden, and Jayson L. LuskABSTRACTIn the debates surrounding biotechnology and genetically modified (GM) food, data from consumer polls are often presented as evidence for precaution

3、 and labeling. But how much do consumers actually know about the issue? New data collected from a nationwide U.S. survey reveal low levels of knowledge and numerous misperceptions about GM food. Nearly equal numbers of c

4、onsumers prefer mandatory labeling of foods containing DNA as do those preferring mandatory labeling of GM foods. When given the option, the majority of consumers prefer that decisions about GM food be taken out of their

5、 hands and be made by experts. After answering a list of questions testing objective knowledge of GM food, subjective, self-reported knowledge declines somewhat and beliefs about GM food safety increase slightly. Results

6、 suggest that consumers think they know more than they actually do about GM food, and queries about GM facts cause respondents to reassess how much they know. The findings question the usefulness of results from opinion

7、polls as a motivation for creating public policy surrounding GM food.—McFadden, B. R., Lusk, J. L. What consumers don’t know about genetically modified food, and how that affects beliefs.KEY WORDS: GM food ；labeling；publ

8、ic acceptance；public knowledgeDebate about biotechnology in plant research and about genetically modified (GM) food in the United States has intensified in recent years, with mandatory labeling ballot initiatives appear

9、ing in California, Colorado, Connecticut, Maine, Oregon, and Washington. The Vermont legislature passed the first U.S. mandatory labeling law for GM food (1), an action that has prompted competing legislation in the U.S.

10、 Congress (2). At the heart of the debate is stated public opposition to GM food, and public opinion may be a proximate cause of policy (3). Indeed, public opinion polls are often used to characterize consumer sentiment

11、and motivate more precautionary policies for GM food. Apparent consumer concern could lead to a climate that impedes particular research methods and lowers the potential return to investments in biotechnology application

12、s.The seemingly high level of public opposition is puzzling given the views of most scientists on the issue. It could be argued that gaps between science and the public have always existed (4) and are increasing (5). How

13、ever, the gap is extraordinarily large regarding the safety of GM foods. Only 37% of U.S. consumers believe that GM food is safe to eat; in contrast, 88% of scientist members of the American Association for the Advanceme

14、nt of Science believe GM food is safe to eat (6). The gap between public and scientific assessment of GM food safety was the largest among all issues studied, including vaccines, climate change, and fracking, by a recent

15、 Pew Research Center study (6). The divide may indicate a need for better science communication. However, previous research on the topic has shown that simply providing statements from the scientific community does not s

16、ubstantively change effects. Questions associated with each block were as follows: 1) a question to determine subjective knowledgeable about GM food, with responses varying on a 5-point scale from “very unknowledgeable”

17、to “very knowledgeable,” a question that determined respondent level of agreement with a statement, “Food that has genetically modified ingredients is safe to eat,” with responses varying on a 5-point scale from “strongl

18、y disagree” to “strongly agree,” and a question that measured confidence in the response to the previous agreement question; 2) a question that determined if respondents knew how many genes are altered by different plant

19、 breeding techniques (i.e., selection, hybridization, genetic marker assisted breeding, genetic modification, mutagenesis) with response categories “none,” “1 to 9 genes,” “10 or more genes,” “Impossible to know,” and “I

20、 do not know,” and questions that determined knowledge about the proportion of corn and wheat acres planted with GM seed; 3) questions that tested knowledge about what crops on the market were GM, the purposes or outcome

21、s associated with modification, and whether GM animals were currently being sold; 4) questions that tested knowledge about when GM crops were first grown, and the average time it takes for a GM crop or animal to be appro

22、ved for human consumption; 5) questions that tested awareness of GM and non-GM herbicide-tolerant crops; 6) questions that tested awareness of the time it takes to create a new variety of GM and non-GM corn; 7) questions

23、 that determined support or opposition for mandatory labeling of food and how the issue of mandatory labeling should be decided; 8) questions that tested general knowledge of food DNA; 9) questions in block 1 were repeat

24、ed; and 10) demographic questions.Thus, we have within-subject measures of how self-reported subjective knowledge, beliefs about GM food safety, and confidence in those beliefs changed after answering the questions asked

25、 in blocks 2 through 8. Participants were not informed of the correct responses to the questions asked, and therefore any changes in the within-subject measures were completely a result of self-reflection. Care was taken

26、 to word questions in an easy-to- read and understandable manner. Nevertheless, the issues are inherently technical in nature and may be difficult to answer correctly for many people. Nevertheless, it is important to und

27、erstand the level of public knowledge about genetics and agricultural production, particularly when assertions are being made about consumer knowledge and preferences. Furthermore, responses to some of the questions aske

28、d may provide insight into why some of the public is not accepting of GM foods. For instance, there is a sentiment that GM is not natural because it alters genes in a lab; however, it is unclear whether people are averse

29、 to the altering of genes in general or averse to genes being altered in a lab setting that could not occur in nature.RESULTSBefore asking questions that tested knowledge about genetics and agriculture production, respon

30、dents were first queried about self-reported, subjective knowledge of GM food and beliefs about the safety of GM food. On a 5-point scale, 8% rated themselves as “very knowledgeable” about GM food, and the highest propor

31、tion, 32%, rated themselves as “somewhat knowledgeable,” with the remaining 60% being undecided or not knowledgeable. Results regarding the safety of eating GM food aligned with previous studies (6, 8). Thirty-four perce