吃人造肉汉堡很酷很环保？投入1.8亿美元原来是转基因技术！
来源: 原创译文 发布时间：2017-08-24 阅读：3861 次
食物主权按：
近些年，比尔·盖茨、李嘉诚和不少硅谷大佬竞相投资“人造肉汉堡”，李嘉诚还在香港进行了试吃活动，希望在亚洲抢占巨大商机。那么这个人造肉汉堡到底是何方神圣？
一般来说，人造肉汉堡多采用其他原料如植物蛋白模拟肉的质感和色味。而今天我们要讲的由食品公司Impossible Foods（不可能的食品）研发的人造肉汉堡却被爆料运用了“非法”转基因技术！说起来，制造人造肉的原理很简单，即将一种大豆蛋白发酵，形成类似肉的色味。不同于传统发酵，这家食品公司是通过将大豆蛋白基因转入酵母菌促成的发酵，经发酵表达出的大豆蛋白的安全性还没有经过美国食品药品监督管理局（FDA）检验，就已经被Impossible Food公司推向了市场。
主要内容翻译自：FDA Questions Safety of Impossible Burger's Key GMO Ingredient ，原作者：Ken Roseboro；
原翻译标题：美国人造肉汉堡含转基因成分，未经FDA批准
作者简介：Ken Roseboro 是《有机及非基因改造导报》的编辑和作者。他同时是《非转基因读物》的编辑和作者。Ken是非转基因供应工作组的筹备组成员，也是爱荷华的有机协会的创始董事会成员。
这两天微博上有很多关于美国“人造肉”汉堡的消息，但新闻中并没有告诉我们：（1）其关键成分来自转基因（2）FDA（美国食品和药品管理署The U.S. Food and Drug Administration）没有批准该转基因成分的安全性。
何谓“人造肉”汉堡
这种人造肉汉堡叫“Impossible Burger”（不可能的汉堡），由 Impossible Foods（不可能的食品）公司开发，该汉堡在全美43个饭店销售，包括一些汉堡连锁店，并吸引了大量投资，包括来自比尔•盖兹的投资。
SLH未经FDA安全性评估
该人造肉汉堡的关键成分大豆根血红蛋白（SLH）来自转基因技术，即把大豆根瘤血红蛋白基因转入酵母菌，在实验室发酵容器中发酵，然后将发酵产物用于汉堡“肉饼”中，使汉堡具有肉味和血色。问题在于，这个来自于实验室经酵母菌表达的SLH，根本就没有经过FDA的安全性评估。
根据“ETC Group”和“美国地球之友”两个组织通过“信息自由法”获得的FDA文件显示，该公司于2014年向FDA申请SLH的“普遍认为安全”标准（简称GRAS，Generally Recognized As Safe）豁免[1]。但是FDA认为该公司的SLH不符合GRAS标准，并说“FDA认为该公司提供的资料不足以建立SLH的食用安全性， 也不能认为它被普遍接受为安全”。该公司宣称其SLH与传统食品中已经存在的SLH等同，但它根本没有任何安全检测数据来证明这点。
SLH功能未知
该公司甚至向FDA承认，其SLH产品有1/4的成分是由46种非预期蛋白组成，所有这些蛋白都没有做过安全检测，甚至有些蛋白都不能确定是什么。美国“消费者联盟”的高级科学家汉森说，“它只有73%的纯度，其它27%是转基因酵母产生的功能未知的蛋白。”可见，酵母表达的产物甚至都没有经过纯化，就提取出目标血红蛋白，用于制作汉堡了。
该公司于2015年11月撤回了SLH的GRAS申请，而且将此产品投入了市场。
近期纽约时报曝光了此事，作为回应，该公司说一个由三所大学的食品安全和过敏专家组成的小组上周已经作了评估，认为其SLH安全，它也愿意将一个大鼠喂养实验结果提交给FDA作评估。问题是，在FDA批准之前，该公司就已经将产品上市一年多了。
FDA对转基因食品的监管漏洞
一个如Impossible Foods这样的公司，可以为其产品向FDA申请GRAS，在未被批准的情况下，可以将申请撤回，同时将产品上市。汉森博士说：“这显示了FDA在食品安全管理上的巨大漏洞，GRAS政策使得一个公司可以自己决定其化合物是否可安全食用，然后将其合法上市，甚至都不用通知FDA。
这就是“监管严格”的美国FDA对食品的监管，包括那些转基因食品在内。FDA使用的是磋商程序，由转基因食品公司自愿提交申请给FDA作安全评估，当然实验数据都是由转基因公司自己提供的，FDA只是评审一下而已，从来没有要求第三方检测。而如果转基因公司决意绕开FDA，直接将转基因食品上市，那虽然不道德却也是合法的。
注释
[1] 所谓GRAS，是FDA的一项为简化食品上市安全检测而制定的政策，由公司自己进行试验并向FDA提交申请，如果一个食品添加剂被FDA认可为GRAS，那么就可以免于安全评估。
英文原文
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) told the manufacturer of the meat-like Impossible Burger that the company hadn't demonstrated the safety of the product's key genetically engineered ingredient, according to internal FDA documents. Despite FDA's concerns, Impossible Foods put its GMO-derived burger on the market for public consumption.
GMO Ingredient Gives Product Meat-Like Taste and Red Blood-Like Color
The Impossible Burger is made using a genetically engineered form of a protein called soy leghemoglobin (SLH) or "heme" that is found in the root nodules of soybean plants. Impossible Foods adds a SLH gene to a yeast strain, which is then grown in vats using a fermentation process. The SLH or heme is then isolated from the yeast and added to the Impossible Burger. Heme gives the Impossible Burger its meat-like taste and red blood-like color.
Impossible Foods claims its product "uses about 75 percent less water, generates about 87 percent fewer greenhouse gases and requires around 95 percent less land than conventional ground beef from cows. It's produced without hormones, antibiotics, cholesterol or artificial flavors."
The GMO-derived Impossible Burger is sold in 43 restaurants nationwide, including several burger chains, and Impossible Foods has attracted significant funding from investors such as Bill Gates.
FDA: Arguments "Do Not Establish Safety of SLH for Consumption"
According to documents obtained by ETC Group and Friends of the Earth U.S. through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), Impossible Foods submitted an application to seek GRAS (generally recognized as safe) status for SLH from the FDA in 2014. The FDA's 1997 GRAS notification policy allows a manufacturer, like Impossible Foods, to decide for itself, without FDA input, whether or not a product is safe.
But the FDA warned Impossible Foods that SLH would not meet the basic GRAS status. The FOIA-produced documents state that the "FDA believes that the arguments presented, individually and collectively do not establish the safety of SLH for consumption, nor do they point to a general recognition of safety."
According to Michael Hansen, senior scientist at Consumers Union, Impossible Foods claimed that the engineered SLH/heme was identical to the SLH that has been in the food supply but the company had no safety testing data to back that claim.
"You are taking something that has never been in the food supply before and you come to the FDA, say it is GRAS, and you have no safety data, particularly from feeding studies," Hansen said. "Their argument has literally come down to saying this is exactly identical to the heme we've always been eating, but it's not true."
In discussion with FDA, Impossible Foods also admitted that up to a quarter of its heme ingredient was composed of 46 "unexpected" additional proteins, some of which are unidentified and none of which were assessed for safety in the dossier.
"It's only 73 percent pure, the other 27 percent is from proteins from the genetically engineered yeast that produces it, and these have an unknown function," Hansen said.
According to the FOIA documents, Impossible Foods withdrew its GRAS application in November of 2015.
Despite the FDA's warnings, Impossible Foods went ahead and started selling the Impossible Burger in 2016.
"The FDA told Impossible Foods that its burger was not going to meet government safety standards, and the company admitted it didn't know all of its constituents. Yet it sold it anyway to thousands of unwitting consumers. Responsible food companies don't treat customers this way," said Jim Thomas of ETC Group. "Impossible Foods should pull the burgers from the market unless and until safety can be established by the FDA and apologize to those whose safety it may have risked."
David Bronner: "Totally Unethical to Market and Feed an Untested Protein"
A recent New York Times article by Stephanie Strom brought the controversy over the Impossible Burger to light.
In response to the article, Impossible Foods issued a press release attesting to the safety of its product. The company said that "a panel of food safety and allergy experts at three universities unanimously reaffirmed last week that soy leghemoglobin is generally recognized as safe."
Impossible Foods also said it will voluntarily provide the results of a study feeding rats SLH and "additional data to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration."
Yet, Impossible Foods is submitting feeding study results to the FDA after the product has been on the market for a year.
"It's very troubling that Impossible Foods has put this product on the market and, more than one year later, still has not submitted requested safety data, including a rat feeding study, to FDA," Hansen said.
David Bronner, president of Dr. Bronner's Magic Soaps and plant-based foods advocate, had earlier expressed support for the Impossible Burger as a solution to environmental problems caused by industrial meat production. But the recent revelations have changed Bronner's opinion.
"While there is great potential good that the Impossible Burger could do, it's totally unethical to market and feed an untested protein to people and claim that it is identical to what we already eat," he said.
Major Loopholes in FDA Food Safety Regulations
The fact that companies like Impossible Foods can request GRAS status, then withdraw the application when the FDA raises concerns, and yet still put a product on the market shows major loopholes in FDA food safety regulations, according to Hansen.
"The GRAS process is so broken. It's perfectly legal for a company to say whatever compound they want to use is determined to be safe, and then put it in the food supply, and not even tell the FDA."
Another major loophole is that, while FDA conducts reviews of genetically engineered plants and animals, the agency doesn't review products made using genetically engineered microorganisms like the Impossible Burger's heme.
"The FDA doesn't even request safety data," Hansen said.
Hansen believes the GMO heme should be regulated as a color additive because Impossible Foods promotes heme's ability to give the burger a blood-red color like meat. The FDA requires safety assessments of color additives.
"If it affects color and marketability, it meets the definition of a color additive and should be regulated as such," he said.
