什麼是丁基羥基甲苯，爲什麼它在你的食物裏?

The EU prohibits many harmful ingredients America allows. But multinational corporations are looking to change that.

歐盟禁止了許多在美國允許使用的添加劑。但是跨國公司們正在尋求改變這一現狀。

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.

我最近參加的一場活動的發言人提出質疑，爲什麼美國的食品企業將丁基羥基甲苯（BHT）-一種會干擾內分泌的食品添加劑-加入在美國本土銷售的麥片裏面，與此同時這一公司在歐洲銷售的同種產品中沒有添加BHT。

There are three answers to that question:

對於這一質疑有以下三種解釋：

European Union prohibits numerous harmful ingredients U.S. regulatory agencies allow.

1. 歐盟禁止添加許多美國管制機構允許添加的有害添加劑。

-informed European citizens have organized and pushed for those regulations.

2.見多識廣的歐洲居民們組織並奮力爭取了這些（禁止添加有害添加劑的）條款的實施。

3.U.S. citizens have not yet pushed for such regulations in sufficient numbers.

3.尚未有足夠數量的美國居民努力爭取過這一類條款的實施。

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.

預防原則是一種企業必須進行的證明某種產品或添加劑安全性的的原則-在企業將某種產品或添加劑推出市場之前。在過去的幾十年裏，當美國在食品安全方面更加鬆懈的時候，歐洲在這一方面則越發謹慎。然而這種差別在美國貿易代表Michael Froman及跨國公司們閉門協商超級貿易協定的努力下可能化爲泡影。

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.

這些協定被利用"快速通道"法案在國會獲得通過，意思就是總統協商貿易條款，國會僅能對這些條款進行通過或不通過的批覆，而不能對條款進行修改或阻撓立法。

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.

據參加協商的消息來源稱，貿易協定中的條款很有可能廢除歐洲更高的（食品安全）標準。而不是將BHT和其他有問題的添加劑從美國製造的產品中移除，協商後的條款表述將類似於"和諧貿易障礙"，這意味（食品）企業將被允許在歐洲的產品中添加現在不允許添加的有害物質。

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.

由於主流媒體的極力掩蓋，許多歐洲人激烈反對這類交易條款。然而在美國這裏，除了MSNBC的The Ed Show之外，（這類消息）全都被牆了。

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?

儘管維基解密等渠道給了專家們評估這些條款的機會，美國媒體和大衆們卻並不關心評估結果。然而問題依然存在。讓我們從最明顯的開始：爲什麼這些條款是保密的？而且，爲什麼普通市民應該支持並信任這些（跨國食品）公司們的祕密協議將服務於廣大羣衆的利益？

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"轉基因標示運動"中的一句話，我們需要保衛大衆的知情權。無論我們是否正在討論這些祕密協定或者食品，洗髮水，建築材料，工業排放物的成分，知識保護我們。

Is Knowledge a Barrier to Trade?

知識是交易的阻礙麼？

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:

正當主要的標示運動支持者結成團體-例如有機產品消費者組織，食物皿煮現在行動！，以及標示起來！-並且呼籲強制標示含轉基因成分食品之時，轉基因成分並不是一些人們尋求標示出的唯一的食品添加成分。其他被呼籲標出的成分中的一小部分如下：

Allergenic ingredients (like wheat or egg)

致敏成分（例如小麥或雞蛋）

Pro-inflammatory ingredients (like MSG or food colorings)

導致發炎的成分（例如味精或食品染色劑）

Obesogenic substances (like high fructose corn syrup aka HCFS)

致胖成分（例如果葡糖漿-又稱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）的物質，例如某些"調味劑"或"芳香劑"

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.

並不僅僅是食物。女性購買化妝品或面霜時希望瞭解這些商品是否含有基苯甲酸甲酯-一種曾在癌症腫瘤中找到的物質。父母爲他們的子女購買車用兒童座椅和哺乳枕的時候希望這些產品中不含有有毒阻燃劑。自有房屋者和上班族希望知道他們生活和上班的地方的建築材料裏面是否含有鈦酸鹽-一種與肝、甲狀腺和生殖系統損傷有關的物質。

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.

並且不要忘記水壓壓裂中用到的化學物質，加工廠和燃氣管道建造過程中的排放物，導致氣候變化的甲烷和二氧化碳排放以及核廢料。爲了健康和環境影響，無論是日用品，建築材料還是能源工業的有毒排放物都需要被監測。如果不知道他們（上述行爲和排放物）包含什麼，釋放什麼或者製造出來的是什麼，這些監測行動根本無從談起。追蹤這些的唯一辦法就是通過產品標示。

Banning the Precautionary Principle

取消"預防原則"

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.

從公司的視角來看，大衆對於他們生產什麼或者排放什麼知道的越少越好。當知識阻止人們（購買）產品或（從事）行爲時，工業（所有者）就會將知識看成貿易的阻礙。並且新的超級貿易條款，跨太平洋夥伴協議（TPP）以及跨大西洋貿易及投資夥伴協議（TTIP）整時刻準備着通過快速通道在國會中進行迅速直接表決，甚至在協議條款並未被國會或公衆知曉之前。

"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.

"大型化工企業，殺蟲劑製造商，這些製造可能導致癌症，自閉症，兒童學習障礙以及大量其他嚴重疾病的產品的公司正試圖利用這些貿易條款在全球範圍內廢止政府限制危險化學品的政策。"Friends of the Earth 的高級交易分析員William Waren說。

"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.

"當我們無法充分量化風險時，舉證責任就落到了那些願意介紹一種具有潛在風險的產品來展示其中的風險足夠低，且並不會對公衆健康或環境造成負面影響的一方頭上"他繼續說道。

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.

如預防原則被廢止，就如美國現在的政策這樣，公司就將發現損害的責任轉移到了公衆頭上。除非人們用足夠長（的時間）來證明其確實存在安全隱患，否則公司將不再有保證（產品）安全的責任。

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.

現存聯邦法規由於四十年的工業遊說和對適當保護措施的合法反對，已經千瘡百孔。像"更安全的化工產品"，"健康家庭"這樣主要組織的努力已陷入停滯。

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."

在我們的國家規定失效留下的空白中，一些州，例如加利福尼亞，自行制定了規範有毒化學品的法規。加州環境質量法案要求"沒有任何可能造成嚴重環境影響的工程可以獲得通過-如存在可替代或減緩措施以減少這些影響的話"並且"必須提交（擬議計劃的）環境影響報告以公開披露擬議計劃的環境影響。"

"It's incremental but it's real important, given the incapacity of the EPA to act," notes Waren.

"這增加了成本，但確實非常重要，考慮到環保局的無能爲力"，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還說協議中"貿易的技術障礙"一章還會對嚴格要求（協議相關的）所有政府，在歐洲和其他國家按照現行美國聯邦法案來修改其產品安全法規，同時凍結現行美國聯邦法規。此外，州法案也將被降低至原來水平或取消。

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.

歐洲人將被迫使用BHT並且喜歡上它。不再能夠了解健康或環境影響，在被國際貿易法庭起訴的風險下，加州將不允許再對頁岩氣生產企業向地下含水層注入有害化工原料進行限制-正如最近在加州中央山谷發生的。

"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."

"這是美國政府的主要談判點之一，並且他們取得了很大進步"Waren說，"將州與地方食品安全與環境保護法案降至原來水平這一整個問題非常非常重要，因爲許多州已經在用不同方法採取了行動，例如紐約州就禁止使用水力壓裂法（採取頁岩氣）。"

Waren says fast-track trade legislation is a "fundamental attack on democracy. It's frightening."

Waren將快速通過貿易法案形容爲"對皿煮的根本攻擊。令人恐懼"。