袁隆平院士的雜交水稻安全性到底如何？

12-24

我在維基百科袁隆平詞條下看到這樣一段話
「在中國，袁隆平的雜交稻根本就沒人吃。所謂超級稻根本無法證明其食用安全性，就連袁隆平自己也不會冒險去吃。雜交稻養活中國人的說法根本就是無稽之談，實際上中國人的日常口糧還是傳統水稻。
雜交稻選取的是耐化肥的品種，種植過程中需要大量的化肥投入，產出的稻米撒發著尿素味。曾經有人試著用雜交稻飼養豬，結果出現大量死亡，被懷疑與雜交稻的安全性有關。
從當前的各種報道來看，袁隆平總是自說自話實驗田的產量達到多少，卻從來不進行嚴格的對比實驗，他的所謂「超級稻」的品質也因此常常受到質疑。越來越多的人認為袁隆平的超級稻其實就是在種化肥，並且袁隆平從來不在三年內用同一塊實驗田，因為種過化肥之後的土地三年之內寸草不生。
而近年來，袁隆平逐漸成為了美國轉基因水稻的代言人，袁本人也因此被授予美國科學院外籍院士的頭銜。」

一直沒有仔細了解過雜交水稻，業內人士給說說。
——————————————————————分割線
現在再看，那部分爭議內容已經被刪了，大家可以查看編輯歷史。
_________________________________________分割線
有必要聲明，這題沒問雜交水稻安不安全，我相信它是安全的，我問的是安全性如何，謝謝，這顯然不是一句兩句能說清楚的，需要專業人士給詳細介紹，或者提供相關文獻，想回答「那段明顯抹黑的話題主也信」，「我吃了雜交水稻就沒事兒」這種答案的就不用回答了，而且如果極端嚴謹地說，這種沒有什麼引用論據的答案連「安不安全」這個問題也回答不了。

謝邀~
傳統農業產品也並非總是安全食用的。
比如，土豆中的龍葵素（茄鹼）
wiki：「One study suggests that doses of 2 to 5 mg per kilogram of body weight
can cause toxic symptoms, and doses of 3 to 6 mg per kilogram of body
weight can be fatal.Solanine」 50kg 體重的成年人，150-300 mg 可致命 (fatal)。

FDA Poisonous Plant Database
"A more homely source of solanine is the common potato (solanum tuberosum), whose average content is 8 mg. per 100 g."還有花生等一些堅果，每年能夠引起許多人產生過敏反應，嚴重過敏也是致命的。小麥和玉米在內的很多其他糧食，會因為作物病害導致含有微量的劇毒或致癌成分，對此公眾都不會太介意，因為這是傳統。

先驗思想「這些農作物我們一直在食用，沒有出現問題，因此是安全的」和後驗思想「這些農作物是經過嚴格的檢驗後，對人是安全的，所以我們一直在食用」是在農業和生物技術中存在的雙重標準。大多數人假裝相信其間的邏輯一致性，很少人肯承認自己贊同雙重標準。生物技術的反對者多半否認雙重標準的存在。他們主張基因工程作物天生危險更大，因此適於接受更審慎的標準。而生物技術的支持者卻對施加在基因工程作物身上的標準嗤之以鼻，對全部的作物使用統一標準才更符合邏輯。

但是，到底哪一個標準更適用呢？對於作物育種學家來說，他們可以將幾乎任何可能的渠道得來的基因引入作物中，無需顧慮政府的管制和消費者的反應，甚至消費者不會去質疑這些品種是怎麼來的。如果以對待基因工程作物的標準來審視常規的作物育種。當水稻育種人員研製出抗稻瘟病的水稻品種時，不應該立馬允許他們銷售，而是應當要求他們找出產生這一性狀的基因，以及這些品種是否會對生態系統和人類健康造成潛在的危害。

另外，如果孟山都的育種學家通過不斷用草甘膦噴施大豆，偶然間找到了一個EPSP合成酶自然突變株，可以抵抗草甘膦。由於這種突變是在細胞內部產生，而不是通過外源轉基因導入，因此它無需受到政府的審查。你是否會消費這種大豆呢？1999年美國曾經通過誘發突變選育出抗除草劑的水稻，但是很快發現這種耐除草劑的水稻會和當地的一種雜草發生遠緣雜交，會使抗除草劑基因發生漂移，最後這個品種沒有通過美國環保所的審查。

事實上，雙重標準的存在不是因為基因工程作物對健康或者環境存在什麼特殊的風險，而是因為凌駕於風險預測之上的理由。一方面要求食品生產純凈健康，把人類干預自然視為不潔的因素。另一方面，又期待科學家和企業，擁有解決農業問題的遺傳工具，創造出安全，富足的食品。

不幸的是，對於人為干預自然，並沒有明確的界限，例如栽培稻的馴化和雜交稻的產生，也是人類的操縱，被我們默許，而克隆人則被我們放到界限之外，因為這當中存在一個道德界限。對於農業生物技術和食品安全問題，這裡面也存在一個安全界限，這便是我們所要尋找的。

以上

「如果是兩個理性而真誠的真理追求者爭論問題，爭論的結果必然是二人達成一致。換句話說如果爭論不歡而散，那麼必然有一方是虛偽的」。在生物技術和農業安全問題下，如果預設的標準和立場就不一致，討論是不會有結果的。這就是我要表達的意思。

--------------
鑒於大家最關心還是雜交稻的問題，補充幾點。

雜交稻的來源。其實水稻不像小麥那樣（小麥的遠緣雜交育種很常見），水稻細胞的排他性很強，遠緣雜交幾乎很難實現。因此雜交稻的資源差不多都是來自於栽培稻和野生稻。栽培稻自不用說，沒人會懷疑其安全性；至於野生稻，一萬年前我們就開始吃了，後來才被人馴化成了栽培稻（因為味道確實不怎麼樣）。因此排除了雜交稻中會攜帶有其他雜草中對人類有害的基因。
雜交稻的選育。如果懷疑雜交過程會產生對人類有害的物質，那麼這些常規稻品種也必然會存在。要知道為什麼水稻品種資源那麼多嗎，除去自然變異，大部分是通過自然條件下雜交，不斷地進行人工選擇而保留下來的，通過系譜分析就會發現很多品種都有共同的祖先。因此這個邏輯也不通。
雄性不育基因的來源。三系雜交稻的不育基因（野敗型，紅蓮型，包台型細胞質雄性不育）的不育基因是來自野生稻自然突變形成的，兩系雜交稻（光，溫敏核不育）是常規稻自然突變產生。不過是被我們拿來應用，相信這個也不會有異議。至於要說明這個不育基因到底是改變了哪些生理生化過程，是否會對人有影響還比較困難（最近有發表了野敗型不育基因的作用原理，其他的幾個不育作用機理還沒有能夠完全解釋）。
另外，相比日本和韓國，我們確實存在肥料濫用的問題，但是這個和雜交稻的安全沒有關係。如果說重金屬污染，殺蟲劑或除草劑的產量也考慮在內，這個也是在特定環境下發生的，並不是本質問題。

我來好好回答樓主的問題吧。

雜交水稻，包括袁隆平搞的，由於沒有做過什麼安全性的測試，所以安全性應該不如通過安全測試的轉基因作物。

下面展開說明一下：
首先，你要承認進化論。如果你不相信生物是進化而來的，那麼下面的不用看了。生物進化是為了適應自然環境，為了更好的繁衍，而不是為了人類。沒有一種生物的進化的目的是為了給人類食用的。那麼一種生物作為食物對人類的健康有害是非常正常的現象。同樣，人類進化了這麼多年，也不是弱不禁風。食物在消化過程中經過的消化道屬於體外壞境，它本身就擋住了很多有害物質。有些有害物質在體內壞境也能被處理，有些傷害也能恢復。所以，只要沒有明確的證據證明一種食物有害，那就吃吧。

其次，一種作物是否適合種植，不能僅僅考慮消費者（吃貨）的利益，還要考慮生產者——也就是農民——的利益。顆粒飽滿、味美香甜當然人類愛吃，但昆蟲也愛吃，但它們吃是不付錢的。農民辛苦了一季，結果都養蟲子了，他能願意嗎？農業現在還是靠天吃飯，旱澇保收也是農民考慮的一個重點。農業科學家考慮的大部分都是生產者的要求，因為他們才是科學家的客戶。一個作物的產量大小、抗擊不利因素的能力、是否便於運輸和儲存，這才是重點。至於安全性，正如我上面說的，只要沒有證據證明有害，那就放心吃吧。要對進化了這麼多年的自己有信心。

最後，說點別的。雜交是不同基因型的個體之間的交配，我看到有人把混血兒也當成雜交，我只能苦笑了。很多人把雜交當作是自然過程，把轉基因當作是人工干預，這是不對的。實際上現在的雜交育種需要大量的人工干預包括使用化學試劑，很多雜交在自然條件下是根本不可能發生的。轉基因這個技術同樣也是人類跟大自然學的，自然界本身就存在轉基因現象，轉基因技術也是利用自然規律。要說真的不安全的是輻射育種，比如用X射線照射種子，我國還把種子送到太空中接受各種射線的轟擊。這些輻射可是正兒八經的電離輻射，比手機電腦這類非電離輻射危險多了，絕對的致癌。你敢吃這種作物嗎？我看很多人並沒有顯示出「應該有的擔心」，真是讓人捉雞啊。

————————————以下言論不針對樓主，只針對目前的一些現象————————————

你以為你現在吃的"傳統"水稻不是古人雜交出來的？想吃純天然自己蹲原始森林去吃啊！怕死自己挨個挨個食物做毒理學實驗去啊這麼擔心怕死趕緊關電腦扔手機啊！電腦手機有輻射哦！
現在這股反科學的妖風是哪兒刮出來的啊？這麼想過古代田園詩生活覺得特健康特自然特愜意是吧？古代的人均壽命才30歲我會告訴你么？隨便碰個饑荒年餓死一大片我會告訴你么？

黑唄黑完轉基因黑雜交唄有本事自己去找野生稻自己種去

嗯求摺疊
——————————————昏鴿腺—————————————————————————
既然被@黃繼新教育了一小下
那就補充一點
不是針對題目的回答
現在的人什麼都敢質疑誰都敢懷疑
並不是說質疑不好懷疑不好
科學必須經得起質疑與檢驗
我也經常嘲笑某些名頭很大的學者做出來的東西是坨Shit,比如李蘭娟院士那篇H7N9的柳葉刀（咦？這是有多大仇啊逮著機會就提這事）
也懷疑某些paper里的數據是編造的

但是質疑之前我覺得應該至少首先問問自己有沒有那個專業水平去懷疑
我是搞豬流感病毒的獸醫生命科學範圍內的很多東西或多或少稍微懂一點畢竟原理是通的

但我決不會去argue相對論是不是不對普朗克常量是不是就是那個數因為我不懂一丁點兒都不懂
在自己確實不懂的情況下
要麼自己一丁點一丁點去學習
要麼索性和我一樣選擇相信相關方面的科學家的素養，把爭吵留給專業人士

要我花費精力去回答一個對科學充滿無知和敵意的問題
這活我不樂意干
我又不是你生物老師。

人為控制「雜交」可以說是一種馴化吧，其實是從自然界篩選出人類想要的品種。
我們家養的雞、鴨、牛、豬和許多的農作物都是雜交得到的，拿水稻來說吧，有高桿的矮桿的，抗蟲害的不抗蟲害的，怕冷的不怕冷的，還有好吃的不好吃的，把「抗蟲害但怕冷的」和「不抗蟲害但不怕冷」的雜交到一起，就有可能得到「抗蟲害且不怕冷的」，雜交水稻就是這樣一步步集合自然水稻的優點，把優秀的品種保存下來並大量播種，達到增加產量的目的。
至於安不安全，其實食品和醫藥的安全問題大多數要靠時間經驗驗證，大規模推廣前的毒理性測試其實只能作為參考，袁隆平的雜交水稻推廣至今已經超過三十年了，種植區的人已經吃這種水稻三十年了，實在是沒有什麼好擔心的了。況且，如果認為雜交的就不安全，真不知道我們還有什麼能吃的了。
PS:即使沒有人為干預，植物在自然條件下也會雜交的
PPS：擔心大米的重金屬污染比較實際
至於轉基因食品，這是個新玩意，沒有經過時間檢驗的，不過轉基因大豆我們也吃了不少了，對食用者自身影響應該不大，不過在繁育下一代的時候，會不會在遺傳的時候出問題就難說了。現在是既沒有證據說明會有什麼問題，也沒有證據說明不會有什麼問題。

我不是業內人士，
這裡有一篇2000年的報道：
新聞中心

我國水稻畝產量比原先平均提高兩成左右，每年可多產糧食數百億斤。現在雜交水稻的種植面積已經達到２．３億畝，占我國水稻種植面積的一半；而雜交稻穀的產量則占我國稻穀總產量的５８％。

因為雜交的親本中經常會有野生作物而野生的作物經常會帶有一些毒性。
所以雜交之後的產物本身就會帶有一些毒性。所以要做脫毒培育的。
就是通過人工選擇吧毒性給降下去。一般來說都是可以做到的。
當然。。。很麻煩

對於這種明顯是造謠抹黑的內容，樓主居然完全沒有識別能力，不得不對你的智商表示捉急……真心的，不是人身攻擊，請勿刪除。
即使用最基本的常識分析一下也知道這是不可能的。退一萬步說，就算對此再無知，簡單打開任何一個搜索引擎搜一下都可以恍然大悟。
維基百科人人都可以編輯，懂得看編輯歷史就更應該注意這種加入不久的大段內容的可信度。

建議提問者再確認一下，自己看的是維基百科，而不是餵雞百科，或者別的什麼百科。

現在南方稻區，基本上種植的是雜交水稻，收穫的稻穀基本上也是口糧。

高肥栽培只是高產量的一個充分條件，當土壤不能提供足夠的無機物質時，談何高產。但這些總歸是對環境的一個破壞。雜交水稻的應用使得種植的水稻品種越來越單一，破壞了生物的多樣行，就像雞蛋不要放在一個籃子裡面一樣，品種的單一性使得農業的抗風險能力減弱。這就不得不又藉助人類「偉大」的化工力量來解決，總之，魔高一尺、道高一丈。

有時候講雜交水稻、轉基因作物有害不是單單是有毒，人吃了會怎樣...科學家們考慮的問題多得多，我等愚民就不要瞎摻和吧！
以訛傳訛只會鬧笑話。

樓主引得維基百科上的話，4月27日被一個匿名用戶寫進去的，然後這才幾天就提出這個問題了....

事實上，就沒有絕對安全的食物, 別說轉基因和雜交水稻，即使是我們吃了數千年之久的東西，小麥知道吧，人類從一萬年以前就開始種植食用至今，可是直到到20世紀中期，一種導致很多兒童致死的重度麥膠腸病，才被發現可能是由於小麥中的麥膠（即醇溶蛋白和麥谷蛋白形成的環狀蛋白）或者其它成份蛋白質而導致的，

以下引用自Scientific American, February 2014 Issue, 有點長，大意就是我上面說的. 上圖是中文版的配圖, 因為沒有中文版的文本，只有貼英文版的.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Trouble with Gluten
Gluten may not be the only wheat protein that can make people sick
Two years ago, at the recommendation of a nutritionist, I stopped
eating wheat and a few other grains. Within a matter of days the
disabling headaches and fatigue that I had been suffering for
months vanished. Initially my gastroenterologist interpreted this
resolution of my symptoms as a sign that I perhaps suffered from
celiac disease, a peculiar disorder in which the immune system
attacks a bundle of proteins found in wheat, barley and rye that
are collectively referred to as gluten. The misdirected assault ravages
and inflames the small intestine, interfering with the absorption
of vital nutrients and thereby causing bloating, diarrhea,
headaches, tiredness and, in rare cases, death. Yet several tests for
celiac disease had come back negative. Rather my doctors concluded
that I had nonceliac 「gluten sensitivity,」 a relatively new
diagnosis. The prevalence of gluten sensitivity is not yet clear, but
some data suggest it may afflict as many as 6 percent of Americans,
six times the number of people with celiac disease.
Although gluten sensitivity and celiac disease share many
symptoms, the former is generally less severe. Compared with
individuals with celiac disease, people with gluten sensitivity are
more likely to report nondigestive symptoms such as headaches
and do not usually suffer acute intestinal
damage and inflammation.
Lately, however, some researchers are wondering if they
were too quick to pin all the blame for these problems on gluten.
A handful of new studies suggest that in many cases gluten sensitivity
might not be about gluten at all. Rather it may be a misnomer
for a range of different illnesses triggered by distinct molecules
in wheat and other grains.
「You know the story of the blind man and the elephant? Well,
that』s what gluten-sensitivity research is right now,」 says Sheila
Crowe, head of research at the gastroenterology division at the
School of Medicine at the University of California, San Diego. As
doctors continue to tease apart the diverse ways that the human
body reacts to all the proteins and other molecules besides gluten
that are found in grains, they will be able to develop more
accurate tests for various sensitivities to those compounds. Ultimately
clinicians hope such tests will help people who have a
genuine medical condition to avoid the specific constituents of
grains that make them ill and will stop others from unnecessarily
cutting out nutrient-dense whole grains.
SEEDS OF SICKNESS Among the most commonly consumed grains , wheat is the chief
troublemaker. Humans first domesticated the wheat plant about
10,000 years ago in the Fertile Crescent in the Middle East. Since
then, the amount of wheat in our diet—along with all the molecules
it contains—has dramatically increased. Of all these molecules,
gluten is arguably the most important to the quality of
bread because it gives baked goods their structure, texture and
elasticity. When bakers add water to wheat flour and begin to
knead it into dough, two smaller proteins—gliadin and glutenin—
change shape and bind to each other, forming long, elastic loops
of what we call gluten. The more gluten in the flour, the more the
dough will stretch and the spongier it will be once baked.
Until the Middle Ages, the types of grain that people cultivated
contained far smaller amounts of gluten than the crops we
grow today. In the following centuries—even before people understood
what gluten was—they selectively bred varieties of
wheat that produced bread that was lighter and chewier, inexorably
increasing consumption of the protein. As technology for
breeding and farming wheat improved, Americans began to produce
and eat more wheat overall. Today the average person in
the U.S. eats around 132 pounds of wheat a year—often in the
form of bread, cereal, crackers, pasta, cookies and cakes—which
translates to about 0.8 ounce of gluten each day.
Although historical records dating from the first century a.d.
mention a disorder that sounds a lot like celiac disease, it was
not until the mid-1900s that doctors realized the gluten in wheat
? 2014 Scientific AmericanThe Science of Health
31A Scientific American, February 2014
was to blame. During World War II, Dutch physician Willem-
Karel Dicke documented a sharp drop in the number of deaths
among children with the severest forms of celiac disease in parallel
with a bread shortage. In a follow-up study, researchers
removed different components of wheat from the diet of 10 children
with the intestinal illness. Adding back gluten caused
symptoms such as diarrhea to resurface, but reintroducing a different
complex molecule found in wheat, namely starch, did not.
Thus, gluten was shown to be responsible for celiac disease.
Later experiments by other researchers revealed which
component of gluten provokes the immune system. When digested,
gluten splits back into gliadin and glutenin. For reasons
that remain unclear, the immune system of people with celiac
disease treats gliadin in particular as though it were a dangerous
invader.
For years doctors used diet to diagnose the gut disorder: if
someone』s symptoms disappeared on a gluten-free diet, then
that person had celiac disease. Over time, however, clinicians developed
more sophisticated ways to identify celiac disease, such
as tests that look for immune system molecules known as antibodies
that recognize and cling to gliadin. With the advent of
such tests, clinicians soon discovered that some people who became
mildly ill after eating bread and pasta did not in fact have
celiac disease: biopsies revealed little or no intestinal damage,
and blood tests failed to find the same antibodies associated with
the disorder. In the process, the new condition became known as
nonceliac gluten sensitivity.
Now several studies hint that so-called gluten sensitivity
might not always be caused by gluten. In some cases, the problem
may be entirely different proteins—or even some carbohydrates.
「We』re so used to dealing with gluten as the enemy, but it
might actually be something else,」 says David Sanders, who
teaches gastroenterology at the University of Sheffield in England.
Joseph Murray, a gastroenterologist at the Mayo Clinic in
Rochester, Minn., agrees: 「I』m starting to feel more uncomfortable
calling it nonceliac gluten sensitivity. I think it might be better
to call it nonceliac wheat sensitivity.」
AGAINST THE GRAIN If the culprits behind certain instances of gluten sensitivity are,
in fact, wheat constituents other than gluten, finding the right
ones will be difficult. Wheat has six sets of chromosomes and a
whopping 95,000 or so genes. In comparison, we humans have
just two sets of chromosomes and about 20,000 genes. Genes
code the instructions to build proteins, so more genes mean
more proteins to sift through. Some initial experiments have
spotlighted a few potential offenders, however.
In laboratory tests, wheat proteins known as amylase-trypsin
inhibitors have stimulated immune cells in plastic wells to release
inflammatory molecules called cytokines that can overexcite
the immune system. Further tests showed that these wheat
proteins provoked the same inflammatory response in mice.
Likewise, in an Italian study, small concentrations of wheat germ
agglutinin, a protein distinct from gluten, roused cytokines from
human intestinal cells growing in a plastic well.
Preliminary research suggests that, in other cases, by-products
of gluten digestion may be the problem. Breaking down gliadin
and glutenin produces even shorter chains of amino acids—
the building blocks of proteins—some of which may behave like
morphine and other soporific opiates. Perhaps these molecules
explain some of the lethargy exhibited by people who do not
have celiac disease but are nonetheless sensitive to wheat, suggests
Aristo Vojdani, chief executive officer of Immunosciences
Lab in Los Angeles. In a small study by Vojdani and his colleagues,
the blood of people classified as gluten-sensitive had
higher levels of antibodies that recognize these gluten by-products
than blood taken from healthy volunteers.
A final group of potential culprits belongs to a diverse family
of carbohydrates such as fructans that are notorious for being
difficult to digest. A failure to absorb these compounds into the
blood may draw excess water into the digestive tract and agitate
its resident bacteria. Because these resilient carbohydrates occur
in all kinds of food—not just grains—a gluten-free or wheat-free
diet will not necessarily solve anything if these molecules truly
are to blame.
NO PIECE OF CAKE Despite the recent evidence that wheat sensitivities are more
numerous and varied than previously realized, research has also
revealed that many people who think they have such reactions
do not. In a 2010 study, only 12 of 32 individuals who said they
felt better on a diet that excluded gluten or other wheat proteins
actually had an adverse reaction to those molecules. 「Thus,
about 60 percent of the patients underwent an elimination diet
without any real reason,」 notes study author Antonio Carroccio
of the University of Palermo in Italy.
Nevertheless, uncovering nongluten agitators of illness will
give doctors a more precise way to diagnose grain sensitivities
and help people avoid certain foods. Researchers could, for example,
design blood tests to look for antibodies that bind to various
short chains of amino acids or proteins such as wheat germ
agglutinin, explains Umberto Volta, a gastroenterologist at the
University of Bologna in Italy. And some scientists think ongoing
research will eventually yield new therapies. 「If we know what
triggers the immune system, we hope we can switch the system
off and cure the disease,」 says Roberto Chignola of the University
of Verona in Italy.
Personally, I suspect that something besides gluten might
trigger my own symptoms. On occasion, I have tried gluten-free
grain-based products such as beer made from barley from which
the gluten has been extracted. Every time my headaches came
roaring back with a vengeance (far sooner than any hangover
might have struck), making me all the more suspicious that gluten
is not the root of my troubles.
If that is true, and there is even the remote possibility of safely
reinstating gluten in my diet, I would really like to know. As a
New Yorker, it is hard for me to forgo pizza. If gluten was vindicated
in my case, perhaps I could add it to nongrain flours or otherwise
cook up experimental pizza at home and get those gooey,
stretchy slices out of my dreams and onto my plate.

謝邀！看到這個問題很震驚！怎麼會有人質疑雜交水稻的安全性？樓主看到的描述應該是故意抹黑的。雜交作物已經有幾百年的歷史，我們也吃了幾百年了，它的安全性毫無問題！

吃袁隆平的雜交秈稻會導致找不到女朋友，別問我怎麼知道的

我家就種過雜交水稻，我也吃過，我現在還活著！

早期的雜交米純粹追求產量高，不好吃是真的，營養價值也一般，現在情況好一些。
曾經有人攻擊早期雜交水稻「米不養人，糠不養豬，草不養牛」，當然這個誇張了。
個人覺得袁隆平沒那麼黑，但也沒那麼高尚，被捧得太高了，當然也要被人噴了。

我只想說，那些和題目牛頭不對馬嘴的答案是如何獲得贊同的。題主明明問的雜交水稻的安全性如何，下面洋洋洒洒的列舉來表明轉基因作物並不比傳統作物危險。

才下眉頭卻上心頭

挑一個事實錯誤。

袁隆平家的稻，特別是幾片試驗田裡的稻，在湖南小範圍內很受歡迎。據我所知中間價格達到過100+/斤。

看到題主引用的這段話，我真的笑了。靠中國這麼點地，不種雜交水稻你以為能養活14億人也就是世界上五分之一的人口，而且人口還能不斷地增長，人均壽命也增長還步入老齡化社會嗎？

沒有想到維基的答案那麼水，純粹誤導人啊，我是從事水稻行業的，提出一點自己的想法。北方還有江浙一些地區是常規粳稻為主。我們水稻主產區在南方，除了廣東一些地方吃常規稻，西南地區，華南，長江中下游的省份，基本都是吃雜交稻，可以說雜交稻養活了大多中國人。雜交稻在中國吃了幾十年了，你說安全不呢？雜交稻剛研究出來，比常規稻增產30%以上，一舉解決了糧食短缺問題，讓大家能吃飽肚子。超級稻又是另外一個概念，其實和以前差不多的東西。