探索轉(zhuǎn)基因食品的巨大危害，中國(guó)良心不再孤軍奮戰(zhàn)！

關(guān)于轉(zhuǎn)基因食品對(duì)人體健康的毒副作用或者說巨大的毒副作用，基本上從其誕生之日起甚至可能在這之前就由研究、試驗(yàn)加以證明。我記得奧地利的一些科學(xué)家曾經(jīng)做過的實(shí)驗(yàn)真實(shí)地表明轉(zhuǎn)基因玉米危害老鼠的繁殖能力并產(chǎn)生其他健康危害。　　

然而由于商業(yè)利益的驅(qū)動(dòng)，有錢能使鬼推磨(英文及直譯：Money makes the mare go. 給母馬錢，可以使它走路。 Money talks. 錢可以替人說話。)，看來這在中國(guó)和西方歐洲都是普遍潛規(guī)則或者顯規(guī)則，轉(zhuǎn)基因玉米在歐洲經(jīng)過“三上三下”以后，最后由于金錢的通天本領(lǐng)，依然敲開了歐洲緊閉的大門，但是，和中國(guó)情況一樣，歐洲有良知的人們不屈從于權(quán)力和金錢，依然在為自己、為家人、為同胞、為種族奔走呼喊、據(jù)理力爭(zhēng)。在中國(guó)，情況也很類似，在“沉默的大多數(shù)”不知不覺中、在他們還在不知就里很高興買到了廉價(jià)的轉(zhuǎn)基因大豆油、調(diào)和油的時(shí)候，卻有一大批有良知的人士在為他們可能受到的轉(zhuǎn)基因食品的傷害而抗?fàn)帯Ｗ罱?，至少網(wǎng)絡(luò)上有關(guān)轉(zhuǎn)基因食品危害性的討論越來越多、越來越激烈、越來越深入，這是一件大好事，這表明，越來越多的人在權(quán)勢(shì)、麻木和良心、人性之間選擇了良心和人性！　　

有網(wǎng)友把轉(zhuǎn)基因食品比作讓中國(guó)蒙受百年奇恥大辱的鴉片相提并論，這并不過分，但很可能還會(huì)嚴(yán)重百倍，到最后導(dǎo)致種族滅絕很可能不是危言聳聽，因?yàn)檗D(zhuǎn)基因食品會(huì)導(dǎo)致生殖力下降，而且更為嚴(yán)重的是，轉(zhuǎn)基因技術(shù)和產(chǎn)品掌握在別人手上，遇到某種特殊情況，別人稍作改變，而自己又檢測(cè)不出來，則很可能給整個(gè)民族帶來滅頂之災(zāi)?！　?/p>

正如以下翻譯文中所說： 在食品試驗(yàn)中，老鼠是人類的替身。因此無論是藥品還是食品，老鼠實(shí)驗(yàn)的結(jié)果意義重大：老鼠是藥物試驗(yàn)載體，沒有經(jīng)過老鼠實(shí)驗(yàn)的新藥可能是不允許在人體試驗(yàn)或者運(yùn)用的。 所以， 轉(zhuǎn)基因食品在老鼠身上做實(shí)驗(yàn)的結(jié)果或者結(jié)論是可信的，可以作為論證轉(zhuǎn)基因食品是有害還是無害的論據(jù)?，F(xiàn)在的事實(shí)是明確無誤的：用轉(zhuǎn)基因玉米喂食的老鼠出現(xiàn)了嚴(yán)重的健康和繁殖問題！　　

在某些洋奴眼里，西方國(guó)家代表正義、誠(chéng)實(shí)、良知，然而在人命關(guān)天的轉(zhuǎn)基因食品這樣重大問題上，它們竟然也會(huì)偷梁換柱、玩貍貓換太子的游戲，這不能不說，利欲熏心、自欺欺人在東方和西方有著共同的市場(chǎng)，這也是中西方有良知的人士要與之奮力抗?fàn)幍??！　?/p>

經(jīng)濟(jì)利益不應(yīng)該凌駕于民族利益和國(guó)家利益之上， 如果做不到這一點(diǎn)，就是某些組織和人員的嚴(yán)重瀆職和嚴(yán)重犯罪行為，是嚴(yán)重缺乏良知和人性的禍國(guó)殃民行為！　　

以下文章轉(zhuǎn)譯自英國(guó)的《生態(tài)學(xué)家》(the Ecologist) 網(wǎng)站，僅供免費(fèi)了解轉(zhuǎn)基因食品的危害以及歐洲批準(zhǔn)轉(zhuǎn)孟山度公司轉(zhuǎn)基因玉米的內(nèi)幕參考，任何人不可擅自將其作為牟利的商業(yè)用途或者限制瀏覽，否則，自擔(dān)責(zé)任。　　

－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－　　

Cause For Concern (擔(dān)憂的理由)　　

Jeffrey M Smith     17th February, 2009 (　2009年2月17日　)  　　

此文首發(fā)于2005年10月的《生態(tài)學(xué)家》雜志。 This article first appeared in the Ecologist October 2005　　

歐洲委員會(huì)剛通過了孟山度公司的轉(zhuǎn)基因玉米在歐盟的使用，但是，正如Jeffrey M Smith 揭露說，對(duì)獲得通過試驗(yàn)的正確分析表明，這永遠(yuǎn)不應(yīng)該通過。 　　

The European Commission has just cleared Monsanto"s GM maize for use in the EU. Yet, as Jeffrey M Smith reveals, proper analysis of tests done to gain that approval suggest it should never have been given　　

當(dāng)老鼠被喂食孟山度公司的轉(zhuǎn)基因玉米 Mon 863 以后， 它們的狀況不佳。事實(shí)上，Gilles-Eric Seralini教授說它們像是忍受著毒性反應(yīng)，但要查明卻有難度。嗜堿性細(xì)胞的增加可能意味著多種過敏。淋巴細(xì)胞和白血細(xì)胞的增加表明感染、毒素或者疾病。不成熟的紅血細(xì)胞的減少能導(dǎo)致貧血，減少的腎臟重量可能意味著血壓?jiǎn)栴}。老鼠們還有增加的血糖量、腎臟發(fā)炎、肝臟和腎臟病變 － 整個(gè)就一團(tuán)糟。 Seralini和其他科學(xué)家們需要做的是進(jìn)一步的實(shí)驗(yàn)。他們得到的卻是(2005年)8月8日歐洲委員會(huì)對(duì)這種玉米的通過。　　

When rats were fed Monsanto’s genetically modified (GM) maize Mon 863, they didn’t fare too well. In fact, Professor Gilles-Eric Seralini says they likely suffered a toxic reaction. It was difficult to pinpoint. Their increased basophils could mean allergies. Increased lymphocytes and white blood cells suggest infections, toxins or disease. The drop in immature red blood cells can occur with anaemia; and lower kidney weights may mean blood pressure problems. The rats also had increased blood sugar levels, kidney inflammation, liver and kidney lesions – they were a mess. What Seralini and other scientists wanted were further tests. What they got instead was approval of the maize on 8 August by the European Commission.　　

Mon 863 轉(zhuǎn)基因玉米并不是歐盟批準(zhǔn)的對(duì)老鼠健康有重大影響的第一種轉(zhuǎn)基因食品。 根據(jù)兼職評(píng)估轉(zhuǎn)基因食品的兩個(gè)法國(guó)政府委員會(huì)成員的分子內(nèi)分泌學(xué)家Seralini所說，有一種油菜(GT 73)、草甘磷玉米和兩種轉(zhuǎn)基因玉米 (Bt11 and Mon 810)經(jīng)統(tǒng)計(jì)都顯示出重大問題，例如、炎癥疾病、肝臟和腎臟問題。 Seralini說，轉(zhuǎn)基因食品的效果和農(nóng)藥類似。 　　

Mon 863 was not the first EU approved GM food to have shown significant health effects in rats. According to Seralini, a molecular endocrinologist and member of two French government commissions that evaluate GM food, an oilseed rape (GT 73), Roundup Ready maize (NK 603), and two Bt maize varieties (Bt11 and Mon 810) all showed statistically significant problems such as inflammation disorders and liver and kidney problems. Seralini said the effects of the GM crops were similar to pesticides. 　　

但 Mon 863 轉(zhuǎn)基因玉米卻是獨(dú)一無二的。不是因?yàn)槔鲜螽惓Ｇ闆r的數(shù)量之多-別的老鼠有更多異常，而是對(duì)老鼠的實(shí)驗(yàn)沒有保密。 生物技術(shù)公司通常會(huì)向公眾隱瞞他們的研究， 聲稱那是商業(yè)機(jī)密。 Seralini說：“沒有人能夠明白，即使在歐盟立法者中也沒有人能夠明白為什么吃過轉(zhuǎn)基因食品的老鼠的血液成分需要保密。” 但一個(gè)德國(guó)法院于2005年6月20日作出了對(duì)綠色的和平組織有利的裁決，迫使孟山度公司公布Mon 863 轉(zhuǎn)基因玉米的研究。拿到了這些數(shù)據(jù)，我們就能夠明白Seralini為什么會(huì)如此擔(dān)憂。 而且，我們現(xiàn)在知道了為了順利批準(zhǔn)轉(zhuǎn)基因食品，轉(zhuǎn)基因派的歐洲食品標(biāo)準(zhǔn)局(EFSA)和歐洲委員會(huì)有意忽略了多少問題。　　

But Mon 863 is unique. Not for the number of rat anomalies – others had more. Rather, its rat study is not secret. Biotech companies usually hide their research from the public claiming it is confidential business information. Seralini says, ‘No one can understand, even among EU regulators, why the composition of the blood of rats that have eaten the GM is secret.’ But on 20 June, 2005, a German court ruled in favour of Greenpeace, forcing Monsanto to release the Mon 863 study. With data in hand, we can understand why Seralini was so concerned. Moreover, we now know how much the pro-GM European Food Standards Agency (EFSA) and European Commission were willing to overlook in order to keep GMO approvals on track. 　　

在孟山度公司委托進(jìn)行的研究中，實(shí)驗(yàn)鼠吃 Mon 863 轉(zhuǎn)基因玉米，這種玉米產(chǎn)生可殺死玉米根蟲的Bt毒蛋白。對(duì)照組吃的是非轉(zhuǎn)基因玉米，來自相同的“親本”，也就是說，在把Bt 基因轉(zhuǎn)入之前，這兩種玉米的遺傳背景是相同的。使用親本玉米是很重要的，它可以把食品的不同之處最小化，從而突出基因改造的影響， 試驗(yàn)起到了這種作用。 根據(jù)實(shí)驗(yàn)設(shè)計(jì)，喂食轉(zhuǎn)基因玉米的那組老鼠的健康結(jié)果不是純屬巧合。 然而， 孟山度公司卻說服了 EFSA 忽略這些重大的統(tǒng)計(jì)結(jié)果，聲明這種玉米是安全的。以下是他們的操作過程：  　　

In the study commissioned by Monsanto, test rats ate Mon 863 maize, which produces Bt-toxin to kill the corn rootworm. The control group ate non-GM maize from the same ‘parent line’, ie corn whose genetics were the same before the Bt gene was inserted. Using the parent line is important. It minimises differences in the diet so that the impact of genetic modification stands out. And it did. According to the experimental design, the health effects in the GM-fed group were not due to chance. Nonetheless, Monsanto convinced EFSA to disregard the statistical significance and declare the maize safe. Here’s how. 　　

1. 研究人員另外使用6個(gè)對(duì)照組， 每一組喂食含有不同基因的不同品種的商業(yè)玉米。 和這個(gè)數(shù)量大很多的混合組(指上面所述喂食相同親本玉米的那一組-譯者注)比較，實(shí)驗(yàn)鼠身上的一些改變就不那么明顯了。 但根據(jù)動(dòng)物營(yíng)養(yǎng)學(xué)和轉(zhuǎn)基因研究的著名專家和權(quán)威人士Arpad Pusztai說，用混合基因品種喂養(yǎng)老鼠進(jìn)行比較是不適當(dāng)?shù)?，與安全評(píng)估沒有關(guān)聯(lián)性。　　

1. Researchers used six additional control groups, each fed commercial maize varieties with varying genetics. Some changes in the test rats were no longer significant when compared to this much larger combined group. But according to Arpad Pusztai, an authority in animal nutrition studies and leading expert on GM research, comparisons with rats fed mixed genetic varieties are inappropriate and irrelevant for safety assessments. 　　

2. 然而， 即使與這些“人為”的對(duì)照組相比，許多健康問題結(jié)果也是顯著的。因此，孟山度公司聲稱如果它們是在對(duì)于老鼠屬于“正?！钡膶拸V范圍內(nèi)，它們?cè)谏飳W(xué)上就沒有關(guān)聯(lián)性。我們對(duì)此做個(gè)透視，假設(shè)一組被精心控制飲食的女性比食用另一種飲食的女性患乳腺癌的比例高50%，按照孟山度公司的邏輯，研究結(jié)果可以忽略不計(jì)，對(duì)于整個(gè)人口來說，增加的人數(shù)依然在乳腺癌的正常變異范圍內(nèi)。這樣，孟山度公司認(rèn)為未成熟血細(xì)胞減少52%“歸因于正常的生物學(xué)變異”，可以忽略不計(jì)。根據(jù)Pusztai的看法，在食品試驗(yàn)方面，限度為5%的變異標(biāo)準(zhǔn)才是正常。他說，同理， “鑒于糖尿病的發(fā)病范圍”，血糖水平增加10% “不能作為生物學(xué)上的無足輕重而忽略不計(jì)”。　　

2. Many health effects, nonetheless, remained significant even compared to these ‘a(chǎn)rtificial’ controls. So Monsanto claimed that they were biologically irrelevant if they fell within a wide range considered ‘normal’ for rats. To put this into perspective, suppose that a group of women who were fed a carefully controlled diet developed 50 per cent more breast cancer than women on another diet. Using Monsanto’s logic, the findings can be dismissed because the increase was still within the normal variability of breast cancer for the whole population. Thus, Monsanto dismissed a 52 per cent decrease in immature blood cells as ‘a(chǎn)ttributable to normal biological variability’. According to Pusztai, an allowance of five per cent variability is the norm in food experiments. Similarly, he says that the increase in blood sugar levels by 10 per cent ‘cannot be written off as biologically insignificant, given the epidemic of diabetes’.　　

3. 盡管出現(xiàn)統(tǒng)計(jì)上的信手拈來，有幾項(xiàng)結(jié)果還是在孟山度公司的“正常”范圍之外。他們又找到了另外的借口。由于實(shí)驗(yàn)鼠中間雌鼠和雄鼠的毒性反應(yīng)不一致， 也就無足輕重了。Seralini說，“這實(shí)在滑稽可笑”，并指出每一個(gè)研究癌癥和內(nèi)分泌的人都知道，不同性別的反應(yīng)是不同的。 　　

3. In spite of the statistical slight-of-hand, several results were still outside Monsanto’s ‘normal’ range. They offered another excuse. Since the reaction among the rats was not consistent between males and females, it was not significant. ‘This is really ridiculous,’ says Seralini, who points out that everyone studying cancer and endocrinology knows that there are reaction differences between genders. 　　

4. 在性別辯解不起作用后，孟山度公司拒不考慮結(jié)果， 并聲明這些反應(yīng)具體劑量不明。 具體說來，喂食11% Mon 863轉(zhuǎn)基因玉米老鼠的改變有時(shí)候比那些喂養(yǎng)33%的更加明顯。Seralini對(duì)此再次指出，孟山度公司的聲明與科學(xué)理解有矛盾。在內(nèi)分泌學(xué)和毒理學(xué)研究方面，不同之處不總是和效果成正比。例如，小劑量激素可致女性排卵，而更大劑量激素卻可導(dǎo)致她不孕。 　　

4. And when the gender defence did not apply, Monsanto dismissed results claiming the reactions were not dose specific. Specifically, changes in rats whose diet was 11 per cent Mon 863 were sometimes more pronounced than those fed a 33 per cent diet. Here again, Seralini says Monsanto’s claims conflict with scientific understanding. In endocrinology and toxicology research, differences are not always proportional to their effects. A small dose of a hormone, for example, can cause a woman to ovulate, while a larger dose can make her infertile. 　　

5. 在所有其他借口都失敗后，孟山度公司聲稱，對(duì)于這么大規(guī)模的研究，人們可以預(yù)料很多結(jié)果在統(tǒng)計(jì)上進(jìn)入重大范圍純屬偶然。因此，不需要進(jìn)一步研究。 受德國(guó)政府委托在2004年評(píng)估這項(xiàng)研究的Pusztai寫道：“喂食轉(zhuǎn)基因玉米老鼠的重要器官(腎臟、肝臟等)的大病變和血液參數(shù)(淋巴細(xì)胞、粒細(xì)胞、葡萄糖等)的變化是偶然現(xiàn)象以及是由于簡(jiǎn)單的生物變異的說法簡(jiǎn)直不可思議。”　　

5. When all other excuses failed, Monsanto claimed that with such a large study, one would expect lots of results to fall in the statistically significant category purely by chance. Thus, no follow-up is required. Pusztai, commissioned by the German government to evaluate the study in 2004, wrote, ‘It is almost impossible to imagine that major lesions in important organs (kidneys, liver, etc) or changes in blood parameters (lymphocytes, granulocytes, glucose, etc) that occurred in GM Maize-fed rats, is incidental and due to simple biological variability.’ 　　

被操控的偽劣研究　　

Rigged and shoddy research　　

這項(xiàng)研究的幾個(gè)特點(diǎn)似乎被人為操控以避免發(fā)現(xiàn)問題。例如，營(yíng)養(yǎng)研究通常使用年幼并生長(zhǎng)快的動(dòng)物，這類動(dòng)物對(duì)毒素和營(yíng)養(yǎng)作用很敏感。孟山度公司的方法是混合年幼和老動(dòng)物，這種做法可能隱藏了嚴(yán)重問題。同樣，他們使用的老鼠的起始重量差別巨大，雄鼠重量在198.4至259.8克　(或者根據(jù)實(shí)驗(yàn)?zāi)夸涀韵嗝艿臄?shù)據(jù)，143至186克)。根據(jù)Pusztai的觀點(diǎn)，起始重量與平均重量的差異不能大于2%。 寬泛的差異“能夠?qū)е略趯?shí)驗(yàn)結(jié)束時(shí)不可能發(fā)現(xiàn)重大差別。。。。。?！薄　?/p>

Several features of the study appear to have been rigged to avoid finding problems. Nutritional studies, for example, typically use young, fast-growing animals, which are sensitive to toxic and nutritional effects. Monsanto used a mix of young and old animals, which may have hidden serious problems. Similarly, they used rats with a huge range of starting weights. Male rats ranged from 198.4 to 259.8 grams (or 143 to 186 grams according to conflicting data in the study’s appendix). According to Pusztai, starting weights should not vary more than two per cent from average. The wide range ‘can make it impossible to find significant differences… at the end of the experiment.’ 　　

非洲的受援者們90%的熱量攝取依靠玉米。老鼠是人類的替身。根據(jù)Pusztai所說，研究人員本來應(yīng)該從可能的最大數(shù)量玉米開始試驗(yàn)(同時(shí)保持均衡飲食)，接著使用較低數(shù)量的玉米來評(píng)估劑量效應(yīng)。喂食老鼠的最大量玉米只占它們飲食的33%，只構(gòu)成它們蛋白質(zhì)約15%的比例。 　　

African aid recipients rely on maize for about 90 per cent of their calorie intake. Rats are stand-ins for humans. According to Pusztai, researchers should have started with the maximum amount of corn possible (while maintaining a balanced diet), and then used lower concentrations to evaluate dose effects. The maximum amount of GM maize fed to the rats was 33 per cent of their diet, constituting only about 15 per cent of their protein. 　　

根據(jù)Seralini所說，Mon 863 轉(zhuǎn)基因玉米是新的獨(dú)特品種；它與天然的生物毒素有幾個(gè)方面的區(qū)別。它至少應(yīng)該需要運(yùn)用化學(xué)農(nóng)藥的評(píng)估水準(zhǔn)。在歐盟，這需要對(duì)三種哺乳動(dòng)物進(jìn)行研究，研究時(shí)間跨度為90天到兩年。然而，Mon 863 轉(zhuǎn)基因玉米在經(jīng)過短短的90天老鼠試驗(yàn)后就獲得批準(zhǔn)。慢性疾病和生殖問題以及對(duì)下一代的影響可能都省掉了。而且，研究?jī)H有兩次觀察(第5周和第14周)運(yùn)用了已有半個(gè)世紀(jì)歷史的分析方法。它們忽視了一些強(qiáng)有力的新方法，例如：陣列基因分析技術(shù)、DNA 芯片技術(shù)、蛋白質(zhì)組學(xué)等?！　?/p>

According to Seralini, Mon 863 is new and unique; it differs from natural Bt toxin in seven ways. It should require at least the level of evaluation used for chemical pesticides. In the EU, that requires research on three types of mammals, with studies ranging from 90 days to two years. Mon 863, however, was approved after only a short 90-day rat study. Chronic and reproductive problems, and impacts on the next generation would all be missed. And the study had just two observation times (week five and week 14) using analytical methods that are half a century old. They ignored powerful new methods, such as profiling techniques, DNA chips, proteomics, and others. 　　

報(bào)告中的一些的重量檢測(cè)也顯得異乎尋常。 一只老鼠體重在一周減少了53克，而在下一周卻增加了102克。 有一些實(shí)驗(yàn)開始時(shí)最重的老鼠在試驗(yàn)結(jié)束時(shí)卻成了最輕的，在最后四周里面那些老鼠幾乎根本沒有生長(zhǎng)?！　?/p>

Some of the reported weight measurements were also bizarre. One rat dropped 53 grams in one week and gained 102 grams in the next. Some that were heaviest at the beginning of the experiment were the lightest at the end. And the rats hardly grew at all during the last four weeks. 　　

總之，研究文件令人困惑、自相矛盾、質(zhì)量低劣，而且，在厚厚的1139頁(yè)文件里面似乎企圖用堆積如山、毫不相關(guān)的資料隱瞞結(jié)果。它們沒有披露用來檢測(cè)變化的方法，因此其研究不能被重復(fù)，其結(jié)果也就令人懷疑?！　?/p>

Overall, the research paper was confusing, conflicting, poorly reported and at a whopping 1,139 pages, seemed to try and hide results in a mountain of irrelevant material. It failed to disclose the methods used to measure changes and therefore the research cannot be repeated and the results remain suspect.　　

從總體上來看這次試驗(yàn)，Pusztai說：“營(yíng)養(yǎng)學(xué)科學(xué)家和主流雜志是不會(huì)接受這些昭然若揭的缺陷和曲解?！?他補(bǔ)充說：“因此，很奇怪，這樣的研究竟然成了政府立法當(dāng)局考慮的中心文件，并據(jù)此做出保護(hù)歐洲公民健康的決定?！薄　?/p>

Referring to the study as a whole, Pusztai says，‘Nutritional scientists and leading journals would not accept these blatant inadequacies and misinterpretations.’ He adds, ‘It is odd, therefore, that it remains the central document considered by government regulatory authorities upon which to make a decision to protect the health of European citizens.’ 　　

德國(guó)法院裁決公開 Mon 863 轉(zhuǎn)基因玉米的研究可能會(huì)開啟更多的這類探求。Seralini說，如果沒有被公開，就只有幾個(gè)毒物學(xué)家做決定，而沒有公眾的評(píng)估。而且，決策部門往往會(huì)受到申請(qǐng)公司的強(qiáng)力影響。他所在的法國(guó)生物分子遺傳學(xué)委員會(huì)(CBG)似乎就是這樣，他們最初根據(jù)證據(jù)拒絕批準(zhǔn) Mon 863 轉(zhuǎn)基因玉米。CBG的主席是遺傳學(xué)家，與工業(yè)部門關(guān)系緊密，他請(qǐng)一個(gè)顧問只對(duì)一個(gè)重大異常做出評(píng)估，然后在未達(dá)到法定人數(shù)的情況下強(qiáng)行投票。在18個(gè)成員只到場(chǎng)5人的情況下，Mon 863 轉(zhuǎn)基因玉米 以3:2獲得通過。Seralini說，奇怪的是其中一個(gè)投贊成票的毒理學(xué)家“一直反對(duì)長(zhǎng)期動(dòng)物毒性測(cè)試”。事實(shí)上，他是曾經(jīng)批準(zhǔn)諾華地公司(現(xiàn)名先正達(dá)公司)的 E 176 玉米的法國(guó)委員會(huì)成員，而這種玉米僅用3頭牛做了兩周的實(shí)驗(yàn)。事實(shí)上，實(shí)驗(yàn)開始的時(shí)候有四頭牛，有一頭牛死掉了就被淘汰了?！　?/p>

The German court’s decision to make the Mon 863 study public may open the door for more such revelations. Without disclosure, says Seralini, just a few toxicologists can make the decision without public evaluation. And too often, the decision-making body is heavily influenced by the applying company. This appears to be the case with his French Commission for Biomolecular Genetics (CBG), which originally refused to approve Mon 863 based on the evidence. The CBG’s president, a geneticist who works very closely with industry, asked a consultant to re-evaluate just one significant difference and then forced a second vote without a quorum. With only five of 18 members present, Mon 863 passed three to two. According to Seralini, one of the scientists who voted in favour is a toxicologist who, oddly enough, is ‘a(chǎn)lways against long animal toxicity tests’. In fact, he had been part of the French committee that approved Novartis (now Syngenta) E 176 corn after it had been tested for only two weeks with three cows. Actually, there were four cows at the start of the study, but one died and was removed.　　

這個(gè)毒理學(xué)家也供職于 EFSA，EFSA 因?yàn)槭褂弥饕D(zhuǎn)基因食品派科學(xué)家已經(jīng)受到批評(píng)。根據(jù)2004年11月的《地球之友》雜志報(bào)道，“其中一個(gè)成員與生物技術(shù)行業(yè)有直接的財(cái)務(wù)關(guān)系，其他的則有不直接的關(guān)系”。其中幾個(gè)成員，包括其主席，則是一項(xiàng)歐盟資助的將“為轉(zhuǎn)基因食品在歐洲市場(chǎng)化提供便利”作為明確目標(biāo)項(xiàng)目的成員。而且，“其中兩個(gè)成員還出現(xiàn)在生物技術(shù)公司制作的宣傳片里面”?！　?/p>

That toxicologist is also on EFSA, which has come under attack for including primarily pro-GM scientists. ‘One member has direct financial links with the biotech industry and others have indirect links,’ according to a November 2004 report by Friends of the Earth. Several members, including the chairman, have been part of an EU-funded project with the stated goal to ‘facilitate market introduction of GMO’s in Europe’. And ‘two members have even appeared in promotional videos produced by the biotech industry.’ 　　

因此，我們不再奇怪 EFSA 贊同并重復(fù)孟山度公司的借口為什么喂食 Mon 863 轉(zhuǎn)基因玉米老鼠統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)上的重大健康結(jié)果沒有關(guān)聯(lián)性。然而，歐盟部長(zhǎng)理事會(huì)對(duì) EFSA 的推薦不予考慮并在(2005年)7月24日對(duì)批準(zhǔn) Mon 863 轉(zhuǎn)基因玉米投了反對(duì)票。但由于歐盟法律要求一個(gè)“法定的多數(shù)”，這個(gè)問題被提交到歐盟委員會(huì)，他們則批準(zhǔn)讓歐洲公民食用(Mon 863 轉(zhuǎn)基因玉米)?！　?/p>

It is no surprise, therefore, that EFSA endorsed and even repeated each of Monsanto’s excuses why the statistically significant health effects of rats fed Mon 863 were not relevant. The majority of EU Council of Ministers, however, ignored EFSA’s recommendation and on 24 July voted not to approve the Mon 863. But since EU law requires a ‘qualified majority’, it was passed onto the Commission who gave its approval for consumption by European citizens. 　　

既然行業(yè)研究可能會(huì)被公開， EFSA 和歐盟委員會(huì)可能會(huì)更加謹(jǐn)慎并要求真正的科學(xué)論證和嚴(yán)格的研究。同時(shí)，我們依然不知道喂食 Mon 863 轉(zhuǎn)基因玉米的那些老鼠的病情有多重，我們也不知道對(duì)人類的影響?！　?/p>Perhaps EFSA and the European Commission will be more careful to require truly scientific arguments and rigorous research, now that industry studies may be made public. In the meantime, we still don’t know how sick the rats were that ate Mon 863. And we have no idea of the impact on humans.

微信掃一掃，進(jìn)入讀者交流群

獻(xiàn)一朵花： 鮮花數(shù)量：