1901: Monsanto was founded in St. Louis,Missouri by John Francis Queeny, a 30-year veteran of the pharmaceuticalindustry. Queeny funded the start-up with capital from Coca-Cola (saccharin).Founder John Francis Queeny named Monsanto Chemical Works after his wife, OlgaMendez Monsanto. Queeny's father in law was Emmanuel Mendes de Monsanto,wealthy financier of asugar company active in Vieques, Puerto Rico and based inSt. Thomas in the Danish West Indies. 1902: Monsanto manufactures its firstproduct, the artificial sweetener （增甜剂） Saccharin, which Monsanto sold to the Coca-Cola Company. The U.S.government later files suit over the safety of Saccharin - but loses. 1904: Queeny persuaded family and friendsto invest $15000, Monsanto has strong ties （纽带） to The WaltDisney Company, it having financial backing from the Order's Bank of Americafounded in Jesuit-ruled San Francisco by Italian-American Roman-Catholic Knightof Malta Amadeo Giannini. 1905: Monsanto company was also producingcaffeine （咖啡因） and vanillin （香兰素） and was beginning to turn a profit. 1906: The government's monopoly （垄断） on meatregulation began, when in response to public panic resulting from thepublication of Upton Sinclair's The Jungle, Teddy Roosevelt signed legislationmandating federal meat inspections. Today, Salatin claims that agriculturalregulation favors multinational corporations such as ConAgra and Monsantobecause the treasonous （叛逆的） science that supports the USDA regulatory framework is paid for bythese corporations, which continue to give large grants to leading schools andresearch facilities. 1908: John Francis Queeny leaves hispart-time job as the new branch manager of another drug house thePowers-Weightman-Rosegarten Company to become Monsanto's full-time president. 1912: Agriculture again came to theforefront with the creation of the DeKalb County Farm Bureau, one of the firstorganizations of its kind. In the 1930s the DeKalb AgResearch Corporation(today MONSANTO) marketed its first hybrid seed corn. 1914–1918: During WWI, cut off fromimported European chemicals, Monsanto was forced to manufacture it's own, andit's position as a leading force in the chemical industry was assured. Unableto import foreign supplies from Europe during World War I, Queeny turned tomanufacturing his own raw materials. It was then his scientists discovered thatthe Germans, in anticipation of the war, had ripped out vital pages from theirresearch books which explained various chemical processes. 1915: Business expanded rapidly. Monsantosales surpass the $1,000,000 mark for the first time. 1917: U.S. government sues （起诉） Monsantoover the safety of Monsanto's original product, saccharin （糖精） .Monsanto eventually won, after several years in court. 1917: Monsanto added more and moreproducts: vanillin, caffeine, and drugs used as sedatives （镇静剂） andlaxatives （泻药） . 1917: Bayer, The German competition cutprices in an effort to drive Monsanto out of business, but failed. Soon,Monsanto diversified into phenol (a World War I -era antiseptic), and aspirinwhen Bayer's German patent expired in 1917. Monsanto began making aspirin, andsoon became the largest manufacturer world-wide. 1918: With the purchase of an Illinois acidcompany, Monsanto began to widen the scope of its factory operations. Mar 15, 1918: More than 500 of the 750employees of the Monsanto Chemical Works, which has big contracts for theGovernment, went on strike （罢工） , forcing the plant to dose down. Aug 15, 1919: Thereafter much of it wasdeclared surplus, and a contract was entered into with the Monsanto ChemicalCo., of St. Louis, Mo., by which contract the Director of Sales authorized theMonsanto Co. to sell for the United States its surplus phenol, estimated at27521242 pounds, for a market price to be fixed from time to time by therepresentative of the contracting officer of the United States, but with aminimum price of 9 cents a pound. 1919: Monsanto established its presence inEurope by entering into a partnership with Graesser's Chemical Works at CefnMawr near Ruabon, Wales to produce vanillin, salicylic acid, aspirin and laterrubber. 1920s: In its third decade, Monsantoexpanded into basic industrial chemicals like sulfuric acid （硫酸） andother chemicals. Jan 5, 1920: The petitioner （请愿人） wasauthorized to sell two tracts of land in the Common Fields of Cahokia, St.Clair County, containing 2.403 acres and 3.46 acres respectively, to theMonsanto Chemical Works for the sum of $1500. 1920-1921: A postwar depression during theearly 1920s affected profits, but by the time John Queeny turned over Monsantoto Edgar in 1928 the financial situation was much brighter. 1926: Environmental policy was generallygoverned by local governments, Monsanto Chemical Company founded andincorporated the town of Monsanto, later renamed Sauget, Illinois, to provide amore business friendly environment for one of its chemical plants. For years,the Monsanto plant in Sauget was the nation's largest producer ofpolychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). And although polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)were banned in the 1970s, they remain in the water along Dead Creek in Sauget. 1927: Monsanto had over 2,000 employees,with offices across the country and in England. 1927: Shortly after its initial listing onthe New York Stock Exchange, Monsanto moved to acquire 2 chemical companiesthat specialized in rubber. Other chemicals were added in later years,including detergents. 1928: John Queeny's son Edgar MonsantoQueeny takes over the Monsanto company. Monsanto had gone public, a move thatpaved the way for future expansion. At this time, Monsanto had 55 shareholders,1,000 employees, and owned a small company in Britain. 1929: Monsanto acquires Rubber ServicesLaboratories. Charlie Sommer joined Monsanto, and later became president ofMonsanto in 1960. October 1929: The folks at Monsanto Co.fished through their records, but they couldn't find out why the company'ssymbol is MTC. Monsanto went public in October 1929, just a few days before thegreat stock market crash. Some symbols are holdovers from the 19th century,when telegraph operators used single-letter symbols for the most active stocksto conserve wire space, says the New York Stock Exchange. Mergers, acquisitionsand failure have caused many single-letter symbols to change 1929: Monsanto began production of PCBs(polychlorinated biphenyls 多氯联苯 ) in the United States. PCBs were considered an industrial wonderchemical - an oil that would not burn, was impervious to degradation and hadalmost limitless applications. Today PCBs are considered one of the gravestchemical threats on the planet. PCBs, widely used as lubricants, hydraulicfluids, cutting oils, waterproof coatings and liquid sealants, are potentcarcinogens and have been implicated in reproductive, developmental and immunesystem disorders. The world's center of PCB manufacturing was Monsanto's planton the outskirts of East St. Louis, Illinois, which has the highest rate offetal death and immature births in the state. Monsanto produced PCBs for over 50 yearsand they are now virtually omnipresent in the blood and tissues of humans andwildlife around the globe - from the polar bears at the north pole to thepenguins in Antarctica. These days PCBs are banned from production and someexperts say there should be no acceptable level of PCBs allowed in theenvironment. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency says, PCB has beendemonstrated to cause cancer, as well as a variety of other adverse healtheffects on the immune system, reproductive system, nervous system and endocrinesystem （内分泌系统） . But the evidence of widespread contamination from PCBs andrelated chemicals has been accumulating from 1965 onwards and internal companypapers show that Monsanto knew about the PCB dangers from early on. The PCB problem was particularly severe inthe town of Anniston in Alabama where discharges from the local Monsanto plantmeant residents developed PCB levels hundreds or thousands of times theaverage. As The Washington Post reported, for nearly 40 years, whileproducing the now-banned industrial coolants known as PCBs at a local factory,Monsanto Co. routinely discharged toxic waste into a west Anniston creek anddumped millions of pounds of PCBs into oozing open-pit landfills. And thousandsof pages of Monsanto documents : many emblazoned with warnings such as'CONFIDENTIAL: Read and Destroy' : show that for decades, the corporate giantconcealed what it did and what it knew. Ken Cook of the Environmental Working Groupsays that based on the Monsanto documents made public, Monsanto knew thetruth from the very beginning. They lied about it. They hid the truth fromtheir neighbors. One Monsanto memo explains their justification: Wecan't afford to lose one dollar of business. Eventually Monsanto wasfound guilty of conduct so outrageous in character and extreme in degreeas to go beyond all possible bounds of decency so as to be regarded asatrocious and utterly intolerable in civilized society. 1930s: DeKalb AgResearch Corporation (todayMONSANTO) marketed its first **HYBRID** seed corn (maize). 1933: Incorporated as Monsanto ChemicalCompany 1934: I recognized my two selves: acrusading idealist and a cold, granitic believer in the law of the jungle- Edgar Monsanto Queeny, Monsanto chairman, 1943-63, The Spirit ofEnterprise 1935: Edward O'Neal (who became chairpersonin 1964) came to Monsanto with the acquisition of the Swann Corporation.Monsanto goes into the soap and detergents industry, starts producingphosphorus. 1938: Monsanto goes into the plasticbusiness (the year after DuPont helped ban hemp because it was superior totheir new NYLON product made from Rockefeller OIL). Monsanto became involved inplastics when it completely took over Fiberloid, one of the oldestnitrocellulose （硝化纤维素） production companies, which had a 50% stake in Shawinigan Resins. 1939: Monsanto purchased Resinox, asubsidiary （副产品） of Corn Products, and Commercial Solvents, which specialized inphenolic resins. Thus, just before the war, Monsanto's plastics interestsincluded phenol-formaldehyde thermosetting resins, cellulose and vinylplastics. 1939-1945: Monsanto conducts research onuranium for the Manhattan Project in Dayton, Ohio. Dr. Charles Thomas, wholater served as Monsanto's chairman of the board, was present at the first testexplosion of the atomic bomb. During World War II, Monsanto played asignificant role in the Manhattan Project （曼哈顿工程） to develop theatom bomb. Monsanto operated the Dayton Project, and later Mound Laboratoriesin Miamisburg, Ohio, for the Manhattan Project, the development of the firstnuclear weapons and, after 1947, the Atomic Energy Commission. 1940s: Monsanto had begun focusing onplastics and synthetic fabrics like polystyrene （聚苯乙烯） (still widelyused in food packaging and other consumer products), which is ranked 5th in theEPA's 1980s listing of chemicals whose production generates the most totalhazardous waste （危险废品） From the 1940s onwards Monsanto was one of the top 10 US chemicalcompanies. 1941: By the time the United States enteredWorld War II, the domestic chemical industry had attained far greaterindependence from Europe. Monsanto, strengthened by its several acquisitions,was also prepared to produce such strategic materials as phosphates andinorganic chemicals. Most important was Monsanto's acquisition of a researchand development laboratory called Thomas and Hochwalt. The well-known Dayton, Ohio,firm strengthened Monsanto at the time and provided the basis for some of itsfuture achievements in chemical technology. One of its most importantdiscoveries was styrene monomer ( 苯乙烯 ) a key ingredient in synthetic rubber and a crucial product for thearmed forces （军队） during the war. Edward J. Bock joined Monsanto in 1941 as anengineer - he rose through the ranks to become a member of the board ofdirectors in 1965 and president in 1968. 1943: Massive Texas City plant startsproducing synthetic rubber for the Allies in World War II. 1944: Monsanto began manufacturing DDT,along with some 15 other companies. The use of DDT in the U.S. was banned byCongress in 1972. 1945: Following WW2, Monsanto championedthe use of chemical pesticides in agriculture, and began manufacturing theherbicide 2,4,5-T, which contains dioxin （戴奥辛） . Monsanto hasbeen accused of covering up or failing to report dioxin contamination in a widerange of its products. 1949: Monsanto acquired American Viscosefrom England's Courtauld family. 1950: Monsanto began to produce urethanefoam （尿烷泡沫塑料） - which was flexible, easy to use, and later became crucial inmaking automobile interiors （汽车内饰） . 1953: Toxicity tests on the effects of 2PCBs showed that more than 50% of the rats subjected to them DIED, and ALLofthem showed damage. 1954: Monsanto partnered with Germanchemical giant Bayer to form Mobay and market polyurethanes in the USA. 1955: Monsanto acquired Lion Oil refinery,increasing its assets by more than 50%. Stockholders during this time numbered43,000. Monsanto starts producing petroleum （石油） -basedfertilizer. 1957: Monsanto moved to the suburbancommunity of Creve Coeur, having finally outgrown its headquarters （总公司） indowntown St. Louis, Missouri. 1957-1967: Monsanto was the creator ofseveral attractions in Disney's Tom morrow land. Often they revolved around thethe virtues of chemicals and plastics. Their House of the Futurewas constructed entirely of plastic, but it was NOT biodegradable. Afterattracting a total of 20 million visitors from 1957 to 1967, Disney finallytore the house down, but discovered it would not go down without a fight.According to Monsanto Magazine, wrecking balls literally bounced off theglass-fiber, reinforced polyester material. Torches, jackhammers, chain sawsand shovels did not work. Finally, choker cables were used to squeeze off partsof the house bit by bit to be trucked away. 1959: Monsanto sets up Monsanto ElectronicsCo. in Palo Alto, begins producing ultra-pure silicon for the high-techindustry, in an area which would later become a Superfund （超级基金） site. 1960: Edgar Queeny turned over the chair ofMonsanto to Charles Thomas, one of the founders of the research and developmentlaboratory so important to Monsanto. Charlie Sommer, who had joined Monsanto in1929, became president. According to Monsanto historian Dan Forrestal,Leadership during the 1960s and early 1970s came principally from ...executives whose Monsanto roots ran deep. Under their combined leadershipMonsanto saw several important developments, including the establishment of theAgricultural Chemicals division with focus on herbicides, created toconsolidate （巩固） Monsanto's diverse agrichemical product lines. 1961-1971: Agent Orange was a mixture of2,4,5-T and 2,4-D and had very high concentrations of dioxin. Agent Orange wasby far the most widely used of the so-called Rainbow Herbicidesemployed in the Herbicidal Warfare program as a defoliant during the VietnamWar. Monsanto became one of 10-36 producers of Agent Orange for US Militaryoperations in Vietnam. Dow Chemical and Monsanto were the two largest producersof Agent Orange for the U.S. military. The Agent Orange produced by Monsantohad dioxin levels many times higher than that produced by Dow Chemicals, theother major supplier of Agent Orange to Vietnam. This made Monsanto the keydefendant in the lawsuit brought by Vietnam War veterans in the United States,who faced an array of debilitating symptoms attributable to Agent Orangeexposure. Agent Orange is later linked to various health problems, includingcancer. U.S. Vietnam War veterans have suffered from a host of debilitatingsymptoms attributable to Agent Orange exposure. Agent Orange contaminated morethan 3,000,000 civilians and servicemen. According to Vietnamese Ministry ofForeign Affairs, 4.8 million Vietnamese people were exposed to Agent Orange,resulting in 400,000 deaths and disabilities, plus 500,000 children born withbirth defects, leading to calls for Monsanto to be prosecuted for war crimes.Internal Monsanto memos show that Monsanto knew of the problems of dioxincontamination of Agent Orange when it sold it to the U.S. government for use inVietnam. Look at what the EFFECTS of agent orange look like... keepin mind it was used to remove leaves from the trees where AMERICAN SOLDIERSwere breathing, eating, sleeping. 1962: Public concern over the environmentbegan to escalate （逐步增强） . Ralph Nader's activities and Rachel Carson's book Silent Springhad been influential in increasing the U.S. public's awareness of activitieswithin the chemical industry in the 1960s, and Monsanto responded in severalways to the pressure. 1962: Monsanto's European expansioncontinued, with Brussels （孢子甘蓝） becoming the permanent overseas headquarters. 1964: Monsanto changed its name to MonsantoCompany in acknowledgment of its diverse product line. The company consisted of8 divisions, including petroleum, fibers, building materials, and packaging.Edward O'Neal became chairperson (came to Monsanto in 1935 with the acquisitionof the Swann Corporation) was the first chair in Monsanto history who had notfirst held the post of president. 1964: Monsanto introducedbiodegradable detergents （清洗剂） . 1965: While working on an ulcer drug in December,James M. Schlatter, a chemist at G.D. Searle Company, accidentallydiscovers aspartame （天冬甜精） , a substance that is 180x sweeter than sugar yet has no calories. 1965: AstroTurf (fake grass) wasco-invented by Donald L. Elbert, James M. Faria, and Robert T. Wright,employees ofMonsanto Company. It was patented in 1967 and originally sold underthe name Chemgrass. It was renamed AstroTurf by Monsanto employeeJohn A. Wortmann after its first well-publicized use at the Houston Astrodomestadium （休斯顿航空体育馆） in 1966. 1965: The evidence of widespreadcontamination from PCBs and related chemicals has been accumulating andinternal Monsanto papers show that Monsanto knew about the PCB dangers fromearly on. 1967: Monsanto entered into a joint venturewith IG Farben = the German chemical firm that was the financial core of theHitler regime, and was the main supplier of Zyklon-B gas to the Germangovernment during the extermination phase of the Holocaust; IG Farben was notdissolved until 2003. 1967: Searle began the safety tests onaspartame that were necessary for applying for FDA approval of food additives.Dr. Harold Waisman, a biochemist at the University of Wisconsin, conductsaspartame safety tests on infant monkeys on behalf of the Searle Company. Of the7 monkeys that were being fed aspartame mixed with milk, 1 monkey DIED and 5other monkeys had grand mal seizures （癫痫发作） . 1968: Edgar Queeny dies, leaving no heirs （继承人） . EdwardJ. Bock (who had joined Monsanto in 1941 as an engineer) become a member of theboard of directors in 1965, and became president of Monsanto in 1968. 1968: With experts at Monsanto in no doubtthat Monsanto's PCBs were responsible for contamination, Monsanto set up acommittee to assess its options. In a paper distributed to only 12 people butwhich surfaced at the trial in 2002, Monsanto admitted that the evidenceproving the persistence of these compounds and their universal presence asresidues in the environment is beyond question ... the public and legalpressures to eliminate them to prevent global contamination areinevitable. Monsanto papers seen by The Guardian newspaper reveal nearpanic. The subject is snowballing. Where do we go from here? Thealternatives: go out of business; sell the hell out of them as long as we canand do nothing else; try to stay in business; have alternative products,wrote the recipient of one paper. 1968: Monsanto became the firstorganization to mass-produce visible LEDs, using gallium arsenide phosphide toproduce red LEDs suitable for indicators. Light Emitting Diodes (LEDs) usheredin the era of solid-state lights. From 1968 to 1970, sales doubled every fewmonths. Their products (discrete LEDs and seven-segment numeric displays)became the standards of industry. The primary markets then were electroniccalculators, digital watches, and digital clocks. 1969: High overhead costs and a sluggishnational economy led to a dramatic 29% decrease in earnings. 1969: Monsanto wrote a confidentialPollution Abatement Plan （污染治理计划） which admitted that the problem involves the entire UnitedStates, Canada and sections of Europe, especially the UK and Sweden. 1969: Monsanto produces Lasso herbicide,better known as Agent Orange, which was used as defoliant （落叶剂） by theU.S. Government during the Vietnam War （越南战争） . success turns around the struggling Agriculture Division,Monsanto's web page reads. 1970s: Monsanto was a pioneer ofoptoelectronics （光电子） in the 1970s. Although Bock had a reputation for being a committedMonsanto executive, several factors contributed to his volatile term aspresident. Sales were up in 1970, but Bock's implementation of the 1971reorganization caused a significant amount of friction among members of theboard and senior management. In spite of the fact that this move, in whichMonsanto separated the management of raw materials from Monsanto'ssubsidiaries, was widely praised by security analysts, Bock resigned from thepresidency in February 1972. 1970: Cyclamate (the reigning low-calorieartificial sweetener) is pulled off the market in November after somescientists associate it with cancer. Questions are also raised about safety ofsaccharin, the only other artificial sweetener on the market, leaving the fieldwide open for aspartame. December 18, 1970: Searle Companyexecutives lay out a Food and Drug Sweetener Strategy that theyfeel will put the FDA into a positive frame of mind about aspartame. Aninternal policy memo describes psychological tactics Monsanto should use tobring the FDA into a subconscious spirit of participation with them onaspartame and get FDA regulators into the habit of saying Yes. 1971: Neuroscientist Dr. John Olney (whosepioneering work with monosodium glutamate MSG was responsible for having itremoved from baby foods) informs Searle that his studies show that asparticacid (one of the ingredients of aspartame) caused holes in the brains of infantmice. One of Searle's own researchers confirmed Dr. Olney's findings in asimilar study. 1972: The use of DDT was banned by U.S.Congress, due in large part to efforts by environmentalists, who persisted inthe challenge put forth by Rachel Carson's book Silent Spring in 1962, whichsought to inform the public of the side effects associated with theinsecticide, which had been much-welcomed in the fight againstmalaria-transmitting mosquitoes. 1973: Monsanto developed and patented theglyphosate molecule in the 1970s. Monsanto began manufacturing the herbicideRoundup, which has been marketed as a safe, general-purposeherbicide for widespread commercial and consumer use, even though its keyingredient, glyphosate, is a highly toxic poison for animals and humans. 1973: After spending tens of millions ofdollars conducting safety tests, the G.D. Searle Company applies for FDAapproval and submits over 100 studies they claim support aspartame's safety.One of the first FDA scientists to review the aspartame safety data states thatthe information provided (by Searle) is inadequate to permit an evaluationof thepotential toxicity of aspartame. She says in her report that inorder to be certain that aspartame is safe, further clinical tests are needed. 1974: Attorney Jim Turner (consumeradvocate who was instrumental in getting cyclamate taken off the market) meetswith Searle representatives in May to discuss Dr. Olney's 1971 study whichshowed that aspartic acid caused holes in the brains of infant mice. 1974: The FDA grants aspartame its firstapproval for restricted use in dry foods on July 26. 1974: Jim Turner and Dr. John Olney filethe first objections against aspartame's approval in August. 1975: After a 9-month search, John W.Hanley, a former executive with Procter Gamble, was chosen as president.Hanley also took over as chairperson. 1976: The success of the herbicide Lassohad turned around Monsanto's struggling Agriculture Division, and by the timeAgent Orange was banned in the U.S. and Lasso was facing increasing criticism,Monsanto had developed the weedkiller Roundup (active ingredient:glyphosate) as a replacement. Launched in 1976, Roundup helped make Monsantothe world's largest producer of herbicides. RoundUp was commercialized, andbecame the world's top-selling herbicide. Within a few years of its 1976launch, Roundup was being marketed in 115 countries. The success of Roundup coincided with therecognition by Monsanto executives that they needed to radically transform acompany increasingly under threat. According to a recent paper by DominicGlover, Monsanto had acquired a particularly unenviable reputation inthis regard, as a major producer of both dioxins and polychlorinated biphenyls(PCBs) - bothpersistent environmental pollutants posing serious risks to theenvironment and human health. Law suits and environmental clean-up costs beganto cut into Monsanto's bottom line, but more seriously there was a real fearthat a serious lapse could potentially bankrupt the company. According toGlover, Roundup Sales grew by 20% in 1981 and as the company increased productionit was soon Monsanto's most profitable product (Monsanto 1981, 1983)... It soonbecame the single most important product of Monsanto's agriculture division,which contributed about 20% of sales and around 45% of operating income to thecompany's balance sheet each year during the late 1980s and early 1990s. Today,glyphosate remains the world's biggest herbicide by volume of sales. 1976: Monsanto produces Cycle-Safe, theworld's first plastic soft-drink bottle. The bottle, suspected of posingacancer risk, is banned the following year by the Food and Drug Administration. 1976: Turner Olney's petition onMarch 24 triggers an FDA investigation of the laboratory practices ofaspartame's manufacturer, G.D. Searle. The investigation finds Searle's testingprocedures shoddy, full of inaccuracies and manipulated test data.The investigators report they had never seen anything as bad as Searle'stesting. January 10, 1977: The FDA formally requeststhe U.S. Attorney's office to begin grand jury proceedings to investigatewhether indictments should be filed against Searle for knowinglymisrepresenting findings and concealing material facts and making falsestatements in aspartame safety tests. This is the first time in the FDA'shistory that they request a criminal investigation of a manufacturer. January 26, 1977: While the grand juryprobe is underway, Sidley Austin, the law firm representing Searle,begins job negotiations with the U.S. Attorney in charge of the investigation,Samuel Skinner. March 8, 1977: G. D. Searle hires prominentWashington insiderDonald Rumsfeld as the new CEO to try to turn the beleagueredcompany around. A former Member of Congress and Secretary of Defense in theFord Administration, Rumsfeld brings in several of his Washington cronies astop management. Donald Rumsfeld followed Searle as CEO, and then as Presidentof Searle from 1977-1985. July 1, 1977: Samuel Skinner leaves theU.S. Attorney's office on July 1st and takes a job with Searle's law firm. (seeJan. 26th) August 1, 1977: The Bressler Report,compiled by FDA investigators and headed by Jerome Bressler, is released. Thereport finds that 98 of the 196 animals died during one of Searle's studies andweren't autopsied until later dates, in some cases over one year after death.Many other errors and inconsistencies are noted. For example, a rat wasreported alive, then dead, then alive, then dead again; a mass, a uterinepolyp, and ovarian neoplasms were found in animals but not reported ordiagnosed in Searle's reports. December 8, 1977: U.S. Attorney Skinner'swithdrawal and resignation stalls the Searle grand jury investigation for solong that the statue of limitations on the aspartame charges runs out. Thegrand jury investigation is dropped. (borderline treason)
金蝉脱壳？孟山都要退出转基因路线吗？_转帖直言了 (2014-02-05 16:48:34) 转载 ▼ 标签： 转基因 信息战 科学 杂谈 分类： 转基因辩论 顾秀林按语： 中国正在被“舍了孩子去打狼”的战略引向转基因的悬崖绝壁。领路的是当然美国孟山都公司，它正在悄悄转向。磨叽好几年了，孟山都退下转基因快车道、部分转向有机农业的迹象，越来越明确了。只要脑子还没有灌迷汤，谁都可以“悟”出来，转基因育种那个终极的高技术，只有一条很短的“生命线”，它不可能持续、也不可能长久。不过是个兔子的尾巴、秋后的蚂蚱。其实只需要捅破一层窗户纸就够了。 中国被对手蓄意地培养出足够多吃转基因奶的技术专家大队。国际上的技术专家也被中国的转基因“国策”的吸引大批前来。中国在转基因死路上飞奔，国内利益集团比国外的更卖力更疯狂。看国运吧。——顾秀林注 龙头鸡尾和孟山都放弃转基因。一号文件的漏洞（二）。 直言了， 2014-02-03 | 2014-2-5 14:48:57。 http://zhiyanle.blog.hexun.com/91384378_d.html 。 引子： 相亲节目《非诚勿扰》有个常见的景象：一些男嘉宾明明是还在职场上挣扎呢，却高调吹牛说他必将创造出一个“世界五百强”的企业。结果呢，几乎是所有女嘉宾都给个灭灯、拒绝相亲牵手。于是，主持人开导男嘉宾，说：过日子需要的是实在、不是假大空的想法。男嘉宾辩解说：连想都不想，怎么能做到“世界五百强”？主持人接着开导说：若您自己跟自己过日子，那您怎么假大空都行；可您是来相亲的、是要找个今后天天生活在一起的伙伴，那您就得考虑别人能否接受您的想法了。 无独有偶。若新华社关于“育种”的解读符合本意，那么，一号文件说的是要搞转基因种子的“龙头”企业且要“覆盖全球”，就跟《非诚勿扰》节目里的男嘉宾搞假大空吹牛是一类表现。 譬如：该文件说：建立以企业为主体的育种创新体系，鼓励发展混合所有制农业产业化龙头企业。农业部说：要推进农业产业化龙头企业扶持政策落实；转基因种子是其主要内容。进一步诠释，有李二号为两会工作报告而做的征求意见，说：袁隆平提出建议，要多鼓励龙头种业企业、抢占国际市场；我的一个梦想，就是让杂交水稻覆盖全球。那说法得到李二号的高度赞赏。 那个要搞转基因种子“龙头”企业且要“覆盖全球”的泡沫，吹得与《非诚勿扰》那些男嘉宾所吹的假大空，简直是一模一样。若要说不同，那就是：男嘉宾为泡沫破裂所付出的代价是女嘉宾全部灭灯和相亲牵手失败；而中国搞转基因商业化的农业泡沫破裂所付出的代价呢，是全国民众的灭灯和全国民心的丧失，是全国的粮食安全、人口安全和国土安全等国家安全失去保障。 一：假大空的“覆盖全球”。 美国农业部的统计说明，亚洲国家的稻米消费占全球总数的81%左右，欧美发达国家的消费很少（譬如，美国的人均年消费数量不到食品总数的1%，本国生产满足需要是绰绰有余，略有进口也大都是为少数民族需要或贸易平衡）。西方发达国家已经完成了彼此保障天然有机食品供应的合作协约，其防范中国转基因大米几乎扩展到防范所有中国大米的程度了（自2009年中国号称“转基大米三五年上餐桌”以来、美国从中国进口大米大幅度减少，就是个例子）。欧盟国家严禁严防中国转基因大米的法规已经生效。面对如此实际状态，您还想用您的转基因大米覆盖全球？那不是假大空、还能是啥？ 美国早就搞出了各种转基因大米了，至今没搞商业化。人家是老牌资本主义，不懂抓机会赚钱而让您去覆盖全球？人家当然懂，比您懂得多。然而，人家更懂得效益和风险是并行，而转基因大米的危害风险远远大于极少数人赚钱的效益，所以至今没搞商业化。此外，美国FDA-已强化了对中国大米（包括转基因大米）的监测。至少，欧美发达国家的防范转基因大米之盾已经披甲上阵了，您要还去覆盖？哈。 在亚洲，泰国和印度等国家的稻子单产几乎可与中国的并驾齐驱（某些地方还有所超过），且多是天然有机的。如此，人家为什么要买您的品种、且是没有科学证明是安全的转基因大米呢？再说了，一个地方培育出来的种子、到另一个地方就很可能不灵，那是农业常识。如此，自然条件大不相同的国家，为什么要用您那可能根本不适合当地条件的品种呢？连亚洲都不能覆盖，您还要覆盖全球？ 此外，袁隆平搞起了转基因玉米水稻杂交品种。不同类别作物杂交失败，早有案例。譬如，俄国曾搞梨苹果，结果还不是惨败了么？如今呢，您换个手段、不用嫁接而用转基因了，那自然规律就变了？哈！您以为别国都是跟中国的为转基因商业利益而摧毁本国豆业的中国农业部官员一样、为购买必将失败的转基因水稻而摧毁本国的米业？哈。 顺便说说：2007年前后，在中国，官商学媒之“四位一体”的转基因商业既得利益团伙形成；为其商业利益，该团伙雇用的打手方舟子和入伙的媒体人民日报媒体科技频道合伙，对袁隆平的自然杂交水稻搞起了恶毒攻击。我等对袁隆平表示了支持。如今呢，在商业利益和农业部门压力面前，袁隆平失去了自我、改弦易辙去搞必将失败的转基因玉米水稻杂种，公开加入了转基因假大空的吹牛队伍，即袁隆平原本的榜样意义已经不复存在；如此，我收回我的支持（尽管我的支持是微不足道的）。 一：龙头，还是鸡尾？ 至于中国要搞转基因食品作物种子“龙头企业”？我看，能搞个“鸡尾”企业就不错了。 前车之鉴：中国的联想公司。如今，中国的联想公司拥有的电脑业务，不但是拥有产品、且大都具有那些产品的产权，销售额也足够可观。可联想公司是电脑业的“龙头企业”么？不过是个“鸡尾”企业而已。不信？看看吧：英特尔和微软公司稍微动动小指头，整个联想公司就得跟着人家屁股后面转。如此，用比方说，联想公司不过是英特尔和微软公司的“鸡尾巴”公司。 为啥叫“鸡尾巴”公司？很简单：英特尔和微软公司是“鸡头”公司；在其屁后转的（譬如联想公司等）就是“鸡尾”公司。美国的“鸡头“公司掌控市场，靠的不仅仅是“硬实力”的专利产权，更还有“软实力”的“商业模式”（美国英文叫“business models）。正因为如此，尽管联想公司收购了手提计算机等业务都有产权、即联想公司是有自己的产权的，但还是改变不了它是个“鸡尾”公司的地位。 同样，在转基因作物领域，孟山都公司不但掌握了大量的专利产权，更还掌握着该领域的“商业模式”。简单说，其模式大致内容是：测出目标作物的基因序列，然后， 从中找到可以作业的基因片段；开发目标功能的蛋白农药（往往是毒素，譬如杀虫或除草，等等）；用基因技术将蛋白农药植入目标作物。这往往是DNA-水平作业。 从中找到可以关闭某功能的作业的基因片段；用基因技术实行功能关闭。这往往是RNA-水平作业。搞成了，就进入商业化。就此模式，孟山都公司享有专利、且实行“数据封闭”。 一旦进入那个商业模式，不管公司大小，也不管农民农户生意如何，也不管那些公司或农户有无产权，就为孟山都公司所掌控。譬如，足够超级的跨国公司杜邦公司，陷入了该商业模式，就是“打开”相关品种做数据分析、也会受到孟山都公司的“侵权”诉讼而败了官司。杜邦或巴斯夫都有自己享有产权的转基因种子；但他们做得越多，孟山都公司的模式所控制的范围就越大和程度越深，其中包括对使用他们的种子的农民农户的控制（公司以农户自留种子而把农户告上法庭、就是个例子）。就是说，尽管杜邦和巴斯夫都是举世闻名的超级跨国公司，但在孟山都模式下、就是“龙尾”而几乎没机会成为“龙头”企业。 中国状态如何？且不说许多转基因作物开发和蛋白农药开发是大量使用、套用、借用或“山寨版”使用孟山都等外国的专利，仅说中国化工系统和农业系统根本就没有杜邦或巴斯夫那样超级跨国公司的基础，甚至连中国企业做转基因作物捆绑的农药生产销售的业务、也主要是来自孟山都等外国公司转让、迁移或授权等等（草甘磷就是个例子）。如此，您想在孟山都的模式下而一跃成为跟孟山都平起平坐的“龙头”？说实在的，在孟山都的转基因作物之商业模式下，不管您有没有或有多少所谓“国产”专利产权，您能当个杜邦或巴斯夫那样的“龙尾”企业都没份，顶多象联想公司那样去当个“鸡尾”公司。 更值得注意的是，一旦中国的食品及其农业陷入转基因化工农业的商业模式，整个中国的食品农业就将成为极少数人掌控和可以随意动手动脚的“鸡尾巴”，且那极少数可以用其控制手段来要挟中国当局的决策必须符合他们的既得利益，否则，他们手指动一动，整个中国食品农业就会面临崩溃的威胁，从而中国的国家安全就会面临严重威胁。奸商及其勾结的政客用控制粮食（或控制其它食品，譬如盐等）的手段而要挟当局的事情，在中国历史上发生过多次。且不说别的时候，仅新中国就遇到过（详情故事、在陈云等前辈的作品里有足够详细的记录）。 美国当局是足够精明的，其迟迟不搞麦子等所谓“主粮”或“主食”的转基因作物商业化，有健康、生态和技术等等方面的危害风险之考虑，也有国家安全和国家管理等方面、即必须防止极少数人掌控国家命脉物资供应的危害风险之考虑。换句话说，美国当局对现用的转基因化工农业模式、是保持着高度警惕的。正因为如此，美国当局花费大量资金人力不断强化以防止转基因技术武器攻击为主要内容的生物国防的建设（包括对转基因作物的危害风险之管理），而对转基因种子商业开发方面几乎就没花多少钱（当局曾对某些个别项目做了不到50万美元的小规模投资，遭到全国民众的严重抗议）、更是几乎就没花钱去搞“国家投资、个人发财”的所谓转基因种子“龙头”企业。 欧洲发达国家则是警惕性更高，甚至干脆把转基因种子公司赶出了欧洲市场。他们不知道搞个“龙头”企业去赚钱？当然知道，且是资本主义发祥地、当然知道赚钱。然而，他们更知道，若是国家安全和国家管理的决策要服从极少数掌控了粮食农业的人，那么，搞转基因化工农业的“龙头”企业就无异于国家自杀或民族自杀。如是，把转基因种子公司赶出欧洲市场，就是维护国家安全的正确 或必然的选择。 一：孟山都要放弃转基因，中国却把鸡毛当令箭。 上述中国要搞的“龙头企业”且要“覆盖全球”的转基因作物育种技术，都是跟在孟山都等化工公司屁后颠颠的“垃圾技术”（2004年，美国反思转基因作物商业化，清楚指出，转基因食品作物都是些“垃圾技术”的东西）。那种技术的科学依据，即所谓基于DNA-水平的“一个基因、一个蛋白”，是大约半个世纪以前的东西，早就被科学发现和科学实验所证明了是错误的依据，即实际上、事实是RNA-水平的“一个基因、多种蛋白”。把一个依据错误而成为“垃圾技术”的东西，当作“世界前沿”而“重点发展”且还要搞“龙头”企业去“覆盖全球”，那不是拿鸡毛当令箭和搞假大空，还能是什么呢？ 最近的发展迹象，更能说明问题。根据WIRED和MOTHER-JONES等媒体今年01月下旬的报道述评说，孟山都公司正在改弦易辙、似乎要告别转基因作物和开始走有机育种的道路了。 譬如，述评《孟山都走向有机》的一个情节说，新年之际，孟山都的头头们在公司总部的封闭地下室，开了个聚餐会议，策划公司的未来十年。他们会餐吃的是有机蔬菜水果；你一言、我一语，说的是有机蔬菜水果多么好、公司将如何搞有机种子开发业务，不再搞转基因了。就此，述评为孟山都的最新策划做了个发展途径对比列单： 常规育种； 转基因育种； 孟山都策划的新式育种。述评说，在孟山都最新策划的蔬菜水果的种子业务发展列单里，转基因化工种子不见踪影。述评字里行间透露说，孟山都公司终于开始重视消费者民众抵制转基因食品的声音了，终于看到该公司因转基因而蒙受到前所未有的信用危机，如此，再不寻找新的发展途径、那公司就将面临严重的幸存危机。这就是该公司新策划的主要背景缘故之一。 又譬如，《孟山都要放弃转基因吗？》的报道说，尽管孟山都公司花费数千万美元试图扼杀转基因食品标识立法工作、似乎该公司要在转基因的树上是不吊死不甘心的，但是，若您细细观察，孟山都公司似乎已经开始考虑甚至开始筹备如何放弃转基因食品作物了。譬如，在过去一年，上报美国农业部申请核准的转基因作物有10来个品种、孟山都公司只有两个，与其过去 占多数的情景形成鲜明对比。又譬如，孟山都总部明确向蔬菜水果分部说明、没有搞转基因品种的计划。该公司头头甚至公开说，为每个转基因品种的开发来支付一亿美元和花费10年时间、也不一定能取得预期效果； ，世界上最好的基因也就顶个屁用（原文：The best gene in the world doesn't fix dogshit germplasm。这是美国土话，恶搞味道远比我的意译要浓重。我的翻译水平很低，难以做到保持原意的同时又保持原本浓厚的恶搞味道。因此，若您能做出两全其美的翻译，请用您自己的翻译。）。报道说，迹象显示，孟山都似乎在筹备放弃转基因作物开发业务、转向以基因技术为主要内容的“作物数据咨询”服务，就如同IBM公司逐步放弃计算机硬软件开发业务而转向计算机数据咨询服务的做法一样。 我的看法是：自美国社会于2004年首次反思转基因商业化以后，孟山都公司就开始做上述故事的放风了。2010年做第二次反思，有孟山都公司参与的美国学界报告更是说明，长期搞转基因作物商业化种植很可能是得不偿失或事与愿违（纽约时报曾有报道）；那以后，孟山都公司做上述故事的放风就更频繁了。就是说，不管孟山都为其今后十来年的最新策划到底是什么内容，转基因食品作物商业化以来18年左右的发展事实说明，基于“一个基因、一个蛋白”的转基因食品作物的“垃圾技术”必将彻底失败的命运，则是难免的或是“大局已定”了。 可是呢，中国农业部和科学院生物部门的官员学者们，还在说那个垃圾东西是“农业现代化”的“大势所趋”、是“世界前沿”和“战略制高点”、要“重点发展”且要搞“龙头企业”去“覆盖全球”。嘿嘿，如此把 开始被抛弃的鸡毛当令箭，不是搞假大空、还能是什么呢？ 简而言之吧，就中国种业所反映的中国农业现代化发展到底应该走什么道路和实行什么政策？今年一号文件的漏洞是实在太大了，甚至颇有些“假大空”的味道。如前所说，男嘉宾相亲搞假大空，顶多是落个女嘉宾全部灭灯之类的个人失败；而国家政策搞转基因育种商业化的假大空呢，泡沫破裂的代价就是全国民众的灭灯和全国民心的丧失，是全国的粮食安全、人口安全和国土安全等国家安全失去保障。如此，希望中国当局能有足够重视、把漏洞问题及时解决好，请别再把必将失败的转基因食品作物的“垃圾技术”当作“农业现代的必然趋势”而去搞必将失败的“重点发展”和“龙头企业”了吧。 （待续）。 参考阅读： 一号文件的漏洞（一）：什么是粮食安全？ 2014-1-20 10:37:09。 http://zhiyanle.blog.hexun.com/91248611_d.html . . 孟山都撤出欧洲背后的地缘政治。 2013-07-25 8:17:26。 https://sites.google.com/site/zhiyanpage/view/zy20130722-us-food-paris . http://zhiyanle.blog.hexun.com/87228935_h.html 。 # # # *************************************** Is Monsanto Giving Up on GMOs? —By Tom Philpott | Wed Jan. 29, 2014 3:00 AM GMT。 http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2014/01/monsanto-gmo-technology-genetically-modified-organisms Is genetically modified seed giant Monsanto doing the unthinkable and moving away from genetically modified seeds? It sounds crazy, but hear me out. Let’s start with Monsanto's vegetable division, Seminis, which boasts it is the largest developer and grower of vegetable seeds in the world. Monsanto acknowledges Seminis has no new GM vegetables in development. According to a recent Wired piece, Seminis has has reverted instead to good old-fashioned crossbreeding, the same technology that farmers have been using to optimize crops for millennia. Why? The article points to people's growing avoidance of genetically modified foods. So far, consumers have shown no appetite to gobble up GM vegetables. (But that doesn't mean people aren't eating GMOs: Nearly all GMOs currently on the market are big commodity crops like corn and soy, which, besides being used as livestock feed, are regularly used as ingredients in processed food—think high-fructose corn syrup and soy oil.) But the Wired piece also suggests a factor that doesn't get nearly enough attention: GM technology doesn't seem to be very good at generating complex traits like better flavor or more nutrients, the very attributes Monsanto was hoping to engineer into veggies. Here's Wired: Furthermore, genetically modifying consumer crops proved to be inefficient and expensive. Stark estimates that adding a new gene takes roughly 10 years and $100 million to go from a product concept to regulatory approval. And inserting genes one at a time doesn't necessarily produce the kinds of traits that rely on the inter-actions of several genes. Well before their veggie business went kaput, Monsanto knew it couldn't just genetically modify its way to better produce; it had to breed great vegetables to begin with. As Stark phrases a company mantra: The best gene in the world doesn't fix dogshit germplasm. Okay, that's vegetables. What about Monsanto's core business, selling seeds for big industrial commodity crops like corn, soybeans, cotton, and alfalfa? Monsanto has come to dominate these markets with its Roundup Ready products, which are designed to withstand Monsanto's flagship herbicide, and, for corn and cotton, its Bt products, which are engineered to produce a toxin found in Bacillus thuringiensis, an insect-killing bacteria. Does the company have lots of novel GM products in mind for this vast, lucrative sector? Monsanto's latest Annual RD Pipeline Review, a document released earlier this month that showcases the company's research into new product lines, foretells all kinds of impressive-sounding stuff. But a surprising amount of the company's new research, even for its most lucrative crops like corn and soy, promise either new iterations of herbicide tolerance and Bt, or rely on classical breeding—not biotechnology. The one major exception is a corn seed relying on a new kind of GMO: RNA interference (RNAi) technology, a recently discovered way to turn off certain genes, which Monsanto plans to engineer into crops to kill certain insects. According to Monsanto's pipeline review, RNAi corn remains in the early proof of concept phase. In a recent piece, the New York Times' Andrew Pollack reports that the technology is showing promise—Monsanto hopes to have it on the market late this decade. But it's also generating controversy even in normally Monsanto-friendly regulatory circles because researchers have suggested it may kill beneficial insects like ladybugs along with targeted pests. Pollack points to this 2013 paper by Environmental Protection Agency scientists, which warned that the unfamiliar technology presented unique challenges for ecological risk assessment that have not yet been encountered in assessments for traditional chemical pesticides. So RNAi corn may be coming—and could bring public relations and regulatory complications for Monsanto, not to mention unpredictable ecological consequences for the rest of us. But how much other GMO-based stuff does Monsanto have up its sleeve? According to the US Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, the agency that oversees the rollout of new GM crops, not much. Of the 13 new GMOs APHIS is tracking, only 2 are from Monsanto: an alfalfa engineered to be more easily digestible as animal feed, and a soybean designed to withstand a harsh old herbicide called dicamba (a variation on the familiar Roundup Ready herbicide-tolerance theme). Just two crops in the final stages of USDA deregulation, from the ballyhooed GMO seed giant? That makes me think of Monsanto's recent $1 billion purchase of Climate Corp., a company that proposes to use GPS-backed data analysis tools to help farmers make planting decisions, for a fee. The move reminds me of IBM's mid-2000s decision to transition out of the business that made it famous by ditching the personal computer and focusing on IT products and consulting. I've called Monsanto's press office to ask about their plans, and I'll return to this topic if they get back to me. And in the meanwhile, to be sure, Monsanto still makes loads of money selling GMO seeds—along with their matching proprietary herbicide, and likely will for a long time. But the facts have me wondering if the company's quiet exit from genetically engineered vegetables and placement of a billion-dollar wager on data services signal that the GMO giant just might be hedging its bets on GM technology. Mother Jones is a nonprofit news organization that specializes in investigative, political, and social justice reporting. We currently have two main platforms: an award-winning bimonthly national magazine (circulation 240,000), and a website featuring new, original reporting 24-7. (In the past we've had a radio show and TV specials; theme parks are in the conceptual stage.) Why should you read or support us? Because smart, fearless journalism keeps people informed—informed being pretty much indispensable to a democracy that actually works. Because we've been ahead of the curve time and again. Because this is journalism not funded by or beholden to corporations. Because we bust bullshit and get results. Because we're expanding our investigative coverage while the rest of the media are contracting. Because you can count on us to take no prisoners, cleave to no dogma, and tell it like it is. Plus we're pretty damn fun. Read our FAQ for the deets. # Monsanto Is Going Organic in a Quest for the Perfect Veggie。 BY BEN PAYNTER01.21.147:00 AM。 http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2014/01/new-monsanto-vegetables/ 。。 In a windowless basement room decorated with photographs of farmers clutching freshly harvested vegetables, three polo-shirt-and-slacks-clad Monsanto execu-tives, all men, wait for a special lunch. A server arrives and sets in front of each a caprese-like salad—tomatoes, mozzarella, basil, lettuce—and one of the execs, David Stark, rolls his desk chair forward, raises a fork dramatically, and skewers a leaf. He takes a big, showy bite. The other two men, Robb Fraley and Kenny Avery, also tuck in. The room fills with loud, intent, wet chewing sounds. Eventually, Stark looks up. “Nice crisp texture, which people like, and a pretty good taste,” he says. “It’s probably better than what I get out of Schnucks,” Fraley responds. He’s talking about a grocery chain local to St. Louis, where Monsanto is headquartered. Avery seems happy; he just keeps eating. The men poke, prod, and chew the next course with even more vigor: salmon with a relish of red, yellow, and orange bell pepper and a side of broccoli. “The lettuce is my favorite,” Stark says afterward. Fraley concludes that the pepper “changes the game if you think about fresh produce.” Changing the agricultural game is what Monsanto does. The company whose name is synonymous with Big Ag has revolutionized the way we grow food—for better or worse. Activists revile it for such mustache-twirling practices as suing farmers who regrow licensed seeds or filling the world with Roundup-resistant super-weeds. Then there’s Monsanto’s reputation—scorned by some, celebrated by others—as the foremost purveyor of genetically modified commodity crops like corn and soybeans with DNA edited in from elsewhere, designed to have qualities nature didn’t quite think of. So it’s not particularly surprising that the company is introducing novel strains of familiar food crops, invented at Monsanto and endowed by their creators with powers and abilities far beyond what you usually see in the produce section. The lettuce is sweeter and crunchier than romaine and has the stay-fresh quality of iceberg. The peppers come in miniature, single-serving sizes to reduce leftovers. The broccoli has three times the usual amount of glucoraphanin, a compound that helps boost antioxidant levels. Stark’s department, the global trade division, came up with all of them. “Grocery stores are looking in the produce aisle for something that pops, that feels different,” Avery says. “And consumers are looking for the same thing.” If the team is right, they’ll know soon enough. Frescada lettuce, BellaFina peppers, and Bene-forté broccoli—cheery brand names trademarked to an all-but-anonymous Mon-santo subsidiary called Seminis—are rolling out at supermarkets across the US. But here’s the twist: The lettuce, peppers, and broccoli—plus a melon and an onion, with a watermelon soon to follow—aren’t genetically modified at all. Monsanto created all these veggies using good old-fashioned crossbreeding, the same tech-nology that farmers have been using to optimize crops for millennia. That doesn’t mean they are low tech, exactly. Stark’s division is drawing on Monsanto’s accumulated scientific know-how to create vegetables that have all the advantages of genetically modified organisms without any of the Frankenfoods ick factor. And that’s a serious business advantage. Despite a gaping lack of evidence that genetically modified food crops harm human health, consumers have shown a marked resistance to purchasing GM produce (even as they happily consume pro-ducts derived from genetically modified commodity crops). Stores like Whole Foods are planning to add GMO disclosures to their labels in a few years. State laws may mandate it even sooner. Nicholas Cope. Beneforté (broccoli). Launched: Fall 2010. Availability: Year-round. Trait: Compared with standard broccoli, contains up to three times the amount of glucora-phanin, a compound that increases antioxidant levels. Method: Crossbreeding commercial broccoli with a strain growing wild in southern Italy. Region Grown: Arizona, California, Mexico. Price : $2.50 per pound. But those requirements won’t apply to Monsanto’s new superveggies. They may be born in a lab, but technically they’re every bit as natural as what you’d get at a farmers’ market. Keep them away from pesticides and transport them less than 100 miles and you could call them organic and locavore too. John Francis Queeny formed Monsanto Chemical Works in 1901, primarily to produce the artificial sweetener saccharin. Monsanto was the family name of Queeny’s wife, Olga. It was a good time for chemical companies. By the 1920s, Monsanto had expanded into sulfuric acid and polychlorinated biphenyl, or PCB, a coolant used in early transformers and electric motors, now more famous as a pernicious environmental contaminant. The company moved on to plastics and synthetic fabrics, and by the 1960s it had sprouted a division to create herbicides, including the Vietnam-era defoliant Agent Orange. A decade later, Monsanto invented Roundup, a glyphosate-based weed killer that farmers could apply to reduce overgrowth between crops, increasing productivity. In the early 1990s, the company turned its scientific expertise to agriculture, working on novel crop strains that would resist the effects of its signature herbicide. Now, breeding new strains of plants is nothing new. Quite the opposite, in fact—optimizing plants for yield, flavor, and other qualities defined the earliest human civilizations. But for all the millennia since some proto-farmer first tried it, successfully altering plants has been a game of population roulette. Basically, farmers breed a plant that has a trait they like with other plants they also like. Then they plant seeds from that union and hope the traits keep showing up in subsequent generations. They’re working with qualities that a biologist would call, in aggregate, phenotype. But phenotype is the manifestation of genotype, the genes for those traits. The roulettelike complications arise because some genes are dominant and some are recessive. Taking a tree with sweet fruit and crossing it with one that has big fruit won’t necessarily get you a tree with sweeter, bigger fruit. You might get the opposite—or a tree more vulnerable to disease, or one that needs too much water, and on and on. It’s a trial-and-error guessing game that takes lots of time, land, and patience. The idea behind genetic modification is to speed all that up—analyze a species’ genes, its germplasm, and manipulate it to your liking. It’s what the past three decades of plant biology have achieved and continue to refine. Monsanto became a pioneer in the field when it set out to create Roundup-resistant crops. Stark joined that effort in 1989, when he was a molecular biology postdoc. He was experiment-ing with the then-new science of transgenics. Monsanto was focusing on GM commodity crops, but the more exciting work was in creating brand-new vegetables for consumers. For example, Calgene, a little biotech outfit in Davis, California, was building a tomato it called the Flavr Savr. Conventional tomatoes were harvested while green, when they’re tough enough to withstand shipping, and then gassed with ethylene at their destination to jump-start ripening. But the Flavr Savr was engineered to release less of an enzyme called polygalacturonase so that the pectin in its cell walls didn’t break down so soon after picking. The result was a tomato that farmers could pick and ship ripe. In the mid-1990s, Monsanto bought Calgene and reassigned Stark, moving him from Roundup research to head a project that almost accidentally figured out how to engineer flavor into produce. He began tinkering with genes that affect the production of ADP-glucose pyrophosphorylase, an enzyme that correlates to higher levels of glycogen and starch in tomatoes and potatoes. Translation: more viscous ketchup and a French fry that would shed less water when cooked, maintaining mass without absorbing grease. And he succeeded. “The texture was good,” Stark says. “They were more crisp and tasted more like a potato.” Nicholas Cope: BellaFina(bell pepper). Launched: Fall 2011 Availability: Year-round Trait: A third the size of regular bell peppers when ripe, mini-mizing waste and allowing for flexibility while cooking. Method: Selectively breeding plants with smaller and smaller peppers. Region grown: California, Florida, North Carolina. Price: $1.50 per three-pepper bag. They never made it to market. Aside from consumer backlash, the EPA deemed StarLink corn, a new biotech strain from another company, unfit for human consumption because of its potential to cause allergic reactions. Another geneti-cally modded corn variety seemed to kill monarch butterflies. Big food conglom-erates including Heinz and McDonald’s—which you might recognize from their famous tomato and potato products—abandoned GM ingredients; some European countries have since refused to grow or import them. Toss in the fact that production costs on the Flavr Savr turned out to be too high and it’s easy to see why Monsanto shut down Stark’s division in 2001. Large-scale farms growing soy or cotton, or corn destined for cattle feed—or corn syrup—were happy to plant GM grain that could resist big doses of herbicide. But the rest of the produce aisle was a no-go. Furthermore, genetically modifying consumer crops proved to be inefficient and expensive. Stark estimates that adding a new gene takes roughly 10 years and $100 million to go from a product concept to regulatory approval. And inserting genes one at a time doesn’t necessarily produce the kinds of traits that rely on the inter-actions of several genes. Well before their veggie business went kaput, Monsanto knew it couldn’t just genetically modify its way to better produce; it had to breed great vegetables to begin with. As Stark phrases a company mantra: “The best gene in the world doesn’t fix dogshit germplasm.” What does? Crossbreeding. Stark had an advantage here: In the process of learning how to engineer chemical and pest resistance into corn, researchers at Monsanto had learned to read and understand plant genomes—to tell the difference between the dogshit germplasm and the gold. And they had some nifty technology that allowed them to predict whether a given cross would yield the traits they wanted. The key was a technique called genetic marking. It maps the parts of a genome that might be associated with a given trait, even if that trait arises from multiple genes working in concert. Researchers identify and cross plants with traits they like and then run millions of samples from the hybrid—just bits of leaf, really—through a machine that can read more than 200,000 samples per week and map all the genes in a particular region of the plant’s chromosomes. Nicholas Cope: Melorange(melon). Launched: Winter 2011. Availability: December through April. Trait: Tastes up to 30 percent sweeter than cantaloupe grown in winter. Method: Crossbreeding cantaloupe and European heritage melons with a gene for a fruity and floral aroma. Region Grown: Arizona, Central America. Price: $3 per melon. They had more toys too. In 2006, Monsanto developed a machine called a seed chipper that quickly sorts and shaves off widely varying samples of soybean germplasm from seeds. The seed chipper lets researchers scan tiny genetic variations, just a single nucleotide, to figure out if they’ll result in plants with the traits they want—without having to take the time to let a seed grow into a plant. Monsanto computer models can actually predict inheritance patterns, meaning they can tell which desired traits will successfully be passed on. It’s breeding without breeding, plant sex in silico. In the real world, the odds of stacking 20 different characteristics into a single plant are one in 2 trillion. In nature, it can take a millennium. Monsanto can do it in just a few years. And this all happens without any genetic engineering. Nobody inserts a single gene into a single genome. (They could, and in fact sometimes do, look at their crosses by engineering a plant as a kind of beta test. But those aren’t intended to leave the lab.) Stark and his colleagues realized that they could use these technologies to identify a cross that would have highly desirable traits and grow the way they wanted. And they could actually charge more for it—all the benefits of a GMO with none of the stigma. “We didn’t have those tools the first time around in vegetables,” Stark says. Also in 2005, Monsanto bought the world’s largest vegetable seed company, Seminis. Think of it as a wholesale supplier of germplasm. It turned out Seminis came with another benefit: something in the pipeline that Stark could turn into his division’s first test product. A decade prior, swashbuckling plant scientists had discovered on the limestone cliffs of western Sicily a strain of Brassica villosa, ancestor of modern broccoli. Thanks to a gene called MYB28, this weedy atavist produced elevated levels of glucoraphanin. Stark’s team bred further enhance-ments to that antioxidant-increasing compound into a more familiar-looking plant—good old broccoli. In 2010 Monsanto started test-marketing the new crop, calling it Beneforté. The strategy was coming together: enhanced premium veggies for an elite buyer. Beneforté broccoli came in a bag of ready-to-cook florets—so convenient!—labeled with a bar graph telegraphing how its antioxidant levels stacked up against regular broccoli and cauliflower. It sold, but Monsanto researchers knew that future veggies would need a more compelling hook. Everybody already knows that they’re supposed to eat their broccoli. Stark’s group had one last angle: flavor. In produce, flavor comes from a combina-tion of color, texture, taste (which is to say, generally, sweetness or lack of bitterness), and aroma. But the traits that create those variables are complicated and sometimes nonobvious. For example, Monsanto created an onion—the EverMild—with reduced levels of a chemical called lachrymatory factor, the stuff that makes you cry. That wasn’t too hard. But making a sweet winter version of a cantaloupe took more effort. Stark’s team first found genes that helped a French melon keep from spoiling after harvest. Through crossbreeding, they learned to keep those genes turned on. Now farmers could harvest the melon ripe, and it stayed ripe longer with full aroma. But the researchers didn’t stop there—they also made sure the fruit had the gene for citron, a molecule associated with fruity and floral aromas. They called the final product the Melorange. Figuring out these relationships takes place at a sophisticated sensory and genetics lab perched amid hundreds of acres of experimental farmland in the rural, sun-scorched outskirts of Woodland, a farming town in California’s ag belt. White-coated scientists hover amid tubs full of fruits and vegetables in a lab, probing them with the intensity of forensic investigators. Penetrometers measure squishiness. Instruments called Brix meters track sugar content. Gas spectro-graphs, liquid chromatographs, and magnetic resonance imagers isolate specific aromatic molecules and their concentrations. Eventually volunteers eat the experimental foods and give feedback. In one tasting session, sensory scientist Chow-Ming Lee passes out five plastic cups filled with bite-size squares of cantaloupe, harvested from outside and brought in from a store, to a dozen melon growers and distributors. Each cup is labeled with a three-digit code. Score sheets have two columns: “Sweet/Flavorful” and “Juicy.” After sampling each batch and writing down their assessments, the participants punch their scores into devices that connect to Lee’s laptop, which plots the room’s general sentiment on a screen along a four-quadrant grid ranging from low to high flavor on one axis and low to high juiciness on the other. None of the melons man-age to crack the upper corner of the far right quadrant, the slot Monsanto hopes to fill: a sweet, juicy, crowd-pleasing melon. In the adjoining fields a few hours later, Monsanto breeders Jeff Mills and Greg Tolla conduct a different kind of taste test. There they slice open a classic cantaloupe and their own Melorange for comparison. Tolla’s assessment of the conventional variety is scathing. “It’s tastes more like a carrot,” he says. Mills agrees: “It’s firm. It’s sweet, but that’s about it. It’s flat.” I take bites of both too. Compared with the standard cantaloupe, the Melorange tastes supercharged; it’s vibrant, fruity, and ultrasweet. I want seconds. “That’s the shtick,” Mills says. Of course, sweeter fruit isn’t necessarily better fruit, and it’s perhaps no surprise that critics of Monsanto are unconvinced that this push toward non-GM products represents good corporate citizenship. They question whether these new fruits and vegetables will actually be as healthy as their untweaked counterparts. In 2013, for example, consumer-traits researchers prototyped their Summer Slice watermelon, designed with a more applelike texture (to cut down on the dreaded watermelon-juice-dripping-down-your-chin phenomenon that has scarred so many childhoods). But the denser texture made it taste less sweet. So Stark’s team is breeding in a higher sugar content. Is that unhealthy? No one really knows, but it’s certainly true that the law doesn’t require Monsanto to account for potential long-term effects. (The FDA considers all additive-free, conventionally bred produce to be safe.) Nobody has ever tinkered with sugar levels the way Monsanto is attempting; it’s essentially an experiment, says Robert Lustig, a pediatric endocrinologist and president of the Institute for Responsible Nutrition. “The only result they care about is profit.” Monsanto, of course, denies that charge. Make fruit taste better and people will eat more of it. “That’s good for society and, let’s face it, good for business,” Stark says. Monsanto is still Monsanto. The company enforces stringent contracts for farmers who buy its produce seeds. Just as with Roundup Ready soybeans, Monsanto prohibits regrowing seeds from the new crops. The company maintains exclusion clauses with growers if harvests don’t meet the standards of firmness, sweetness, or scent—pending strict quality-assurance checks. “The goal is to get the products recognized by the consumer, trusted, and purchased,” Stark says. “That’s what I really want. I want to grow sales.” But he gets coy about the company’s longer-term agenda. “I’m not sure we ever really projected what kind of market share we’ll have,” he says. The vegetable division cleared $821 million in revenue in 2013, a significant potential growth area for a $14 billion-a-year company that leans heavily on revenue from biotech corn and soy. More telling is the company’s steady stream of acquisitions, which sug-gests a continuing commitment to the produce aisle. It owns a greenhouse in the Guatemalan mountains, where the dry, warm air allows three or four growth cycles a year—great for research. In 2008 Monsanto bought De Ruiter, one of the world’s biggest greenhouse seed companies, and in 2013 it picked up Climate Cor-poration, a big-data weather company that can provide intel on what field traits might be needed to survive global warming in a given region. Mark Gulley, an analyst at BGC Financial, says the company is following the “virtuous cycle” approach; it spends heavily on marketing and pours much of the proceeds back into RD. The new crops keep coming. In 2012 Monsanto debuted Performance Series Broccoli, a conventionally bred line that stands taller, enabling cheaper, faster mechanical harvesting as opposed to handpicking. Breeders are also growing watermelons with the green-and-white-striped rind patterns familiar to US consumers but also the tiger-striped variety favored in Spain and the oval jade version loved by Australians. “It’s supposed to remind you of where you grew up,” says Mills, the Monsanto melon breeder. That suggests the division plans to be a player in the trillion-dollar global produce market. For his part, Stark hopes that when Monsanto’s affiliation with some of its best sellers becomes more widely known, the company might win back some trust. “There isn’t a reputation silver bullet, but it helps,” he says. In that basement dining room at Monsanto headquarters, he waxes rhapsodic about the lettuce long after he has cleaned his plate. During a recent trip to Holland, where Frescada is gaining popularity, Stark saw folks peeling leaves straight off the heads and munching them without dressing, like extra-large potato chips. “People just ate it like a snack, which was not the intent, but …” Stark trails off and looks around the room. His napkin is still on his lap. He’s savoring the potential. I CAN’T BELIEVE IT’S NOT GMO Agriculture giant Monsanto may be best known for genetic modification—like creating corn that resists the effects of Monsanto’s weed killer Roundup. But when it comes to fruits and vegetables you buy in the store, genetic modification is off the menu. Monsanto thinks no one will buy Frankenfoods, so the company is tweaking its efforts—continuing to map the genetic basis of a plant’s desirable traits but using that data to breed new custom-designed strains the way agronomists have for millennia. Here’s how it works—and how the results differ from GMO crops. Thanks to this cross between high and low tech, a new era of super-produce may be upon us. —Victoria Tang The Old Way: - Identify plants with recognizable, desirable traits. - Crossbreed those plants together. - Grow the offspring. - Wait to see if the traits show up. Repeat as necessary. The Genetic Modification Way: - Identify plants or other organisms with recognizable, desirable traits. - Isolate the genes that manifest those traits. - Use enzymes to clip out those genes and paste them into the genomes of other plants, or inject them using a “gene gun” (for real) or by piggybacking them on a bacteria or virus. - Grow the plant with the inserted gene. If the gene has successfully incorporated into the plant, you’ll have a novel phenotype. The New Monsanto Way: - Identify plants with recognizable, desirable traits. - Crossbreed the plants. - Sift through the offspring genome for known markers for desirable traits. - Grow only the plants with those markers.
【明辨是非】 阿根廷农民状告孟山都公司事件，至少说明了转基因作物带来危害不但有报告且有判决了，再次证明中国挺转帮所谓“转基危害无案例或无报告”都是欺骗。当然，中国对阿根廷蒙受的转基因作物之灾难性的危害，也有贡献：一个贡献是大量进口阿根廷的转基因作物，另一个贡献是向阿根廷大量出口转基作物捆绑的毒素农药。全球三个最大的转基因种植国家分别是美国、巴西和阿根廷，美国已经出现了强烈的反对声音，今天阿根廷民众也醒过来了。 不仅美国本土的“后园起火”，拉丁美洲也是“后园起火”了：阿根廷民众赢得与孟山都较量的第一回合。案件不是特大规模，但意义重大： 它是首次（之前，该国对孟山都转基几乎是百依百顺的）。 阿根廷被美国方面称为“转基因盟国”，而如今是“盟国”那里起火甚至颇有反叛味道了。（若我没记错，就阿根廷所经历的转基因商业化种植之灾难性危害的事情，美联社也有过报道、还有照片。）。 对中国来说，该事件证明转基因作物带来危害不但有报告且有判决了，再次证明中国挺转帮所谓“转基危害无案例或无报告”都是欺骗。当然，中国对阿根廷蒙受的转基因作物之灾难性的危害，也有贡献：一个贡献是大量进口阿根廷的转基因作物，另一个贡献是向阿根廷大量出口转基作物捆绑的毒素农药。 阿根廷蒙受的转基灾难再次说明，中国应该立即叫停转基作物（包括开发、种植、销售和进口等等），否则，中国就将在更大规模和更大损失方面去蒙受阿根廷所经历的转基灾难。 附后是相关报道。 Argentine Activists Win First Round Against Monsanto Plant。 By Fabiana Frayssinet, CORDOBA, Argentina, Jan 25 2014 (IPS)。 http://www.ipsnews.net/2014/01/argentine-activists-win-first-round-monsanto-plant/ CORDOBA, Argentina, Jan 25 2014 (IPS) - Residents of a town in Argentina have won the first victory in their fight against biotech giant Monsanto, but they are still at battle stations, aware that winning the war is still a long way off. For four months activists in Malvinas Argentinas, a town in the central province of Cordoba, have maintained a blockade of the construction site where the U.S. transnational company is building the world’s biggest maize seed treatment plant. In this previously peaceful town, protestors continue to camp in front of the construction site and to block access to it, even after a provincial court order this month put a halt to the works. The campaign against the plant, led by Asamblea Malvinas Lucha por la Vida (Malvinas Assembly Fighting for Life) and other social organisations, began Sept. 18 in this town 17 kilometres from the capital of Cordoba. Tense situations ensued, with attempts by the provincial police to disperse the demonstrators and provocations by construction union envoys, but a provincial labour court ruling on Jan. 8 upheld the activists’ cause. “The ruling shows that the residents’ arguments are just, because they are claiming basic rights that are recognised and established in the constitution and federal legislation,” Federico Macciocchi, the lawyer representing opponents of the plant, told IPS. The court ruled that the municipal ordinance authorising construction of the plant in this mostly working class town of 15,000 people was unconstitutional. It ordered a halt to construction work and banned the Malvinas Argentinas municipality from authorising the construction until two legal requirements are fulfilled: carrying out an environmental impact assessment and a public hearing. “This is a big step forward in the struggle, achieved by working together on institutional demands, along with social activism on the streets,” Matías Marizza, a member of the Malvinas Assembly, told IPS. “This struggle has resulted in guaranteeing respect for the law,” the activist said. The Malvinas Assembly and other organisations have decided to continue to camp out at the site and block access until the project is abandoned for good. Monsanto replied to IPS’s request for comment with a statement that describes local activists as “extremists” who are preventing their contractors and employees from “exercising the right to work.” The court ruling arose from a legal appeal lodged by local residents and the Club de Derecho (Cordoba Law Club), presided by Macciocchi. The labour court has ordered an environmental impact study and a public hearing, he emphasised. The views expressed in the public hearing will be “highly relevant,” he said, although under the General Environment Law, participants’ objections and opinions “are not binding.” However, the law does stipulate that if the opinions of the convening authorities differ from the results of the public hearing, “they must justify them and make them public,” he said. Now the Malvinas Assembly also wants a public consultation with a secret ballot. Such a ballot would comply with the environmental law and “guarantee citizens’ full rights to decide on which model of local development and what kind of social and economic activities they want for their daily life, and what environmental risks they are prepared to take,” Víctor Mazzalay, another resident, told IPS. “It is the people who should have that information and decide whether or not to accept the costs and risks involved,” said Mazzalay, a social researcher funded by the National Scientific and Technical Research Council (CONICET) at the University of Cordoba. “An environmental impact assessment should include a public consultation so that citizens can provide the ‘social licence’ necessary for developing any social, economic and productive activity that may affect their environment and health,” he said. Monsanto’s statement said the company does not agree with the court ruling, but respects judicial decisions and will abide by the verdict. The company stated that it had already conducted an environmental assessment, which is currently under review by the provincial Secretary of the Environment. In Macciocchi’s view, the court’s ruling is definitive and “brings the legal conflict to an end.” “The ruling arose from a legal appeal, so there is no further recourse in ordinary law,” he said. Monsanto can still appeal to have the decision overturned by the provincial High Court (Tribunal Superior de Justicia, TSJ). The company has already said that it will appeal. “We consider our right to build legitimate since we have complied with all legal requirements and have obtained authorization to build according to the regulations, as confirmed by the ruling of the Court of First Instance of Oct. 7, 2013,” their statement said. However, in Macciocchi’s view “this appeal will not overturn the labour court ruling.” “If we consider how long the TSJ takes to process an appeal, by the time there is a decision, the Malvinas municipality and the Environment Secretariat will have complied with the laws they previously violated,” he said. According to the lawyer, the high court takes up to two and a half years for appeals lodged by individuals under sentence, and five to seven years in labour or civil cases. “It would create a real institutional scandal if the TSJ were to deal with this case by leap-frogging all the other cases that have lain dormant in its offices for years,” he said. The Jan. 8 ruling cannot prevent the definitive installation of the plant, which Monsanto plans should become operational during 2014. “But if the citizens’ demonstrations against the plant and the environmental impact assessment are unfavourable to the company, Monsanto will not be able to instal the plant in Malvinas Argentinas,” Macciocchi predicted. Mazzalay emphasised that the “substance” of the arguments of opponents to Monsanto’s plant was “the defence of the people’s right to decide on the kind of productive activities and the type of environmental risks they wish to undertake.” The company announced it was planning to build more than 200 maize silos, and to use agrochemical products to treat the seeds. Monsanto is one of the world’s biggest manufacturers of herbicides and genetically modified seeds, and has operated in Argentina since 1956 when it established a plastics factory. “It is frequently argued that there is a reasonable doubt that this productive activity is harmless to human health,” Mazzalay said. In his view, “a multiplicity of scientific studies have shown negative effects on health from both seed transportation and handling of and exposure to different agrochemical products.” “When there is a health risk related to environmental issues, reasonable doubt should bring the precautionary principle into play, that is, an activity should not be developed until it has definitely been proved to be harmless,” he said. Activists Halt Monsanto Seed Plant Construction in Argentina 。 Elizabeth Renter, Infowars.com, January 23, 2014。 http://www.infowars.com/activists-halt-monsanto-seed-plant-construction-in-argentina/ The seed-giant and GMO evil genius Monsanto is promising to appeal a recent decision by a labor appeals court in Argentina to stop construction of a seed-manufacturing plant there. Activists filed the initial complaint to put the brakes on the factory, citing health and environmental concerns associated with genetically-modified crops and their production. But Monsanto is fighting back. “We have filed a criminal complaint to inform the prosecutor of certain irregularities in violation of environmental law that have occurred in the heart of the Ministry of the Environment which is involved with authorizations of projects,” attorney Raúl Montenegro told Revolution News, according to GMWatch.org. The decision by the court is being celebrated by protestors in Malvinas Argentina in the Cordoba Province, where they’ve blocked Monsanto employees from working on the site for 113 days. They physically prevented the ongoing construction while awaiting a decision by the court. “We consider our right to build legitimate since we have complied with all legal requirements and have obtained authorization to build according to the regulations,” said Monsanto’s statement. The corporation also expressed disdain in the protestors’ actions that left their workers jobless, accusing them, “for over three months Monsanto employees and contractors had not been able to exercise their right to work, due to the action of extremists who blocked the site, incited violence, and systematically ignored judicial decisions.” The 2-1 decision by the court is not a permanent one. They called for an environmental assessment on the area to determine the future effects that the plant may have. The assessment could be complete as soon as next month. While Monsanto says they’ve already completed an environmental assessment, their objectivity is well-recognized as non-existent. Monsanto would have everyone believe its products are safe—not only for human consumption, but for the environment as well. But as activists submitted to the court, not only have pesticides from Monsanto been linked to birth defects and cancer in South America, but they’ve led to water contamination as well. Despite the growing global criticism of the company, they recently reported better-than-expected earnings in the first quarter, jumping from $339 million in the quarter ending November 30, 2012 to $368 million in the same quarter of 2013. What is likely the most-hated corporation across the globe is still reporting gains. How is this possible if not for governments that allow them to prosper. Opponents of Monsanto and their plan to take over global agriculture as we know it, shouldn’t be discouraged by the company’s earnings, but motivated by stories like this one out of South America. By organizing, educating, and being active, we can beat down the giant. This article first appeared at Natural Society.com. This article was posted: Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 3:49 pm Read: 800 Million Pounds of Pesticides Can’t be Washed Off 800 Million Pounds of Pesticides Can’t be Washed Off, are Bred into our Food with GMO。 by Christina Sarich, August 19th, 2013. Updated 08/19/2013 at 8:46 am。 http://naturalsociety.com/800-million-pounds-pesticides-unwashable-bred-food-gmo/ We already know that farmers and farm workers who use conventional methods of planting are exposed to egregious amounts of pesticides, herbicides, and fungicides. They suffer from all kinds of serious health problems due to this contact with multiple poisons. The worst part? There is no eliminating pesticides from our foods once it is sprayed onto our plants, but as if that weren’t enough, now companies like Monsanto are ‘breeding pesticides’ right into our food crops with genetically modified organisms (GMO). In a study of children who didn’t live anywhere close to a farm that were given organic foods for two weeks, they had incredibly lower levels of pesticides in their urine samples during those two weeks. As soon as they were given conventionally grown foods again – those contaminated with pesticides – the levels of poison in their urine spiked again. These pesticides can’t be washed off. The irony of this is that pesticides were used in the first place to try to increase crop yields and protect crops from insect damage; however, a report issued by the Union of Concerned Scientists entitled Failure to Yield: Evaluating the Performance of Genetically Engineered Crops states very clearly that any increases in yield for either GMO or organically grown crops were due to improvements in agricultural practices and not GMO seed. “Biotechnology companies maintain that genetic engineering is essential to meeting this goal. Monsanto, for example, was running an advertising campaign at the time of the report release warning of an exploding world population and claiming that its “advanced seeds… significantly increase crop yields…” The report debunks that claim, concluding that genetic engineering is unlikely to play a significant role in increasing food production in the foreseeable future.” (http://www.ucsusa.org ) Pesticides: The Unwashable Danger The studies which outline the pesticide exposure endured by the farming industry are so prevalent we couldn’t list them all in one place, but a Cornell University study mentions the numerous ways that workers are exposed to pesticides, from dirt-dust on tractors to water contamination to chemical spraying, and just some of the outcomes of this exposure – including cancer. In another study, children exposed to organophosphate pesticides (OPs) have higher chances of developing health problems including impaired motor-coordination and cognitive functioning as well as respiratory disease along with a host of other issues. Even infants can be exposed to high levels of OPs if they live on a farm, through consuming their mother’s breast milk. If farm workers are blatantly poisoned by their exposure to pesticides in our conventionally grown food supply, why is it not a logical conclusion to assume that we will suffer from similar issues even if we live in a more urban setting? While biotechnology has been promising better crop yields since the early 1990s, they have yet to deliver and in the meantime our children are peeing out their poisons in lab tests. Exposure levels are continuing to affect not just farmers and their families, but also the public at large. Instead of 800,000,000 pounds of pesticides, might we not look to organic practices that actually do increase crop yields and save our future generations? Organic farming practices are accumulating some steam. In fact, the number of organic farms nationwide has grown to well over 8,000. These farms have sufficiently dispelled the perception that organic farming is too difficult, too risky, or too expensive to be practical. Improving soil fertility, utilizing well timed interactions of crop rotation, intercropping combinations, planting schedules and maintaining beneficial habitats are just some of the ways we can ditch our pesticide habit as a nation, and make ditching GMO crops a forgone conclusion. . Read more: http://naturalsociety.com/800-million-pounds-pesticides-unwashable-bred-food-gmo/#ixzz2riDJeV3I Follow us: @naturalsociety on Twitter | NaturalSociety on Facebook Read: 7 Nasty Effects of Pesticides
顾秀林老师按语（摘录）：英国友人来电邮，发来ENSSER对撤稿事件的评论，译文和原文在下面。科学杂志向大公司献媚争宠，侮辱了科学，打击了科学，也侮辱了公众。孟山都亲自出马操纵科学，就能掩盖真相？ http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_6188d2520102efmj.html 《食品与化学毒理学杂志（ FCT) 》撤稿塞拉利尼大鼠喂养实验报告，是假冒科学之名，实为向大公司低头。 Elsevier 旗下《食品与化学毒理学杂志》撤销了已发表的塞拉利尼教授领衔的论文，该研究发现了孟山都公司的转基因玉米品系 NK603 和与其共用的农达除草剂会严重的毒性效果（包括肝脏充血坏疽和肾脏损伤），更高的肿瘤发生增加和死亡率（ 1 ）。该杂志编辑对撤稿的辩解不仅不符合它自己也声称要遵守的撤稿标准，也不符合任何好的科学所接受的标准。 更严重的是，对撤稿决定负有责任的审查人名单没有公布。由于许多与转基因工业有关的人士特别期望撤销这篇论文，所以此次撤稿行动令人怀疑是向大企业做出的让步。 ENSSER 认为，此次撤稿假冒了科学之名，是对科学的信誉与独立性的沉重打击。 结论不完整成了撤稿的理由 FCT 的出版者 Elsevier 发表了公告 ，声称该杂志的主编， Wallace Hayes 博士说，“没有发现作假，没有刻意曲解数据”。关于撤稿的理由只有一条，即“提出的结果（并非不正确）是不完整的”。据 Hayes 说，所用的实验鼠数量太少、属于易患肿瘤的品系，所以不能导致确定的结论。撤销已发表的科学论文，是有根据有指南的，如关于出版的伦理委员会 COPE . 结论不完整，未被（ COPE ）列为撤稿的理由。而该杂志 FCT 是该委员会的成员 。完整而确定的结论在科学中很少见，而且不是一位编辑和一个秘密委员采用私下的标准和方法所会能决定的。如果这个做法被接受，那么独立的科学将不会存在 。 塞拉利尼的论文是长期毒性研究，不是关于肿瘤的全方位研究。 最显著的一点，首先塞拉利尼和他的合作者在论文中没有提出确定的结论，他们陈述了观察到的现象，做了谨慎的总结，对于还不能确定的问题是了解的。原因在于，这篇论文是一个长期毒性研究，不是一个需要更多实验动物的全方位肿瘤研究。该论文的作者们并非专注于肿瘤问题，但是在研究中发现了实验鼠出现更多肿瘤的现象。第二， Hayes 提到，“实验鼠数量以及易于罹患肿瘤的问题”曾被评审人提出但不反对发表论文。第三，这两个观点在该论文发表后曾在同一个杂志上进行过详细讨论，已经被作者们和其他专业人士辩驳。用更多数量的实验动物，只是在避免漏过毒性效果的实验中才有必要（即避免假阴性结果），而该研究的发现是毒性效果显现、是初步的、可能的致癌性迹象。他们使用的是 SD 大鼠品系，是同类研究常用的标准实验动物。出于这个原因，生化数据的统计显著性是统计学专家所认可的。 生化数据已经确认了毒性效应如肝肾损伤，这已经足够严重了，而观察到的肿瘤出现和动物死亡率还需要经特别的肿瘤研究确认，这需要更大数量的实验动物。对于大众的食品安全而言，刻意地无视这些已经观察到的问题是不明智的 。令人不愉快的结果需要被审查，而不是被无视。即使不谈肿瘤和死亡率，转基因的毒性效应也早就是众所周知的事情了。 谁是重审人？ 相比不具备足够充分的理由就撤稿，更令人担忧的是，杂志的总编没有公布评审人员名单。是什么人协助主编做出该论文应被撤销的结论？再评审采用的是什么衡量标准，什么分析方法？他们凭什么推翻前次的同行评审决定，即可以公开发表该论文？在本例的情形中，谴责该论文的人中，许多与转基因行业有长期密切的关联，因此推翻本研究显然涉及利益，在不透明的情况下决定撤稿是不可饶恕的、非科学的、不能接受的行为。此举令人怀疑这是向利益相关公司即孟山都献媚争宠。 ENSSER 宗旨：致力于独立的批评的讨论 ENSSER 的宗旨之一是推进批评和交流，特别是在欧洲和对于新技术及其应用后果进行批评。科学和技术的推进由于日益被私人利益驱使，有关健康和环境安全的信息（来自外界）通常滞后。科学自身包含不确定性，对同一个发现通常会出现相互冲突的见解就是证明。在发现真相的过程中保持争论的开放性和研究的独立性，是独立的科学存在下去所必需的前提。 在转基因农作物的技术方面也是如此，安全性研究总是由开发者自己进行，以便于通过评审，多数根本就不发表，或者是因为企业秘密，或者是很可能通不过真正独立的同行评审。不仅是塞拉利尼的研究应该被讨论，那些没有发表却被用作评审依据的依据同样原则也应该被讨论。公众有权获知与自己有关的一切食品安全信息。 总之， 撤销塞拉利尼论文的决定，是对科学的公然侮辱，是对科学可信度和独立性的沉重打击。 FCT 和它的出版者 Elsevier 的声誉都受到了损害。这个决定将会使公众更不信任科学。 同样它也不能从公众的视野和思考中去除独立的科学和批评的精神。那个时代（愚民的时代 - 译者注）已经过去了。 塞拉利尼教授的发现，在今日看来比当初更加清晰，甚至连那个秘密评审人都说，对研究的专业性、严谨程度以及数据的透明性，他们都没有找到错误，这恰恰是独立的科学立足之处 。他们的数据是否具有完整性，将来会有独立的科学为之做出判断，这决不是密室中的小圈子人士所能为之事。 Contact: office@ensser.org http://www.ensser.org/democratising-science-decision-making/ensser-comments-on-the-retraction-of-the-seralini-et-al-2012-study/ Séralini, G.-E., Clair, E., Mesnage, R., Gress, S., Defarge, N., Malatesta, M., Hennequin, D., de Vendômois, J.S.: Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize, Food and Chemical Toxicology 50 (11), pp. 4221-4231 (2012) http://www.elsevier.com/about/press-releases/research-and-journals/elsevier-announces-article-retraction-from-journal-food-and-chemical-toxicology http://publicationethics.org/files/retraction guidelines.pdf http://publicationethics.org/members/food-and-chemical-toxicology ENSSER Comments on the Retraction of the Séralini et al. 2012 Study Journal's retraction of rat feeding paper is a travesty of science and looks like a bow to industry Elsevier's journal Food and Chemical Toxicology has retracted the paper by Prof. Gilles-Eric Séralini's group which found severe toxic effects (including liver congestions and necrosis and kidney nephropathies), increased tumor rates and higher mortality in rats fed Monsanto's genetically modified NK603 maize and/or the associated herbicide Roundup . The arguments of the journal's editor for the retraction, however, violate not only the criteria for retraction to which the journal itself subscribes, but any standards of good science. Worse, the names of the reviewers who came to the conclusion that the paper should be retracted, have not been published. Since the retraction is a wish of many people with links to the GM industry, the suspicion arises that it is a bow of science to industry. ENSSER points out, therefore, that this retraction is a severe blow to the credibility and independence of science, indeed a travesty of science. Inconclusive results claimed as reason for withdrawal Elsevier, the publisher of Food and Chemical Toxicology, has published a statement saying that the journal's editor-in-chief, Dr. A. Wallace Hayes, found no evidence of fraud or intentional misrepresentation of the data. The statement mentions only a single reason for the retraction, namely that the results presented (while not incorrect) are inconclusive. According to Hayes, the low number of rats and the tumour susceptibility of the rat strain used do not allow definitive conclusions. Now there are guidelines for retractions in scientific publishing, set out by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) . Inconclusiveness of research results is not one of the grounds for retraction contained in these guidelines. The journal Food and Chemical Toxicology is a member of COPE . 'Conclusive' results are rare in science, and certainly not to be decided by one editor and a secret team of persons using undisclosed criteria and methods. Independent science would cease to exist if this were to be an accepted mode of procedure. Séralini paper a chronic toxicity study, not a full-scale carcinogenicity study Most notably, Séralini and his co-authors did not draw any definitive conclusions in the paper in the first place; they simply reported their observations and phrased their conclusions carefully, cognizant of their uncertainties. This is because the paper is a chronic toxicity study and not a full-scale carcinogenicity study, which would require a higher number of rats. The authors did not intend to look specifically for tumours, but still found increased tumour rates. Secondly, both of Hayes's arguments (the number of rats and their tumour susceptibility) were considered by the peer reviewers of the journal, who decided they formed no objection to publication. Thirdly, these two arguments have been discussed at length in the journal following the publication of the paper and have been refuted by the authors of the paper and other experts. Higher numbers of animals are only required in this type of safety studies to avoid missing toxic effects (a 'false negative' result), but the study found pronounced toxic effects and a first indication of possible carcinogenic effects. The Sprague-Dawley strain of rat which was used, is the commonly used standard for this type of research. For these reasons, the statistical significance of the biochemical data was endorsed by statistics experts. The biochemical data confirm the toxic effects such as those on liver and kidney, which are serious enough by themselves. The tumours and mortality rates are observations which need to be confirmed by a specific carcinogenicity study with higher numbers of rats; in view of public food safety, it is not wise to simply ignore them. Unpleasant results should be checked, not ignored. And the toxic effects other than tumours and mortality are well-founded. Who did the reevaluation? Even more worrying than the lack of good grounds for the retraction is the fact that the journal's editor-in-chief has not revealed who the reviewers were who helped him to come to the conclusion that the paper should be retracted; nor has he revealed the criteria and methodology of their reevaluation, which overruled the earlier conclusion of the original peer-review which supported publication. In a case like this, where many of those who denounced the study have long-standing, well-documented links to the GM industry and, therefore, a clear interest in having the results of the study discredited, such lack of transparency about how this potential decision was reached is inexcusable, unscientific and unacceptable. It raises the suspicion that the retraction is a favour to the interested industry, notably Monsanto. ENSSER promotes independent critical discourse It is part of ENSSER's mission to promote the critical discourse, particularly in Europe, on new technologies and their impacts. As scientific and technological advances are increasingly driven by private interest, disinterested independent health and environmental safety information often lags behind. Uncertainty is inherent to science, as is the debate between conflicting explanations of findings. Openness of this debate and independent research to find the truth are crucial prerequisites for the survival of independent science. This holds true in particular for the technology of genetically modified crops, where the safety studies done by the producers for authorisation of the crops are all too often not published at all because of business confidentiality of the data and may not hold up to an independent peer-review. These studies, not only the independent ones like Séralini's, should be subject to debate. The public have a right to be informed of anything related to the safety of their food. In short, the decision to retract Séralini's paper is a flagrant abuse of science and a blow to its credibility and independence. It is damaging for the reputation of both the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology and its publisher Elsevier. It will decrease public trust in science. And it will not succeed in eliminating critical independent science from public view and scrutiny. Such days and times are definitively over. Prof. Séralini's findings stand today more than before, as even this secret review found that there is nothing wrong with either technicalities, conduct or transparency of the data – the foundations on which independent science rests. The conclusiveness of their data will be decided by future independent science, not by a secret circle of people. Contact: office@ensser.org http://www.ensser.org/democratising-science-decision-making/ensser-comments-on-the-retraction-of-the-seralini-et-al-2012-study/ Séralini, G.-E., Clair, E., Mesnage, R., Gress, S., Defarge, N., Malatesta, M., Hennequin, D., de Vendômois, J.S.: Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize, Food and Chemical Toxicology 50 (11), pp. 4221-4231 (2012) http://www.elsevier.com/about/press-releases/research-and-journals/elsevier-announces-article-retraction-from-journal-food-and-chemical-toxicology http://publicationethics.org/files/retraction guidelines.pdf http://publicationethics.org/members/food-and-chemical-toxicology
转基因玉米致癌论文被撤 编委曾就职孟山都 http://www.wyzxwk.com/Article/shidai/2013/11/309924.html 作者：宗和 发布时间：2013-11-30 来源：财经网等 字体： 大 | 中 | 小 法国研究人员2012年在《食品和化学毒物学》杂志上发表转基因玉米致癌论文，已成为部分人士反对转基因食品的重要证据。但杂志出版方爱思唯尔公司28日在美国宣布，由于进一步分析显示论文数据不足以支持其结论，因此决定撤除这篇论文。 爱思唯尔公司在声明中说，《食品和化学毒物学》杂志对所发表的论文及论文所报告的数据进行了彻底的、长时间的分析，对论文发表的同行评议过程也进行了调查，“没有发现欺诈或对数据有意曲解的证据”，然而，“有理由担忧”论文所提及实验中研究人员使用的实验大鼠数量和类型。 声明说：“对原始数据的深入调查表明，用如此小规模的样本数据无法得出明确结论”、“考虑到(实验中所用的)斯普拉格-道利大鼠的已知肿瘤高发生率，喂食转基因玉米组所观察到的更高的死亡率及肿瘤发生率的原因不能排除是正常变化”。 声明说，归根结底，论文的结果“尽管无不妥之处”，但是“没有说服力”，因此这篇论文达不到《食品和化学毒物学》的出版要求。 声明还说，这篇论文发表后编辑部收到多封来信，对论文描述结果的有效性、实验动物的合理使用表达关切，有些来信甚至称其中存在欺诈，多数来信呼吁撤回这篇论文。这些来信以及支持这篇论文的来信，都已和作者的回应一并发表。 英国《自然》杂志网站说，这一撤稿举动并不令人意外，《食品和化学毒物学》杂志主编本月初曾要求作者主动撤回论文，并表示如果作者拒绝，杂志方也将予以撤稿。报道还说， 论文作者把撤稿形容为“丑闻”，并声称，这是因为杂志任命的一名编委此前曾在转基因农业巨头孟山都公司工作过7年 。 2012年，《食品和化学毒物学》杂志刊登了法国卡昂大学分子生物学家塞拉利尼等人的一份研究报告。该报告称，将100只雄性和100只雌性大鼠分成10组，分别喂食孟山都公司的NK603转基因玉米及其他食物，两年后发现，喂食转基因玉米的实验大鼠出现肿瘤的风险高、寿命短。 这一结论在全球引起风波。法国国家卫生安全署、生物技术最高委员会和欧洲食品安全局均对塞拉利尼等人的研究展开调查，结果均认为，该研究存在诸多不足，不能作为评估转基因玉米健康风险的有效依据。 【下面是塞拉利尼团队声明中英对照本。2013-11-28。引用自顾秀林博客】 我们是FCT一年多前发表的论文的作者，关于农达和耐受农达的转基因生物的事（塞拉利尼等2012） 。 对于同样的质疑， 我们已经在同一个刊物上回应过（塞拉利尼等，2013），即：作为正常的科学辩论，仅仅由于实验鼠品系的选择和数量的原因，就判定研究结果“结论不完整”，这是不能接受的。我们坚持我们的结论。我们早已公布了对相同的质疑所做的回答，但至今没有见到对我们的任何回应（塞拉利尼等，2013）。 We, authors of the paper published in FCT more than one year ago on the effects of Roundup and a Roundup-tolerant GMO (Séralini et al., 2012), and having answered to critics in the same journal (Séralini et al., 2013), do not accept as scientifically sound the debate on the fact that these papers are inconclusive because of the rat strain or the number of rats used. We maintain our conclusions. We already published some answers to the same critics in your Journal, which have not been answered (Séralini et al., 2013). 关于实验大鼠品系 同一个大鼠品系，被用在研究致癌性和慢性化学毒理学的美国国家毒理学项目中(King-Herbert et al., 2010)。SD大鼠是常规性用于毒理和致癌效果实验中的动物，其中有孟山都公司的90天实验，被当做批准NK603转基因玉米应用的依据，其他转基因农作物也是这样做的(Sprague Dawley rats did not came from Harlan but from Charles-River) (Hammond et al., 2004; Hammond et al., 2006a; Hammond et al., 2006b). Rat strain The same strain is used by the US national toxicology program to study the carcinogenicity and the chronic toxicity of chemicals (King-Herbert et al., 2010). Sprague Dawley rats are used routinely in such studies for toxicological and tumour-inducing effects, including those 90-day studies by Monsanto as basis for the approval of NK603 maize and other GM crops (Sprague Dawley rats did not came from Harlan but from Charles-River) (Hammond et al., 2004; Hammond et al., 2006a; Hammond et al., 2006b). 这里有一个简明的初步的文献清单，表明在同行评审的杂志上SD大鼠被用在36个月的实验如(Voss et al., 2005) or in 24-month studies by (Hack et al., 1995), (Minardi et al., 2002), (Klimisch et al., 1997), (Gamez et al., 2007).，其中有一些文章就发表在FCT上。 A brief, quick and still preliminary literature search of peer-reviewed journals revealed that Sprague Dawley rats were used in 36-month studies by (Voss et al., 2005) or in 24-month studies by (Hack et al., 1995), (Minardi et al., 2002), (Klimisch et al., 1997), (Gamez et al., 2007).Some of these studies have been published in Food and Chemical Toxicology. Number of rats, OECD guidelines 实验动物数量与OECD实验规范 OECD 实验规范：第408条，关于90天实验，第452条关于慢性毒性试验，第453条关于综合致癌性/慢性毒性试验，都要求用20只动物为一组(1981和2009的规定都这样要求)，尽管可以用10只动物的实验就能取得生物化学参数。我们做的是长期毒性研究而不是致癌性研究，从一开始就不是这样设想的。根据常规10只动物一组已经足够在生物化学水平上进行研究，我们测量的参数数量是非常大的。 OECD guidelines (408 for 90 day study, 452 chronic toxicity and 453 combined carcinogenicity/chronic toxicity study) always asked for 20 animals per group (both in 1981 and 2009 guidelines) although the measurement of biochemical parameters can be performed on 10 rats, as indicated. We did not perform a carcinogenesis study, which would not have been adapted at first, but a long-term chronic full study, 10 rats are sufficient for that at a biochemical level according to norms and we have measured such a number of parameters! 在我们的实验中，性激素干扰的参数以及其它参数对于解释一年之后的严重后果是充分的。我们采用的OPLS-DA统计方法是最适宜的。关于肿瘤和动物死亡，时间效果以及每只动物的平均肿瘤数量都必须被纳入分析。在风险研究中出现的每一个迹象，都必须被充分重视。孟山都公司的研究用了同样的大鼠品系，每组仅10只衡量20个参数，就得出同一种NK603转基因玉米“安全”的结论，而且他们的实验只做了3个月 (Hammond et al., 2004) The disturbance of sexual hormones or other parameters are sufficient in themselves in our case to interpret a serious effect after one year. The OPLS-DA statistical method we published is one of the best adapted. For tumours and deaths, the chronology and number of tumours per animal have to be taken into account. Any sign should be regarded as important for a real risk study. Monsanto itself measured only 10 rats of the same strain per group on 20 to conclude that the same GM maize was safe after 3 months (Hammond et al., 2004). The statistical analysis should not be done with historical data first, the comparison is falsified, thus 50 rats per group is useless 统计分析不应该先做历史数据，用这个方法做比较研究是错误的，用每组50只动物做研究是无意义。 采纳历史数据会把健康风险评估变成研究造假，因为食谱中的材料已经受到化学污染(by dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans (Schecter et al., 1996)和汞污染(Weiss et al., 2005)，镉污染，铬污染等，污染的程度足以改变动物肝脏和肺脏的基因表达，足以扰乱基因分析(Kozul et al., 2008)。以往的食料中还发现农药和增塑剂污染，污染来自箱笼或者水(Howdeshell et al., 2003)。历史数据也有来自可能食用了转基因的动物，很多地方的鼠粮中的确发现了转基因成分。这一切都与污染水平相关，我们已经在实验大鼠和对照组大鼠中检测到这些问题。 The use of historical data falsifies health risk assessments because the diet is contaminated by dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans (Schecter et al., 1996), mercury (Weiss et al., 2005), cadmium and chromium among other heavy metals in a range of doses that altered mouse liver and lung gene expression and confounds genomic analyses (Kozul et al., 2008). They also contained pesticides or plasticizers released by cages or from water sources (Howdeshell et al., 2003). Historical data also come from rats potentially fed on GMOs, some animal pellets in the world do indicate that. All that corresponds to the contamination levels for which we have detected some effects in our treated rats versus appropriate controls. 在历史数据中，2年SD雌性大鼠罹患乳腺纤维瘤的为13%~62%(Giknis, 2004)，但在我们的实验中对照组的发病率要低得多，这才是真正的对照，而我们的实验鼠发病率比对照组高很多，这使得我们的研究结果有显著性。动物的死亡率也是这样。 2-year historical data mammary fibroadenoma rate from Charles River SD females ranged from 13 to 62% (Giknis, 2004). We obtain a lot less in our controls, the real comparators, a lot more in treated rats. This makes our results significant, like for deaths. Double standards 双重标准 遵循同一个逻辑把塞拉利尼的实验和孟山都公司的实验做一对一的比较，如果前者被认为不足以显示危害，那么后者也不能认为证明了安全。 A factual comparative analysis of the rat feeding trial by the Séralini’s group and the Monsanto trials clearly reveals that if the Séralini experiments are considered to be insufficient to demonstrate harm, logically, it must be the same for those carried out by Monsanto to prove safety. 以往的研究发现凡是显示转基因农作物有负面效果的，都会被监管者从实验到统计方法做严格的重审，凡是声称转基因农作物安全的研究，都被照单接受。只要是没有报告负面效果的研究，都被接受为“安全”的证明，无论他们的研究方法有何种不足(被认为无关紧要)。 Basically, all previous studies finding adverse effects of GE crops have been treated by regulators with the attitude: only those studies showing adverse effects receive a rigorous evaluation of their experimental and statistical methods, while those that claim proof of safety are taken at face value. All studies that reported no adverse effects were accepted as proof of safety regardless of these manifest (but deemed irrelevant) deficiencies of their methods. 来自(Snell et al., 2012) 的一份文献概览研究可以说明这个倾向。如作者在摘要中这样说，“在这里的24项研究的结果都不建议存在任何健康危害问题…”即所有被审阅的研究都被按“票面价值”被接受和通过了。然而在文章中却指出，研究报告的作者们留下了无数缺陷，同他们指责塞拉利尼论文的问题类似，或者更严重。例如24篇中16篇(67%)文章没有交代对照组饲料是否与实验用的饲料属于同基因品种(他们的解释只是“没有采用”)。许多篇文章连讨论所用的方法都没有介绍。此外还有其他被指出的缺陷。 The review by (Snell et al., 2012) illustrates this issue. In the abstract, the authors state Results from all the 24 studies do not suggest any health hazards – taking all those studies at face value. Yet in their review, the authors find numerous weaknesses of similar or greater severity raised for the Séralini group's paper. For example, of the 24 studies they evaluated 16 (67% of all studies) did not mention using the isogenic line as control (interpreted as having not used them), many did not describe the methods in any detail, and according to the reviewers had other deficiencies too. 基于完全相同的原因，FCT应该把Hammond 等人关于耐受农达转基因玉米的那些论文全都撤回。那些论文貌似都是真正的科学讨论，发表它们只是为了给孟山都提供权威证据。 FCT should retract the Hammond et al. paper on Roundup tolerant maize for all these reasons, published for Monsanto’s authorization, or consider that each of these papers is part of the scientific debate. References 参考文献 Gamez, R., Noa, M., Mas, R., Mendoza, N., Pardo, B., Menendez, R., Perez, Y., Gonzalez, R.M., Gutierrez, A., Marrero, G., Goicochea, E., Garcia, H., Curveco, D., 2007. Long-term carcinogenicity of D-003, a mixture of high molecular weight acids from sugarcane wax, in Sprague Dawley rats: a 24 months study. Food Chem Toxicol 45, 2352-2358. Giknis, M.L.A.a.C., C.B., 2004. Charles River Laboratories. Compilation of spontaneous neoplastic lesions and survival in Crl:CD (SD) rats from control groups. Hack, R., Ebert, E., Leist, K.H., 1995. Chronic toxicity and carcinogenicity studies with the insecticide endosulfan in rats and mice. Food Chem Toxicol 33, 941-950. Hammond, B., Dudek, R., Lemen, J., Nemeth, M., 2004. Results of a 13 week safety assurance study with rats fed grain from glyphosate tolerant corn. Food Chem Toxicol 42, 1003-1014. Hammond, B., Lemen, J., Dudek, R., Ward, D., Jiang, C., Nemeth, M., Burns, J., 2006a. Results of a 90-day safety assurance study with rats fed grain from corn rootworm-protected corn. Food Chem Toxicol 44, 147-160. Hammond, B.G., Dudek, R., Lemen, J.K., Nemeth, M.A., 2006b. Results of a 90-day safety assurance study with rats fed grain from corn borer-protected corn. Food Chem Toxicol 44, 1092-1099. Howdeshell, K.L., Peterman, P.H., Judy, B.M., Taylor, J.A., Orazio, C.E., Ruhlen, R.L., Vom Saal, F.S., Welshons, W.V., 2003. Bisphenol A is released from used polycarbonate animal cages into water at room temperature. Environ Health Perspect 111, 1180-1187. King-Herbert, A.P., Sills, R.C., Bucher, J.R., 2010. Commentary: update on animal models for NTP studies. Toxicol Pathol 38, 180-181. Klimisch, H.J., Deckardt, K., Gembardt, C., Hildebrand, B., Kuttler, K., Roe, F.J., 1997. Long-term inhalation toxicity of N-vinylpyrrolidone-2 vapours. Studies in rats. Food Chem Toxicol 35, 1041-1060. Kozul, C.D., Nomikos, A.P., Hampton, T.H., Warnke, L.A., Gosse, J.A., Davey, J.C., Thorpe, J.E., Jackson, B.P., Ihnat, M.A., Hamilton, J.W., 2008. Laboratory diet profoundly alters gene expression and confounds genomic analysis in mouse liver and lung. Chem Biol Interact 173, 129-140. Minardi, F., Belpoggi, F., Soffritti, M., Ciliberti, A., Lauriola, M., Cattin, E., Maltoni, C., 2002. Results of long-term carcinogenicity bioassay on vinyl acetate monomer in Sprague-Dawley rats. Ann N Y Acad Sci 982, 106-122. Séralini, G.E., Clair, E., Mesnage, R. Gress, S., Defarge, N. Malatesta, M. Hennequin, D. Spiroux de Vendômois, J. (2012) Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize. Food and Chem. Tox. 50:4221-4231 Séralini, G.E., Mesnage, R., Defarge, N., Gress, S., Hennequin, D., Clair, E., Malatesta, M., Spiroux de Vendômois, J. (2013) Answers to critics: why there is a long term toxicity due to NK603 Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize and to a Roundup herbicide. Food and Chem. Tox. 53:461-468 Schecter, A.J., Olson, J., Papke, O., 1996. Exposure of laboratory animals to polychlorinated dibenzodioxins and polychlorinated dibenzofurans from commerical rodent chow. Chemosphere 32, 501-508. Snell, C., Bernheim, A., Berge, J.B., Kuntz, M., Pascal, G., Paris, A., Ricroch, A.E., 2012. Assessment of the health impact of GM plant diets in long-term and multigenerational animal feeding trials: a literature review. Food Chem Toxicol 50, 1134-1148. Voss, C., Zerban, H., Bannasch, P., Berger, M.R., 2005. Lifelong exposure to di-(2-ethylhexyl)-phthalate induces tumors in liver and testes of Sprague-Dawley rats. Toxicology 206, 359-371. Weiss, B., Stern, S., Cernichiari, E., Gelein, R., 2005. Methylmercury contamination of laboratory animal diets. Environ Health Perspect 113, 1120-1122.
南京大学的张辰宇教授是国内生命科学领域少有的、有自己独创概念的学者，其主要的工作都集中在miRNA方面。关于miRNA的介绍很多，这里不做科普。10年的时候，张教授课题组发表了两篇看起来没有什么关联的论文： 1. Identification and characterization of microRNAs in raw milk during different periods of lactation, commercial fluid, and powdered milk products . 2. Secreted monocytic miR-150 enhances targeted endothelial cell migration . 这两篇文章都挺有意思，第一篇发在Cell Research上，讲的是从牛奶，不管是哺乳期、商业化的牛奶，或者是奶粉里，都是可以鉴定出miRNA。第二篇发在Molecular Cell上，讲的是miRNA能够被microvesicles (微泡，MVs)包裹，从而释放到血液里，或者是循环系统里，成为circulating microRNA，并且可以从血清里检测到。我记得10年底的时候去天津参加一个会议，当时张老师讲自己课题组的最新进展，刚讲完会场就炸了锅。大家的态度是：第一，很有趣；第二，不靠谱。很多人当时就讲，你知道课本上都写啥了吗？RNA分子不稳定你看过书了吗？张：...对啊，书上写的是RNA不稳定，但问题是我这个miRNA很稳定啊，你拿金箍棒敲，你拿三味真火烧，照样稳定。全场哗然，已经有人狠不得跳上讲台指着张的鼻子说：你丫这就是伪科学！咱搞蛋白质的，对DNA和RNA不熟，看着这热闹的场面无动于衷，问边上的王文老师，说这帮人吵啥呢？咋吵的这么起劲？王老师鄙视我，说你小子没文化，人家这东西太有意思了，要是真的那都可以拿诺贝尔奖了。我说哪有那么夸张，不过话说回来，RNA不稳定这个好像连火星人都知道吧？张怎么可能从牛奶里鉴定出miRNA呢？王老师非常小心的看看周围，确定大家都在吵架，然后悄悄告诉我，说这个其实不算啥，他们还做了水稻，人吃了水稻血液里也能检测到水稻的miRNA，所以...我当时震惊的嘴巴张的大大的，半天才反应过来：这靠谱不？王老师很肯定的点头：张做东西非常扎实，估计应该是真的。我说那不对吧，这么大的发现如果是真的，怎么不发NCS？王老师摇头，说中国人做点儿新东西有多难？你看我，水稻卖的这么艰难还没卖出去。张当时投NCS都不收的，说是不相信，最后只好投CR。第二篇也是投NCS不收，只好上的MC，老外对咱有歧视呗。 于是，不出意料的，2010年张的研究组在Cell Research继续发表了一篇看上去没有多大意思的论文： 3. Exogenous plant MIR168a specifically targets mammalian LDLRAP1: evidence of cross-kingdom regulation by microRNA 关于这篇论文的解读，网上有不少资料，比如 科学松鼠会 ，和 蒋高明前辈的博客 等等。大概的意思是，第一，中国人的血液里能够稳定的检测到水稻的miRNA，表明植物的miRNA可以进入人体的循环系统里；第二，在喂养了植物性饲料的小鼠、大鼠、牛、马和羊的血清里同样可检测到植物的miRNA；第三，来源植物的miRNA可占到哺乳动物总miRNA的5%，并且某些miRNA的浓度能达到哺乳动物miRNA的平均表达水平；第四，植物的mir168a可以通过下调LDLRAP1的表达水平，从而导致低密度脂蛋白(LDL, 这玩意儿高水平表达好像是跟高血压有关)的表达上升，喂食物之后LDLRAP1的表达显著下降；第五，植物miRNA可以穿过肠道屏障，可能是被包裹在微泡里然后进入循环系统。所以，第一， 我们吃进去的不见得只是materials，也可能包含information ；第二，没准吃什么像什么哦，哈哈 。 你要觉得这就结了，那你就错了。CR是个很有意思的杂志，之所以有意思，是因为其常务副主编李党生是个非常有意思的人，必杀技是：快速发表。很多人问过李，说你怎么都不peer review就发表论文啊？党生答：呃，在Cell那会儿干习惯了，我有peer review啊，只不过确实好的东西，审不审没有太大意义，找个专家给看看，没大问题先发了再说喽。快速发表有多快？这篇文章2011年8月11日投稿，8月23修回，8月26日发表，总共15天。当然这不算快，头天收，第二天修回，第三天收稿这种事儿CR也干了不少。大牌编辑嘛，靠眼力吃饭的。这篇文章发出来自然是够轰动的，可是更让人瞠目结舌的是，党生估计琢磨着还不够乱，于是邀请法国学者写了篇亮点论文： 4. Ingested plant miRNAs regulate gene expression in animals 亮点嘛，自然要夸夸这篇文章，然后谈谈这个工作有意义啦，值得继续深入啦，植物这么多miRNA，有多少可以调控宿主啦，另外，植物的miRNA会不会影响肠道菌群啦，等等。要是在此打住那也就得了，关键是最后一段：基因修饰生物 (genetically modified organisms, GMO) 拿到市场上来，这些转基因食品在消化道里会咋样啊？比如，朊病毒 (prion), 这东西有危险哦，那么RNA有啥影响？ 得，本来转基因就够乱的了，光转进去那个基因有没有问题就已经吵翻天了，在google里搜：孟山都滚出中国，能返回14,200 条结果；搜：孟山都滚出台湾，返回11,600 条结果；搜：孟山都滚出欧洲，居然也返回22,800 条结果。光纠结这个基因啊，蛋白质啊，孟山都已经很头大了，好嘛，现在你张教授唯恐天下不乱，居然又弄出个miRNA！是可忍孰不可忍啊，孟山都的人6月10日向BMC Genomics投了篇论文： 5. Analysis of plant-derived miRNAs in animal small RNA datasets 孟山都这篇文章的思路还挺巧妙：你不是说人和哺乳动物里能有植物的miRNA吗？那好，我就看看已有的小RNA测序数据里，是不是能检测到植物的miRNA？结果...真给他检测到了，当然只存在于部分样本里，比例是0.053%~0.456%，最高值与张的结果差不多一致 (这篇文章的Table 1)。这我就看不明白了，您这唱的是哪出啊？你要批人家的是错的，你验证人家结果干啥？难道是卧底？Table 1的结果白纸黑字的，这个赖不掉了，怎么办呢？孟山都有办法，做虫子实验，给虫子喂植物，测小RNA的序。测完发现，没有植物的miRNA。因此推测，这个植物的miRNA啊，其实就是个污染。 约翰霍普金斯的人也跳出来打抱不平了： 6. Real-time quantitative PCR and droplet digital PCR for plant miRNAs in mammalian blood provide little evidence for general uptake of dietary miRNAs: Limited evidence for general uptake of dietary plant xenomiRs 要不怎么说约翰霍普金斯的人有水平呢，上来先提了个概念xenomiR，说张做的是这个，你瞧瞧，美国大学的水平就是高啊，这概念总结的多好？没准过若干年张拿诺奖就靠这个了。然后是重复张的实验，结果很搞笑，那就是有的能重复出来，有的重复不出来，结论就是重复性不咋滴。这个我看着要内牛满面了：大哥，你没重复出来那是你实验技术不过关好吧？NCS上的所有paper，我实验室随便找个学生来重复，保证重复不出来(这不废话吗，搞计算的咋重复实验？)，那能说明NCS的paper都是假的？由此可见，名牌大学的实验技术也真是该提高一下了。要不张教授开个培训班，让约翰霍普金斯的人来好好学学基本的实验技术？ 按理说，原创的发表了，吹捧的也吹捧过了，不爽的也质疑了，凑热闹的也成功娱乐了，完了吧？No, no, no, 这只是开始。张的文章发了，现在google的引用144次，孟山都的文章9次，约翰霍普金斯的呢，呵呵，1次，您瞧瞧，是不是完美的体现了酱油的本色？这回孟山都真的是彻底气炸了肺：这都什么世道啊？为啥张的引用比我的高这么多呢？张有我钱多吗？张有我势力大吗？看哥们我怎么收拾这小子。于是，这就是11月8日NBT上的打架： 7. Lack of detectable oral bioavailability of plant microRNAs after feeding in mice 孟山都的工作以Correspondence的形式发表(这个估计是不需要评审的)。要点有：第一，他们做了三组动物实验，synthetic chow的食物里无植物，balanced rice chow的食物里包含40.8%的大米，rice chow的食物里包含75的大米，然后是测序，的的确确能测出植物的miRNA，但是读段数非常少，张的论文里说最高的能达到~2000RPM，孟的最多也就44RPM。所以，张的数据有问题，这些植物miRNA很有可能是污染；第二，用RT-PCR验证不出来血清里存在植物的miRNA；第三，喂养大米的chow的的确确发现LDL的表达升高(我靠，又来！你究竟是不是卧底啊？没事儿你老证实人家的工作干啥的？你要收拾人家能不能专业点儿？)，但是呢，这有可能是因为吃这些缺乏胆固醇的食物，需要体内胆固醇的释放，所以LDL的表达就会升高。 NBT也真凑热闹，专门配发了个Editorial： 8. Receptive to replication 说这个吧，咱NBT是个高端大气上档次的杂志，发文章一定要讲novelty，研究结果如果是null或者是阴性的，咱一般不发(啥意思？难道孟山都做的是null?) 为啥要发孟山都的文章呢？对啊，我也纳闷啊，你为啥发这玩意儿呢？别激动哈，大家没说你收孟山都的钱，千万别激动。结果NBT的编辑激动地洋洋洒洒扯了半天，意思就是这个问题很重要，因此重复性的验证很有意义。这就搞笑了，中国人做个东西，老外来重复就有意义，NCS上一天到晚被撤稿的，那是中国人啊，还是老外啊？怎么就没看见NBT发批评的文章呢？当然喽，NBT还不忘顺带抽CR一巴掌，说孟山都的人did submit这篇文章到CR，但是被告知it is a bit hard to publish a paper of which the results are largely negative (大部分结果为阴性的论文很南发表)。您瞧瞧，是吧？国内的杂志多不像话，人家这么重要的工作，CR就给拒了，还是NBT慧眼识珠，收了。英明神武啊。 到这里故事可以结束了是吧？简而言之就是张发了篇文章，孟山都气不过，上去一脚没踢着，气火了接着一巴掌抡上去，完了NBT在一边鼓掌说哇塞打的好帅啊。张被彻底KO，对吧？呵呵，我只能说，故事还没完。这个世界告诉我们：第一，你要抽别人耳光，技术、力度和动作要专业、精确；第二，要抽人请自己上，酱油终归是个酱油，没用处的。所以，张二话不说，丢出个回复： 9. Reply to Lack of detectable oral bioavailability of plant microRNAs after feeding in mice 上来自然要谦虚谦虚啦，说啊，这个这个，咱这个东西肯定得往下做喽，真做清楚了哥们早拿奖了，还用着跟你瞎白乎？完了就开始评论，这个吧，第一，这篇文章的测序方法是有问题的。植物的miRNA跟动物不大一样，一般3‘端有2′-O-methyl的修饰，会降低连接的效率，所以做植物miRNA测序，一般要先氧化一下，不然测出来的序不靠谱。你看，这篇文章即使直接测大米，也就测出1000多个读段，这怎么可能哩？搞植物的请站出来说句话，您测个水稻的miRNA组就只能测出个1000个读段？最起码也是百万以上啊。另外，搞植物的人有结果的，测大米的miR156和miR168怎么测都在10000RPM以上，你总共测出1000个读段，估计是不知道植物的miRNA跟动物的不一样，这个可以理解，做学问嘛，你不懂我可以教你。OK，这部分的意思就是，孟山都的方法不靠谱；第二，你说你RT-PCR验证不出来血清里存在植物的miRNA，这是因为你选的内参不合适，你弄一个表达超高的线虫miRNA做内参，这啥看不见啊。内参要选合适的。得，RT-PCR技术不过关啊(很纳闷哦，RT-PCR有这么难吗？)；第三，你都说LDL水平会升高了，你恐怕得做更多的实验，来表明LDL水平的升高的的确确与miR168无关。 瞧见没？这才是咱中国顶级学者的风范。想抽我？找抽的吧！你测序方法不对，RT-PCR有问题，结果不扎实，踩着西瓜皮讨论，这不是找抽，这是干啥的？ 这事儿还没完呢，NBT这不是批评CR不收别人文章吗？党生不干了，电话里说，这事儿是我处理的，经过是这样的：第一，孟山都从来没有正式投稿，就写了个pre-submission，我一看标题就感觉这个结果太preliminary；第二，这篇文章通篇都是negative结果，这怎么收啊？每个人都送negative结果到我这里来，说做不出来就能发？所以根据这两点，党生回复，意思就是你这个结果太preliminary啦，而且都是negative结果没法发。李老师说，当然喽，他这是pre-submission嘛，又不是正式投稿，就一个摘要，那我只能根据他这个摘要做判断，他如果投全文，没准我会给送审，但我也不能保证他发表。这就是CR”拒收孟山都论文的经过。当然话说回来，即使投了全文，以党生的经验估计也能判断出基本的问题，所以还是会拒收。很正常，无论你发表新的东西，还是批评别人的工作，都要扎实，二半吊子混不过去的。 最后，第一，咱做蛋白质的，DNA/RNA这块儿基本上不懂，有基本概念说错的不妨指出；第二，这些文章内容都挺多，咱也只能挑重点讲讲；第三，咱就凑个热闹，您瞧拳来脚往的多有乐趣；第四，真要打人，技术得过关啊；第五，张老师这通回抽，啧啧，角度、力度、技术、力量、速度，木得挑剔啊！ 总结： 张：欢迎踢场哈！ 孟：我踹！ 约翰霍普金斯：呃，看准点儿成不？ 孟：我打！ NBT: 哇，帅呆了！酷毙了！ 张: 都提醒你看准了好不？算了，看我的吧... 孟：pia...(被动) 党生：诸位诸位，啥事儿这么想不开啊？哎哟，赶紧拨120，有人躺了... ======================================================================== 补充个说明吧。 1. 别丫的找抽拿我这篇博文来挺转和反转，好好的一个科学发现别糟蹋，主要意义我在7楼的评论里讲过了。 2. 这事儿吧，其实就是老外看中国人有原创的工作眼红，千方百计想贬低中国人的工作，这种事儿各位难道遇到的少了？学学张教授的经验有好处。 3. 做科研要扎实，基本功要过硬。 4. 想打人之前先掂量掂量，别没揍成反被人抽大嘴巴子。 5. 这回真的是：打得好！ 修改：2013.11.12，不好意思，搞错了俩小问题，一个是CR的收稿时间是2011年，不是2012年；另一个是mir168a的靶是LDLRAP1，不是LDL。LDLRAP1水平的下降导致LDL的上升，所以党生笑着说大米吃多了未必是好事。先说明哈，我也纳闷中国人血脂高吗？所以这部分我持保留态度。特此修正。 引自： http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-404304-740945.html 上一篇： 恒大是冠军！ 下一篇： 【附】：张教授回信
孟山都食堂不吃转基因？ 话说蒋高明转载了反转白痴曹明华的一篇博文，其中声称“孟山都食堂不吃转基因”。果真如此的话，这家全球最大的转基因种子研发公司的确是罪该万死！ 好在这次曹明华给出了原文链接， 孟山都食堂不吃转基因的新闻：《GM foods not served in Monsanto cafeteria》 http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/1999/12/22/gmfood991222.html 有关部分原文如下： The Independent newspaper reports that there is a notice in the cafeteria of the Monsanto pharmaceutical factory is High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, advising customers as far as practicable, GM soya and maize (has been removed) from all food products served in our restaurant. We have taken the steps to ensure that you, the customer, can feel confident in the food we serve. The notice was posted by the Sutcliffe Catering Group. Monsanto confirms the authenticity of the notice, but company spokesman Tony Coombes says the only reason for the GM-free foods is because the company believes in choice. Coombes says in other Monsanto locations employees are happy to eat GM foods because they are sprayed with fewer chemicals. 原来只有一个孟山都的食堂尽量不用转基因玉米和大豆，其它地方的孟山都雇员对转基因吃得很高兴，因为它们“喷洒较少的化学农药”！ 美国也有许多标题党！
我刚看了一个对长期研究饮食对健康影响的麻省理工科学家 Stephanie Seneff 博士的采访，讨论孟山都生产的，与转基因作物配合使用的除草剂 Roundup , 学名 Glyphosate 对人体健康的危害。 之所以除草剂 Glyphosate 需要和转基因配合使用，是因为只有转入了可以抑制 EPSPS 这种酶的活性的转基因植物才能抵抗住 Glyphosate 这种除草剂，其他的植物都会被杀死。 这个酶用于合成含有苯环结构的必需氨基酸，只有植物和微生物含有这种酶，动物没有，所以人们原以为抑制EPSPS酶活性并不会影响人，但是这样做缺会杀死人体内合成必需氨基酸 的益生菌，影响人类对必需氨基酸的摄取。 现在更多的研究结果显示， Glyphosate 并不像孟山都宣称的那样对人体无毒无害，相反，它可诱发多种慢性疾病，见下表： Autism Gastrointestinal diseases such as inflammatory bowel disease, chronic diarrhea, colitis and Crohn's disease Obesity Allergies Cardiovascular disease Depression cancer Infertility Alzheimer’s disease Parkinson’s disease Multiple sclerosis Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and more 致病机理目前认为可能有以下机制： Nutritional deficiencies, as glyphosate immobilizes certain nutrients and alters the nutritional composition of the treated crop Disruption of the biosynthesis of aromatic amino acids (these are essential amino acids not produced in your body that must be supplied via your diet) Increased toxin exposure (this includes high levels of glyphosate and formaldehyde in the food itself) Impairment of sulfate transport and sulfur metabolism; sulfate deficiency Systemic toxicity—a side effect of extreme disruption of microbial function throughout your body; beneficial microbes in particular, allowing for overgrowth of pathogens Gut dysbiosis (imbalances in gut bacteria, inflammation, leaky gut, food allergies such as gluten intolerance) Enhancement of damaging effects of other food-borne chemical residues and environmental toxins as a result of glyphosate shutting down the function of detoxifying enzymes Creation of ammonia (a byproduct created when certain microbes break down glyphosate), which can lead to brain inflammation associated with autism and Alzheimer’s disease 采访视频和文字总结可见： http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/06/09/monsanto-roundup-herbicide.aspx Stephanie Seneff 实验室网页（含相关科研论文）： http://people.csail.mit.edu/seneff/ 路透社对 Stephanie 的研究报道： Heavy use of herbicide Roundup linked to health dangers-U.S. study 如果有组织和个人，能把这些研究公布给更多个人知道，应该会是利国利民的好事。 ----- 另附： 在 Stephanie 的实验室网页上我看到一新闻：在去年法国发表孟山都转基因玉米诱发癌症的论文之后，发表该论文的杂志 Journal Food and Chemical Toxicology 于今年年初聘用了一名原先供职于孟山都的研究员为杂志的副主编（associate editor）Richard E. Goodman。 相关信息可见： http://earthopensource.org/index.php/news/148-former-monsanto-employee-put-in-charge-of-gmo-papers-at-journal Richard E. Goodman journal Food and Chemical Toxicolo journal Food and Chemical Toxicology
午夜，彼岸的蒋继平高级研究员，不计较个人得失，奋起为 郎咸平说了几句好话 ，并以切身经历顺带为我们生物盲科普了一次转基因。 我可能是第一时间看到蒋的博文，刚要想表示感谢，又看到其随后的第二篇博文 “ 人生不只是吃喝这个目标 ”，于是感谢换成了下面的疑问，“不厚道”地放弃了表态。 疑问来自于其第二篇博文，博文开篇蒋先生即借助圣经的经典教导我们或三省其身 “For the Kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. Rom. 14:17. 的确， 人要为公理与正义而活。人生的终极目标就是摆脱这副躯壳，追求那些“虚无缥缈”的精神至上，这我同意。我的疑问是这里如何定义公义和平安。 对以上英文，蒋先生给出中文翻译是：神的国度不只是吃喝，而是公义，平安和在圣灵中的喜乐。罗马书14章17节。 我是一个无神论者，我尊重所有有宗教信仰的人，对于各种宗教经典，我一向将他们等同于孔老夫子的著作。对于圣人的言论和书籍，由于长在红旗下，耳濡目染，时而尊崇，也时而不忘菲薄之（这不是我的错）。所以看到那些英文，有了如下中英文及翻译的疑问，那就是这里的 righteousness and peace and joy 是一起都在the Holy Spirit里，还是只有joy 在圣灵中呢？ 为了搞清楚这个问题，首先是如何领会 the Holy Spirit，即圣灵。网上看来中文解释是：圣灵是“ 圣父、圣子、圣灵，三个位格之一，它们是灵里合一，如同一体，都是至高、至圣、至尊、至荣的，是互为代表的独一真神。” 对于没有读过经典的我来说，这样的解释如在云里雾里，有些“神”。于是查维基，其解释是“ 圣灵”真是一位“神”，对其理解，早期教会也感到困惑。注意，我无意去弄清其本意。我只是想知道“ 公义、和睦、喜乐”是都在圣灵里内，还是只有“喜乐”在圣灵里，亦或“和睦、喜乐”在圣灵里（后一个感谢徐迎晓的补充）。继续查，网上99％的翻译都和蒋先生翻译的一致，只有如下网页将其译为：“ 因为神的国不在于吃喝，而在于圣灵里的公义、和睦、喜乐。” 在看到不同的翻译后，心里很happy，嗯，做1％真的是与众不同呀，于是重新回顾蒋先生的转基因一文，立马得出结论：反转类或许都是孟山都的托
最新新闻：巴西大豆协会警告农民不要种植孟山都新种子 LATEST NEWS Brazil soy group warns farmers against using new Monsanto seed …………… 孟山都周二回应，说公司还没有允许新的Intacta RR2 Pro转基因大豆种子在巴西的商业销售，要等到巴西转基因大豆所有主要进口国家都批准后，才能批准这样的销售。基于相信中国“随时”能够批准孟山都转基因大豆这个新品种，孟山都已经储存了这种新品种转基因大豆的种子60万袋；如果（中国）再不批准的话，这些种子将被销毁掉，孟山都补充说。 （Monsanto responded Tuesday, saying the company hasn't allowed commercial sales of Intacta RR2 in Brazil and won't do so until all of the country's main export markets approve it. A stockpile of 600,000 sacks of the seeds, which Monsanto had produced based on the belief that China could approve Intacta RR2 at any time, will be destroyed, the firm added.） （ http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_4bb17e9d0102e7f5.html ） 原来农业部迫不及待地批准Intacta RR2 Pro转基因大豆进口，竟是为了挽救孟山都这60万袋Intacta RR2 Pro种子不被销毁。 孟山都这种新的转基因大豆属“双毒”转基因，具有抗草甘膦转基因与Bt转基因作物对环境、生态和人类健康的“双重”危害。福克斯去年9月4日的这篇新闻也谈到其超毒性，“去年（2011年），孟山都邀请巴西十个州500位农民在他们种植的草甘磷转基因大豆农田旁试种这种新品种Intacta RR2转基因大豆。对这些农田进行了密切的监测，而后用这种新品种Intacta RR2种子种植的大豆被全部销毁。”（Last year, Monsanto invited 500 Brazilian farmers in 10 states to plant Intacta RR2 alongside fields sown with the company's Roundup Ready soy, an herbicide-resistant variety that is commonly used in Brazil. The fields were closely monitored, and the soybeans produced using Intacta RR2 were subsequently destroyed.） 如果不是卖给中国人，这些Intacta RR2种子种植的大豆就都要销毁，可见孟山都和巴西人都深知其超级毒性。 现在这种超级毒豆终于要卖到中国来了，毒种子不用销毁了，能赚钱，孟山都高兴了！但中国社会的癌症和不育等病情疫情也将随之成倍增长。转基因大豆所带来的每一分每一元的利润，中国农官的每一个“转基因大跃进”的“政绩”，都带有成千上万中国人的鲜血和生命牺牲。 今年5月25日是全球反孟山都日，52个国家436城200多万民众一起走上街头抗议孟山都，示威者的标语牌赫然写道“在孟山都终止人类前人类必须终止孟山都！”孟山都已被全人类视为公敌。 而中国掌管农业的权力机构，竟与邪恶的孟山都站在一起，用中国人民的血汗钱滋养孟山都终止人类 ！ 为此不惜先搭上中国人民的生命健康及生存权。这使当今中国在全国人民和全世界人民眼中是个什么形象？！ 至于彭于发所说那几个批准进口转基因大豆的理由——劳动力成本不断上涨，国内的播种面积满足不了需求，中国没有这么多的后备耕地资源等等。显然这都是为孟山都等外国公司出口转基因垃圾大豆谋取利益，避免其损失的托词而已。这些借口没有一个能够成立。 谁都知道国内大量耕地撂荒闲置，何来“没有这么多的后备耕地资源”？即使真的因为需要进口大豆，乌克兰的非转基因天然大豆比美洲的转基因大豆还要便宜，而且没有转基因大豆的安全性风险。日本已从乌克兰大量进口非转基因天然大豆，中国为什么放着安全的、便宜的不买，却偏偏要买又贵又不安全的孟山都转基因大豆？ 再说我国天然大豆的种植面积不断萎缩和劳动力成本不断上涨，这正是农业高官勾结外商，不仅不保护而且还刻意打压国产大豆，为孟山都等对我大量输出转基因大豆创造条件的杰作。使原本在国际市场上比转基因大豆价格高出一倍的天然大豆，在国内其价格居然还不如进口的转基因大豆。其实，美国转基因大豆生产成本更高，若无美国政府补贴，转基因大豆种植农户早就亏损破产了 。 —————————————————————— 注1：中国日报网 财经频道《孟山都进口转基因大豆被指存审批检测缺陷》 http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/hqc ... ontent_6015839.html 注2：国外新闻消息（包括孟山都公司自己的新闻消息）表明：各国批准转基因大豆Intacta RR2后并没付诸商业化种植。中国批准进口（应该有定货承诺），使巴西、阿根廷和南非（除美国外的转基因大豆主要产国）开始该品种商业化种植。 Brazil: Intacta RR2, Monsanto’s seed approved by China, will be planted in over 10% of the area June 21, 2013 | Author agrosouthadm http://www.agrosouth-news.com/?p=249 Brazil Soy Group Warns Farmers Against Monsanto Seed Copyright 2012 Dow Jones Newswires http://m.foxbusiness.com/quickPa ... 2073pageNum=-1 News Releases Monsanto Company Receives Final Key Regulatory Approval For Intacta RR2 PRO™ Soybeans, Setting Up Commercial Launch In Brazil With China Approval and Commercial Launch, Intacta RR2 PRO™ Soybeans Expected to Become Core Growth Driver Within Monsanto's Next-Generation Soybean Platform Jun 17, 2013 http://monsanto.mediaroom.com/20 ... al-Launch-In-Brazil
回顾一下美国加州公民就转基因食品标签（第37号）提案事件： 《 转基因主粮安全性问题（46）别小看金钱的力量 》 2012-10-22 23:39 《 转基因主粮安全性问题（47）想知道孟山都在美国多民主吗 》 2012-10-24 10:25 《 美国民众正在为抛弃“转基因”食品抗争 》 2012-10-25 10:01 《 转基因主粮安全性问题（48）美国加州转基因标识法案投票还剩12天 》 2012-10-26 10:42 下面是有关这次投票的最后几天“战况”： Join us - It's a dead heat on Prop 37 to label GMOs - now's the time to stop Monsanto! Dear, As you know, we're entering the final days of the historic campaign for Prop 37 to label genetically engineered foods in California. After more than a month of being carpetbombed by negative and deceptive ads, the Yes on 37 campaign holds a narrow lead in the polls - that's stunning news! And Monsanto is scared - last Friday they just donated another $1 million dollars. Despite going up against the largest and most powerful companies on the planet, the California Right to Know campaign still leads in the hearts and minds of everyday Californians. Earlier this week, Around the Capitol, a site that offers an insider look at state and policy issues compiled 4 major polls regarding the ballot propositions in California this fall, just updated their poll results on Prop 37 . The amazing news is that after more than spending more than $40 million dollars on deceptive ads by Monsanto and the giant pesticide and junk food companies , Yes on 37 still leads in the polls! Take a look at the good news below: Around The Capitol Polling Averages ( https://fdn.actionkit.com/donate/fight_to_win_prop37_now/?akid=679.430789.B5tUvgrd=1t=8 ) Updated: November 2, 2012 While stories have been written about the slide in the polls for the Yes on 37 campaign, the fact remains that the other side knows that the people of California are still in the lead despite their multimillion dollar deceptive advertising campaign. After all, why would they be pouring money into the final days of the campaign - just in the past week both Monsanto and DuPont have piled in another $1 million dollars each. So far the other side has raised more than $45 million to defeat us and the People's California Right to Know is still winning! Right now it's close, but Monsanto is running scared。。。 Remember, as California goes, so goes the nation. With your help we can expose their lies to California voters and celebrate a victory in just 8 days! Thanks for participating in food democracy, Dave, Lisa and the Food Democracy Action! Team 美国加州公民就转基因食品标签（第37号）提案事件 最后几天决定转基因食品生死 在孟山都花了 4千万美元向公众作广告宣传之后， 要求转基因标识的美国加州居民还是 3.5% 领先： 孟山都转基因公司靠的是钱---4千5百万美元广告费； 反转基因一方靠的是--- 1万位“反转基因志愿者”，这次一百万美国加州居民发起要求转基因标识立案的签名，真的 是一场美国民众20年来首次爆发的为粮食安全保卫战所打的“世纪之战”。 ======================================== 信中说： Remember, as California goes, so goes the nation. 只要加州转基因标识这一步攻克下了， 那么转基因食品市场在全美国崩溃了。。。。 ======================================== 这些材料，有点常识的人应该明白与饶毅老师等所言的事实出入太大了，它似乎又是另一场“激素牛肉”与“瘦肉精”事件的历史重演！？ 沈阳 2012年11月3日 9:05 Res.
在科学网上关于转基因问题的争论如火如荼时，今天看到一则消息，孟山都的一种新的耐草甘膦除草剂的转基因油菜新品种已经获得澳新食品标准局的批准，获得在澳大利亚食品生产应用中的许可。 原文见： http://www.weeklytimesnow.com.au/article/2012/08/22/528515_latest-news.html ANOTHER genetically-modified canola variety tolerant to glyphosate herbicide could soon be on the market. Food Standards Australia and New Zealand is proposing approval of GM canola known as MON88302 to be used in food production in Australia after an application by Monsanto. The trans-tasman regulatory body found the variety would not damage human health and is calling for pubic submissions on the pending approval. FSANZ chief executive officer Steve McCutcheon said: "The FSANZ safety assessment found there are no human health or safety concerns and that food from this canola line is as safe for human consumption as food derived from conventional canola." Approval by FSANZ for the GM canola to be used in food production means the canola would have to be imported into Australia. Monsanto would need to apply to the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator for approval for the new variety to be grown in Australia. FSANZ has approved 53 GM crops – either home-grown or imported – for food production use in Australia since 2000. These crops are canola, soyabean, corn, cotton, potato, sugarbeet and rice. Only some cotton and canola crops have been approved by the OGTR for commercial production in Australia. FSANZ said it was mandatory for foods made from GM crops – either from those grown in Australia or imported – to have "genetically modified" included on their labels. It said some exceptions applied, such as products which were highly refined and did not contain plant DNA or proteins. "Typically includes refined oils and starches from some GM crops," a spokesman said. "If we use GM soyabean as an example, whole soyabeans, lecithin, soyabean flour, soy milk and soyabean meal would all require mandatory GM labelling. "Soyabean oil would be the only product exempt from labelling because of the absence of novel DNA or protein." FSANZ said oils from a GM crop could not be distinguished from those from a conventional crop unless the genetic modification altered the composition of the oil. It said there was also no requirement to label food products derived from animals fed on GM crops because the animals had not been genetically modified. It said there was no scientific basis to warrant labelling of meat or milk derived from animals fed GM crops.
美国时间 2012年10月25日 (星期五) 离美国加州公众参与转基因标识法案投票还剩12天,公众与转基因种子公司的“民主博弈”在势力上有了一些变化： 对于 发起转基因标识法案投票的一方 坏消息 是 ：孟山都和杜邦这些天每天花100万做广告，已经见效： 10月24日《洛杉矶时报》的民意调查显示：支持转基因标识法案和反对的人数比例是：44% 比 42%。 好消息 是 ： 孟山都继续宣传一惯的观点，影响民众认知，尽管GMO一方还有2%落后。 而到目前为止， 发起转基因标识法案投票 的“支持转基因标识”的广告还没开始打出来呢 ----- 因为钱少，总共才500万， 所以要从美国时间10月25日起才开始正式打广告,据说 发起转基因标识法案投票 这次与孟山都PK，只能把冲刺留在最后，因为老百姓临近投票前印象比较深。 孟山都的宣传，令公众对标识法案的投票支持率从： 62% ----》48% ------ 44% , 不过 发起转基因标识法案投票 的广告宣传要美国时间10月25日才开始。值得注意的是：孟山都等 转基因生物公司动用了 4千万美元广告费，美化GMO， 历时40天，即：每天烧掉100万美元。 而 发起转基因标识法案投票 这方只有500万美金，选择在投票前最后12天才做广告， 但目前民意还是领 先。 这次 发起转基因标识法案投票 让全球关注的原因是地方立法可以抵制 转基因不受限制进入美国民众餐桌，让我们留意这个日子 ：2012年11月6日，它可能是 转基因食品产业的一个转折点！ stop Monsan to short 12 Days to Stop Monsanto - Join Us for the Food Fight of the Century to Label GMOs! Dear, Yesterday I was honored to stand with mothers, farmers and everyday Californians in front of the Los Angeles City Council to ask for their support for Prop 37 to label GMOs. Incredibly, the LA City Council unanimously passed a resolution to endorse Prop 37 , the historic initiative that would give Californians the right to label genetically engineered food. It felt great to win their support! As the co-chair of the California Right to Know campaign, I was the last person to speak, and I wanted to make one thing clear: the issue of labeling genetically engineered foods is about two things - food and democracy - and in America both are at risk. We have a right to know what's in our food and no one has the right to corrupt our basic democratic rights, no matter how much money they have. But right now that's exactly what's happening in California. In the past several weeks Monsanto and DuPont have been running deceptive and misleading ads about Prop 37 to confuse California voters. The bad news is that it's working! Today a poll came out in the Los Angeles Times that puts Yes on 37 slightly ahead at 44% to 42%. The good news is that Monsanto and their pesticide and junk food coalition have thrown all the lies they can at the Yes on 37 campaign to label GMOs and we're still ahead - and we haven't even started running our TV ads, which start tomorrow, r ight now we need your help more than ever to get them on the air in as many locations across the state as possible. This is a historic battle and right now we are in a fight to the finish with only 12 days left. Chip in $7 dollars to help defeat Monsanto’s bid to stop GMO labeling in California and the U.S. Help make sure that we reach an even wider audience to help defeat the lies and misinformation that Monsanto and their allies are already flooding the airwaves with so we can claim victory this fall . http://fdn.actionkit.com/go/702?t=8akid=666.430789.ZjnF3V Heroes and Zeroes of Yes on 37 Last week we put out a Heroes and Zeroes Scorecard on Yes on 37 to let you know exactly who we were up against, and who has your back in this battle. The other side has raised over $40 million dollars to defeat the labeling of genetically engineered foods in California. Monsanto alone has put in $7.1 million dollars. DuPont, $4.9 million against California's mothers, children and farmers. The real question is: What do they have to hide? The same companies that are fighting our Right to Know on Prop 37 already label their genetically engineered foods in 61 other countries around the world. Now they say they can't comply in California? Right now it's close, but Monsanto is running scared and together we can stop them! The opposition knows one thing - that lying and deception works. After all, they did it for decades, whether it was covering up the harm to human health of cigarettes, Agent Orange or DDT. This fall, Californians will go to the ballot box to vote on one of the single most important issues of our time – whether or not we have a Right to Know what’s in our food or if corporations have control over our basic democratic rights. This fight is an epic battle of the People vs. the multinational Corporations, as you will see below. Thousands of individuals have contributed to this campaign, and with your help, Food Democracy Action! has contributed $75,000. Thank you to all those that donated! But we can't stop there. We won't meet their measure in funds, and we don't need to. But we do need to get our ads on the air to combat their lies and deception. It’s for the heart and soul of America and we need your help today. Dave, Lisa and the Food Democracy Action! Team 沈 阳 2012年10月26日 10时22分 office
拙文《 转基因主粮安全性问题（46）别小看金钱的力量 》讲到孟山都等和支持转基因标识的双方捐款悬殊,便知道想用美国所谓民主决策，金钱的力量才是决定作用的,今天再给大家一个有关“100万加州人的签名才获得这个37号提案将于11月6日投票”的票数变化材料，可以发现： 转基因作物种子公司孟山都的广告一周来对消费者的影响，已经使得将会对第37号提案投赞成票的人数比例从61% 下降到48%， 这就是他们一天花100万美元的效益。 有学者认为,光明网的转基因专题“专门反对转基因”，但是，本人不明白的是：农业部在宣传转基因安全方面花了那么多钱(有人披露是200万元，未经证实)，转基因作物种子公司一年在中国获得了那么多收益（十亿元级）也喑中花了那么多公关、推广费用,光明网一个转基因专题会影响公众消费倾向与认识吗? 真的会,这种学者就应该多写一点批驳光明网的转基因专题“专门反对转基因”文章，而不是指责光明网。 附： 转基因作物种子公司孟山都的广告一周来对消费者的影响，已经使得将会对第37号提案投赞成票的人数比例从61% 下降到48%， 这就是他们一天花100万美元的效益。 Right now Monsanto friends are spending $1 million dollars a day to defeat Prop 37 for GMO labeling - Join us to Fight Back today! Dear , On November 6, Californians will vote on Prop 37, which would require all genetically modified foods to be clearly labeled. This is a historic campaign – it would mean that for the first time in the United States, consumers would have the right to know what’s in the food they eat and feed to their families. Nearly one million Californians signed their names to put the California Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act – aka Prop 37 - on the ballot, and over 90% of Americans say they support labeling GMOs. That’s the good news. The bad news is that the world's largest pesticide and junk food companies, led by Monsanto, DuPont and Dow Chemical, have committed over $40 million to defeating our efforts. Right now their ads are bombarding the airways in California trying to confuse California voters. And it's working. In the past week our poll numbers have dropped from 61% to 48%. We're up against $1 million dollars being spent a day on misleading attack ads from Monsanto and DuPont and we need to fight back now! That’s why we need your help. Click here to Volunteer for our national phone bank to help us reach 1 million more Californians before Election Day, November 6! http://action.fooddemocracynow.org/go/694?t=7akid=656.430789.azyYvk As you know, Prop 37 is a common sense ballot measure that will require food sold in California to be labeled if it contains genetically engineered ingredients (GMOs) and not allow foods that contain GMOs to be marketed as "natural". Right now Monsanto is scared as hell that we're going to win and that's why they're spending $1 million a day to defeat us. It makes you wonder, what they have to hide? Across the country, passionate volunteers and supporters are joining together to make sure that Proposition 37 becomes law this November. Join our efforts and sign up to volunteer for our Right to Know today! For decades, companies like Monsanto and Dow have stopped efforts to inform consumers about what they eat. But now, with your help, we can defeat them! It’s time for the U.S. to join 61 other countries that already require labeling, but it won’t happen without your help. Please volunteer to call a California voter today. We know we can win with your help. This is our most ambitious grassroots effort to date and we need volunteers like you to help make calls to defeat Monsanto and the junk food giants. Earlier this winter, more than 2,000 Food Democracy Now! members joined CA volunteers to help gather nearly a million signatures in less than 10 weeks to put Prop 37 on the ballot and now we need your help once again to get it passed! 本人跟踪此事想告诉大家：科学真相、公共利益规制，有时是可能被利益集团操纵的。 普世价值，那是听听就行。引用前几天（10月20日）同一位在美国生活了十年回来创业的TMT海归说法作为本文结束语： “美国人都知道转基因有害，我们在美国生活基本不卖，不吃。例如，红萝卜，在美国就是喂马的，它就是转基因的，人吃了会得喉癌。这是有报道的事。” 沈 阳 2012年10月24日 10时25分 beijing office
本信息的详细细节请参考陈一文先生的博客。针对法国科学的实验，目前对该实验进行质疑乃至攻击的只有8名科学家（容后转载），其中7人与利益集团有关，而支持该实验的实名专家97名，大都是学术独立的。 http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_4bb17e9d0102e3ae.html 这些参考文献的摘要，包括孟山都的学者进行的“证明”转基因作物对动物与人类健康无害的多项动物毒理学研究，也包括不同国家独立科学家进行的证实转基因作物对动物与人类健康有害的一系列动物毒理学研究。因此，这些论文摘要对于希望全面认真了解真相的科技工作者有很大参考价值。 本文列出 《 全球百位学者支持法国科学家抨击功利性科学的公开信 》 匈牙利、新西兰、英国、美国九位作者姓名与就职单位，以及更多国家近百位联署支持学者的姓名与就职单位，还列出这篇文章引用的30多篇参考文献的原文链接及其摘要，向深度研究读者提供方便。 《 全球百位学者支持法国科学家抨击功利性科学的公开信 》 http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_4bb17e9d0102e3af.html 《全球百位学者支持法国科学家抨击功利性科学的公开信》的参考文献、链接与摘要 -- 禁止抗草甘膦转基因作物原料进口、开发、种植、销售理由之 328 -- The 328 th reason to forbid import, development, growing and selling of RR soybeans 转载翻译者：陈一文（ cheniwan@mx.cei.gov.cn ） Reposted and translated by: Chen I-wan （ cheniwan@cei.gov.cn ） 《转基因技术与人类安全》研究专家、 80 年代前全国青联委员 “GM Technology Mankind Safety” researcher 《新浪网》“陈一文顾问博客”： http://blog.sina.com.cn/cheniwan 原文网址： http://independentsciencenews.org/health/seralini-and-science-nk603-rat-study-roundup/ 2012-10-02 The Authors: 作者： 1) Susan Bardoscz (4, Arato Street, Budapest, 1121 Hungary ；匈牙利布达佩斯 );2) Ann Clark ( University of Guelph, ret. ； Duelph 大学，退休 ); 3) Stanley Ewen (Consultant Histopathologist, Grampian University Hospital ； Grampian 大学医院组织病理学家咨询顾问 ); 4) Michael Hansen (Consumers Union ；消费者联合会 ); 5) Jack Heinemann (University of Canterbury ； Canterbury 大学 ); 6) Jonathan Latham (The Bioscience Resource Project ；生物科学资源项目 ); 7) Arpad Pusztai (4, Arato Street, Budapest, 1121 Hungary 匈牙利布达佩斯 ); 9) David Schubert (The Salk Institute ；索尔克研究所 ); 9) Allison Wilson(The Bioscience Resource Project ；生物科学资源项目 ) . 96 supporting signatories: 96 位联署学者名单： (1) Brian Wynne (Professor of Science Studies, UK Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) Centre for Economic and Social Aspects of Genomics, Cesagen, Lancaster University); (2) Irina Ermakova, Dr of Biology, Russian Academy of Sciences; Jo Cummins (Professor Emeritus University of Western Ontario); (3) Michael Antoniou, (Reader in Molecular Genetics; his university (King’s College, London) has a policy not to allow Dr Antoniou to use his affiliation here); (4) Philip L. Bereano (Professor Emeritus University of Washington Washington Biotechnology Action Council); (5) Dr P M Bhargava (Former and Founder Director, Centre for Cellular Molecular Biology, Government of India); (6) Carlo Leifert (Professor for Ecological Agriculture Newcastle University); Peter Romilly (formerly University of Abertay, Dundee); (7) Robert Vint (FRSA); (8) Dr Brian John (Durham University, UK, retired); (9) Professor C. Vyvyan Howard, University of Ulster); (10) Diederick Sprangers (Genethics Foundation); (11) Mariam Mayet (African Centre for Biosafety, South Africa); (12) Eva Novotny (ret. University of Cambridge); (13) Ineke Buskens (Research for the Future); (14) Hector Valenzuela (Professor, University of Hawaii); (15) Ronald Nigh, (Centro de Investigaciones y Estudio Superiores en Antropología Social, Chiapas, Mexico); (16) Marcia Ishii-Eiteman (PhD, Senior Scientist, Pesticide Action Network North America); (17) Naomi Salmon (Dept. of Law, Aberystwyth University, Wales); (18) Michael W, Fox (Minnesota, Veterinarian Bioethicist, PhD, MRCVS); (19) Neil J. Carman (PhD Sierra Club); Vandana Shiva (India); (20) Hans Herren (President, Millennium Institute, Washington DC, USA); (21) John Fagan (PhD Earth Open Source, UK and USA); (22) Sheila Berry and the Global Environmental Trust; (23) Av Singh (PhD, Perennia); Laurel Hopwood (for the Sierra Club, USA); (24) Philip H. Howard (Associate Professor of Community, Food and Agriculture, Michigan State University); (25) Donald B. Clark (on behalf of Cumberland Countians for Peace Justice and Network for Environmental Economic Responsibility, United Church of Christ, Pleasant Hill, TN); (26) Robert Mann (Senior Lecturer in Biochemistry in Environmental Studies (rtd) University of Auckland, NZ); (27) Chris Williams (PhD, FRSA, University of London); (28) Mae-Wan Ho (PhD Director Institute of Science in Society); (29) Peter Saunders (Prof. Emeritus of Applied Mathematics, King’s College London); (30) Dr. Terje Traavik (Prof. Gene Ecology, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Troms); (31) Oscar B. Zamora (Prof. Crop Science University of the Philippines Los Banos College, Philippines); (32) Adrian Gibbs (Prof. (ret.) Canberra, Australia); (33) Christian Vélot (Senior Lecturer in Molecular Genetics, University Paris-Sud, France); (34) André Cicolella (Scientific adviser INERIS (National Institute of Industrial Environment and Risk) France); (35) Maurizio Pea (Bussolengo General Hospital and University of Verona, Italy) (36) Xiulin Gu (PhD, Yunnan University of Finance and Economics, P.R.China); (37) Brigitta Kurenbach (PhD,University of Canterbury, NZ); (38) Elena Alvarez-Buylla (Instituto de Ecología, CU, Coyoacán, México); (39) Elizabeth Cullen (MB, Ph.D, MD and environmental scientist); (40) Claudia Chaufan, MD, PhD (University of California San Francisco); (41) Marijan Jost (Prof., Croatia); (42) Manuel Ruiz Perez (Dpto. Ecologia, Universidad Autonoma de Madrid-Spain); (43) Rubens Onofre Nodari (Full Professor, Federal University of Santa Catarina Florianópolis, Brazil); (44) Judy Carman (Institute of Health and Environmental Research Inc., Kensington Park, Australia); (45) Florianne Koechlin PhD (Blueridge Institute, Switzerland); (46) Richard Lasker (for Brabant Research, Inc., BioInformatix, Inc., Puget Environmental Group, Inc.); (47) Anita Idel (Dr. med. vet. Mediatorin (MAB) Germany); (48) J.R. Olarieta (PhD, Lecturer in Soil Science, Universitat de Lleida); (49) Svein Anders Noer Lie Associate Prof. University of Tromsoe, Norway); (50) Cathey Falvo , MD, MPH [(retired)Prof chair, international public health, New York Medical College, NY); (51) Thomas Bhn (Genk - Centre for Biosafety, Troms, Norway); (52) Jiang Gaoming, PhD, Professor of Institute of Botany, The Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China); (53) Prof. Enrique Ortega (FEA/Unicamp, Brazil); (54) Gregory Mller (Prof. Environmental Chemistry and Toxicology, The University of Idaho-Washington State University, USA); (55) Dr Paulo Roberto Matins, Coordinator of the Brazilian Research Network in Nanotechnology, Society and Environment); (56) Paulo Cezar Mendes Ramos (PhD ICMBio - Chico Mendes Biodiversity Conservation Institute, Brazil); (57) Henry Kuska (PhD ret. Associate Professor, Depart. of Chemistry, University of Akron, USA); (58) Philipe Baret (Université de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium); (59) Marco Tulio da Silva Ferreira (MSc, UFMG, Brazil); (60) Facundo Martín Phd (Universidad Nacional de Cuyo, CONICET, Argentina); (61) Jacinta Palerm (Colegio de Postgraduados, Mexico); (62) Dr Maarten Stapper (BioLogic AgFood); (63) Sergio dC Rubin, (Latin Research Center, Bolivian Center of BioScience Research); (64) Dr. Jalcione Almeida (Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul – UFRGS, Porto Alegre, Brasil); (65) Jaime Breilh, Md. MSc. PhD (Universidad Andina Simón Bolívar, Quito, Ecuador); (66) Raquel Maria Rigotto (Profa. Departamento de Saúde Comunitária, Universidade Federal do Ceará, Brasil); (67) John J. Moore, S.J. (D.Sc. ret. Professor of Botany UCD, Dublin and UNZA, Lusaka); (68) Gualter Barbas Baptista (Researcher in Ecological Economics and Political Ecology, Portugal); (69) Prof. José Carlos de Araújo (Federal University of Ceará, Fortaleza, Brazil); (70) Ligia Regina Franco Sansigolo Kerr (Universidade Federal do Ceará, Fortaleza, Brasil); (71) Silvana Suaiden (Professora da PUC-Campinas, Brazil); (72) Prof. Florence Piron (Université Laval, Québec, Canada); (73) Luigi D'Andrea, Biologist, PhD (Biome, Switzerland); (74) Dra. Maria do Céu de Lima (Professora Associada LEAT UFC, Brazil); (75) Tim LaSalle, PhD, (Professor of dairy science,ret., RSA); (76) Profa. Dra. Cecilia Campello do Amaral Mello, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Brazil); (77) Randy Wayne (Assoc. Professor, Department of Plant Biology, Cornell University, USA); (78) Pr Marcello Buiatti (University of Florence, Italy); (79) Kathya Orrico, PhD, (Brazil); (80) Gabriel Silva Campos (Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Espana); (81) Prof. Dr. Andres E. Carrasco MD (Institute of Cell Biology and Neurosciences, School of Medicine Univ. of Buenos Aires, Argentina); (82) Profa Dra. Valéria Cristina Lopes Wilke (Diretora da Faculdade de Filosofia, Universidade Federal do Estado do Rio de Janeiro - UNIRIO, Brazil); (83) Profa Simone Benedet Fontoura (Instituto Federal de Educao, Ciência e Tecnologia do Amazonas, Campus Manaus Zona Leste, Brazil); (84) Prof. Dr. Mauricio Chiarello (Ribeiro Preto - SP, Brazil); (85) Prof. David O. Born (Professor, University of Minnesota School of Dentistry, USA); (86) Isabelle Goldringer (directrice de recherche INRA, UMR de Génétique Végétale, Université Paris-Sud, France); (87) Rueidi Bastos (EMBRAPA, Brazil); (88) Dr Stuart Parkinson (Executive Director, Scientists for Global Responsibility); (89) Jean-Pierre Berlan (Directeur de Recherche Inra (retired)); (90) Marciano Silva (Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil); (91) Dr Ulrich Loening (ex-Director of the Centre for Human Ecology, University of Edinburgh); (92) Flávio Fabrini, PhD; (93) Yara Paulina Cerpa Aranda (Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul - Brasil). (94) Thomas Heams (Assistant Professor, AgroParisTech and INRA, France); (95) Donald R. Davis, Ph.D. (Biochemical Institute, The University of Texas, Austin, USA); (96) Pierre M. Stassart (Associate Professor, Université de Liège, Belgium).
根据邸利会博主提供的线索，我上网搜索到欧洲食品安全管理局（EFSA）昨天（10月4日）对法国Seralini大鼠研究的公开表态：驳回该转基因玉米致癌研究结果，理由是实验设计和实施错误，完全没有科学依据。同日，德国某政府机构也得出相同结论：Seralini课题组的研究毫无价值！ 早在9月26日，孟山都就对Seralini的研究结果做出正式回应，包括一般评述（general comments）和专业评述（specific comments）两个部分。我仅翻译了摘要部分的几个重要结论。 （一）欧洲食品安全局公开表态 European Food Safety Authority dismisses Seralini rat study as invalid 欧洲食品安全局驳回塞拉利尼大鼠研究 News Stories — Tags: European Food Safety Authority , genetically modified corn , Seralini — CBI — October 4th, 2012 The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has dismissed a recent study claiming that genetically modified corn caused laboratory rats to develop tumors, saying the study was so badly designed and conducted that it has no scientific validity at all. 欧洲食品安全局（EFSA）已经驳回一项有关基因修饰玉米使实验大鼠长出肿瘤的最新研究，原因是该研究设计和操作失当，根本没有任何科学依据。 The devastating review was published a day after a similar review by a German government agency that reached the same conclusion: the study by Gilles-Eric Seralini and his colleagues means nothing. 该权威性评估是在德国某政府机构发出类似评估后一天发表的，后者得出了相同结论：Gilles-Eric Seralini及其同事所做的研究毫无价值。 “EFSA’s initial review found that the design, reporting and analysis of the study, as outlined in the paper, are inadequate,” the agency said in a news release. “Such shortcomings mean that EFSA is presently unable to regard the authors’ conclusions as scientifically sound. The numerous issues relating to the design and methodology of the study as described in the paper mean that no conclusions can be made about the occurrence of tumors in the rats tested.” “EFSA的最初评估发现，该研究的设计、报告和分析是不恰当的，这可从该论文中看出来”，该机构在一份新闻稿中写道。“鉴于这样的缺陷，EFSA目前不能认定作者的结论具有科学性。与该研究的设计和方法学有关的各种问题，意味着不能得出所测定大鼠中发生肿瘤的结论”。 Like other scientists from all over the world, EFSA noted the fact that Seralini - a well-known anti-GMO activist - used a strain of lab rats that are prone to develop tumors as they get older, regardless of what they are fed. It was no surprise, therefore, that some of the rats fed biotech corn in fact developed tumors. But so did some of the rats fed conventional corn. 像世界上其他科学家一样，EFSA注意到这样的事实，Seralini——一位著名的反转基因积极分子——使用了一个不管饲喂什么衰老后易生肿瘤的实验大鼠品系。因此，饲喂转基因玉米的某些大鼠长出肿瘤就没什么奇怪的了，但一些饲喂普通玉米的大鼠也长肿瘤。 The number of rats used in the experiment was far below the number needed to prove anything, EFSA noted, and the number of “control” rats fed conventional corn was grossly inadequate. The data were presented in unusual ways that ignored standard statistical methods. Numerous other violations of scientific procedure mean that the reported results of the experiment are meaningless, EFSA said. 实验中所用大鼠数量远低于需要的数量，EFSA补充道，而且饲喂普通玉米的“对照”大鼠的数量也不适当。数据是以一种不寻常的方式展示的，即忽略了标准的统计学方法。若干其他有违科学程序的做法意味着所报道的该项实验的全部结果都是毫无意义的，EFSA如此表示。 “Some may be surprised that EFSA’s statement focuses on the methodology of this study rather than its outcomes; however, this goes to the very heart of the matter,” said Dr. Per Bergman, a GMO expert at EFSA who headed the review. “有人可能对EFSA的声明只注重研究的方法而不是它的结果感到惊讶，而这才是问题的核心所在”，Per Bergman博士如是说，他是EFSA的一位转基因专家，牵头起草了这个评估报告。 “When conducting a study it is crucial to ensure a proper framework is in place. Having clear objectives and the correct design and methodology create a solid base from which accurate data and valid conclusions can follow. Without these elements a study is unlikely to be reliable and valid.” “在从事一项研究时，关键的一条是确保在适当的框架内行事。只有对象清晰、设计合理、方法得当，才能获得正确的数据和可靠的结论。没有这些要素，一项研究就不可能是可靠的和正确的”。 The EFSA review is available at http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/2910.htm PDF文件： http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/doc/2910.pdf （二）德国某政府机构审查结果 German risk assessment agency shreds Séralini rat study 德国风险评估机构否定塞拉利尼大鼠研究 News Stories — Tags: Agriculture and Consumer Protection , Federal Institute for Risk Assessment , Federal Ministry of Food , food safety , Gilles-Eric Seralini , GM foods , GMOs , Professor Dr. Reiner Wittkowski — CBI — October 3rd, 2012 A widely-criticized study by a French team claiming that genetically modified corn caused laboratory rats to develop tumors has been thoroughly rebutted by an agency of the German government, which said the “study” is full of holes and reaches conclusions that are not supported by the data, which the agency said was inadequate and badly presented. 由一个法国团队所做的一项饱受批评的研究声称，基因修饰玉米使实验大鼠长出肿瘤！该结论已被德国政府的一家机构予以彻底批驳，指出该“研究”漏洞百出，得出的结论不受实验数据支持，该机构认为数据表述很糟糕。 “The study shows both shortcomings in study design and in the presentation of the collected data,” said Professor Dr. Reiner Wittkowski , vice president of the Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BFR), an agency of the Federal Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Consumer Protection (BMELV). The agency advises the German federal government and state governments on questions of food, chemical and product safety. “This means that the conclusions drawn by the authors are not supported by the available data,” Wittkowski said. “该研究在实验设计和所获数据表述两方面都存在缺陷”，联邦食品、农业和消费者保护机构——联邦风险评估研究院副院长Reiner Wittkowski教授这样说。该机构为德国联邦政府及各州政府提供有关食品、化学品和产品安全性咨询。“这意味着由作者得出的结论不受现有数据支持”，Wittkowski说道。 The study by Gilles-Eric Séralini and colleagues failed to use enough rats in the control group to draw any conclusions and used a strain of lab rats that are known to spontaneously develop tumors when they are going on two years old. Séralini made a point of keeping rats for more than two years. 为了得出任一结论，由Gilles-Eric Seralini及其同事所做的研究未能在对照组使用足够的大鼠，并且使用了一个在饲养到两岁时易自发长出肿瘤的实验大鼠品系。Seralini指出，他们饲养大鼠的时间超过两年。 The author’s presentation of their data was incomplete, the German agency said, making it impossible for outside scientists to assess the results, as required by scientific protocols. The agency said it was requesting complete data from the French team, which has so far refused to comply with such requests. 作者在表述其数据时很不完整，这家德国机构说道，使之不可能由其他科学家来评判其结果，因为这需要科学方案。该机构说已经向法国团队索要完整数据，但目前已遭到拒绝。 The agency noted that several studies by the Séralini team have received similar criticism in the past. Read more . 该机构注意到，由Seralini团队过去所做的几项实验都曾受到类似的批评。 （三）孟山都正式回应文件 http://www.monsanto.com/products/Documents/ProductSafety/seralini-sept-2012-monsanto-comments.pdf Monsanto Comments (Update 9/26/2012) Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize. Gilles-Eric Séralini, Emilie Clair, Robin Mesnage, Steeve Gress, Nicolas Defarge, Manuela Malatesta, Didier Hennequin, Jol Spiroux de Vendmois Food and Chemical Toxicology (electronic ahead of press) http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691512005637 Associated website and videos: http://www.ogm-alerte-mondiale.net/?lang=en http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCktZ44yjV7cq0yFhQlrpyOg?feature=guide http://www.dailymotion.com/Lieurac_Productions Summary: This study does not meet minimum acceptable standards for this type of scientific research, the findings are not supported by the data presented, and the conclusions are not relevant for the purpose of safety assessment. Toxicologists and public health experts find fundamental problems with the study design. Critical information about how the research was conducted is absent, and the data presented do not support the author’s interpretations. Among the key shortcomings are: • Research protocol does not meet OECD standards. 研究方案未达到经济合作与发展组织（经合组织）标准。 • Source and quality of corn used is unclear. 所用玉米的来源和质量不明。 • Critical details on diet preparation and dietary intake are absent. 有关饲料制备和食物吸收的关键细节缺如。 • Complete lack of data pertaining to assertions of microscopically visible changes in liver or kidney tissues (abnormal histopathology) and laboratory testing results of blood and urine analyses. 有关确认肝、肾组织显微变化及血、尿分析的实验室测定结果等数据完全缺乏。 • Lack of any statistical analysis for mortality or tumor incidence endpoints. Monsanto statistical analysis of deaths based on visual approximation of the graphical data indicates a lack of statistical significance even when liberal criteria (p.10) are applied. 对死亡率或肿瘤发生终点的任何统计学分析缺乏。孟山都基于原图给出的数据所做的统计学分析显示，即使采用不严格的标准（概率小于0.10），差异也没有统计学上的显著性。 • Mortality rates and tumor incidence in all groups fall within historical norms for this strain of laboratory rats, which is known for a high incidence of tumors. 各组死亡率和肿瘤发生都符合该实验大鼠品系的历史记录，即已知其肿瘤发生率高。 • Data presented are highly selective, using (for example) different methods for male and female animals, and are not sufficient to support conclusions drawn. 给出的数据有高度选择性，如针对雄性与雌性动物应用不同方法，而且不足以支持所得出的结论。 • There is a lack of dose-response relationship throughout the study. 整个研究中未提及剂量与应答的关系。 • There is no plausible mechanism for the results reported with genetically modified maize, and the results are inconsistent with an extensive body of experience and scientific study. 对于用基因修饰玉米所报道的结果未提供可能的机理，而且这些结果与以往众多经验数据的积累和科学研究都不一致。 • Extensive animal and in-vitro (test-tube) data has demonstrated that glyphosate does not cause cancer or tumors, nor is an endocrine disrupter. This study does not provide information which calls into question the extensive safety evaluations of glyphosate or Roundup herbicides.Plant biotechnology has been in use for over 15 years, without documented evidence of adverse effects on human or animal health or the environment. An extensive body of scientific evidence, reviewed by regulatory agencies around the globe, supports the safety of plant biotechnology in general as well as the specific safety of NK603 maize. 无数动物及体外（试管中）数据都显示草甘膦不致癌或引起肿瘤，也不会破坏内分泌系统。 General Comments: Plausibility and Weight of existing Evidence (Specific comments on study itself follow.) Extensive animal data has demonstrated glyphosate does not cause cancer/tumors. Multiple lifetime cancer studies from multiple glyphosate registrants, performed independently over the past 35 years have demonstrated that glyphosate does not cause tumors/cancer in rodent species (see glyphosate resources, appendix to this document). Multiple epidemiology studies do not support the author’s health claims related to glyphosate. Published epidemiology results evaluating human health effects, including cancer and reproductive effects, reinforce the lack of evidence linking such endpoints to glyphosate use, (see glyphosate resources, appendix to this document). Extensive in-vitro (test-tube) and animal data indicate glyphosate is not an endocrine disrupter. Although glyphosate was included in the EPA’s initial substances for the endocrine disrupter screening program, EPA has stated that the basis of this inclusion is the high frequency of use, not the existence of data indicating endocrine effect (see glyphosate resources, appendix to this document). Surfactant components are not expected to contribute to cancer or endocrine risks. The category of surfactants used in the Roundup™ formulation used in the study was evaluated by the US EPA in 2009 and was considered acceptable for this use in pesticide products based on the results of multiple repeat dose studies, including reproductive and developmental toxicology. Consumers have a regular exposure to surfactant materials in the form of shampoos, soaps, and cleaning products. These are not believed to present reproductive/endocrine risks. Further, exposure to surfactant residues as a result of pesticide exposures represents a very small portion of human surfactant exposures. Lack of plausible mechanism for effect of GM. NK 603 contains a bacterially derived form of the enzyme (protein) EPSPS, which confers resistance to the herbicide, glyphosate. EPSPS is present in all plants as well as in the bacteria found in human and animal gut flora. It is a readily digestible protein not known to have any adverse effect on any species. There is simply no plausible means by which EPSPS or the genetic material which encodes it can cause cancer- any more than there is for the tens of thousands of other dietary proteins. It is notable that we do not do chronic toxicology testing on non-toxic proteins in the human diet. Virtually none of the plant proteins in the diet (including EPSPS) have been tested, simply because there is no rational reason for doing so. Specific Comments on Study Design, Conduct and Interpretation: Study does not meet OECD standards. Despite author’s reference to OECD Testing Guidelines, the study design does not meet OECD standard for number of animals in a chronic study design (50 per group), and GLP (Good Laboratory Practice) status of laboratory and analytical facilities is not clear. Doses selected for GMO and Roundup ™ are not based on standard approaches for dose setting. Statistical analysis varies markedly from any OECD or other recognized approach, and does not establish toxicological relevance. The authors used a complex statistical technique to investigate the relationship among 48 blood and urine measurements in different treatment groups. This technique can be used to identify patterns in the data and to develop a mathematical function which can be used to discriminate between groups. However, just because you can discriminate between the groups mathematically does not make the result toxicologically relevant. In fact, nearly all laboratory values in all groups appear to be within the normal range established by variation within the study. Further, fundamental data regarding laboratory results are either absent or, if present, are not presented in the typical format of mean values and standard deviations, which prevents the results from being evaluated appropriately. Data were obtained at multiple time points in both male and female animals, but only data from a single time point in one sex are provided. It is certainly expected that a toxicology study will attempt to address the cause of consistently observed abnormalities- indeed this is their purpose. Statistical comparisons of variations within the normal range do not generally address meaningful toxicological endpoints. Source of control maize and applied pesticide is unclear. The test and control GM material was obtained from Canada, and it is unclear how the investigators could have identified or obtained the correct isoline for this particular genetic event. Further, growth conditions are not specified and there are no data as to mycotoxin (fungal toxin) content or anti-nutrient content of GM vs. control dietary components. Critical detail on diet preparation is absent. For GM diet (11, 22, or 33% of diet as GM, 33% only for control), it is unclear whether all test diets contained the same quantity of maize- i.e.- does the 11% GM diet also contain 22% control maize so that total maize content is consistent. If this is not the case, dietary composition across the study is not equivalent and differences observed may well be due to dietary compositional differences. Critical data on dietary intake are also absent. Data on food/water intake are generally regarded as essential in order to understand actual delivered dose, animal health and susceptibility to certain tumor types. Dehydration (from aversion to drinking soapy herbicide formulation) will alone give rise to unintended biological outcomes. Blinding of pathologists in reading data is not indicated. OECD Test Guidelines refer to published best practice guidelines which includes blind reading (i.e.- not knowing which group a specimen came from) to avoid observational bias. While this may have been the case, this is not clearly indicated. Data presented are highly selective and are not sufficient to support conclusions drawn. While we understand that all data and all data analysis cannot be included in any publication of this nature, one would normally, for example, present data for both sexes rather than presenting data via one approach for male kidney outcomes and another for female kidney outcomes. This is important as it allows for determination of consistency of effect. Today, additional data sufficient to support conclusions can easily be provided in supplemental online data tables. Mortality rates and tumor rates fall within historical norms for this strain of laboratory rats. The percent survival to study termination in SD rats (Charles River Laboratories) ranges from 17-62.9% in males and from 20-62% in females. Findings by Seralini are within this historical range. While it is certainly acceptable to use this rat strain in toxicology studies (industry studies often do), it is essential to use an appropriate number of animals and to apply appropriate statistical analysis against control groups, and to consider background incidence of tumors or death in untreated animals. Primary tumors observed are common in this rodent strain and observed frequencies are consistent with historical observations. For example- in female SD rats, the frequency of mammary adenocarcinoma (frequency based on single diagnosis of a particular tumor type per number of total organs examined) ranges from 8.6 - 58.3% and fibroadenoma plus fibroma ranges from 13.3 - 61.3%. (To put the actual numbers in the paper is perspective; a rat has up to 12 mammary glands. Number of observed tumors thus may exceed number of affected animals.) Pituitary tumors are common in male (adenoma 0.77-70%, carcinoma 0.77-36%) and female (adenoma 26-92.9%, carcinoma 1.43-58%) SD rats (1 pituitary per animal). Statistical analysis is lacking on mortality and tumor incidence data. While cumulative mortality and tumor incidence plots are provided, no statistical analysis of these data is provided (i.e. – Mantel-Hansel survival statistic for mortality data). As group numbers are small (n=10) it does not appear that statistical significance is likely for the majority of graphical analyses in figures 1 and 2. As conclusions regarding tumor incidence are among the major conclusions of this paper, this lack of statistical analysis is remarkable. Monsanto has undertaken an approximate statistical analysis of animal deaths based upon the graphical data presented. This is necessarily an approximation as we do not have access to raw data. This analysis indicates no statistical significance at the p=0.1 level (more liberal than the usually applied p=0.05). It appears unlikely that any of the observed death and tumor incidence data reach statistical significance. Statements made in the paper do not comport with proper statistical analysis. Specifically, a proper analysis would statistically evaluate the incidence (or timing) of death or tumor frequency in a single group vs control (comparing, for example 10 males in a test group to 10 male controls). An alternative is to look simultaneously at controls and multiple dose groups to demonstrate a dose-response (increasing response as dose increases)- but as the authors have noted, no dose-response is evident. Instead, statements are made to the effect that the first occurrence of death or a tumor occurred in test rather than control animals. While this (especially when accompanied by unattractive pictures of rodent tumors) is designed to raise concern about GM safety, the reality is that, given a test regimen in which ten control animals (per sex) are compared with ninety test animals (all doses combined), it is far more likely that rare events such as very early tumors will be seen in the far larger test population. Lack of effect on body weight parameters. Given claimed degree of illness in test populations, the absence of a difference in weight gain among the control and experimental groups (data not shown, but stated by authors) is surprising. Lack of tumors or tumor precursors in 90-Day studies. While we concede that a 90-day study is not the same as a lifetime study in purpose or interpretation, the authors of this paper suggest that palpable tumors are occurring as early as 4 months into the protocol. As tumors take considerable time to grow to palpable size, and as only a minority of tumors generally grow to large size, tumors (even if not palpable) should have been evident in the 90 day studies performed with NK-603. This was not observed. General lack of dose-response on critical endpoints: While the authors argue for some type of low-dose phenomenon or maximal response phenomenon in which maximal response is reached at the lower dose levels, it should be noted that a) the phenomenon of low dose response is highly contentious in the scientific community and that b) when accepted, is usually argued for endocrine effects. General systemic effects like mortality, as well as the occurrence of tumors (especially non-endocrine tumors) are expected to follow a dose-response pattern. This response may not be simple, but higher dose should reliably produce greater response The Vandenberg paper cited in support of low-dose or non-dose-response effects is entirely about endocrine effects as is the recent EC Workshop and the existence of this phenomenon has been questioned. . Complete lack of data regarding purported liver or kidney histopathology, liver function tests, and cytochrome activity. While stated in the paper, no data at all, let alone any summary statistics, are provided. The selected images presented are insufficient to support any analysis or conclusions. Male animals are said to have died primarily from “severe hepatorenal (i.e.- liver and kidney) insufficiencies,” but no data are provided in support of this observation. Lack of documented consistency or of clinical significance for chemical parameters. While the non-OECD analysis technique used does find some parameters which are statistically significant, findings in males and at time points other than 15 months are not provided or discussed to allow evaluation for consistency, nor are values for all test doses provided to allow for assessment of dose-response. More importantly, although the application of this statistical technique will drive the creation of a predictor for the observed data, the clinical and toxicological relevance of the observed data need to be considered. Virtually all data points are within the general normal range within the study. . APPENDIX: Glyphosate resources Three new reviews on glyphosate and human safety published within the last year (available online from publisher website): • Pamela J. Mink, Jack S. Mandel, Bonnielin K. Sceurman, Jessica I. Lundin. Epidemiologic studies of glyphosate and cancer: A review. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273230012000943 • Pamela J. Mink, Jack S. Mandel, Jessica I. Lundin, Bonnielin K. Sceurman. Epidemiologic Studies of Glyphosate and Non-Cancer Health Outcomes: A Review. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273230011001516 • Amy Lavin Williams, Rebecca E. Watson, John M. DeSesso. Developmental and Reproductive Outcomes in Humans and Animals After Glyphosate Exposure: A Critical Analysis. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10937404.2012.632361 The most recent review was conducted by the European Commission’s Health and Consumer Protection Directorate-General, 2002 (Compounds are reviewed every 10 years and a review is in progress now.) http://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/protection/evaluation/existactive/list1_glyphosate_en.pdf WHO/FAO. (2004) Pesticides residues in food -- 2004. http://www.fao.org/ag/agp/agpp/Pesticid/JMPR/DOWNLOAD/2004_rep/report2004jmpr.pdf Safety Evaluation and Risk Assessment of the Herbicide Roundup and Its Active Ingredient, Glyphosate, for Humans” (Williams et al., 2000): http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/rtph.1999.1371 WHO Environmental Health Criteria 159: Glyphosate (1994): http://www.inchem.org/documents/ehc/ehc/ehc159.htm EPA Reregistration Eligibility Decision: Glyphosate (September 1993): Fact Sheet: http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/REDs/factsheets/0178fact.pdf Full RED: http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/REDs/old_reds/glyphosate.pdf External and related responses: Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize. Gilles-Eric Séralini, Emilie Clair, Robin Mesnage, Steeve Gress, Nicolas Defarge, Manuela Malatesta, Didier Hennequin, Jol Spiroux de Vendmois Food and Chemical Toxicology (electronic ahead of press) http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691512005637 Reviews of long term studies by scientists, physicians, and regulators have reached the conclusion that GM crops are safe. • Scientific review: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691511006399 • European reviews: http://www.gmo-safety.eu/news/1410.long-term-studies-safety-gm-food.html http://www.gmo-safety.eu/news/1378.genetic-engineering-feeding-experiments-meta-study.html • American Medical Association (2012): https://ssl3.ama-assn.org/apps/ecomm/PolicyFinderForm.pl?site=www.ama-assn.orguri=%2fresources%2fdoc%2fPolicyFinder%2fpolicyfiles%2fHnE%2fH-480.958.HTM • Swiss National Science Foundation http://www.snf.ch/e/media/pressconferences/pages/default.aspx?NEWSID=1772WEBID=F6B532FB-64ED-466F-8816-193D4DE8DC94 Scientists respond to this publication: • http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/pages/press_releases/12-09-19_gm_maize_rats_tumours.htm • http://www.science20.com/science_20/blog/gm_maize_causes_tumors_rats_here_how_experts_responded-94259?utm_source=twitterfeedutm_medium=twitter • http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22287-study-linking-gm-crops-and-c ... • http://michaelgrayer.posterous.com/in-which-i-blow-a-gasket-and-get-very-uppity • http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19654825 • http://www.biolyrics.be/als-je-ratten-gebruikt-met-72-kans-op-tumorontwikkeling-dan-vind-je-waarschijnlijk-ook-tumoren/ (in Dutch) • http://www.marcel-kuntz-ogm.fr/ • http://gmopundit.blogspot.be/ • Nature- Editorial http://www.nature.com/news/poison-postures-1.11478 http://www.nature.com/news/rat-study-sparks-gm-furore-1.11471 Sample Media Coverage: • Reuters: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/19/gmcrops-safety-idUSL5E8KJC1220120919 and http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/19/us-gmcrops-safety-idUSBRE88I0L020120919 • Daily Mail (London): http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2205509/Cancer-row-GM-foods-French-study-claims-did-THIS-rats--cause-organ-damage-early-death-humans.html?openGraphAuthor=%2Fhome%2Fsearch.html%3Fs%3D%26authornamef%3DSean%2BPoulter • Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/09/20/monsantos-gm-corn-and-cancer-in-rats-real-scientists-deeply-unimpressed-politics-not-science-perhaps/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/henrymiller/2012/09/25/scientists-smell-a-rat-in-fraudulent-genetic-engineering-study/ • Daily Kos: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/09/20/1134246/-Monsanto-is-a-bad-corporation-but-that-GM-Maize-study-is-dodgy-as-heck • Huffington Post (19 Sept. and 21 Sept.) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/19/monsanto-corn-study-france_n_1896115.html http://www.huffingtonpost.fr/jeanfrancois-narbonne/lacunes-resultats-suprenants-et-inexplicables-letude-anti-ogm-sur-la-sellette_b_1902634.html?utm_hp_ref=franceutm_hp_ref=france • Daily Mail (UK): http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2205509/Cancer-row-GM-foods-French-study-claims-did-THIS-rats--cause-organ-damage-early-death-humans.html • BBC: http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19654825 • The Telegraph: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/timworstall/100020189/how-those-gm-frankenfoods-are-going-to-murder-us-all-in-our-beds/ • Discover Magazine http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2012/09/21/from-darwinius-to-gmos-journalists-should-not-let-themselves-be-played/ • Control Freaks (blog) http://weedcontrolfreaks.com/2012/09/why-i-think-the-seralini-gm-feeding-trial-is-bogus/ • Emily Willingham (blog) - Was it the GMOs or the BPA that did in those rats? http://www.emilywillinghamphd.com/2012/09/was-it-gmos-or-bpa-that-did-in-those.html • Jay Byrn (blog)- Was Seralini GMO study designed to generate negative outcome? http://storify.com/vJayByrne/was-seralini-gmo-study-designed-to-generate-negati • Hank Campbell. Science 2.0 (Blog) http://www.science20.com/science_20/gmos_are_pesticide_sponge_and_other_weird_tales_gilleseric_seralini-94307 • The Conversation (Blog) http://theconversation.edu.au/modifying-the-message-how-tricks-masked-home-truths-about-anti-gm-science-9767 https://theconversation.edu.au/genetically-modified-corn-and-cancer-what-does-the-evidence-really-say-9746 • Science Blogs- Bad science about GMOs: It reminds me of the antivaccine movement http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/09/24/bad-science-on-gmos-it-reminds-me-of-the-antivaccine-movement/ French Language Coverage • LeMonde: http://www.lemonde.fr/planete/article/2012/09/20/ogm-le-protocole-d-etude-de-m-seralini-presente-des-lacunes-redhibitoires_1762772_3244.html • Blog- OGM, Seralini et le débat public / OGM, Seralini and the public debate http://sciences.blogs.liberation.fr/home/2012/09/ogm-seralini-et-le-d%C3%A9bat-public.html • L’Express http://www.lexpress.fr/actualite/sciences/sante/auchan-et-carrefour-ont-aide-a-financer-l-etude-sur-les-ogm_1164587.html • La Presse (Canada) http://www.lapresse.ca/actualites/quebec-canada/sante/201209/23/01-4576804-mystere-a-propos-du-mais-transgenique-canadien.php • Huffington Post (French) http://www.huffingtonpost.fr/jeanfrancois-narbonne/lacunes-resultats-suprenants-et-inexplicables-letude-anti-ogm-sur-la-sellette_b_1902634.html?utm_hp_ref=franceutm_hp_ref=france • Pascal Lapointe. Sciencepresse (blog) http://www.sciencepresse.qc.ca/blogue/2012/09/22/letude-anti-ogm-comment-sassurer-medias-favorables
《每日科学》（ScienceDaily）于9月20日发表有关“转基因玉米毒性事件”的评论，现以中英对照形式详细介绍如下（ http://www.newsdaily.com/stories/bre88j0ms-us-gmcrops-safety/ ）： 孟山都基因修饰玉米相关研究遭遇质疑 Study on Monsanto GM corn concerns draws skepticism By Ben Hirschler and Kate Kelland Posted 2012/09/20 at 8:57 am EDT 在一项受到其他专家激烈批评的研究中，法国科学家于星期三表示，饲喂孟山都的基因修饰玉米或暴露于该公司畅销除草剂的大鼠罹患肿瘤且多个器官受损。 LONDON, Sep. 20, 2012 (Reuters) — In a study that prompted sharp criticism from other experts, French scientists said on Wednesday that rats fed on Monsanto's genetically modified corn or exposed to its top-selling weedkiller suffered tumors and multiple organ damage. Researcher Gilles-Eric Seralini of the University of Caen speaks at a news conference at the European Parliament in Brussels September 20, 2012. Seralini said that rats fed a lifetime diet of Monsanto's genetically modified corn or exposed to its top-selling weedkiller Roundup suffered tumours and multiple organ damage, according to a French study published on Wednesday. REUTERS/Yves Herman 法国政府已经责成该国卫生部门进一步调查这些发现，尽管有些科学家质疑该研究的基本方法，而且孟山都表示对其已证明安全的产品有信心。 The French government asked the country's health watchdog to investigate the findings further, although a number of scientists questioned the study's basic methods and Monsanto said it felt confident its products had been proven safe. 卡昂大学的Gilles-Eric Seralini及其同事表示，饲喂含有NK603——一个耐孟山都除草剂毒性的品种——的饲料或供应添加美国许可水平农达的饮水的大鼠比饲喂标准饲料的大鼠早夭。 Gilles-Eric Seralini of the University of Caen and colleagues said rats fed on a diet containing NK603 - a seed variety made tolerant to dousings of Monsanto's Roundup weedkiller - or given water with Roundup at levels permitted in the United States, died earlier than those on a standard diet. 未参与该研究的专家表示怀疑，其中一位专家指责法国科学家正在玩“统计学的垂钓航行”游戏，另一些专家批评其研究方法远低于标准水平。 Experts not involved in the study were skeptical, with one accusing the French scientists of going on a statistical fishing trip and others describing its methods as well below standard. 根据《食品与化学毒物学》杂志发表的一篇同行评议的研究论文及在伦敦举行的一次会议上宣读的研究报告，饲喂基因修饰（GM）饲料的动物罹患乳腺肿瘤，并伴有严重的肝肾损害。 The animals on the genetically modified (GM) diet suffered mammary tumors, as well as severe liver and kidney damage, according to the peer-reviewed study which was published in the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology and presented at a news conference in London. 研究人员表示，50%雄鼠和70%雌鼠均提早死亡，而对照组仅30%雄鼠和20%雌鼠死亡。 The researchers said 50 percent of male and 70 percent of female rats died prematurely, compared with only 30 percent and 20 percent in the control group. 孟山都发言人Thomas Helscher表示，公司将详细检讨该研究。不过，他补充道：“迄今为止无数同行评议的有关生物工程作物的研究，包括超过100次以上的饲喂研究，都已经反复证明了它们的安全性，这反映在世界各国监管部门各自的安全评价结论上”。 Monsanto spokesman Thomas Helscher said the company would review the study thoroughly. However, he added: Numerous peer-reviewed scientific studies performed on biotech crops to date, including more than a hundred feeding studies, have continuously confirmed their safety, as reflected in the respective safety assessments by regulatory authorities around the world. 专家质疑 EXPERTS SCEPTICAL 基因修饰生物（GMOs）在欧洲还远未普及，但当1996年孟山都引种一种经基因改变的耐农达大豆后，转基因作物就成为美国占优势的主流作物。 Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are deeply unpopular in Europe but dominate major crops in the United States after Monsanto introduced a soybean genetically altered to tolerate Roundup in 1996. 受记者邀请评述该学术论文的专家们劝告人们不要轻信其所得出的结论。 Experts asked by reporters to review the scientific paper advised caution in drawing conclusions from it. 伦敦国王学院营养学研究部负责人Tom Sanders注意到，Seralini的团队没有提供有关给大鼠吃多少饲料或它们的生长速率如何的任何数据。 Tom Sanders, head of the nutritional sciences research division at King's College London, noted that Seralini's team had not provided any data on how much the rats were given to eat, or what their growth rates were. 他说：“这个大鼠品系极易产生乳腺肿瘤，尤其当饲料供给不受限制时更是如此”，“其统计学方法不合常规。。。而且作者似乎在玩一个统计学垂钓航行游戏”。 This strain of rat is very prone to mammary tumors particularly when food intake is not restricted, he said. The statistical methods are unconventional ... and it would appear the authors have gone on a statistical fishing trip. 澳大利亚阿得莱德大学植物功能基因组中心的Mark Tester说，该研究的发现提出了一个问题，即为什么以前的研究没有激发起类似的关注？ Mark Tester, a research professor at the Australian Centre for Plant Functional Genomics at the University of Adelaide, said the study's findings raised the question of why no previous studies have flagged up similar concerns. 他在一封电子邮件中评论道：“如果效果真如所声称的那么大，如果该工作真与人类相关，那么为什么北美洲人并未像苍蝇那样纷纷落下？那儿的转基因食品进入食物链已经有十年了，而长寿者继续以不可阻挡的趋势增长”。 If the effects are as big as purported, and if the work really is relevant to humans, why aren't the North Americans dropping like flies? GM has been in the food chain for over a decade over there - and longevity continues to increase inexorably, he said in an emailed comment. 剑桥大学的David Spiegelhalter表示，该论文采用的方法、统计分析和结果描述都在标准水平以下。他还补充说，该研究的未处理对照只有雌雄各10只大鼠，但它们也都长出肿瘤。 David Spiegelhalter of the University of Cambridge said the methods, statistics and reporting of results were all below standard. He added that the study's untreated control arm comprised only 10 rats of each sex, most of which also got tumors. 长期效果？ LONG-TERM EFFECTS? 基因修饰作物的支持者说以前的研究已经充分肯定了其安全性，而反对者却说有关其长期效果的信息仍然很少，因为这些作物推出才15年。 While supporters of GM crops say previous studies have overwhelmingly pointed to their safety, critics argue there is still limited information about the long-term effects since the crops have only been around for just over 15 years. 在法国，对遗传修饰生物的反对声浪导致该国禁止种植这类作物，但政府表示已指示其卫生与安全部门核查此项研究，并通报给欧盟食品安全部（EFSA）。 In France, where opposition to GMOs has led to a ban on growing such crops, the government said it had asked its health and safety agency to assess the study and had also sent it to the European Union's food safety agency (EFSA). 法国卫生、环境和农场管理部发言人在一次联合发布会上说：“根据其结论。。。政府将要求欧洲各国采取一切可能的措施保护人类及动物健康，同时紧急停止NK603进口到欧盟各国”。 Based on the conclusion ..., the government will ask the European authorities to take all necessary measures to protect human and animal health, measures that could go as far as an emergency suspension of imports of NK603 maize in the European Union, the French health, environment and farm ministries said in a joint statement. 这项最新研究的核心科学家Seralini以前就曾根据2009年的一项短期研究结果提出过有关安全性的关注。他的这项新研究通过对动物寿命的两年跟踪又更进了一步。 Seralini, the scientist at the centre of the latest research, previously raised safety concerns based on a shorter rat study in 2009. His new study takes things a step further by tracking the animals throughout their two-year lifespan. 伦敦国王学院的分子生物学家Michael Antoniou协助起草了该论文，他用三言两语告诉伦敦当地的记者，它的发现强调“必须用两年的毕生研究来测试所有的遗传修饰作物”。 Michael Antoniou, a molecular biologist at King's College London, who helped draft the paper, told reporters at a London briefing that its findings highlighted the need to test all GM crops in two-year lifelong studies. 他说：“我觉得这个数据很有说服力，足以将该遗传修饰玉米品系暂时从市场上撤下来，直到开展跟踪研究并用大量动物重复实验获得我们所期望的完全具有统计学意义的结果”。 I feel this data is strong enough to withdraw the marketing approval for this variety of GM maize temporarily, until this study is followed up and repeated with larger number of animals to get the full statistical power that we want, he said. Seralini相信他的最新毕生大鼠测试对危害给出了一个更真实和更权威的评述，而批准基因修饰作物所依据的90天饲喂实验却不行，因为3个月只相当于大鼠的青年时期。 Seralini believes his latest lifetime rat tests give a more realistic and authoritative view of risks than the 90-day feeding trials that form the basis of GM crop approvals, since three months is only the equivalent of early adulthood in rats. 欧洲议会农业委员会副主席、著名的反转基因人士、法国人Jose Bove呼吁欧盟立即终止转基因作物种植并吊销进口许可。他在一次发言中表示：“这项研究最终表明我们是对的，当务之急是尽快重新审查所有基因修饰生物的评价过程”。 France's Jose Bove, vice-chairman of the European Parliament's commission for agriculture and known as an opponent of GM, called for an immediate suspension of all EU cultivation and import authorizations of GM crops. This study finally shows we are right and that it is urgent to quickly review all GMO evaluation processes, he said in a statement. 这项研究在美国也似乎引起了摩擦，加州的反转基因食品人士正在抗争，试图将所有基因修饰生物排除在食品供应链之外。 The study is also likely to create friction in the United States, where opponents of genetically engineered foods in California are fighting to have all GMOs removed from the food supply. (Aditional reporting by Sybille de La Hamaide in Paris and Carey Gillam in Kansas City, editing by Anna Willard and Janet McBride) 附： Author defends Monsanto GM study as EU orders review Posted 2012/09/20 at 11:56 am EDT BRUSSELS, Sep. 20, 2012 (Reuters) — The French author of a study linking a type of genetically modified corn to higher health risks in rats dismissed criticism of his research methods on Thursday, describing the work as the most detailed study to date on the subject. Gilles-Eric Seralini of the University of Caen and colleagues said on Wednesday that rats fed on Monsanto's genetically modified corn or exposed to its top-selling weed killer suffered tumors and multiple organ damage and premature death. But experts not involved with the study were skeptical, describing the French team's statistical methods as unconventional and accusing them of going on a statistical fishing trip. Speaking at a news conference in Brussels on Thursday, Seralini defended the peer-reviewed study, which was published in the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology. This study has been evaluated by the world's best food toxicology magazine, which took much more time than people who reacted within 24 hours without reading the study, he told Reuters Television. I'm waiting for criticism from scientists who have already published material in journals... on the effects of GMOs and pesticides on health, in order to debate fairly with peers who are real scientists, and not lobbyists. Earlier, the European Commission said it had asked the EU's food safety authority, EFSA, to verify the results of the French study and report their findings. EFSA's mandate is to verify what this group of scientists has presented, to look at their research conditions, look at how the animals were treated, Commission health spokesman Frederic Vincent told a regular news briefing. We hope that by the end of the year we will have an EFSA opinion on this piece of scientific research. In 2003, EFSA published a safety assessment of the GM corn variety known as NK603, which is tolerant to Monsanto's Roundup weed killer. The assessment concluded that NK603 was as safe as non-GM corn, after which the European Union granted approval for its use in food and feed. Seralini said EFSA's assessments were less rigorous than his team's study. GMOs have been evaluated in a extremely poor and lax way with much less analysis than we have done. It's the world's most detailed and longest study. Therefore, some people are responsible and guilty of authorizing this GMO after only three months, he said. (Reporting by Clement Rossignol; Writing by Charlie Dunmore; Editing by Hugh Lawson)
(2012-05-12 21:44:28) 原文地址： 抗议孟山都转基因Bt玉米屠杀蜜蜂波兰人民示威农业部禁种 作者： 陈一文顾问 爱因斯坦名言：“如果蜜蜂从地球上消失，那么人类也将只剩下四年的时间。没有蜜蜂，那么就没有授粉，没有植物，没有人类”。 孟山都转基因 Bt 玉米 MON810 是中国农业部批准进口做加工原料的转基因产品，其他国家态度如何？。 超过 1500 养蜂农与反对转基因生物活动者游行通过华沙的街道，将数千死蜜蜂倾倒在农业部的台阶上，抗议转基因作物及其使用的杀虫剂一起对大量屠杀蜜蜂、蝴蝶、蛾与其他有益的花粉传播昆虫有很大责任。波兰农业部长 马雷克·萨维斯基宣布了禁止孟山都转基因 Bt 玉米 MON810 的计划，使波兰成为比利时、英国、保加利亚、法国、德国、爱尔兰与斯洛伐克之后禁止转基因 Bt 作物的第八个国家。 波兰成为世界头一个正式确认蜜蜂造成灾难的孟山都转基因玉米与“蜂群衰竭失调”（ CCD ）之间有关联的国家，但是看来孟山都一直指导他们的转基因生物对蜜蜂造成这种危险。一项德国的研究中，当蜂蜜释放到转基因油菜田中，然后将油菜花粉喂给幼蜂，科学家发现幼蜂肠道中的细菌显现了油菜经修改的基因。这证实花粉中的转基因 DNA 可以通过它们的消化系统传递到蜜蜂中。值得高度关注的是，生物技术巨头孟山都最近收购了美国专业研究“蜂群衰竭失调”（ CCD ）的 Beeologics 公司，美国农业部等政府机构依赖于这个公司帮助解开大量蜜蜂失踪后边的秘密。 MON 810 GM Bt maize is one of the GMO products approved by China’s Ministry of Agriculture as raw material for processing. O ver 1,500 beekeepers and anti-GMO protesters marched through the streets of Warsaw, depositing thousands of dead bees on the steps of the Ministry of Agriculture in protest of genetically modified foods and their pesticides which are together largely responsible for the killing off of bees, butterflies, moths and other beneficial pollinators in great numbers. The Minister of Agriculture, Marek Sawicki, announced plans to ban MON810, which made Poland, following Belgium , Britain, Bulgaria, France, Germany, Ireland and Slovakia, the eight EU nation banning GM Bt plants. Poland is the first country to formally acknowledge the link between Monsanto’s genetically engineered corn and the Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) that’s been devastating bees around the world, but it’s likely that Monsanto has known the danger their GMOs posed to bees all along. In one German study, when bees were released in a genetically engineered canola field, then fed the canola pollen to younger bees, scientists discovered the bacteria in the guts of the young bees took on the traits of the canola’s modified genes. That proves that GMO DNA in pollen can be transferred to bees though their digestive system. The biotech giant recently purchased a CCD research firm, Beeologics , that government agencies, including the US Department of Agriculture, have been relying on for help unraveling the mystery behind the disappearance of the bees. 孟山都转基因 Bt 玉米屠杀蜜蜂证据确凿，人民示威抗议，波兰农业部 正式发布强制性禁止 种植 Monsanto GM Bt maize massacres Bees is proved with evidence, people demonstrate to protest, the Polish Ministry of Agriculture bans growing -- 禁止抗草甘膦转基因作物原料进口、开发、种植、销售理由之 237 -- The 237 th reason to forbid import, development, growing and selling of RR soybeans 译者：陈一文（ cheniwan@mx.cei.gov.cn ） Translated by Chen I-wan 《转基因技术与人类安全》研究专家、 80 年代前全国青联委员 “GM Technology Mankind Safety” researcher 《新浪网》“陈一文顾问博客”： http://blog.sina.com.cn/cheniwan Poland imposes ban on Monsanto MON810 genetically modified maize 波兰农业部强制禁止孟山都转基因 Bt 玉米 MON810 种植 http://digitaljournal.com/article/322551 By/ 作者： Anne Sewell 2012-04-07 Warsaw - In Warsaw, Poland a ban has now officially been imposed on Monsanto's MON810 GMO maize. Recent protests by beekeepers and anti-GMO activists have a successful conclusion. 华沙消息 – 在波兰华沙，政府正式发布强制性禁止孟山都转基因 Bt 玉米 MON810 。养蜂农与反对转基因活动者们获得了成功的结论。 Digital Journal reported in late March on a protest by Beekeepers and Anti-GMO activists in Warsaw, Poland. The activists were demanding that the Minister of Agriculture, Marek Sawicki ban MON810 in the country. 数据化杂志（ Digital Journal ） 2012 年 3 月末对波兰华沙养蜂农与反对转基因活动者们的抗议示威进行了报道。反对转基因活动者们要求农业部长马雷克·萨维斯基在波兰禁止孟山都转基因 Bt 玉米 MON810 。 The good news is that their protests have had a successful outcome. 好的消息是他们的抗议取得了成功的结果。 Minister of Agriculture in the Polish Government, Marek Sawicki has set another international standard against Monsanto's controversial GMOs. Sawicki says that as well as being linked to range of health ailments, the pollen originating from this GM strain might actually be devastating to the already reduced bee population in the country. 波兰政府农业部长马雷克·萨维斯基在反对孟山都引起争议的转基因生物方面创立了又一个国际标准榜样。萨维斯基说，与一系列健康疾病联系的来自这种转基因作物的花粉可能对波兰已经减少了的蜜蜂数量是灾难性的。 According to AFP , Sawicki told the press: “The decree is in the works. It introduces a complete ban on the MON810 strain of maize in Poland.” 根据法新社的报道，萨维斯基告诉媒体：“该项政府指令已列入计划。它在波兰引入对于孟山都转基因 Bt 玉米 MON810 的实施完全禁止。” On March 9th, there was similar opposition to Monsanto GMO strains. On that date 7 European countries blocked the proposal by the Danish presidency to permit the cultivation of GMO crops on the entire European continent. The countries who blocked this proposal were Belgium, Britain, Bulgaria, France, Germany, Ireland and Slovakia. A week after this announcement, France imposed a temporary ban on the Monsanto MON810 strain. 3 月 9 日 ，其他地方对孟山都转基因作物提出了类似的反对。这一条，七个欧洲国家阻止了丹麦总统允许在整个欧洲大陆种植转基因作物的提议。阻止该提议的国家为比利时、英国、保加利亚、法国、德国、爱尔兰与斯洛伐克。 发布该项组织后一周，法国对孟山都转基因 Bt 玉米 MON810 实施了临时禁止令。 In Lyon, France, a ruling was given by the court after Paul Francois, a grain grower, advised that Monsanto had failed to provide sufficient warnings on its Lasso Weedkiller product label. Lack of warnings has caused neurological problems, including headaches and memory loss. 在法国里昂，一位谷物种植农民保罗·法兰索斯通报孟山都未能对其 Lasso 除草剂毒性提供充分警示标识后，法庭进行了裁决。缺乏这样的警示造成了神经学问题，包括头痛与记忆衰退。 Following testimony, the court ordered an expert opinion to verify the link between Lasso and the illnesses that have been reported and also to determine the sum of damages payable. The result of the court hearing was that Monsanto was guilty, and this has paved the way for similar legal action on behalf of farmers in the future. 听证后，法庭要求提供专家意见核实孟山都 Lasso 除草剂与所报告的疾病的联系并且确定对于所造成的损害应支付的赔偿。法庭审讯的结果是孟山都有罪，这为今后的类似法律诉讼中做出代表农民们利益的裁决铺平了道路。 Further in France, the agricultural branch of the social security system has gathered approximately 200 alerts per year since 1996, in connection with pesticide-related sickness. Despite this, only 47 cases have been recognized in the last 10 years. 同样在法国，社会保险系统的农业分支机构，自 1996 年以来收集了与农药相关疾病的大约 200 次警报。尽管如此，过去 10 年中与农药相关疾病的案例只有 47 项获得承认。 The fight against Monsanto continues with many countries fighting the GMO products, including India, who are slamming the agro-giant with "biopiracy" charges, and Hungary , who recently destroyed 1,000 acres of GM maize. The victory in Poland is yet another notch in the belt of anti-GMO activists worldwide. 对抗孟山都的斗争在抗争转基因产品的许多国家继续，包括印度，对这个农业巨头提出“生物剽窃”的指控，以及匈牙利，他们不久前销毁了 1,000 英亩的转基因玉米。在波兰取得的胜利只是世界范围反对转基因生物活动者们斗争中又一项进展。 Stop the Mass Death of Bees! 停止屠杀蜜蜂！ http://www.eco-diva.com/?p=1127 By/ 作者： Eco Diva "Maria" 2012-05-10 Monsanto’s Mon810 corn, genetically engineered to produce a synthetic version of the insecticide Bt, has been banned in Poland following protests by beekeepers who showed the corn was killing honeybees. 孟山都的 Mon810 玉米，转基因来产生杀虫剂 Bt 的一种人造版本。波兰养蜂农抗议示威表明这种转基因玉米正在屠杀蜂蜜后，波兰禁止了这种转基因玉米。 Protest Poland/ 波兰游行示威游行视频 : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBJNVLbhtwU Meanwhile,commercial beekeepers in the U.S. have filed an emergency legal petition with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to suspend use of a pesticide that is linked to massive honey bee deaths. The legal petition, which specifies Bayer’s neonicotinoid pesticide clothianidin, is backed by over one million citizen petition signatures. 在此同时，美国的商业化养蜂农，向环境保护署（ EPA ）提出了一项紧急法律请愿，要求暂停与大量蜂蜜死亡关联的一种农药。明确指控拜耳公司烟碱类 杀虫剂有噻虫胺的 该项法律请愿得到 100 万民众请愿签字支持。 Poland is the first country to formally acknowledge the link between Monsanto’s genetically engineered corn and the Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) that’s been devastating bees around the world, but it’s likely that Monsanto has known the danger their GMOs posed to bees all along. The biotech giant recently purchased a CCD research firm, Beeologics , that government agencies, including the US Department of Agriculture, have been relying on for help unraveling the mystery behind the disappearance of the bees. 波兰成为头一个正式确认世界范围对蜜蜂造成灾难的孟山都转基因玉米与“蜂群衰竭失调”（ CCD ）之间联系的国家，但是看来孟山都一直知道他们的转基因生物对蜜蜂造成这种危险。生物技术巨头孟山都最近收购了专业研究“蜂群衰竭失调”（ CCD ）的 Beeologics 公司。值得高度关注的是，美国农业部等政府机构依赖于这个公司帮助解开大量蜜蜂失踪后边的秘密。 Now that it’s owned by Monsanto, it’s very unlikely that Beeologics will investigate the links, but genetically engineered crops have been implicated in CCD for years now. 现在由孟山都拥有后，看来 Beeologics 公司不大可能研究孟山都转基因玉米与“蜂群衰竭失调”（ CCD ）之间的关联，但是人们怀疑转基因作物与 CCD 关联已经数年。 In one German study, when bees were released in a genetically engineered canola field, then fed the canola pollen to younger bees, scientists discovered the bacteria in the guts of the young bees took on the traits of the canola’s modified genes. That proves that GMO DNA in pollen can be transferred to bees though their digestive system. 在一项德国的研究中，当蜂蜜释放到转基因油菜田中，然后将油菜花粉喂给幼蜂，科学家发现幼蜂肠道中的细菌显现了油菜经修改的基因。这证实花粉中的转基因 DNA 可以通过它们的消化系统传递到蜜蜂中。 Many bee-keepers have turned to high-fructose corn syrup to feed their bees. High-fructose corn syrup is made from Monsanto’s genetically engineered corn and that corn is treated with Bayer’s neonicotinoid insecticides. 许多养蜂人转向喂食高果糖玉米糖浆给他们的蜜蜂。高果糖玉米糖浆由孟山都转基因玉米制作，而使用拜耳公司的 烟碱类 杀虫剂处理 这种玉米。 Bee colonies began disappearing in the U.S. one year after the EPA allowed these new insecticides on the market in 2004-2005. Even the EPA itself admits that “pesticide poisoning” is contributing to bee colony collapse. 值得关注的是，美国环境保护署（ EPA ）允许这些新的杀虫剂 2004-2005 年进入市场一年后，蜜蜂群开始在美国消失。甚至环境保护署（ EPA ）自己都承认“杀虫剂中毒”对蜜蜂群崩溃发挥了作用。 One of the observed effects of these insecticides is weakening of the bee’s immune system. Forager bees bring pesticide-laden pollen back to the hive, where it’s consumed by all of the bees. Six months later, their immune systems fail, and they fall prey to natural bee infections, such as parasites, mites, viruses, fungi and bacteria. Indeed, pathogens such as Varroa mites, Nosema, fungal and bacterial infections, and IAPV are found in large amounts in honey bee hives on the verge of collapse. 观察到的这些杀虫剂的效应致意是削弱蜜蜂的免疫系统。工蜂将杀虫剂污染的花粉带回蜂箱供所有的蜜蜂食用。六个月以后，它们的免疫系统失效，它们成为天然蜜蜂疾病的牺牲品，如急升现象、螨、病毒、真菌与细菌。确实，在接近崩溃蜂群的蜂箱中发现大量 Varroa 螨、 Nosema 病、真菌与细菌感染，以及 IAPV 。 Three recent studies implicate neonicotinoid insecticides, or “neonics” for short, which coat 142 million acres of corn, wheat, soy and cotton seeds in the U.S. alone. They are also a common ingredient in a wide variety of home gardening products. As detailed in an article published by Reuters , neonics are absorbed by the plants’ vascular system and contaminate the pollen and nectar that bees encounter on their rounds. Neonics are a nerve poison that disorient their insect victims and appear to damage the homing ability of bees, which may help to account for their mysterious failure to make it back to the hive. 最近有三项研究涉及 烟碱类 杀虫剂，简称“ neonics ”，仅在美国它们用于对种植在 1.42 亿英亩玉米、麦子、大豆与棉花种子进行涂层处理。他们也是家庭花园广泛产品使用的常见成分。路透社发表的一篇文章详细说明， 烟碱类 杀虫剂被作物的维管系统吸收，污染蜜蜂每轮采集的花粉与花蜜。 烟碱类 杀虫剂是一种神经毒素，使受害的昆虫迷失方向，并看来损害蜜蜂返回蜂巢的能力，这可能有助于解释它们无法返回它们的蜂箱的诡秘原因。 This was the conclusion of research which came out in the prestigious Journal Science . In another study , conducted by entomologists at Purdue University, the scientists found that neonic-containing dust released into the air at planting time had “lethal effects compatible with colony losses phenomena observed by beekeepers.” A third study by the Harvard School of Public Health actually re-created colony collapse disorder in several honeybee hives simply by administering small doses of a popular neonic, imidacloprid. 这就是有声望的《科学》杂志发表的研究的结论。另外一项研究中，由美国普度大学的昆虫学家们进行，科学家们发现，含有 烟碱类 杀虫剂的灰尘种植时释放到空气中，具有“养蜂农观察到的与蜂群消失现象协调的致命效果”。哈佛公共健康学院进行的第三项研究，通过服用小剂量通常使用的 烟碱类 杀虫剂醯亚氨，在数个蜂箱中重新创造了 “蜂群衰竭失调”（ CCD ）现象。 Occupy Monsanto Poland Dumps Thousands of Dead Bees in Protest 波兰《占领孟山都》游行倾倒数千死蜜蜂以示抗议 http://www.occupymonsanto360.org/2012/03/25/occupy-monsanto-poland-dumps-thousands-of-dead-bees-in-protest/ Occupy Monsanto / 占领孟山都网站 2012-03-25 On March 15, over 1,500 beekeepers and anti-GMO protesters marched through the streets of Warsaw, depositing thousands of dead bees on the steps of the Ministry of Agriculture in protest of genetically modified foods and their pesticides which are together largely responsible for the killing off of bees, butterflies, moths and other beneficial pollinators in great numbers. 2012 年 3 月 15 日 ，超过 1500 养蜂农与反对转基因生物活动者游行通过华沙的街道，将数千死蜜蜂倾倒在农业部的台阶上，抗议转基因作物及其使用的杀虫剂一起对大量屠杀蜜蜂、蝴蝶、蛾与其他有益的花粉传播昆虫有很大责任。 Later that day the Minister of Agriculture, Marek Sawicki, announced plans to ban MON810. 当天迟些时间，波兰农业部长 马雷克·萨维斯基宣布了禁止孟山都转基因 Bt 玉米 MON810 的计划。 The Polish Beekeepers Association organized the protest, joining forces with International Coalition to Protect the Polish Countryside (ICPPC) and the Coalition for a GMO Free Poland. Targeting Monsanto’s MON810 GM corn in particular, they also called for a complete ban on all genetically engineered crops as well as the pesticides found to be most damaging to the environment (and particularly to bees). 波兰《养蜂者协会》组织了这场抗议，并与《保护波兰农村国际同盟》（ ICPPC ）和《波兰无转基因同盟》联盟。以孟山都转基因 Bt 玉米 MON810 为特别目标，他们呼吁全面禁止所有的转基因作物以及发现对环境（以及特别蜜蜂）造成最严重损害。 In 2008, the Polish Parliament banned GM feed, including both the planting and importing of GM crops. “Despite this progressive step,” reports Food Travels , “the European Commission has refused to accept regional bans on GMOs, keeping Polish farmers, producers, and activists on the offensive.” 2008 年，波兰议会禁止了转基因饲料，包括禁止种植与进口转基因作物。“尽管这进步的一步”，《食品旅游》报告，“欧盟拒绝接受对转基因生物的地区性禁止，促使波兰农民、生厂商以及反对转基因的活动者们不得不展开攻击。” Regardless, says the ICPPC, “None of the nine European Union countries that have already prohibited MON 810 did so by asking the permission of the EU.” 无论如何，《保护波兰农村国际同盟》（ ICPPC ），“欧洲已经禁止孟山都转基因 Bt 玉米 MON 810 的九个国家，没有一个是征求欧盟同意后这样做的。” There was a great variety of attire as beekeepers dressed in their work bee suits and masks and ran their hive smoke guns as they marched, many wore yellow jackets with the famous Einstein quote (“If the bee disappears from the surface of the earth, man would have no more than four years to live ， No more bees, no more pollination, no more men!" ) 游行的养蜂人中很多人穿着他们的养蜂工作服与面罩，而且游行时让他们的烟枪冒烟，许多人穿着黄色外套，上边写着爱因斯坦的名言。（ “ 如果 蜜蜂 从地球上消失，那么人类也将只剩下四年的时间。没有 蜜蜂 ，那么就没有授粉，没有植物，没有人类 ” 。 ） The ICPPC is asking Polish residents to write Minister of Agriculture Marek Sawicki, demanding that he implement an immediate moratorium on GM crops, without waiting for EU approval. 《保护波兰农村国际同盟》（ ICPPC ）要求波兰居民写信给农业部长 马雷克·萨维斯基，要求他实施一项立即暂停转基因作物的命令，不要等待欧盟的批准。 Photos and cartoons of the Polish demonstrations: 波兰抗议转基因屠杀蜜蜂示威游行照片与漫画： http://festiwalstopgmo.pl/index.php/321-marsz-pszczelarzy 《凤凰卫视》 2012-01-22 视频：消失的蜜蜂 http://v.ifeng.com/documentary/society/201201/1b6031f2-4653-4813-9b0a-654f37122fc8.shtml Collapsing Colonies Are GM Crops Killing Bees? 蜂群崩溃：转基因作物是否在屠杀蜜蜂？ http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,473166,00.html By/ 作者 Gunther Latsch 2007-03-22 22.03.2007 Translated from the German by Christopher Sultan 德文到英文译者： Christopher Sultan A mysterious decimation of bee populations has German beekeepers worried, while a similar phenomenon in the United States is gradually assuming catastrophic proportions. The consequences for agriculture and the economy could be enormous. 蜜蜂巨量神秘死亡使德国养蜂人担心，虽然类似的现象在美国逐渐发展达到灾难性程度。对农业和经济造成的后果可能极其巨大。 In an article in its business section in late February, the New York Times calculated the damage US agriculture would suffer if bees died out. Experts at Cornell University in upstate New York have estimated the value bees generate -- by pollinating fruit and vegetable plants, almond trees and animal feed like clover -- at more than $14 billion. 纽约时报 2007 年 2 月份商业专栏发表的一篇文章，对于如果蜜蜂死掉了将对美国的农业造成多大损失进行恶计算。纽约州康奈尔大学的专家们估计，蜜蜂产生的价值 –- 通过对水果与蔬菜、杏树与动物饲料用苜蓿进行授粉 – 其价值超过 140 亿美元。 Scientists call the mysterious phenomenon "Colony Collapse Disorder" (CCD), and it is fast turning into a national catastrophe of sorts. A number of universities and government agencies have formed a "CCD Working Group" to search for the causes of the calamity, but have so far come up empty-handed. But, like Dennis vanEngelsdorp, an apiarist with the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture, they are already referring to the problem as a potential "AIDS for the bee industry." 科学家将这种神秘的现象称为“ 蜂群衰竭失调”（ CCD ），正在迅速变成某种全国性的灾难。许多大学与政府机构建立了“ CCD 工作组”寻求这场灾难的原因，但是到目前为止毫无结果。但是，像 Dennis vanEngelsdorp ，美国宾夕法尼亚州农业部的一位养蜂学家，已经将这个问题称之为潜在“养蜂业的艾滋病”。 One thing is certain: Millions of bees have simply vanished. In most cases, all that's left in the hives are the doomed offspring. But dead bees are nowhere to be found -- neither in nor anywhere close to the hives. Diana Cox-Foster, a member of the CCD Working Group, told The Independent that researchers were "extremely alarmed," adding that the crisis "has the potential to devastate the US beekeeping industry." It is particularly worrisome, she said, that the bees' death is accompanied by a set of symptoms "which does not seem to match anything in the literature." 有一件事已经确切：数百万蜜蜂无影无踪消失恶。大部分情况下，蜂箱中留下的是难逃一死的仔蜂。但是到处都找不到那些死了的蜜蜂 – 无论蜂箱中或者蜂箱附件都没有。 Diana Cox-Foster ，“ CCD 工作组”的一位成员，告诉《独立报》，他们这些研究者“极端警觉”，说这场危机“具有灭亡美国的养蜂业的潜力”。特别令人担心的是，这些蜜蜂的死亡伴随着一系列症状“与过去科学文献中的一切不相符”。 In many cases, scientists have found evidence of almost all known bee viruses in the few surviving bees found in the hives after most have disappeared. Some had five or six infections at the same time and were infested with fungi -- a sign, experts say, that the insects' immune system may have collapsed. 许多情况下，大部分蜜蜂消失后，在风向中剩余的少量蜜蜂中发现它们患有几乎所有已知蜜蜂疾病的证据。有时发现它们同时感染有六种蜜蜂传染病并遍布真菌 – 这是，专家们说，昆虫的免疫系统可能崩溃的迹象。 The scientists are also surprised that bees and other insects usually leave the abandoned hives untouched. Nearby bee populations or parasites would normally raid the honey and pollen stores of colonies that have died for other reasons, such as excessive winter cold. "This suggests that there is something toxic in the colony itself which is repelling them," says Cox-Foster. 令科学家们还惊讶的是，蜜蜂与其他昆虫通常离开被放弃的蜂箱其他昆虫不再接触它。如果蜂群由于其他原因死亡了的话，例如过于严寒的冬天，邻近的蜜蜂群或寄生虫通常会侵袭这些蜂箱，盗走其中储存的蜂蜜与花粉。（这种情况没有发生 — 译注）“这提议蜂群中有某种毒素使它们厌恶”， Cox-Foster 说。 Walter Haefeker, board of directors of the German Beekeepers Association (DBIB) and is vice president of the European Professional Beekeepers Association … Walter Haefeker, the German beekeeping official, speculates that "besides a number of other factors," the fact that genetically modified, insect-resistant plants are now used in 40 percent of cornfields in the United States could be playing a role. The figure is much lower in Germany -- only 0.06 percent -- and most of that occurs in the eastern states of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania and Brandenburg. Haefeker recently sent a researcher at the CCD Working Group some data from a bee study that he has long felt shows a possible connection between genetic engineering and diseases in bees. 华尔特·海菲克，德国养蜂协会理事、欧洲职业性养蜂者协会副总裁 … 华尔特·海菲克，德国养蜂官员，猜测“除了其他一些因素”，转基因改造的抗虫作物目前在美国玉米农田 40% 面积种植可能起作用。在德国这个比例低得多 – 只有 0.06% -- 而且绝大部分仅种植在德国东北的州，如 Mecklenburg -Western Pomerania 与 Brandenburg 。海菲克较长时间感到有一项研究表明转基因与蜜蜂疾病之间的可能关联，将该项研究的一些数据提供给了“ CCD 工作组”的一位研究员。 The study in question is a small research project conducted at the University of Jena from 2001 to 2004. 这是在 Jena 大学 2001 至 2004 年期间进行的一项小规模的研究项目。 The researchers examined the effects of pollen from a genetically modified maize variant called "Bt corn" on bees. A gene from a soil bacterium had been inserted into the corn that enabled the plant to produce an agent that is toxic to insect pests. The study concluded that there was no evidence of a "toxic effect of Bt corn on healthy honeybee populations." But when, by sheer chance, the bees used in the experiments were infested with a parasite, something eerie happened. According to the Jena study, a "significantly stronger decline in the number of bees" occurred among the insects that had been fed a highly concentrated Bt poison feed. 研究者们研究了称之为“ Bt 玉米”的转基因玉米的花粉对于蜜蜂的作用。“ Bt 玉米”插入了来自土壤细菌的一个基因是作物产生对昆虫害虫有毒的毒素。该项研究的结论是没有“ Bt 玉米对健康蜜蜂群有毒性效应”的证据。但是，完全由于意外，实验中使用的蜜蜂感染了一种寄生物，发生了一项令人恐惧的事情。根据 Jena 大学的试验，喂食了高剂量 Bt 毒素饲料的蜜蜂“蜜蜂数量发生了显著急剧的减少”。 According to Hans-Hinrich Kaatz, a professor at the University of Halle in eastern Germany and the director of the study, the bacterial toxin in the genetically modified corn may have "altered the surface of the bee's intestines, sufficiently weakening the bees to allow the parasites to gain entry -- or perhaps it was the other way around. We don't know." 根据该项研究主任，东德 Halle 大学 Hans-Hinrich Kaatz 教授的意见，转基因玉米中的细菌性毒素可能“改变了蜜蜂肠道的内壁，削弱了蜜蜂阻止寄生虫侵入的能力 – 或者发生了与此相反的作用。我们不知道。” Of course, the concentration of the toxin was ten times higher in the experiments than in normal Bt corn pollen. In addition, the bee feed was administered over a relatively lengthy six-week period. 当然，该项实验中使用的毒素比通常的 Bt 玉米花粉毒素剂量的十倍。而且，对蜜蜂喂食这种饲料的时间长达 6 周。 Kaatz would have preferred to continue studying the phenomenon but lacked the necessary funding. "Those who have the money are not interested in this sort of research," says the professor, "and those who are interested don't have the money." Kaatz 教授希望对这种现象进一步研究，但是缺乏必要的经费。“那些有钱的对这样的研究没有兴趣”，教授说，“而那些对从事这样的研究有兴趣的研究者则没有钱。”
蒋高明 为继续维护转基因商业利益，著名打假更造假打真斗士方舟子有下面的雷人语：孟山都除草剂农达原粉毒性比食盐还低！ 虹桥科教论坛 送交者: 明天会更好 于 2012-01-13 03:42:13 @ 旋风柴进 ： 公然撒谎证据： @方舟子 公开宣称：“孟山都除草剂“农达”......对人体健康没有任何危险。” ——如何解释农民喝农达自杀身亡？ @ 方舟子 :说一种农药低毒无害是指施用剂量而言的，而不是指当饮食往嘴里灌。农达原粉的毒性比食盐还低，还有人喝它自杀，真是怪异。 @ 司马南:方舟子的回答，诸位有何补充。 @ 平方根的小窝: 我们做一个实验：俺喝一定量的食盐水，方舟子喝同样量同样浓度的农达。 @ 金微：可以试验，有对照，有对比。 @ 金微：遇到这叉子真是没办法.说不清.不讨论了.让方舟子实验完再说吧。 如果方舟子作为娱乐人士，他的上述话不会有人当真，还以为是愚人节说的笑话。可事实是，方舟子经常在媒体上出现，以科学、正义、正确自居，他的话就具有非常大的欺骗性 。 正如他多次宣称的“面粉增白剂无害、瘦肉精无害、中医是伪科学、转基因更安全环保、经期做爱无害、男生手淫无害、坐月子是陋习”一样，他的“草甘膦危害比食盐毒性还小”， 注定又是方氏一大发明——撒谎不打草稿的作品。 讲话是要有证据的，以科学自居的方某人，在没有科学实验证据的前提下，凭什么信口说草甘膦无害呢？ 还是让我们来看看下面的图片，方氏谎言就不攻自破了。其中草甘膦致婴儿畸形的文章，许多网页打不开，可见转基因巨头是非常害怕这篇文章的，靠删文章继续维护其巨大商业利益 。 中国进口的转基因大豆草甘膦含量没有一个说法，中国人吃的转基因大豆油草甘膦含量也至今没有一个说法。吃饭是天大的事，草甘膦的危害以及转基因食品的危害，必须让公 众知晓，不能靠转基因巨头给你信誓旦旦地保证，更不能让方舟子的谎言继续在公众群体中发酵！ Regulators knew roundup causes birth defects: Lied to public （当局已知道农达导致出生缺陷：转基因巨头公司对公众撒谎） http://www.naturalnews.com/032707_RoundUp_birth_defects.html http://hashonomy.com/link/regulators-knew-roundup-causes-birth-defects-lied-to-public-food-freedom-122500/ 图1 农达除草剂导致的畸形婴儿 图2 法国电视台对农达除草剂的揭露 图3 法国电视台讲解草甘膦除草剂危害机理 图4 美国农民戴面具打农达除草剂，有没有毒害，农民最有发言权 New report: Regulators knew Roundup caused birth defects Thursday, June 09, 2011 by: Neev M. Arnell !-- Just released: Spirulina and Chlorella tablets infused with functional herbs: Ashwangandha, Bacopa, Ginkgo, Mucuna, Tribulus, Turmeric and many more! Click here to see the varieties on our store specials page (scroll down below the Nascent Iodine). --!-- We Are All Fukushima - Get the special report by David Rainoshek Click here to download now (PDF) --!-- NaturalNews presents Healing Miracles LIVE! April 21, 2011. Streaming live video. --!-- Potassium Iodide is shipping now from the NaturalNews Store . --!-- Yes, the event is sold out - AGAIN! (Sorry, no more seats available on this event...) --!-- Calendar of upcoming events Feb 28 Last day of our Personal Health Transformation video contest on NaturalNews.TV Mar 25 Health Freedom Expo in Long Beach, CA --!-- Introducing the world's food super food bar created by YOU! Click here to read how NaturalNews readers helped create this new superfood bar... -- Share Tweet (NaturalNews) Regulators have known since 1980 that Roundup, the herbicide manufactured by U.S. company Monsanto, causes birth defects, and have done nothing to make the information public, according to a new report released June 7 ( http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/... ). The report, "Roundup and birth defects: Is the public being kept in the dark?" by Earth Open Source, found that regulators knew the chemical on which Roundup is based, glyphosate, can cause birth defects in laboratory animals. Earth Open Source is an organization that aims to use open source collaboration to engage people in programs that help nourish humanity, increase equity, support food security, and preserve the Earth. Regulators also misled the public about the safety of the chemical, according to the report. In one instance, the German Federal Office for Consumer Protection and Food Safety, the German government body handling the glyphosate review, told the European Commission there was no evidence the chemical causes birth defects. This is not the first instance of accusations against the world's best-selling herbicide. Earlier this year, researchers found that genetically modified crops used in conjunction with Roundup contain a pathogen that may cause animal miscarriages. Don Huber, professor emeritus at Purdue University, wrote an open letter to Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack regarding the newly discovered pathogen, in which he requested a moratorium on deregulation of crops that are genetically modified to withstand heavy applications of Roundup, commonly called Roundup Ready crops. "It is well-documented that glyphosate promotes soil pathogens and is already implicated with the increase of more than 40 plant diseases," Huber said in the letter, adding that the pathogen is implicated in spontaneous abortions in cattle at rates as high as 45 percent. The situation could be catastrophic according to Huber's letter: "A team of senior plant and animal scientists have recently brought to my attention the discovery of an electron microscopic pathogen that appears to significantly impact the health of plants, animals, and probably human beings. Based on a review of the data, it is widespread, very serious, and is in much higher concentrations in Roundup Ready (RR) soybeans and corn -- suggesting a link with the RR gene or more likely the presence of Roundup. This organism appears NEW to science! This is highly sensitive information that could result in a collapse of U.S. soy and corn export markets and significant disruption of domestic food and feed supplies. On the other hand, this new organism may already be responsible for significant harm ... Naturally, if either the RR gene or Roundup itself is a promoter or co-factor of this pathogen, then could be a calamity. Based on the current evidence, the only reasonable action at this time would be to delay deregulation ... For the past 40 years, I have been a scientist in the professional and military agencies that evaluate and prepare for natural and man-made biological threats, including germ warfare and disease outbreaks. Based on this experience, I believe the threat we are facing from this pathogen is unique and of a high risk status. In layman's terms, it should be treated as an emergency." Appropriate legislation unlikely Although originally set to be reviewed in 2012, the European Commission decided to delay the glyphosate review until 2015. It will not be reviewed under more stringent, up-to-date standards until 2030. "Our examination of the evidence leads us to the conclusion that the current approval of glyphosate and Roundup is deeply flawed and unreliable," according to the Earth Open Source report. "What is more, we have learned from experts familiar with pesticide assessments and approvals that the case of glyphosate is not unusual," the report continued. "They say that the approvals of numerous pesticides rest on data and risk assessments that are just as scientifically flawed, if not more so. This is all the more reason why the Commission must urgently review glyphosate and other pesticides according to the most rigorous and up-to-date standards." Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/032707_RoundUp_birth_defects.html#ixzz1jPABm4dC
本文同时发至不良信息举报中心和新闻出版管理总署。 直言了，2011-11-18 | 2011-11-20 09:38:21。 http://zhiyanle.blog.hexun.com/70452376_d.html 。 为推销转基因食品和赚钱，中国农业部门官员搞了许多谎言和散布了许多虚假信息，其中情节颇为严重者之一是关于欧盟如何管制转基因的。不全说，这里只说一个案例：奥地利事件的真相。 农业部官员花费数百万元人民币搞“公关”，其网站发表的众多虚假信息文章中，有这么一篇： 科学层面分析转基因科学研究中八个所谓“转基因的安全性事例”。 作者：陈茹梅(作者系中国农科院生物技术研究所研究员)。 来源：农业部农业转基因生物安全管理办公室。2011-03-02 18:18。 食用事例4：孟山都转基因玉米事例二 发生于奥地利 发端于研究报告： 2007年，奥地利维也纳大学兽医学教授约尔根?泽特克（Juergen Zentek）领导的研究小组，对孟山都公司研发的抗除草剂转基因玉米NK603和转基因Bt抗虫玉米MON810的杂交品种进行了动物实验。在经过长达20周的观察之后，泽特克发现转基因玉米对老鼠的生殖能力存有潜在危险。 事实上，关于转基因玉米是否影响老鼠生殖的问题，共进行了三项研究，而仅有泽特克负责的其中一项发现了问题。该研究结论发布时，尚未经过同行科学家的评审，泽特克博士在报告时自己都表示，其研究结果很不一致，显得十分初级和粗糙。 欧洲食品安全部评价转基因安全性的专家组最近对泽特克的研究发表了同行评议报告，认为根据其提供的数据不能得出科学的结论。同时，两位被国际同行认可的专家（Drs. John DeSesso和James Lamb）事后专门审查及评议了泽特克博士的研究，并独立地发表申明，认定其中存在严重错误和缺陷，该研究并不能支持任何关于食用转基因玉米MON810和NK603可能对生殖产生不良影响的结论。（摘录完）。 那文章试图在中国社会制造一个假象印象：奥地利实验报告不可靠、欧盟驳斥了奥地利；所以，转基因食品是安全的；所以，欧盟在“放宽”管制，等等。然而，那根本不是事件真实情况、至少根本不是事件全部情况，即农业部官员搞了手脚和小动作、搞了断章取义即数据造假行为。 就该事件，美国农业部连续发表的关于欧盟的转基因食品作物的政策及管理的报告，都有分析阐述；摘录其中主要文字附后，您可参考对照。简单说，根据数年美国农业部对该事件的描述，故事真相是： 多年里，奥地利是欧盟国家里的反对和抵制转基因食品作物的“硬石头”和领军力量。美国孟山都公司及相关主管部门以为，拿下奥地利，欧盟国家的严格限制转基因食品作物的政策就会土崩瓦解，就可以在欧盟国家畅销转基因了。 于是，美国官方和企业合作，以奥地利为突破点，试图说服欧盟机构干预奥地利的“反转”政策、使奥地利放弃它的严禁转基因食品作物的立场，其重点选择是孟山都转基因玉米MON-810等品种。 在多方压力下，奥地利当局解除了MON-810转基因品种的加工进口的禁令，但拒绝其在境内商业种植或上市食品市场，且还对其它转基因品种采取了严禁措施。与此同时，奥地利当局强化了对欧盟总部的说服努力，试图要求欧盟总部机构支持其反对和抵制转基因食品作物的政策措施。面对奥地利变得更棘手，美国方面也强化了努力，譬如，与奥地利的官方民间展开了各种对话并施加压力。 在那种情况下，奥地利学者发表了实验报告，说明孟山都转基因食品伤害动物健康、特别是伤害动物生育能力。其实，在那之前，其它欧洲国家的科学家已经发表了类似的实验报告。无疑，奥地利学者那实验报告并非新发现，而是对美国方面施加压力的一个公开的“回击”。 为推销，孟山都公司当然要有所对应。于是，该公司聘用了两位关系学者，对奥地利的实验报告做了挑肥拣瘦和以偏概全的驳斥。同时，美国方面也向欧盟总部施加压力，要他们对奥地利的实验报告做个否定表态。 于是，欧盟总部采取了“打太极拳”应对措施：一方面，他们附和美国方面的要求，以“科学观点”评价的名义，采纳孟山都雇用学者的驳斥报告、否定了奥地利的实验报告，甚至装模作样地建议奥地利官方整个撤消那个观察实验项目。另一方面，欧盟坚持原来的立场和规定做法，即：给转基因食品作物颁发授权，但严格限制其商业化种植和上市食品市场。 同样，奥地利当局也采取了“打太极拳”的应对措施：一方面，他们附和欧盟总部，撤消了那个实验报告、甚至撤消了整个实验项目；而在另一方面，他们转换回击方向，以社会经济发展的角度（即比科技单挑角度更广泛深入的角度），更强调地阐明了当局继续严禁转基因食品作物的立场和政策。 用日常生活比喻说，欧盟和奥地利的应对做法，就好比是一家旅店给某某旅客（某转基因食品作物）做了个到访参观或允许来访的登记注册，但严格限制甚至不让那旅客进店住宿或进店用餐。 孟山都公司却以为自己取得重大胜利，发布新闻公告、说奥地利当局撤消了实验报告和撤消了整个实验项目如何如何。 可是，孟山都公司没想到的是，从那以后，欧盟总部通过法规：是否种植和上市转基因食品作物，由各成员国自己决定，即：有啥推销的事，您就别再找我、而去找各成员国好了。于是，一些原本允许转基因作物商业种植的国家，譬如法国，也开始或多或少地追随奥地利的做法，减少或严格限制转基因商业化种植或上市食品市场。 就是说，孟山都公司等美国方面以奥地利为“突破点”的学者挑刺和施加压力等等做法不但没奏效，反而使奥地利那块“硬石头”变得更硬了，反而使欧盟对转基因食品作物的商业种植和上市采取了更严厉的管制政策措施。 中国驻欧盟使团（相当于中国驻联合国代表处）的新闻公告说：2009年，德国当局宣布禁止推广转基因玉米MON810品种；目前，欧盟共有六个成员国法定禁止种植玉米转基因品种MON810，除德国外，还有奥地利、匈牙利、希腊、法国和卢森堡。公告还说，至今，欧盟只颁发了两个转基因品种（玉米和土豆各一种）在欧盟范围内的种植许可，但授权各成员国自主决定种植与否；到目前，欧盟转基因农作物的种植面积仅占全球转基因农作物种植面积的0.25%，且大部分为实验研究用地。2011年九月，欧盟法庭做出判决，禁止未经允许的、用转基因饲料饲养的蜜蜂之蜂蜜进入食品市场，--- 不但转基因食品作物，而且连转基因饲料饲养的动物之产品、也被严管了。 美国农业部的统计也能反映出奥地利事件以后欧盟国家严格限制转基因食品作物的动态。譬如，2006年，欧盟几个成员国的转基因种植面积爬上一个顶峰，可是，自2007/2008年奥地利事件开始后，其面积连年下跌，原本强劲的法国的种植面积缩减到几乎为零。就两种获得商业化种植的转基因品种玉米而言，2007年本来呈现上升趋势，可奥地利事件后，就陡然下降了；而就转基因土豆种植而言，本来就是少得没什么商业意义而言，如今则下跌到几乎为零了。 当然，孟山都公司等美国方面更没想到的是“后院起火”：美国卫生部发表调查论文说明，加拿大一城镇的93%女性和80%左右的胎儿体内发现BT转基因毒素，来源主要是食品；那证明了转基因成分不但可进入体内且可遗传。今年年初，美国颇有成就和颇有名气的植物科学家胡伯博士给美国农业部部长发函，说明了转基因作物的危害风险、其中包括导致不育等危害。美国农业部证实了该信件及内容属实。 那些美国的官方文献都证明了奥地利科学家的实验报告其实是正确观察和反映了真实情况的，不过出于国际贸易交往手段，欧盟总部同意和奉劝且奥地利当局自己也同意撤消了那个实验及报告而已；而在实际操作中，包括奥地利在内的欧盟或更多欧洲国家对转基因食品作物采取了更严厉的管制、限制甚至禁止的政策措施。 简而言之，在欧盟如何管理转基因食品作物方面，中国农业部官员编造了许多假话和散布了许多虚假信息，而对奥地利事件搞手脚和歪曲事件本来面目、只是许多例子中的一个例子。民以食为天，食品安全和民众生命安全是国家安全的头等大事之一。为此安全，衷心希望中国国家法规有效，希望上级主管部门依法办事、对那些搞虚假信息和欺上瞒下的农业官员做出应有的处理惩罚、对全国人民有个交代。 附件：欧盟国家的转基因作物种植情况（数据来源：美国农业部）。 附件：美国农业部关于奥地利事件的分析报告（摘录）： USDA, EU-27 Biotech Annual 2008, 11/28/2008.。 ANNEX I: MEMBER STATES INDIVIDUAL SITUATIONS Austria: Austria remains one of the leading forces within the EU Europe against agricultural biotechnology. Zones restricting the use of biotechnology exist in all nine provinces, and all Austrian provinces are members of the “European Network of GMO-free Regions”. National ordinances still effectively prevent the planting of EU approved biotech crops. Responding to consumers’ and politicians’ anti-biotech attitudes, and NGOs’ anti-biotech lobbying, the Austrian retail sector has agreed to refrain from stocking or selling biotech foods. Presently, only biotech feed (soybean meal) can be found in the Austrian market. Since their inception, the Austrian Government successfully defended national bans on EU approved biotech crops because the European Commission proposals to require their removal were blocked by the EU Council. However, since there was no Council agreement, the European Commission, in May 2008, adopted a decision ordering Austria to lift the safeguard clause on the import and processing ban of MON 810 and T 25 corn events. This decision did not affect Austria’s safeguard action on cultivation. While Austria lifted the import and processing bans on MON 810 and T25, it proposed new import bans on MON 863 corn and three oilseed rape lines, Ms8, Rf3 and Ms8xRf3. These new Austrian bans could be implemented by mid July, 2008. In March 2008, Greenpeace Austria staged a demonstration near the U.S. Embassy in Vienna against potential U.S. retaliatory actions against Austria in response to the WTO Case. In May 2008, FAS Vienna and an American Soybean Producers’ (ASA) delegation organized a roundtable discussion to discuss biotech crops with Austrian stakeholders in the food, feed and crop industries. The Austrians were very receptive to the ASA message. ( Previous Austria GAIN Reports: AU7007: Austria fails to win EU support for biotech corn ban,12/18/2007.). USDA：EU-27 Biotech Annual 2009，7/24/2009。 III - Member States Policy Varies Greatly Austria: Austria remains one of the leading forces within the EU against agricultural biotechnology. Zones restricting the use of biotechnology exist in all nine provinces, and all Austrian provinces are members of the “European Network of GMO-free Regions”. National ordinances still effectively prevent the planting of EU-approved biotech crops. Responding to consumers? and politicians? anti-biotech attitudes, and non-governmental organizations? (NGO?) anti-biotech lobbying, the Austrian retail sector has agreed to refrain from stocking or selling biotech foods. Presently, only biotech feed (soybean meal) can be found in the Austrian market. Since their inception, the Austrian Government has successfully defended its national bans on EU-approved biotech crops because the European Commission proposals to require their removal were blocked by the Council of the European Union. However, since there was no Council agreement, the European Commission, in May 2008, adopted a decision ordering Austria to lift the safeguard clause on the import and processing ban of MON810 and T25 corn events. This decision did not affect Austria?s safeguard action on cultivation. While Austria lifted the import and processing bans on MON 810 and T25, it issued two new ordinances in July 2008 to ban the import of MON 863 corn and three oilseed rape lines, Ms8, Rf3 and Ms8xRf3. The import ban on oilseed rape GT 73 which was issued in 2006 has been extended until the end of 2010. A further Commission attempt to lift those import bans was rejected by MS in February 2009. #-#-#。
直言了，2011-10-16 | 2011-10-17 08:26:29 http://zhiyanle.blog.hexun.com/69248738_d.html 。 网友转来了中国新闻网（2011年10月16日）的报道《美国专家在穗推转基因食品，称其在美餐桌成常态》。报道说：一位来自美国的搞转基因的专家罗杰·比奇博士、15日在广州举行的一个农业技术研讨会上向当地说：“美国人自己不吃转基因产品，却让中国人吃，这种说法是错误的，美国人餐桌上超过80%的加工食品是转基因产品。”他还说：“美国食品管理局规定，只要在产品中发现新东西或者与以前的产品有明显的差异，必须在产品中加以说明，但如果产品在若干年后被证明是安全的，就无需说明了。” 那洋专家整个是为金钱利益而搞撒谎骗人。网友已经查明，罗杰·比奇博士是孟山都公司豢养的商业学者，即有转基因产品商业利益。证据很多，下面是随机查到的案例： Monsanto Fund Makes $15 Million Gift to Danforth Center； September 5, 2006； 连接：http://www.stlrcga.org/x2011.xml?ss=print。 Interference Trial Section，Paper No. 200； DECISION (ON MOTIONS RELATING TO BEACHY'S COMPLIANCE WITH 35 U.S.C. 135(c)) 连接：http://www.uspto.gov/ip/boards/bpai/decisions/inform/104286-200.pdf。 第一个证据说明罗杰·比奇博士的资金来自孟山都公司，第二个证据说明罗杰·比奇博士与孟山都公司不但有现金商业利益关系，而且还有产权等方面的商业利益关系。然而，罗杰·比奇博士所服务的孟山都公司自己的食堂是避免转基因食品、保障天然食品供应的，详情可参考： GM foods not served in Monsanto cafeteria。 Friday, November 10, 2000 | 11:48 PM ET，CBC News。 连接：http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/1999/12/22/gmfood991222.html。 那不是自己不吃却要别人吃的典型案例吗？中国农业部门官员跟着学，为圈钱而编造各种谎言要全国民众吃他们关系户的转基因食品，可是，他们自己却订立食堂规章制度、保障他们和他们的家属子女能避免转基因食品和吃到天然食品。嘿嘿，他们那不是为利坑民而骗人到家、还能是什么？ 所谓美国人餐桌上有70%或80%的食品含有转基因的说法，已经说了十来年了，可是，请那些鼓吹者举出一个例子说说哪个公司的哪个食品产品含有转基因成分、是什么转基因成分，那些鼓吹者就哑巴了，至今拿不出一个例子证明他们的说法属实。而那位来自美国的罗杰·比奇博士，也是那么一个为金钱利益而对中国社会和中国市场搞撒谎欺骗的商用学者。 事实上，美国农业部、美国玉米协会、乃至联合国粮农组织的统计都说明，美国自己的天然作物足以满足美国自己的食品市场的消费需要，美国居民吃到转基因成分的食品的机会非常小；譬如玉米，大量种植是转基因品种，但在食品市场的消费机会机会却是接近零。那位洋专家把种植面积比例说成食品消费比例，哈！他那不是故意骗人、就是他连小学百分比都不会的混混博士。 还有，孟山都公司明确说明，今年开始在食品市场尝试其第一个转基因甜玉米品种。详见路透社报道： Monsanto launching its first biotech sweet corn； By Carey Gillam, ST. LOUIS, Missouri | Thu Aug 4, 2011 2:01pm EDT ； http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/04/us-monsanto-sweetcorn-idUSTRE7735LY20110804。 就是说，从转基因作物商业化开始直到那尝试开始前的十多年时间里，孟山都公司根本就没在美国食品市场投放任何转基因甜玉米产品，否则，那所谓“第一个”从何谈起？孟山都公司的实践，给那老美国博士的谎言欺骗行为是扇了一大耳光。 就食品标记，美国FDA-/农业部都有明文法规规定，任何产品标记都必须详细标明所有成分，否则，就是犯规甚至犯法，就要召回。附后，是美国FDA-和美国农业部的许多召回通知中的两个案例，其召回缘故就是标签漏标了一些成分，而那些牛奶鸡蛋等等成分是早已获准上市的。很清楚，那位来自美国的转基因商用学者罗杰·比奇博士所说的“但如果产品在若干年后被证明是安全的，就无需说明了”云云，整个是撒谎欺骗。 美国FDA-有那样的规定，同时却允许食品标签不标记转基因成分，如此自相矛盾和剥夺消费知情权的做法，导致美国消费者的极大愤怒和强烈谴责。据美国纽约时报调查，80%的美国消费者明确表示反对或拒绝转基因食品。此外，美国刚刚举行了“知情权长征”活动，目标就是要求FDA-执行自己的规定，食品标签标记所有成分、理所当然也必须标记转基因成分。这些事实，更是清楚说明那老美博士所言都是假话谎言。 简而言之，中国农业部门官员为金钱利益而编造散布的转基因神话谎言一个个破产了，他们自己不吃却哄骗全国民众吃转基因的真相暴露了，他们公权私用和花数百万国家资金搞“公关”、对民众消费者搞政治扣帽和政治诽谤等等手段也一个个失败了，于是，他们利用某些国人盲目崇拜洋人的心态，请了些商用洋学者到中国，继续搞他们的欺骗宣传。一句话：中国当局和中国民众要对自己的国土安全和食品安全保持高度警惕，不要上当受骗、不要盲从洋版商用学者为推销转基因食品而编造散布的种种假话谎言。 附件：美国FDA-/农业部的召回通知案例（摘录）。 召回的理由足够简明：该产品的标签没有标记某些成分；而那些成分是早已获准上市的。可见，那位来自美国的搞转基因的专家罗杰·比奇博士所谓“如果产品在若干年后被证明是安全的，就无需说明”云云，纯属是故意撒谎欺骗。 Recall -- Firm Press Release： FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE - March 4, 2011 - Faribault, MN – 连接：http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm247049.htm。 内容：Faribault Foods, Inc. announced today a voluntary recall of Field Day Organic Garbanzo Beans because some cans with this label may contain Minestrone soup. Faribault Foods received two reports that cans of the Organic Garbanzo Beans contain Minestrone soup (a vegetable and pasta soup). No other lot codes of Field Day Organic Garbanzo Beans or Field Day products are affected. The Minestrone soup contains wheat, milk, soy, and egg allergens. People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to wheat, milk, soy, or egg allergens run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume the Minestrone soup product. The products involved were sold in grocery and other retail outlets nationwide. Recall Release CLASS I RECALL FSIS-RC-065-2011 HEALTH RISK: HIGH WASHINGTON, August 15, 2011 – 连接：http://www.fsis.usda.gov/News__Events/Recall_065_2011_Release/index.asp。 内容：Minnesota Firm Recalls Summer Sausage Products Due To Misbranding And An Undeclared Alergen. Jerry’s Foods, an Annandale, Minn. establishment is recalling approximately 24 pounds of summer sausage products because of misbranding and undeclared allergens. The products contain the undeclared allergens whey and soy, ingredients in a spice blend, which are not noted on the label. The problem was discovered during a label review at the establishment by a company quality control manager. FSIS and the company have received no reports of adverse reactions due to consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about a reaction should contact a healthcare provider.
【本博按】 转基因巨头孟山都转基因玉米再次兵败滑铁卢，原本抗虫的玉米却不抗虫了，小小虫子对转基因成分产生了强烈的抗争，以灭杀为主导思想的虫害控制理论到底还能够坚持多久？我们拭目以待。对于虫子，我们在弘毅生态农场的实际证明，坚持一遍农药不打，虫害反而没有了，这样的成果是不是值得那些转基因狂热分子看一眼呢？转基因水稻你在国内偷偷卖可以，但出国就会被擒获的，转基因稻米出口已经是第 116次出口被捉了，还说在中国没有进入稻田呢！ 顾秀林老师的两篇文章有理有据，是非曲直您自己判断吧。对于转基因这一人类近 30 年来的高科技，我的观点一致不变，用于研究吓唬人可以，用于增加产量、解决虫草害则是小儿科，它将沿着大化肥、大农药、除草剂、农膜之一杀鸡取卵的农业模式继续向前走，直到不可收拾，人类重新回头看看走过的路。 转基因失败的铁证与中国继续出口转基因大米 顾秀林 (2011-08-30 11:15:44) 转载 标签： 杂谈 两则消息：一、孟山都的抗虫玉米失效，华尔街时报报道；二、中国继续出口非法Bt63大米 一、华尔街时报报道：孟山都的抗虫玉米失效（8-29）， 下面是网页截图。 http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904009304576532742267732046.html 孟山都的这个抗虫玉米品种，SmartStax,也属于Bt类，目标害虫是rootworm；该“生物技术”玉米中所含的抗虫毒蛋白，是Cry3Bb1，今天全美国1/3的玉米都是这个品种了——我们看到，新技术推广在美国是多么有效和有力，他们真的是依靠生物技术种田啊——中国的转基因主流利益集团正在向你们看齐哈，快马加鞭地追，追。 可是这次科学给了技术一个“出乎意料”：种植这种玉米3年以上的地方，靶标昆虫表现出了抗性——仅仅需要3年。 美国的玉米地像海洋一样辽阔，美国伊利诺伊大学和衣阿华大学的昆虫学家发现，种了抗虫转基因玉米的田地里，已经有了靶标害虫的危害。推广转基因玉米种植，开始是很受农民欢迎的，种地没有虫害该多么惬意！孟山都再次推出包含两种抗虫毒蛋白的新品种，打算修改原本20%的害虫避难所规定，把它降低到5%！修改管理条例需要做例行研究，受委托的科学家走到玉米大田里，却发现靶标昆虫已经产生了抗性！ 种植抗虫的“生物技术”玉米新品种，在美国农业中引发的改变之一，是停止倒茬轮作——农场依赖上了高科技，就连续多年种植同一种庄稼——转基因的玉米没有害虫没有杂草，还怕什么呢？过去美国农场是玉米和大豆一年一换，这就是倒茬，这样可以很容易地消灭杂草、控制害虫，这一点天下的农民都知道。然而有了生物技术以后呢，倒茬用不着了，就是想倒茬也不能了——为什么？首先怪转基因大豆。转基因大豆抗除草剂，所以就可以放心地喷那“见绿杀”【中国农民对草甘膦“农达”的昵称】，农产品中的残留，被当做无害的成分吃到人和动物的肚子里，残留在土壤中的草甘膦，继续“见绿就杀”。农达残留过高的土地，种不了抗虫的玉米，只能继续种转基因大豆，种玉米的土地，也就不能倒茬了。 转基因的伪生物技术，将带给人类无边的灾难。这个灾难缓慢地、无声息地逼近我们。美国的“玉米带”，在高科技的推动下，正在培育超级虫。 种植转基因大豆的美国20个州，已经培育出几十种抗除草剂的超级草。生物技术调动起生态环境中的“变革”热潮，生物在加速演化。 华尔街时报说了超级虫有可能出现，可连美国环保署都不同意【孟山都更不会同意】，它认为下结论为时过早——是的，下结论还需要更多的证据，不幸，这证据将是农业受到损害的证据，是超级草、超级虫的大量涌现，而不是在实验室或者试验田里的那种证据。 转基因这科学、这技术很神奇、很新潮，它所需要的有害性“科学”证明，是满世界活着的有抗性的超级草、超级虫，还有吃死掉的人。 转基因的抗虫、抗除草剂的技术，全都失败了。中国的Bt水稻如果被中国禁止，转基因在全球的高歌猛进，就会偃旗息鼓了。 下面是华尔街时报的文章，我转帖，没有用于商业目的；作者的联系方式也在下面。 By SCOTT KILMAN Widely grown corn plants that Monsanto Co. genetically modified to thwart a voracious bug are falling prey to that very pest in a few Iowa fields, the first time a major Midwest scourge has developed resistance to a genetically modified crop. The discovery raises concerns that the way some farmers are using biotech crops could spawn superbugs. Iowa State University entomologist Aaron Gassmann's discovery that western corn rootworms in four northeast Iowa fields have evolved to resist the natural pesticide made by Monsanto's corn plant could encourage some farmers to switch to insect-proof seeds sold by competitors of the St. Louis crop biotechnology giant, and to return to spraying harsher synthetic insecticides on their fields. "These are isolated cases, and it isn't clear how widespread the problem will become," said Dr. Gassmann in an interview. "But it is an early warning that management practices need to change." The finding adds fuel to the race among crop biotechnology rivals to locate the next generation of genes that can protect plants from insects. Scientists at Monsanto and Syngenta AG of Basel, Switzerland, are already researching how to use a medical breakthrough called RNA interference to, among other things, make crops deadly for insects to eat. If this works, a bug munching on such a plant could ingest genetic code that turns off one of its essential genes. Monsanto said its rootworm-resistant corn seed lines are working as it expected "on more than 99% of the acres planted with this technology" and that it is too early to know what the Iowa State University study means for farmers. The discovery comes amid a debate about whether the genetically modified crops that now saturate the Farm Belt are changing how some farmers operate in undesirable ways. These insect-proof and herbicide-resistant crops make farming so much easier that many growers rely heavily on the technology, violating a basic tenet of pest management, which warns that using one method year after year gives more opportunity for pests to adapt. Monsanto is already at the center of this issue because of its success since the 1990s marketing seeds that grow into crops that can survive exposure to its Roundup herbicide, a glyphosate-based chemical known for its ability to kill almost anything green. These seeds made it so convenient for farmers to spray Roundup that many farmers stopped using other weedkillers. As a result, say many scientists, superweeds immune to Roundup have spread to millions of acres in more than 20 states in the South and Midwest. Monsanto became the first company to sell rootworm-resistant biotech corn to farmers in 2003. The seed contains a gene from a common soil microorganism called Bacillus thuringiensis, or Bt, from which crop biotechnology has been used to mine several genes for making insecticidal proteins. One of the genes Monsanto developed makes a crystalline protein called Cry3Bb1. It rips apart the gut of the rootworm but is harmless to mammals, birds and most beneficial insects. Competitors, which use other Bt genes to attack the rootworm, estimate that roughly one-third of the corn grown in the U.S. carries Monsanto's Cry3Bb1 gene. Monsanto said it generated world-wide sales of $4.26 billion from corn seed and biotechnology traits, about 40% of its overall sales, in its last full year. Until insecticide-producing corn plants arrived, Midwest farmers typically tried to keep pests like the corn borer and the rootworm in check by changing what they grew in a field each year, often rotating between corn and soybeans. That way, the offspring of corn-loving insects would starve the next year. Some farmers began to plant corn in the same field year after year. The financial incentive to grow corn has increased in recent years in part because the ethanol-fuel industry's exploding appetite for corn has helped to lift prices to very profitable levels for growers. According to Dr. Gassmann, the Iowa fields in which he found rootworms resistant to the Cry3Bb1 toxin had been producing Monsanto's Bt-expressing corn continuously for at least three years. Dr. Gassmann collected rootworm beetles from four Iowa cornfields with plant damage in 2009. Their larvae were then fed corn containing Monsanto's Cry3Bb1 toxin. They had a survival rate three times that of control larvae that ate the same corn. Dr. Gassmann found that Monsanto's Bt toxin still had some lethal impact on the larvae from the problem Iowa fields, and that the bugs were still highly susceptible to a rootworm-resistant corn plant from a competitor that uses a different Bt toxin, called Cry34/35Ab1. Scientists in other Farm Belt states are also looking for signs that Monsanto's Bt corn might be losing its effectiveness. Mike Gray, a University of Illinois entomologist, said he is studying rootworm beetles he collected in northwest Illinois earlier this month from fields where Monsanto's Bt-expressing corn had suffered extensive rootworm damage. The government requires that farmers who plant the genetically modified corn take certain steps aimed at preventing insects from developing resistance. Farmers are told to create a refuge for the bugs by planting non-modified corn in part of their fields. The refuge, which can be as much as 20% of a farmer's field, is supposed to reduce the chances that two toxin-resistant bugs mate and pass along that trait to their offspring. Dr. Gray said the confirmation of toxin-resistant rootworms in Iowa could force the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to revisit its policy of allowing the size of these insect refuges to shrink to as little as 5% of a cornfield as crop biotechnology companies begin to sell seed for corn plants that can make two different rootworm-killing toxins. Part of what has attracted some farmers to Monsanto's new SmartStax corn line is that it allows them to plant a smaller refuge. But one of the two anti-rootworm toxins in that variety is the Cry3Bb1 protein at the center of Dr. Gassmann's study. The EPA said it is too early to comment on any implications arising from Dr. Gassmann's paper. Write to Scott Kilman at scott.kilman@wsj.com Copyright 2011 Dow Jones Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. Distribution and use of this material are governed by our Subscriber Agreement and by copyright law. For non-personal use or to order multiple copies, please contact Dow Jones Reprints at 1-800-843-0008 or visit 二、欧盟最新食品安全通报：中国出口的“意式米粉”中再次发现非法的转基因成分， 即张启发的那个“Bt63”.这至少是第 116 次在中国出口大米制品中被检出这个“张氏转基因”了。转基因的“Bt63”，把中国媒体和转基因利益集团的脸皮练成了一个超级品种，刀枪不入。张启发对中国的毒害，无论怎样估计都不为过！一个人的毒害能有如此之深广，只有靠现代的高科技才能实现。所以，科学如果真的是第一生产力，它一定在同时也是第一破坏力，这样理解高科技，才符合辩证法。 自从曹明华的文章在文汇报上刊发以来，仅仅一个多月，张启发这个身家千万元的大科霸亲自经营的华农，也开始发出了轻轻的质疑——转基因水稻技术，看起来真的是有问题的啊！ 轻轻的质疑，离开有力的行动，还有很长的距离。 下面是数据。感谢 青岛中安信食品安全技术有限公司。 日期 通报号 产品 通报 通报 通报 来源 通报原因 分销国家 采取措施 / 类型 类型 基础 国家 / 地区 分销状况 谷物和焙烤制品 25/08/201 1 2011.BSR 食品 禁止入境 禁止入境 - 托运扣押 英国 中国香港 来自中国经香港中转的意式米粉中发现含有未经官方批准的转基因成分 (BT 63) 官方扣押 / 未分销 翻译： 青岛中安信食品安全技术有限公司 请尊重版权，如需转载，请注明翻译者。或者与我们联系。 来源：欧盟官方网站 相关英文网址： http://ec.europa.eu 根据欧盟法规（ EC ） 178/2002 的规定，在欧盟国家建立了食品安全通报体系。为帮助中国企业了解进入欧盟的产品不安全事件，我们为您翻译每期涉及中国产品的预警信息。 您有任何食品安全方面的相关要求，欢迎与我们联系（电话： 0532-85718995 ）。
墨西哥每日报：几年前中国就有人开始非法传播转基因大米种子。在中国，2009年底只有两种主要粮食作物的转基因品种得到了事先批准。这一情况引发了对食品 安全这一敏感话题的讨论。其中一种尚未得到商业化许可的转基因品种来源于美国转基因巨头孟山都公司，但现在已经在农田中开始种植。 1月，中国农业部还表示中国没有在严格受控的实验范围以外种植任何品种的转基因粮食。但4月底环境保护部负责人表示，根据中国四部委的联合调查，中国多地出现了非法的转基因种子，这是监管不力导致的后果。 欧盟食品安全机构网站上显示，2006年至2011年欧盟国家曾115次发现了用来自中国的转基因大米生产的食品。 2005年以来一起在披露中国存在转基因大米种子问题的绿色和平组织，去年在湖北、湖南、江西等中国内陆省份的市场上相继发现了转基因家作物。 中国已经批准了一些转基因农作物的种植，如棉花和某些品种的蔬菜及水果（甜椒、西红柿各木瓜等），甚至也包括杨树。此外还为家牧业进口转基因大豆和玉米。 但大米是个敏感话题，三分之二的中国人每天都要吃大米。5月初在一个高层研讨会上，中国知名家学专家佟屏来痛批了一些科学家拿老百姓当成实验鼠的做法。 他指出，中国不需要转基因大米，因为大米产量足够满足需求。在2010年3月全国两会召开前，百名专家联名写信反对批准转基因主粮的种植。此外，专家们还呼吁针对转基因农作物展开公众讨论，并为转基因大米贴注标签。 附：法新社报道全文GM rice spreads, prompts debate in China 链接到法新社的全文 http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5h7rQ-BdQROIKybQuBqHZs_ID_RhQ?docId=CNG.b0834d5f7f2d0a1c3d343e3121f3c2fa.f1 GM rice spreads, prompts debate in China By Boris Cambreleng (AFP) – 6 days ago BEIJING — Genetically modified rice has been spreading illegally for years in China, officials have admitted, triggering a debate on a sensitive aspect of the food security plan in the world's most populous nation. Two strains of GM rice were approved for open-field experiments but not commercial sale in 2009. In January, the agriculture ministry said "no genetically modified cereals are being grown in China" outside the test sites. But in April, an environment ministry official told the weekly Nanfang Zhoumo that a joint investigation by four government departments had found that "illegal GM seeds are present in several provinces because of weak management". The agriculture ministry did not respond to an AFP request for clarification. According to the website for the European Union's Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed, European countries found foodstuffs from China containing GM rice 115 times between 2006 and May this year. The campaign group Greenpeace says GM rice seeds have been in China since 2005, and were found at markets in Hubei, Hunan and Jiangxi provinces last year, Fang Lifeng, a Chinese agriculture specialist with the group, told AFP. Beijing is pro-biotechnology and has already allowed several GM crops to be grown, including cotton, peppers, tomatoes and papayas, and has authorised imports of GM soya and corn for the food industry. But rice -- the key staple in the diet of the country's more than 1.3 billion people -- is a much more sensitive question. "Two-thirds of Chinese eat rice every day," said Tong Pingya, a highly respected agronomist who blasted Chinese scientists for "treating the people like guinea pigs" at a conference in May chaired by Vice-Premier Li Keqiang. "China does not need this genetically modified rice, as it produces enough and even exports a bit," Tong told AFP. When the National People's Congress, China's rubber-stamp parliament, met last year, around 100 researchers wrote to deputies asking them to revoke authorisations for the use of experimental GM grains, including a strain of corn as well as the two rice types. They also demanded a public debate and clear labelling of products containing genetically modified organisms. Backers of GM rice argue that it is more drought-resistant, offers better yield, and -- in the case of the variety containing the Bt gene -- allows pesticide use to be dramatically cut. "It should be possible to authorise commercialisation around 2012-2013, but the state will probably not allow them to be used on a wide scale" in the near future, said Ma Wenfeng, a grain market analyst with the consultancy CNagri, which has links to the agriculture ministry. According to Ma, the new varieties represent "an advance in biotechnology" and will ultimately be accepted. For their part, environmentalists and some Chinese scientists warn against the as-yet unknown long-term consequences of using GM rice for biodiversity and human health. Whether using them is in farmers' interests is an open question, according to Greenpeace's Fang, because "GM seeds cost two to five times more than ordinary seeds" and "in terms of yield, there isn't really a difference". GM rice strains developed in Chinese laboratories also raise questions about intellectual property. The Bt gene is patented by the US agribusiness giant Monsanto, which could demand royalties and compensation from China if that variety is commercialised.
农业部决不是孟山都公司的公关部 张宏良 大家看看直言了网友发表的《不应描述虚假图景，而应拿出真实数据》这篇文章，就会知道当今中国官员对百姓、对天理，已经无所顾忌、为所欲为到了何等程度。在转基因主粮问题上，农业部官员说假话是意料之中的事，如果不说假话倒是让人难以理解，昨天农业部答记者问一出来，我们就说过，这与其说是农业部答记者问，不如说是孟山都公司代言人。可是远远超过人们最荒谬想像的是，农业部答记者问所用的资料，几乎完全是来自于专门推广转基因种子的美国ISAAA组织的宣传材料！美国ISAAA组织的背后是洛克菲勒基金会，是由孟山都、杜邦、陶氏化学等美国生物公司提供经费的非专业组织。美国跨国种子公司的转基因种子，主要就是依靠美国ISAAA组织推广的。说穿了，美国ISAAA组织就是孟山都等美国跨国公司联合组建的公关部和宣传部。农业部官员把美国ISAAA组织的宣传材料，用来作为答记者问的内容，已经不仅是动用国家宣传机器免费为美国做广告的问题，而是根本不把中国老百姓当人看的问题。先是偷偷摸摸地下令种植转基因主粮，当事情终于败露，全国民意滔滔，中央责成农业部正面回应老百姓疑问时，又用美国ISAAA组织的宣传材料来搪塞百姓、欺骗中央，其做法真是有些太过分了！ 可以说，绝大多数中国老百姓并不知道洛克菲勒基金会、孟山都、杜邦、陶氏化学是何方神圣，谷歌和百度在美国国家利益的驱动下，也故意掩盖了他们的历史踪迹，如果中国老百姓知道了这些尊神的来历，估计不吃转基因也会吓个半死。先说外表最为温和的洛克菲勒基金会， 洛克菲勒基金会和福特基金会一样，与美国中央情报局几乎是一套人马两块牌子，其主要任务就是在全球范围内推行美国战略计划。福特基金会侧重于经济方面，洛克菲勒基金会侧重于生物方面。所以，把中国打造成为中美国的那些主流经济学家，几乎都是由福特基金会培养的；现在推广转基因主粮的这些中国生物学家，又几乎都是由洛克菲勒基金会培养的。 孟山都是专门制造化学武器和生物武器的美国跨国公司，越战时期美军使用的最恐怖生物武器橙剂（除草剂），就是该公司的主要产品，美军就是用这个橙剂把游击队用来藏身的越南茂密森林，变成了光秃秃的黄土高坡。杜邦公司是专门生产炸药和化学武器的公司，陶氏化学则一听名字就知道是干什么的。现在，这些专门研究和探索高效杀人方法的世界超级大魔头，纷纷聚集中到了中国农业部，和农业部官员共同研究如何把中国老百姓的主粮变成转基因食品。你说，哪个中国老百姓能够放心？农业部聘请的专家通过媒体说什么，在转基因粮食的收益中，跨国公司从中只能获得百分之一的利益，百分之九十九的利益都归中国所有。也就是说，孟山都这些世界超级大魔头来到中国后，全都脱胎换骨，变成了无私奉献的雷锋白求恩。 最拿中国老百姓开涮的是，在已经批准中国三大主粮中的两个水稻和玉米转基因化之后，竟然还说什么发放了水稻和玉米的安全证书不等于立刻商业化生产，这就如同说发放了结婚证书不等于立刻进入洞房一样地属于刻意诡辩。 如果说，没有这种刻意诡辩还可以认为批准转基因主粮可能是疏漏的话，那么，现在这种刻意诡辩本身就暴露了是在掩盖某种不可告人的阴谋，至少是在掩盖自身已站在孟山都公司一边的立场。 而这种立场的选择可以说是中国老百姓最大的悲哀。无论是美国ISAAA组织还是孟山都公司，都把中国2009年11月批准种植转基因水稻和玉米，看作是里程碑式的伟大突破，并欢呼中国种植转基因主粮必将对其他国家产生重要影响。所谓重要影响，实际上就是利用中国农业大国的地位迫使其他更多国家就范。孟山都公司更是兴奋不已地激动表示，孟山都将在转基因粮食商业化方面当好中国的老师，并在2月24日的声明中给中国学生发出了第一道指令，这就是：转基因粮食商业化的关键，是政府的政策和决心；消除公众恐惧的最好方法，就是加快转基因粮食商业化的步伐。这就如同在说，消除公众对抢劫感到恐惧的最好方法，就是加快对公众的抢劫；消除公众对死亡恐惧的最好方法，就是加快公众的死亡。这让人想起了美国总统罗斯福灭绝印第安人的那句著名格言：只有死了的印第安人才是最好的印第安人，让印第安人平静的最好方法，就是把他们变成死人。 目前，美国生物资本在欢呼中国批准转基因主粮，中国老百姓在悲号种植转基因主粮，全世界都在纷纷禁种转基因粮食（就在最近几天，印度政府已下令禁种转基因茄子，在印度只能种植转基因棉花这一种作物；3日也就是前天晚上，中央电视台新闻联播报道了欧盟批准使用转基因土豆作为工业原料，但是在欧盟范围内严禁种植。这就产生了一个问题，欧盟严禁种植转基因土豆又允许使用转基因土豆，转基因土豆从哪里来？回答自然是中国，因为中国连转基因主粮都放开了）。农业部官员却站在美国生物资本的立场上欺骗中国人，甚至连欺骗都算不上，而是在欺辱玩弄中国老百姓。农业部答记者问一方面从头至尾都在赞扬种植转基因粮食，另一方面又安慰老百姓说现在中国没有种植转基因粮食。既然安慰老百姓说没有种植，就是承认种植转基因粮食不是一件好事，既然不是一件好事，为什么又从头至尾大加赞扬？ 这种相互矛盾的双重态度反映了农业部答记者问的双重立场：既要站在孟山都的立场上维护美国生物资本的利益，又要完成中央交代的要正面回应群众质疑的任务，只考虑对美国怎么交代，对中央怎么交代，根本没有考虑对老百姓怎么交代。 其实，中国老百姓的质疑和要求很清楚很明确，就是要废除农业部关于转基因水稻和玉米商业化的批文，并对此做出相应解释。可是农业部答记者问却昏天黑地、东拉西扯地说了一大堆，就是拒绝理会老百姓这一十分明确的基本要求。显然，在炮制农业部答记者问这些官员的眼里，老百姓的确是连一个屁都不如，放一个屁还有响声，可是全国老百姓的呼吁和要求，在农业部那些官员那里，竟然连个屁大的反响都没有。他们甚至连忽悠老百姓都懒得忽悠了，对老百姓的极度轻蔑，可以说是莫此为甚。 那么，这种打着农业部旗号，如此轻蔑对对待中国老百姓，如此轻蔑地对待中华民族的种族安全，能是农业部党组所为吗？能是农业部全体公务员所为吗？显然不是，而是与孟山都公司已结成利益共同体的那些腐败官员所为，是那些已被孟山都控制的买办和汉奸所为。其一，这个非驴非马的农业部答记者问，不仅没有采访时间、地点，更加重要的是没有任何农业部领导的批示，没有农业部党组的态度，如此天大的事情包括党中央都在关注，农业部党组不可能不关注。可见，这个打着农业部旗号的答记者问，肯定是个别利益官员和专家策划的结果，甚至不排除这个答记者问干脆就是由美国ISAAA组织或孟山都公司起草的，否则，农业部怎么可能会甘愿成为孟山都公司的宣传部！其二，注意一下转基因水稻的批准时间和批准方法，就会发现其偷偷摸摸的批准方法，不仅是在欺骗党中央、欺骗全国人民，甚至也在欺骗农业部党组领导。所选择的批准时间，恰恰是原部长已调任吉林省委书记，新部长还未上任的交接空白时间。选择这样一个权力交接的空白时间，不仅转基因水稻能够顺利批准，并且一旦像现在这样被发现，新旧两个部长既可以说都有责任，又可以说都没有责任，都有领导责任又都没有直接责任，这就在客观上迫使新旧两个部长只能被迫采取蒙混过关的消极立场。并且批准决定更加难以推翻，新部长不好推翻老部长离任时做出的决定，已离去的老部长则无权推翻部里的决定。只要动用手中掌握的资金和项目把专家组织起来，骗过党中央这一关，一切就大功告成。 所以，就有了3月3日这么一个非驴非马的农业部答记者问；就有了2月25日农业部下属学术组织100多个专家建议发展转基因农作物的最高学术会议；就有了2月24日美国ISAAA组织的报告和孟山都的声明；就有了所有网民无一人提问转基因问题的网络在线交流；就有了 虽然我们反对腐败，反对买办，反对汉奸，但是，在转基因主粮这个问题上，我们放弃所有对腐败、买办、汉奸行为的关注，我们只关注转基因水稻和玉米的批文问题，只求你们像当今世界所有国家那样，收回转基因水稻和玉米的批文。 为了中华民族的种族安全，为了13亿中国人民的生命安全，为了中华人民共和国的国家安全，请暂缓种植转基因水稻和玉米这两种国民主粮，完全可以在其它动植物品种上发展基因技术和基因产业。 至于其他方面，就不要再瞎扯了。13亿人的生命安全问题，中华民族的生死存亡问题，决不是你们三言两语就打发得了的。 请记住，你们是中华人民共和国农业部，而不是美国孟山都公司公关部！ 附：请看下面文章 转基因专家的大忽悠与新华社记者的假新闻 http://www.wyzxsx.com/Article/Class4/201003/134983.html 原载：直言了博客： http://zhiyanle.blog.hexun.com/ 不应描述虚假图景，而应拿出真实数据 农业部官员编导的新闻是严重误导社会。 作者：直言了 今天新闻邮件里有新华人民光明三家官媒采访不提名的农业部官员的同样内容的报道；官员给的数据不说来源，是不实数据、描绘的图景是虚假图景，严重误导社会。 极少数国家种植转基因作物，欧美大幅度减少转基因食品种植 看看那不署名官员是怎么说的： 全球已有 25 个国家批准了 24 种转基因作物的商业化种植。以抗除草剂和抗虫两类基因，转基因大豆、棉花、玉米、油菜为代表的转基因作物产业化速度明显加快，种植面积由 1996 年的 170 万公顷发展到 2009 年的 1.34 亿公顷 ,14 年间增长了 79 倍 ， 发达国家纷纷把转基因技术作为抢占科技制高点和增强农业国际竞争力的战略重点，发展中国家也积极跟进，全球转基因技术研究与产业快速发展 ， 世界许多国家把发展转基因技术作为抢占科技制高点、增强农业国际竞争力的战略重点 云云。 显然，那农业官员用没来源的数据试图制造一个全球许多国家轰轰烈烈搞转基因作物种植的图景。可实际图景不但不是轰轰烈烈，相反， 五年多来，转基因作物种植面积在欧美发达国家大幅度减少、只是在拉美等极少数国家略有增加，同时，美国医疗卫生系统已经开始建议不要食用转基因食品。 那农业官员给的数据是从 1996 年开始的。若不去了解，那些数据很唬人；若稍做些了解，就能看到那些数据跟废话差不多： 1996 年之前，只有试验性而没有商业化的转基因种植，即种植面积极少、甚至可忽略不计；从几乎没有算起，废话，当然那数量好象就是轰轰烈烈地增加了。 然而，过了商业化种植初期 黄金时代 之后， 2004 年，美国国家科学院发布的报告指明转基因食品给人类健康和生态环境带来危害威胁后。从那以后至今，美国开始逐年减少转基因食品作物种植面积，有所增加的是工业材料能源等方面的经济作物；而在欧盟，则不但是大幅度减少转基因作物种植，更是一些国家立法禁止种植而成为 非转基因 （ NON-GMO ）国家 。下面是有官方来源的实际数据，您可对比农业部官员给的没来源的数据，做出自己的判断。 美国农业部、转基因说客组织、绿和组织等统计说明，转基因作物生产主要集中在极少数的几个国家，世界绝大多数国家不种植或禁止种植转基因作物，例如： 全球 90% 以上的农田是非转基因农田，只有 9.16% 农田种植转基因作物； 全球 85% 左右的转基因作物种植集中在美国、加拿大、巴西、阿根廷四个国家； 全球 192 个国家里， 167 个国家是 非转基因 国家； 全球 99.5% 的农民不种植或拒绝种植转基因作物。 可见， 农业部官员的无来源数据描绘把极少数国家描绘成 全球 、 许多国家 ，提供的是虚假数据、至少，他们提供的是夸张而不实的数据 。 即便在转基因种植大国美国，转基因作物种植也是占少量比例、大量农田依然保持 非转基因 种植。 譬如，美国农业部今年年初公布的统计数据说明，就全国农田而言，截止 2009 年年底， BT 类转基因作物种植面积大约为总数的三分之一、所有转基因作物种植面积不到八大作物农田的 50% ；若与整个农业农田比较，转基因作物种植面积比例就更小。 2010 年 02 月 23 日 前后，路透社等报道，欧盟统计说明， 2009 年，欧盟国家的转基因种植面积比 2008 年减少 12% ， 多数欧洲国家立法成为 非转基因 国家（ GMO-FREE ，即不但不扩展、且撤消已有的转基因作物农田、回到非转基因农田）。 譬如， 2009 年，捷克的转基因作物种植面积减少了 31% ，罗马尼亚减少了 57% ，斯拉瓦基亚减少了 54% ，而德国减少了 100% （立法禁止种植转基因作物）。那些报道还说， 2009 年， 25 个转基因作物种植国家里，七个国家减少了转基因种植面积，其余保持原样。略有增加多为极少数发展中国家。 那些官方统计和发展事实说明， 1996 年到 2004 年是高潮期；过了高潮期，特别是 2004 年以来，美国欧盟国家的转基因种植开始冷却，即并不是象农业部官员说的那样轰轰烈烈搞转基因种植，更没什么 全球 许多国家 轰轰烈烈搞转基因作物种植的事情。就是说，那不署名农业部官员给的无来源数据是违背实际事实的虚假数据。 转基因食品危害健康，美国医生强烈建议不要食用转基因食品 自 2004 年以后，美国逐年减少 BT 转基因食品作物种植，欧盟也大幅度减少甚至有些国家干脆完全禁止同类转基因食品种植，很重要原因，就是 美国国家科学院 2004 年发布的报告以全球长期观察的实例说明， BT 转基因食品对人类和动物的健康已经造成危害损失、对生态环境造成危害、有难以预控和难以弥补的潜在安全威胁，并发出了警告式的建议、要求严控转基因食品作物的种植 。 从美国国家科学院发布那报告后，陆续有科研实验、跟踪调查和临床观察发现 BT 转基因食品对动物和人类的健康造成危害或威胁。由此，西方国家医疗卫生系统提高警惕并付诸抵制转基因食品的实践 。 譬如， 2009 年年底，法国科研人员发表科研实验论文，说明 BT 转基因食品对老鼠内脏造成明显损害； 论文同时以实验证明了美国孟山都公司提供的所谓 BT 玉米安全的数据不但有严重方法问题、且有数据不完整的严重学术问题，因而该公司数据是极不可靠的。 发表该论文的学术杂志编委包括三位美国国家科学院院士、以及因遗传学成就而获得诺贝尔科学奖的科学家。 美国联邦政府卫生部转发了那篇论文。也是 2009 年以来，以美国西欧等发达地区的医学界人士组成的学术组织发表公告，强烈建议所有病人停止食用转基因食品（特别是 BT 类）。就是说，美国等发达国家医学界的官方机构和专业组织达到共识：转基因食品（特别是 BT 类）对人类健康有严重威胁，因而，从病人治疗方面开始抵制使用转基因食品。 从美国国家科学院 2004 年发布那报告后，美国联邦政府环保总署等部门主持或资助了旨在防止转基因 生物恐怖主义 的科研，其中一个课题是转基因食品如何导致人类过敏症以及如何防治。 这一科研从 反恐 角度证明了转基因食品对人类健康有危害和有威胁的事实，否则，联邦政府资助该高消耗科研岂不是多此一举？ 可是，那不署名的农业部官员却拿无来源的数据说： 安委会综合评价认为，转基因水稻和玉米与非转基因对照水稻和玉米具有同样的安全性。 美国卫生部转发的论文证明了转基因玉米危害动物内脏，美国国家科学院调查报告指明了转基因玉米对人类健康和生态环境已经造成危害损失， 欧盟减少转基因种植面积、德国已立法禁止种植转基因玉米，美国自己也大幅度减少了 BT 转基因玉米种植面积。 在这种情况下，那不署名的农业部官员却拿转基因玉米与水稻并列参照、做判断说转基因水稻是安全的！那做法，不是搞忽悠蒙人、还能是什么？ 农业官员的其它瞎侃 农业官员描述的 全球 许多国家 的图景说： 四是生态效益、经济效益十分显著。１９９６至２００７年，全球转基因作物累计收益高达４４０亿美元，累计减少杀虫剂使用３５．９万吨。２００８年，全球共有５５个国家批准了２４种转基因作物进入市场销售，市场价值达到７５亿美元。 。 减少或不用农药，是官员们搞转基因食品作物商业化的最大理由之一。可事实不留情，转基因作物不但没减少、反而增加了农药需用量 。路透社 2009-11-17 日报道、英国 ISIS 科研机构于 2010-01-18 颁布的报告说，美国转基因作物种植使美国农业农药施用量从 1996 年到 2008 年增加了 3.83 亿磅， 2008 年施用量比 2007 年增加了 46% 。 自 2006 年以来数年，就已商业化的三大主要转基因作物玉米、大豆和棉花的种植而言，三者农药需用量都持续上升、且已大大超过天然作物的农药需用量 ： 美国农业：转基因和天然作物的农药用量对比（磅 / 英亩； 2008 年）： 转基因玉米施用： 2.27 ；天然玉米施用： 2.02 。 转基因大豆施用： 1.65 ；天然大豆施用： 0.49 。 转基因棉花施用： 2.72 ；天然棉花施用： 2.07 。 仅美国农业实际就说明那不署名官员描绘的是虚假图景，就说明转基因作物不但没减少、反而需要更多农药的实际情况。 其实，做些简单查询就能发现， 那不署名农业部官员的许多数据来自美国的 ISAAA 组织的 2008 年年度报告。那报告里有句话说： the global market value of biotech crops...was US$7.5 billion （生物技术的市场价值为 75 亿美元）云云，农业官员照搬了。 就那数据，早就遭到了欧美行家的讽刺。譬如，西方经济学家杂志读者分析讽刺说：就在那数字后面的陈述文字里， ISAAA 组织说到统计方法，该数字来自美国市场上的公司种子销售价格。如此计算，仅美国转基因种子就可以给美国 GDP 做出 2% 的贡献了，比整个矿业还厉害，且美国公司转基因种子销售价格居然成了全球的生物技术的 市场价值 ；更不要说，价格那么高，可见种植转基因作物是多么昂贵了。 附带说说，所谓 市场价值 的计算是：按照买卖双方在开放市场的交易价格计算（一般用法），按照债券交易最新价格计算（投资专用），按照可兑现现金的资产计算（会计）；计算的时候，要保持从头到尾的概念范畴和使用单位的一致。这是美国中学课堂就教过的财经常识。对比常识可见， ISAAA 组织的那个数据根本就是不伦不类的搞笑，难怪经济学家杂志读者们要嘲笑那数据呢。 说来， ISAAA 组织数据可笑，不奇怪。该组织是主要由孟山都等美国转基因种子公司赞助的、旨在推销那些公司产品的组织 ；美国农业部也挂名表示支持推销美国产品；就是说，那组织并非专业组织。该组织的出面人物是位诺贝尔奖获得者；然而，不是科学奖，而是搞政治的和平奖。该人物名气大，却是搞政治的，没有足够的科技知识训练、也没有足够的财经知识训练，因而，他在技术财经统计数据方面闹闹笑话，也就不奇怪了。就是说， ISAAA 的数据有真有假，使用前必须做核对而不能直接引用（附后路透社报道就是个核对后使用的例子）。 可是， 管理国家农业技术和农业经济事务的中国官员，也是没科技知识训练和没财经知识训练吗？照搬非专业组织的数据连起码核实都不做、照搬可笑数据作为国家重要决策的依据，那是对国家对人民负责任吗？ 小结 新华社等三家官方媒体发表的新闻，不但不说采访对象、且不给采访时间地点，违犯了新闻报道的起码业务常识。就报道文字看，除了版面设计不同外，其余都一样，甚至连记者所提问题都一样。嘿嘿，明摆着，那是农业部门利益官员自编自导的 新闻 ，借助 官本位 体制、搞个 官员批示新闻 ，实际上是为官员工商利益服务的广告。那是啥作风？中国政府颁布的新闻管理法规还有效吗？即便是搞广告新闻，也请用真实有效数据描绘真实图景，不然，那不是违犯广告法了吗？ 进一步说，若真是负责任的新闻报道，那么，就该公正客观，譬如，报道了农业官员的转基因既得利益看法，也应该报道科学学术和民众消费者的无转基因商业利益的看法；报道了种种好处，也应该报道危害风险。可是，多年来，利益官媒为利益官员服务，只说好处（且是他们的好处、把他们的好处说成是农民的好处），从不报道转基因作物种植的风险和危害，尽管 2004 年以来美国国家科学院等科学机构已经阐明了该风险和危害。 那些转基因利益官员呢，多年里口口声声如何如何严格审查，可至今没拿出象样的数据证明他们的结论，更没有任何风险及风险管理数据 。他们说是按照国际标准做的，可是，国际标准的一个起码要求就是 B/R 分析 （效益风险分析），即说效益必须说明风险，否则就是假数据或不完整数据、是不可靠不可信任的数据。对比看，那些官员根本就没有按照国际标准做。 可以看到的一个很明显的问题是：执政为民、还是执政为钱？ 作者其他文章： 时间考验了土豆，还是记者搞了假新闻？ 直言了，2010-03-03。 （此文同时发至不良信息举报中心和新华社）。 过去12年，欧盟没批准转基因作物种植。今年03月02日，欧盟发布公告、宣布批准转基因土豆（Amflora）商业种植。就此，新华社记者张小军发表新闻说：转基因作物的安全性经受住了时间的考验。开发高产和富含营养成分的转基因作物，被广泛视为根本性解决全球粮食危机的途径。 那是篡改。欧盟批准该种植是允许工业用途而不允许作为人类食品种植：The Commission approved recycling of residue from the starch processing to be used as feed. Amflora potatoes, however, are not approved for human consumption. Incidental, technically unavoidable admixtures of up to 0.9 percent are allowed though. 该产品所有人公司解释说得更明白：除了工业饲料外，Amflora starch can be used in many different ways. It makes yarn stronger and paper glossier; it also makes spray concrete adhere better to the wall and keeps glue liquid for longer. （Amflora淀粉可有许多不同方式的应用。它可强化纱/纸，也可强化混凝土粘性和加长其液态时间）。 对比原文，可见，新华社记者张小军把工业用途的种植当做人类食品用途的种植做报道，那不是压根儿就没看懂公告及新闻、就是故意搞篡改欺骗。不管怎样，那记者提供的是虚假新闻和散布虚假信息 ；而该记者搞虚假报道已经不止一次。 ：见欧盟新闻公告，basf公司公告，BBC-/GMO等媒体新闻报道（2 March 2010 16:54 GMT ）。 相关报道： 科技随笔：时间站在转基因一边。 新华网北京３月３日电（记者张小军）2010年03月03日 18:07:24 来源：新华网。 实验证实转基因食品伤害内脏。 直言了，2010-02-25。 去年年底开始，为商业化和圈钱，转基因利益官员官媒合伙大造舆论忽悠全国民众，说转基因作物食品如何如何安全，甚至抓住一两个失误实验而整个否定欧美等国家自2004年以来多次发布的发现转基因威胁健康和生态的科学调研报告。 然而，就在他们开始鼓噪之时，国际生物学刊于2009-12-10日发表法国科研人员的实验论文，明确说明：经过足够样本和多方面比较的实验，发现转基因玉米对老鼠内脏发生毒性副作用，作用程度跟食用数量时间和对象性别等因素相关。跟2004年以来陆续发表的调查报告一样，这个实验也打破了所谓转基因食品作物是安全的神话。 该实验报告还比较分析了孟山都公司提供的转基因作物喂养老鼠的实验数据，指明该数据存在足够严重的方法问题和不完整等问题。孟山都公司在中国有业务合作。无疑，该实验说明一个事实：遵循孟山都公司方法而做的实验，数据是不可靠的。 据介绍，该国际生物学刊为纯学术刊物，编委会由中欧美澳等国的生物学、基因学和医学等相关学科的专业学者组成；诺贝尔科学奖获得者、分子遗传学转家马里奥卡佩奇，还有三位美国国家科学院院士（包括外籍院士、中国科学家陈竺），入盟为编委成员。作者要发表论文，需要如实说明自己与论文内容是否有利益关联或利益冲突；若有，或难以发表、或其学术价值可能大打折扣，即：该刊物是按照美国英国等政府卫生部门的学术刊物标准为经营原则的 （在美国等西方发达国家，某学术刊物对作者与论文内容是否有利益冲突的要求，往往是判断该杂志公正性的重要尺度之一）。 下面是该实验报告的部分文字摘录，全文请看该刊物或使用连接访问该刊物网站： 实验报告（原文摘录）： A Comparison of the Effects of Three GM Corn Varieties on Mammalian Health Joel Spiroux de Vendomois, Franois Roullier, Dominique Cellier, Gilles-Eric Seralini. Int J Biol Sci 2009; 5:706-726. Available from http://www.biolsci.org/v05p0706.htm Received: 2009.07.23; Accepted: 2009.11.17; Published: 2009.12.10 Abstract We present for the first time a comparative analysis of blood and organ system data from trials with rats fed three main commercialized genetically modified (GM) maize (NK 603, MON 810, MON 863), which are present in food and feed in the world. NK 603 has been modified to be tolerant to the broad spectrum herbicide Roundup and thus contains residues of this formulation. MON 810 and MON 863 are engineered to synthesize two different Bt toxins used as insecticides. Approximately 60 different biochemical parameters were classified per organ and measured in serum and urine after 5 and 14 weeks of feeding. GM maize-fed rats were compared first to their respective isogenic or parental non-GM equivalent control groups. This was followed by comparison to six reference groups, which had consumed various other non-GM maize varieties. We applied nonparametric methods, including multiple pairwise comparisons with a False Discovery Rate approach. Principal Component Analysis allowed the investigation of scattering of different factors (sex, weeks of feeding, diet, dose and group). Our analysis clearly reveals for the 3 GMOs new side effects linked with GM maize consumption, which were sex- and often dose-dependent. Effects were mostly associated with the kidney and liver, the dietary detoxifying organs, although different between the 3 GMOs. Other effects were also noticed in the heart, adrenal glands, spleen and haematopoietic system. We conclude that these data highlight signs of hepatorenal toxicity, possibly due to the new pesticides specific to each GM corn. In addition, unintended direct or indirect metabolic consequences of the genetic modification cannot be excluded. Keywords: GMO, toxicity, GM corn, rat, NK 603, MON 810, MON 863 1. Introduction 2. Materials and Methods 3. Results 4. Discussion 5. Conclusions Abbreviations Acknowledgements References Authors Biographies ANNEXES ...... 5. Conclusions Patho-physiological profiles are unique for each GM crop/food, underlining the necessity for a case-by-case evaluation of their safety, as is largely admitted and agreed by regulators. It is not possible to make comments concerning any general, similar subchronic toxic effect for all GM foods. However, in the three GM maize varieties that formed the basis of this investigation, new side effects linked to the consumption of these cereals were revealed, which were sex- and often dose-dependent. Effects were mostly concentrated in kidney and liver function, the two major diet detoxification organs, but in detail differed with each GM type. In addition, some effects on heart, adrenal, spleen and blood cells were also frequently noted. As there normally exists sex differences in liver and kidney metabolism, the highly statistically significant disturbances in the function of these organs, seen between male and female rats, cannot be dismissed as biologically insignificant as has been proposed by others . We therefore conclude that our data strongly suggests that these GM maize varieties induce a state of hepatorenal toxicity. This can be due to the new pesticides (herbicide or insecticide) present specifically in each type of GM maize, although unintended metabolic effects due to the mutagenic properties of the GM transformation process cannot be excluded . All three GM maize varieties contain a distinctly different pesticide residue associated with their particular GM event (glyphosate and AMPA in NK 603, modified Cry1Ab in MON 810, modified Cry3Bb1 in MON 863). These substances have never before been an integral part of the human or animal diet and therefore their health consequences for those who consume them, especially over long time periods are currently unknown. Furthermore, any side effect linked to the GM event will be unique in each case as the site of transgene insertion and the spectrum of genome wide mutations will differ between the three modified maize types. In conclusion, our data presented here strongly recommend that additional long-term (up to 2 years) animal feeding studies be performed in at least three species, preferably also multi-generational, to provide true scientifically valid data on the acute and chronic toxic effects of GM crops, feed and foods. Our analysis highlights that the kidneys and liver as particularly important on which to focus such research as there was a clear negative impact on the function of these organs in rats consuming GM maize varieties for just 90 days. ...... Table A Parameters as measured by Monsanto in subchronic toxicological studies in rats, sorted by organs. * data available only for MON 863; ** raw data not analyzed by Monsanto for MON863; # data available only for NK 603 and MON 810; ## raw data lacking in the original NK 603 and MON 810 reports from Monsanto , non- understandable lack of data. ...... 中国院士不如美国中学生??? 直言了，2010-02-24。 新闻邮件有一条人民网等官媒转载的新闻《发改委询问转基因大米安全性：危险不比喝水大》。读后感：说是笑掉大牙都过奖。那篇报道是为转基因利益官员做广告的，充满了忽悠人的虚假信息。 先看这段文字：去年中国进口转基因大豆超过4000万吨，几乎都榨成油被中国消费者吃进了肚子。报道试图用那消费规模证明转基因食品安全。可实际上，那消费规模只能说明中国市场消费是笨蛋傻瓜，--- 美国的转基因食品生产规模很大，但其消费规模却很小（美国食品市场大量依靠的是进口和本国生产的天然作物食品）。不信？比较一下： 去年农业年度，美国转基因大豆产量约为8050万吨，食用消费约为340万吨，人均食用约为10公斤； 同期，中国产量不详（没看到统计），食用消费为4000万吨，人均食用约为31公斤、是美国的三倍。 仅转基因大豆消费就有如此巨大差异；若所有都算，那么，中国市场整体和人均的转基因食品消费规模更是比美国的要大得多得多。如此一对比，继续说两国转基因食品消费规模没差别、还是说美国市场跟中国市场一样大量食用转基因食品，那不是说假话、还能是什么呢？再说了，即便中美两国消费规模完全一样、都是大规模，那也不能证明转基因食品就是安全的。譬如，抽烟规模大不大？大得很。能因此大规模烟草消费而说抽烟是安全的吗？用消费规模说明是否安全，整个就是让人说笑掉大牙都过奖的假话谎话。 再看看那广告新闻提供的笑话：发改委副主任调研，问：转基因大米安全吗？中科院院士、华中农业大学教授张启发回答说：国家制定的饮用水标准中，相当于中等毒性农药的亚硝酸盐含量为百万分之一；转基因大米中的抗虫转基因蛋白的含量为百万分之两点五，而抗虫转基因蛋白已经被验证是完全无毒性的。一个正常入1天能够饮水8公斤，但吃不了1公斤大米。张启发的结论是：食用转基因大米带来的危险，不会比喝水的危险更大。 笑倒！早在2004年07月，美国国家科学院报告就明确指出，包括美国在内的全球十年跟踪观察证明，转基因食品可导致难以预见的主基因破坏，并列举了转基因食品作物给人类健康、动物健康和生态环境带来的危害和损失，其中包括嵌入基因产生的蛋白与细菌基因蛋白相同的所谓毒性及破坏性作用。 对人类和动物机体来说，农药化学作用和细菌基因蛋白作用是相关却大不相同的，至少，正如美国国家科学院报告所说的，细菌基因蛋白在体内长期存在和可能导致遗传，而农药化学作用多数不会导致遗传。就是说，含农药之水和含细菌基因蛋白的风险及危害的性质是完全不同的两码事。--- 至少，目前，人类有足够能力预防、治理和弥补农药中毒造成的危害和损失；而对细菌基因蛋白造成的危害和损失而言，在预防、治理和弥补等各方面，人类都还处在束手无策的水平。 在美国，这点知识是中学课堂教学知识；可是，中国的科学院的院士居然不知道，把两者混为一谈。行内的科学院院士居然不如美国中学生，您说，那不是说笑掉大牙都过奖吗？ 再说了，在美国，转基因作物生产已经跟纺织业和制造业差不多了，即：发明创造和设计是领头的，而搞转基因操作则是经过短期训练的人就可以做了，就如同纺织厂里的车间操作员经过短期训练就能上岗一样。正因为如此，在美国，搞基因图谱之类已经上网；无须专业知识，任何人购置了那些仪器、就可按照操作指南而自己搞基因测序、比对、分析和嵌入等等跟转基因相关的活了。 正因为如此，美国农业部新近发布的十年国际市场预测说明，如同当年纺织业从英美转向发展中国家一样，今后十年，转基因作物的生产消费也将开始从美国等国家向亚非拉发展中国家转移。可是，包括那院士在内的利益官员官媒们还在起劲儿地猛吹转基因神话，好象转基因技术力量比宇宙自然界的力量更伟大了。如此状态，就好比是《庄子》故事里说的不知晦朔的朝菌自以为比八百岁的彭祖更长寿，您说，那不是说笑掉大牙都过奖吗？ 当然，拜读完那广告新闻，本人还有个感觉：若发改委官员根据那种说笑掉大牙都过奖的说法就做决策拍板，那就不是笑不笑掉大牙了，而是让人目瞪口呆而无话可说了。 相关新闻报道： 发改委询问转基因大米安全性：危险不比喝水大。 人民网环保频道，2010年02月23日10:45 来源：《长江日报》。 食用转基因大米带来的危险，不会比喝水更大。张启发院士昨日在回答国家发改委领导的提问时如是说。 昨日，国家发改委副主任张晓强率国家新兴产业发展思路研究调研组来汉。在华中农业大学，他听取了绿色超级水稻的研究情况报告，并代表消费者发问:转基因大米安全吗? 他提出这个问题，是因为中国消费者已经在大量消费转基因食品，而转基因食品的安全性又存在诸多争议。据他透露，去年中国进口转基因大豆超过4000万吨，几乎都榨成油被中国消费者吃进了肚子。 中科院院士、华中农业大学教授张启发没有直接回答张晓强的问题，而是举了饮用水的例子来说明他的观点:国家制定的饮用水标准中，相当于中等毒性农药的亚硝酸盐含量为百万分之一;转基因大米中的抗虫转基因蛋白的含量为百万分之两点五，而抗虫转基因蛋白已经被验证是完全无毒性的。一个正常入1天能够饮水8公斤，但吃不了1公斤大米。张启发的结论是:食用转基因大米带来的危险，不会比喝水的危险更大。 张启发是我省绿色超级稻工程技术研究中心首席科学家。他的团队正在研究具备不打药、少施肥、能抗旱三重特性且能高产的绿色超级水稻。 # # # 如此院士把关，难怪食品安全总是问题。 直言了，2010-03-01。 看到人民网报道《陈君石：转基因食品不构成食品安全问题》（人民网记者冯华，2010年03月01日18:50）。嘿嘿，那报道又是为转基因利益官员当枪手的。请到的陈君石职称有一堆：国际知名食品安全专家、国际食品添加剂法典委员会主席、中国疾病预防控制中心营养与食品安全研究所院士。 陈君石院士说转基因食品安全的理由是：天然食品不等于就是安全食品。那逻辑就是：A1，所以B=1，即张三不一定是好人，所以李四是好人。如此混饭逻辑，不是愚蠢、就是故意欺骗。 陈君石院士说转基因食品安全的另一大理由是：我们不是规定食品中农药残留等于零，而是规定食品的农药残留最大限量，只要不超过限量就是合格的，超过了是不合格的。嘿嘿，农药是农药、食品是食品。别说禁止食用的农药，就是人类可以吃的药品，也是跟食品区别对待的。一专业食品安全的大院士，居然连食品和药物都分不清？恐怕不是分不清，而是故意忽悠民众和搞欺骗吧？ 陈君石院士说转基因食品安全还有个理由：按照食品安全定义，一方面转基因食品不含有有毒有害物质，更不要说量的问题，所以说，转基因食品并不构成食品安全问题。哈哈哈~~！如此院士，说混饭都过奖。食品安全定义明确说明对人类有健康威胁的就不是安全的 ；多年来，有许多案例和实验都证明转基因食品对人类健康不但有威胁、且已经造成危害损失。那大院士，居然一不会阅读本行文件，二不知道本行多年来的动态，那不是说混饭都过奖吗？ 根据网友建议，做了查询，原来，陈君石院士是为三聚毒奶搞辩护的。看看他的表现： 面对30万儿童受到三聚毒奶危害和其中一些孩子因毒而死亡，陈君石院士说：不必紧张，三聚氰胺污染的婴幼儿配方奶粉，是不会对小孩儿的肾脏造成危害的，比三聚氰胺更毒的物质比比皆是，所以请大家放心吃毒奶。 就食品含三聚，陈君石院士说：不同限量标准对不同消费者是安全的，对20公斤体重的儿童，其每人每天安全摄入限量为6.4mg，超过安全摄入限量不安全；而对成人来讲，由于安全限量比儿童高，要超过其安全限量需摄入奶糖的量更多，所以安全。他说，那根据是世界卫生组织给的控制限量 。 陈君石院士那说法整个是用篡改伪造的概念欺骗民众。看看世卫组织有关文献原文，就三聚而言，根本就没有任何安全摄入限量之说，而是跟对待任何毒品一样的零限量。世卫组织给的6.4mg数据根本不是针对安全摄入的，而是特定条件下的TDI-健康风险的最大耐量。风险最大耐量和安全摄入限量是完全不同的 立法概念和执法实践。陈君石院士混淆篡改概念、为食品含毒搞个什么安全摄入限量，很清楚，那是为毒奶利益官员的利益服务搞辩护的。在那院士眼里，孩子因毒死亡、30万儿童生命安全面临严重威胁，比不上利益官员的钱包和乌纱帽更重要。 有那样为钱为官而不惜牺牲几十万孩子生命安全的官员院士负责食品安全把关，难怪中国食品一再出问题，难怪毒奶又卷土重来。那样为利害民的官员院士用混饭逻辑说转基因食品不构成食品安全问题，谁信 那瞎说八道？毒奶辩士说转基因食品完全安全，嘿嘿，可见那安全是什么意思了。 美国医生强烈建议病人莫吃转基因。 直言了，2010-02-2 6 19:53 。 2004年七月，美国国家科学院颁布的报告以全球十年跟踪调查的案例为例、清楚阐明转基因食品对人类健康、动物健康和生态环境都有危害损失和潜在威胁。那以后至今，越来越多的实验或调查报告的案例支持那个结论。譬如： - 去年年底，法国科研人员发表的实验报告说明，转基因对老鼠内脏有显著的毒性副作用；该报告还指明了孟山都实验数据有严重方法问题和不完整问题，即其所谓安全结论是非常不可靠的。 - 自转基因作物上市以来，狗猫等宠物饲料导致病变或死亡的案例大增、以至于宠物饲料召回数量超常增加。前阵子，有学术组织和科研机构感到奇怪，就对那些饲料做了抽查，发现多数都添加了转基因食品。于是，他们决定有系统地全面检验宠物饲料，用标签方式把转基因和非转基因饲料严格分开。 - 英美澳等国家的医学调查和长期临床观察说明，使用转基因食品的病人的防毒、防过敏和免疫等方面的保健功能明显差于不吃转基因食品的病人。譬如，人类使用转基因食品后至今十多年里，过敏症状大大增加，特别是少儿食品过敏症状异常增加。 - 约 五年前，美国政府认为生物恐怖主义随时随地可能发生、其中一个手段就是转基因食品诱发过敏症。为此，由环保总署等部门牵头开展了食品过敏和转基因食品的课题研究，专攻如何通过转基因食品诱发过敏、如何防治转基因食品过敏症。行家认为，如果转基因食品对人类是完全安全的而没有任何副作用，那么，美国环保总署搞 的那个高消耗研究课题就是多此一举了。 根据多年发生的大量的转基因食品威胁人类和动物的健康安全的事实案例，2009年05月，美国环境医学科学研究院以相当强烈的语言发表声明、向所有成员医生提出建议，说：转基因食品对病人有严重的安全威胁 ；因此，为病人治疗安全和公共健康安全，我们（该机构）号召成员医生不要让他们的病人食用转基因食品，并教育所在社区民众尽量避免食用转基因食品；我们号召成员医生特别注意食用转基因食品的病人的临床记录，做好数据收集整理；我们要求所有食品都标明是否是转基因食品或含有转基因食品。该机构还要求美国政府尽早实现所有食品标签都遵守法规、都明确标记是否为转基因食品，不能对所谓传统食品严格要求标签标记、而对转基因食品特殊照顾、让其逍遥法外。 根据该机构的声明，地球安全等组织列出了美国社会早些时候反映的大问题：孟山都公司的转基因食品安全的申请报告，是自己批准自己。该披露说：玛格利特米勒是孟山都公司的科研人员；她把公司有关转基因食品安全和上市的申请报告交给美国食品及药物管理总署（FDA-）后，便离职和到FDA-就职了，且负责审核批准转基因食品申请报告。结果是： 玛格利特米勒审核批准了自己的申请报告。与此同时，玛格利特米勒修改了一些准入审核标准尺度。如此一来，孟山都公司的转基因食品安全的报告和商品化上市申请得到FDA-的顺利批准，且它的转基因作物能够顺利和快速地实现商品化和上市。 去年年底，法国科研人员的实验报告清楚指明，孟山都公司的转基因食品安全的实验报告在实验方法方面有严重问题、数据也是严重不完整，即其实验报告是很不可靠的。就是说，FDA-批准孟山都公司报告申请，不但是涉嫌自己批准自己的严重利益冲突、且也涉嫌严重作假作弊，是一大丑闻。若反映问题属实，那将是美国社会一大丑闻，且也是转基因食品史上的一大丑闻。奥巴马当局就职一年两个月，还没机会介入此事，因而，事态发展如何，还未可知。 与此同时，有个很值得注意的动向。本月24日，本人帖文引用美国政府农业部的十年市场预测、做了简单分析说：今后十年，转基因食品作物生产消费将开始从发达国家向发展中国家转移。差不多同时，路透社等发表新闻报道说，继美国减少BT转基因玉米棉花种植面积后，欧盟国家也开始显著减少转基因玉米等食品种植面积；与2008年比较，其2009年的转基因食品种植面积减少了12%，而总量却增加7%；考察发现，那些增加量一半以上发生在发展中国家。就是说，转基因作物生产从发达国家向发展中国家的转移已经开始，比本人估计来得更早。 此外，前些时候的相关报道说，越来越多的美国农民转向非转基因作物种植。 美国环境医学科学研究院于1965年成立，由美国等发达国家为主的医学界专业人士组成。下面是该机构的有关声明部分摘录（有兴趣或核实，请阅读全文）： 一、美国环境医学科学研究院呼吁暂停转基因食品。 The American Academy Of Environmental Medicine Calls For Immediate Moratorium On Genetically Modified Foods . Press Advisory May 19, 2009 . URL ：http://www.aaemonline.org/gmopressrelease.html Wichita, KS - The American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) today released its position paper on Genetically Modified foods stating that GM foods pose a serious health risk and calling for a moratorium on GM foods. Citing several animal studies, the AAEM concludes there is more than a casual association between GM foods and adverse health effects and that GM foods pose a serious health risk in the areas of toxicology, allergy and immune function, reproductive health, and metabolic, physiologic and genetic health. The AAEM calls for: A moratorium on GM food, implementation of immediate long term safety testing and labeling of GM food. Physicians to educate their patients, the medical community and the public to avoid GM foods. Physicians to consider the role of GM foods in their patients' disease processes. More independent long term scientific studies to begin gathering data to investigate the role of GM foods on human health. Multiple animal studies have shown that GM foods cause damage to various organ systems in the body. With this mounting evidence, it is imperative to have a moratorium on GM foods for the safety of our patients' and the public's health, said Dr. Amy Dean, PR chair and Board Member of AAEM. Physicians are probably seeing the effects in their patients, but need to know how to ask the right questions, said Dr. Jennifer Armstrong, President of AAEM. The most common foods in North America which are consumed that are GMO are corn, soy, canola, and cottonseed oil. The AAEM's position paper on Genetically Modified foods can be found at http:aaemonline.org/gmopost.html. AAEM is an international association of physicians and other professionals dedicated to addressing the clinical aspects of environmental health. More information is available at www.aaemonline.org. 二、美国环境医学科学研究院关于转基因食品的立场声明。 Genetically Modified Foods AAEM, May 8, 2009. URL: http://www.aaemonline.org/gmopost.html According to the World Health Organization, Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) are organisms in which the genetic material (DNA) has been altered in such a way that does not occur naturally. 1 This technology is also referred to as genetic engineering, biotechnology or recombinant DNA technology and consists of randomly inserting genetic fragments of DNA from one organism to another, usually from a different species. For example, an artificial combination of genes that includes a gene to produce the pesticide Cry1Ab protein (commonly known as Bt toxin), originally found in Bacillus thuringiensis, is inserted in to the DNA of corn randomly. Both the location of the transferred gene sequence in the corn DNA and the consequences of the insertion differ with each insertion. The plant cells that have taken up the inserted gene are then grown in a lab using tissue culture and/or nutrient medium that allows them to develop into plants that are used to grow GM food crops.2 Natural breeding processes have been safely utilized for the past several thousand years. In contrast, GE crop technology abrogates natural reproductive processes, selection occurs at the single cell level, the procedure is highly mutagenic and routinely breeches genera barriers, and the technique has only been used commercially for 10 years .3 Despite these differences, safety assessment of GM foods has been based on the idea of substantial equivalence such that if a new food is found to be substantially equivalent in composition and nutritional characteristics to an existing food, it can be regarded as safe as the conventional food.4 However, several animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with GM food consumption including infertility, immune dysregulation, accelerated aging, dysregulation of genes associated with cholesterol synthesis, insulin regulation, cell signaling, and protein formation, and changes in the liver, kidney, spleen and gastrointestinal system. There is more than a casual association between GM foods and adverse health effects. There is causation as defined by Hill's Criteria in the areas of strength of association, consistency, specificity, biological gradient, and biological plausibility.5 The strength of association and consistency between GM foods and disease is confirmed in several animal studies .2,6,7,8,9,10,11 Specificity of the association of GM foods and specific disease processes is also supported. Multiple animal studies show significant immune dysregulation, including upregulation of cytokines associated with asthma, allergy, and inflammation. 6,11 Animal studies also show altered structure and function of the liver, including altered lipid and carbohydrate metabolism as well as cellular changes that could lead to accelerated aging and possibly lead to the accumulation of reactive oxygen species (ROS). 7,8,10 Changes in the kidney, pancreas and spleen have also been documented. 6,8,10 A recent 2008 study links GM corn with infertility, showing a significant decrease in offspring over time and significantly lower litter weight in mice fed GM corn.8 This study also found that over 400 genes were found to be expressed differently in the mice fed GM corn. These are genes known to control protein synthesis and modification, cell signaling, cholesterol synthesis, and insulin regulation. Studies also show intestinal damage in animals fed GM foods, including proliferative cell growth9 and disruption of the intestinal immune system.6 Regarding biological gradient, one study, done by Kroghsbo, et al., has shown that rats fed transgenic Bt rice trended to a dose related response for Bt specific IgA. 11 Also, because of the mounting data, it is biologically plausible for Genetically Modified Foods to cause adverse health effects in humans. In spite of this risk, the biotechnology industry claims that GM foods can feed the world through production of higher crop yields. However, a recent report by the Union of Concerned Scientists reviewed 12 academic studies and indicates otherwise: The several thousand field trials over the last 20 years for genes aimed at increasing operational or intrinsic yield (of crops) indicate a significant undertaking. Yet none of these field trials have resulted in increased yield in commercialized major food/feed crops, with the exception of Bt corn.12 However, it was further stated that this increase is largely due to traditional breeding improvements. Therefore, because GM foods pose a serious health risk in the areas of toxicology, allergy and immune function, reproductive health, and metabolic, physiologic and genetic health and are without benefit, the AAEM believes that it is imperative to adopt the precautionary principle, which is one of the main regulatory tools of the European Union environmental and health policy and serves as a foundation for several international agreements. 13 The most commonly used definition is from the 1992 Rio Declaration that states: In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.13 Another often used definition originated from an environmental meeting in the United States in 1998 stating: When an activity raises threats to the environment or human health, precautionary measures should be taken, even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically. In this context, the proponent of an activity, rather than the public, should bear the burden of proof (of the safety of the activity).13 With the precautionary principle in mind, because GM foods have not been properly tested for human consumption, and because there is ample evidence of probable harm, the AAEM asks: Physicians to educate their patients, the medical community, and the public to avoid GM foods when possible and provide educational materials concerning GM foods and health risks. Physicians to consider the possible role of GM foods in the disease processes of the patients they treat and to document any changes in patient health when changing from GM food to non-GM food. Our members, the medical community, and the independent scientific community to gather case studies potentially related to GM food consumption and health effects, begin epidemiological research to investigate the role of GM foods on human health, and conduct safe methods of determining the effect of GM foods on human health. For a moratorium on GM food, implementation of immediate long term independent safety testing, and labeling of GM foods, which is necessary for the health and safety of consumers.
标签: 孟山都
