桃花运吻戏:探索转基因食品的巨大危害--揭露孟山都的伪劣研究

探索转基因食品的巨大危害，中国良心不再孤军奋战！

关于转基因食品对人体健康的毒副作用或者说巨大的毒副作用，基本上从其诞生之日起甚至可能在这之前就由研究、试验加以证明。我记得奥地利的一些科学家曾经做过的实验真实地表明转基因玉米危害老鼠的繁殖能力并产生其他健康危害。　　

然而由于商业利益的驱动，有钱能使鬼推磨(英文及直译：Money makes the mare go. 给母马钱，可以使它走路。 Money talks. 钱可以替人说话。)，看来这在中国和西方欧洲都是普遍潜规则或者显规则，转基因玉米在欧洲经过“三上三下”以后，最后由于金钱的通天本领，依然敲开了欧洲紧闭的大门，但是，和中国情况一样，欧洲有良知的人们不屈从于权力和金钱，依然在为自己、为家人、为同胞、为种族奔走呼喊、据理力争。在中国，情况也很类似，在“沉默的大多数”不知不觉中、在他们还在不知就里很高兴买到了廉价的转基因大豆油、调和油的时候，却有一大批有良知的人士在为他们可能受到的转基因食品的伤害而抗争。最近，至少网络上有关转基因食品危害性的讨论越来越多、越来越激烈、越来越深入，这是一件大好事，这表明，越来越多的人在权势、麻木和良心、人性之间选择了良心和人性！　　

有网友把转基因食品比作让中国蒙受百年奇耻大辱的鸦片相提并论，这并不过分，但很可能还会严重百倍，到最后导致种族灭绝很可能不是危言耸听，因为转基因食品会导致生殖力下降，而且更为严重的是，转基因技术和产品掌握在别人手上，遇到某种特殊情况，别人稍作改变，而自己又检测不出来，则很可能给整个民族带来灭顶之灾。　　

正如以下翻译文中所说： 在食品试验中，老鼠是人类的替身。因此无论是药品还是食品，老鼠实验的结果意义重大：老鼠是药物试验载体，没有经过老鼠实验的新药可能是不允许在人体试验或者运用的。 所以， 转基因食品在老鼠身上做实验的结果或者结论是可信的，可以作为论证转基因食品是有害还是无害的论据。现在的事实是明确无误的：用转基因玉米喂食的老鼠出现了严重的健康和繁殖问题！　　

在某些洋奴眼里，西方国家代表正义、诚实、良知，然而在人命关天的转基因食品这样重大问题上，它们竟然也会偷梁换柱、玩狸猫换太子的游戏，这不能不说，利欲熏心、自欺欺人在东方和西方有着共同的市场，这也是中西方有良知的人士要与之奋力抗争的。　　

经济利益不应该凌驾于民族利益和国家利益之上， 如果做不到这一点，就是某些组织和人员的严重渎职和严重犯罪行为，是严重缺乏良知和人性的祸国殃民行为！　　

以下文章转译自英国的《生态学家》(the Ecologist) 网站，仅供免费了解转基因食品的危害以及欧洲批准转孟山度公司转基因玉米的内幕参考，任何人不可擅自将其作为牟利的商业用途或者限制浏览，否则，自担责任。　　

－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－　　

Cause For Concern (担忧的理由)　　

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

此文首发于2005年10月的《生态学家》杂志。 This article first appeared in the Ecologist October 2005　　

欧洲委员会刚通过了孟山度公司的转基因玉米在欧盟的使用，但是，正如Jeffrey M Smith 揭露说，对获得通过试验的正确分析表明，这永远不应该通过。 　　

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

当老鼠被喂食孟山度公司的转基因玉米 Mon 863 以后， 它们的状况不佳。事实上，Gilles-Eric Seralini教授说它们或许呈现出毒性反应，但要查明却有难度。嗜碱性的增加可能意味着多种过敏。淋巴细胞和白血细胞的增加表明感染、毒素或者疾病。不成熟的红血细胞的减少能导致贫血，减少的肾脏重量可能意味着血压问题。老鼠们还有增加的血糖量、肾脏发炎、肝脏和肾脏病变 － 整个就一团糟。 Seralini和其他科学家们需要做的是进一步的实验。他们得到的却是(2005年)8月8日欧洲委员会对这种玉米的通过。　　

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

Mon 863 转基因玉米并不是欧盟批准的对老鼠健康有重大影响的第一种转基因食品。 根据兼职评估转基因食品的两个法国政府委员会成员的分子内分泌学家Seralini所说，有一种油菜(GT 73)、草甘磷玉米和两种转基因玉米 (Bt11 and Mon 810)经统计都显示出重大问题，例如、炎症疾病、肝脏和肾脏问题。 Seralini说，转基因食品的效果和农药类似。 　　

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

但 Mon 863 转基因玉米却是独一无二的。不是因为老鼠异常情况的数量之多-别的老鼠有更多异常，而是对老鼠的实验没有保密。 生物技术公司通常会向公众隐瞒他们的研究， 声称那是商业机密。 Seralini说：“没有人能够明白，即使在欧盟立法者中也没有人能够明白为什么吃过转基因食品的老鼠的血液成分需要保密。” 但一个德国法院于2005年6月20日作出了对绿色的和平组织有利的裁决，迫使孟山度公司公布Mon 863 转基因玉米的研究。拿到了这些数据，我们就能够明白Seralini为什么会如此担忧。 而且，我们现在知道了为了顺利批准转基因食品，转基因派的欧洲食品标准局(EFSA)和欧洲委员会有意忽略了多少问题。　　

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

在孟山度公司委托进行的研究中，实验鼠吃 Mon 863 转基因玉米，这种玉米产生转基因毒素杀死玉米根虫。对照组吃的是非转基因玉米，来自相同的“父系”，也就是说，在生物技术基因植入前，这两种玉米的基因相同。使用父系玉米是很重要的，它可以把食品的不同之处最小化，从而突出基因改造的影响， 试验起到了这种作用。 根据实验设计，喂食转基因玉米的那组老鼠的健康结果不是纯属巧合。 然而， 孟山度公司却说服了 EFSA 忽略这些重大的统计结果，声明这种玉米是安全的。以下是他们的操作过程：  　　

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

1. 研究人员另外使用6个对照组， 每一组喂食含有不同基因的不同品种的商业玉米。 和这个数量大很多的混合组(指上面所述喂食相同父系玉米的那一组-译者注)比较，实验鼠身上的一些改变就不那么明显了。 但根据动物营养学和转基因研究的著名专家和权威人士Arpad Pusztai说，用混合基因品种喂养老鼠进行比较是不适当的，与安全评估没有关联性。　　

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

2. 然而， 即使与这些“人为”的对照组相比，许多健康问题结果也是显著的。因此，孟山度公司声称如果它们是在对于老鼠属于“正常”的宽广范围内，它们在生物学上就没有关联性。我们对此做个透视，假设一组被精心控制饮食的女性比食用另一种饮食的女性患乳腺癌的比例高50%，按照孟山度公司的逻辑，研究结果可以忽略不计，对于整个人口来说，增加的人数依然在乳腺癌的正常变异范围内。这样，孟山度公司认为未成熟血细胞减少52%“归因于正常的生物学变异”，可以忽略不计。根据Pusztai的看法，在食品试验方面，限度为5%的变异标准才是正常。他说，同理， “鉴于糖尿病的发病范围”，血糖水平增加10% “不能作为生物学上的无足轻重而忽略不计”。　　

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

3. 尽管出现统计上的信手拈来，有几项结果还是在孟山度公司的“正常”范围之外。他们又找到了另外的借口。由于实验鼠中间雌鼠和雄鼠的毒性反应不一致， 也就无足轻重了。Seralini说，“这实在滑稽可笑”，并指出每一个研究癌症和内分泌的人都知道，不同性别的反应是不同的。 　　

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

4. 在性别辩解不起作用后，孟山度公司拒不考虑结果， 并声明这些反应具体剂量不明。 具体说来，喂食11% Mon 863转基因玉米老鼠的改变有时候比那些喂养33%的更加明显。Seralini对此再次指出，孟山度公司的声明与科学理解有矛盾。在内分泌学和毒理学研究方面，不同之处不总是和效果成正比。例如，小剂量激素可致女性排卵，而更大剂量激素却可导致她不孕。 　　

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

5. 在所有其他借口都失败后，孟山度公司声称，对于这么大规模的研究，人们可以预料很多结果在统计上进入重大范围纯属偶然。因此，不需要进一步研究。 受德国政府委托在2004年评估这项研究的Pusztai写道：“喂食转基因玉米老鼠的重要器官(肾脏、肝脏等)的大病变和血液参数(淋巴细胞、粒细胞、葡萄糖等)的变化是偶然现象以及是由于简单的生物变异的说法简直不可思议。”　　

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

被操控的伪劣研究　　

Rigged and shoddy research　　

这项研究的几个特点似乎被人为操控以避免发现问题。例如，营养研究通常使用年幼并生长快的动物，这类动物对毒素和营养作用很敏感。孟山度公司的方法是混合年幼和老动物，这种做法可能隐藏了严重问题。同样，他们使用的老鼠的起始重量差别巨大，雄鼠重量在198.4　-259.8克　(或者根据实验目录自相矛盾的数据，143　-186克　)。根据Pusztai的观点，起始重量与平均重量的差异不能大于2%。 宽泛的差异“能够导致在实验结束时不可能发现重大差别。。。。。。”　　

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

非洲的受援者们90%的热量摄取依靠玉米。老鼠是人类的替身。根据Pusztai所说，研究人员本来应该从可能的最大数量玉米开始试验(同时保持均衡饮食)，接着使用较低数量的玉米来评估剂量效应。喂食老鼠的最大量玉米只占它们饮食的33%，只构成它们蛋白质约15%的比例。 　　

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

根据Seralini所说，Mon 863 转基因玉米是新的独特品种；它与天然的生物毒素有几个方面的区别。它至少应该需要运用化学农药的评估水准。在欧盟，这需要对三种哺乳动物进行研究，研究时间跨度为90天到两年。然而，Mon 863 转基因玉米在经过短短的90天老鼠试验后就获得批准。慢性疾病和生殖问题以及对下一代的影响可能都省掉了。而且，研究仅有两次观察(第5周和第14周)运用了已有半个世纪历史的分析方法。它们忽视了一些强有力的新方法，例如：阵列基因分析技术、DNA 芯片技术、蛋白质组学等。　　

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

报告中的一些的重量检测也显得异乎寻常。 一只老鼠体重在一周减少了53克，而在下一周却增加了102克。 有一些实验开始时最重的老鼠在试验结束时却成了最轻的，在最后四周里面那些老鼠几乎根本没有生长。　　

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

总之，研究文件令人困惑、自相矛盾、质量低劣，而且，在厚厚的1139页文件里面似乎企图用堆积如山、毫不相关的资料隐瞒结果。它们没有披露用来检测变化的方法，因此其研究不能被重复，其结果也就令人怀疑。　　

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

从总体上来看这次试验，Pusztai说：“营养学科学家和主流杂志是不会接受这些昭然若揭的缺陷和曲解。” 他补充说：“因此，很奇怪，这样的研究竟然成了政府立法当局考虑的中心文件，并据此做出保护欧洲公民健康的决定。”　　

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

德国法院裁决公开 Mon 863 转基因玉米的研究可能会开启更多的这类探求。Seralini说，如果没有被公开，就只有几个毒物学家做决定，而没有公众的评估。而且，决策部门往往会受到申请公司的强力影响。他所在的法国生物分子遗传学委员会(CBG)似乎就是这样，他们最初根据证据拒绝批准 Mon 863 转基因玉米。CBG的主席是遗传学家，与工业部门关系紧密，他请一个顾问只对一个重大异常做出评估，然后在未达到法定人数的情况下强行投票。在18个成员只到场5人的情况下，Mon 863 转基因玉米 以3:2获得通过。Seralini说，奇怪的是其中一个投赞成票的毒理学家“一直反对长期动物毒性测试”。事实上，他是曾经批准诺华地公司(现名先正达公司)的 E 176 玉米的法国委员会成员，而这种玉米仅用3头牛做了两周的实验。事实上，实验开始的时候有四头牛，有一头牛死掉了就被淘汰了。　　

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

这个毒理学家也供职于 EFSA，EFSA 因为使用主要转基因食品派科学家已经受到批评。根据2004年11月的《地球之友》杂志报道，“其中一个成员与生物技术行业有直接的财务关系，其他的则有不直接的关系”。其中几个成员，包括其主席，则是一项欧盟资助的将“为转基因食品在欧洲市场化提供便利”作为明确目标项目的成员。而且，“其中两个成员还出现在生物技术公司制作的宣传片里面”。　　

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

因此，我们不再奇怪 EFSA 赞同并重复孟山度公司的借口为什么喂食 Mon 863 转基因玉米老鼠统计学上的重大健康结果没有关联性。然而，欧盟部长理事会对 EFSA 的推荐不予考虑并在(2005年)7月24日对批准 Mon 863 转基因玉米投了反对票。但由于欧盟法律要求一个“法定的多数”，这个问题被提交到欧盟委员会，他们则批准让欧洲公民食用(Mon 863 转基因玉米)。　　

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

既然行业研究可能会被公开， EFSA 和欧盟委员会可能会更加谨慎并要求真正的科学论证和严格的研究。同时，我们依然不知道喂食 Mon 863 转基因玉米的那些老鼠的病情有多重，我们也不知道对人类的影响。