（英國(guó)）土壤協(xié)會(huì)2008年對(duì)轉(zhuǎn)基因農(nóng)作物、轉(zhuǎn)基因食品問(wèn)題公布了一個(gè)全面深入詳盡的的研究報(bào)告：轉(zhuǎn)基因農(nóng)作物對(duì)健康的影響。
英國(guó)土壤協(xié)會(huì)揭露轉(zhuǎn)基因惡果研究報(bào)告(目錄)
GM crops -- the health effects, A report by the Soil Association, UK
陳一文譯（[email protected]）
原文pdf文件網(wǎng)址：
http://www.soilassociation.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=SqDvBO1pyEU=&tabid=390
目錄
The Soil Association
（英國(guó)）土壤協(xié)會(huì)介紹
Introduction
引言
Do milk, eggs and meat from GM-fed animals contain GM material?
來(lái)自轉(zhuǎn)基因農(nóng)作物喂養(yǎng)動(dòng)物的牛奶、雞蛋和肉類含有轉(zhuǎn)基因物質(zhì)？
Study by a Canadian team: Pigs and Sheep
加拿大研究組進(jìn)行的研究：豬和羊
Study by an Italian team: Piglets
意大利研究組進(jìn)行的研究：豬仔
Study by another Italian team: Milk
另一個(gè)意大利研究組進(jìn)行的研究：牛奶
Study by an German team: Milk
德國(guó)研究組進(jìn)行的研究：牛奶
Study by the Soil Association: Milk
（英國(guó)）土壤協(xié)會(huì)進(jìn)行的研究：牛奶
Do GM foods have health impacts?
轉(zhuǎn)基因食品對(duì)健康是否有影響？
Official safety assessments are far too narrow
官方安全評(píng)估過(guò)于狹窄
Poor safety assessment of Roundup Ready soya
對(duì)孟山都抗除草劑轉(zhuǎn)基因大豆安全性的評(píng)價(jià)程序低劣
Animal feeding tests show negative effects of GM crops
動(dòng)物喂養(yǎng)試驗(yàn)表明了轉(zhuǎn)基因作物的負(fù)面影響
(i) GM soya
（一）轉(zhuǎn)基因大豆
Russian rat trial –
俄羅斯的老鼠試驗(yàn) -
Italian mouse trial –
意大利的老鼠試驗(yàn) –
FSA human feeding trial –
食品安全局組織的人喂食轉(zhuǎn)基因食品試驗(yàn) -
(ii) GM maize Monsanto rat trial –
（二）對(duì)孟山都轉(zhuǎn)基因玉米進(jìn)行的老鼠試驗(yàn) -
Aventis’s chicken and rat trials –
安萬(wàn)特公司的雞和老鼠試驗(yàn) -
UK study of gene transfer in sheep –
英國(guó)對(duì)羊中轉(zhuǎn)基因遷移的研究 -
(iii) GM oilseed rape
（三）轉(zhuǎn)基因油菜
Monsanto rat trials –
孟山都公司進(jìn)行的老鼠試驗(yàn) -
(iv) GM peas
（四）轉(zhuǎn)基因豌豆
Australian mice trial –
澳大利亞老鼠試驗(yàn)
(v) GM tomatoes
（五）轉(zhuǎn)基因番茄
Calgene mice trials
（美國(guó)）Calgene公司進(jìn)行的小鼠試驗(yàn) -
(vi) GM potatoes
（六）轉(zhuǎn)基因土豆
UK rat trials –
英國(guó)進(jìn)行的老鼠試驗(yàn) -
英國(guó)“土壤協(xié)會(huì)”1946年由有遠(yuǎn)見(jiàn)的農(nóng)民、醫(yī)生和有關(guān)人士創(chuàng)立。該組織致力于越來(lái)越多人士對(duì)于耕作方法和植物、動(dòng)物、人類和環(huán)境健康之間直接關(guān)系的取得共同理解的輿論推進(jìn)改變。土壤協(xié)會(huì)2008年公布的研究報(bào)告：轉(zhuǎn)基因農(nóng)作物對(duì)健康的影響。
（英國(guó)）土壤協(xié)會(huì)簡(jiǎn)介
GM crops -- the health effects, A report by the Soil Association, UK
陳一文譯（[email protected]）
原文pdf文件網(wǎng)址：
http://www.soilassociation.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=SqDvBO1pyEU=&tabid=390
Note by Advisor Chen I-wan: Due to limitation of my translation, to enable readers check with the original text, herewith with corresponding English/Chinese text provide the Chinese translation of this report. If any reader identifies errors in the Chinese translation, or has suggestions for better translation, welcome send emails to me, enabling me to make timely corrections and improvements. During my translation, I acknowledge and appreciate assistance by Google translation.
陳一文顧問(wèn)注：由于本人翻譯水平有限，為便于讀者核對(duì)原文，特此以英文/中文對(duì)照方式提供該研究報(bào)告的中譯文。任何讀者如果發(fā)現(xiàn)譯者中譯文有誤或者有更好翻譯建議的話，歡迎發(fā)郵件給本人，便于及時(shí)修正與改進(jìn)。翻譯過(guò)程中借助谷歌翻譯功能，予以確認(rèn)與致謝！
Researched by Cóilín Nunan, with assistance from Kathleen Hewlett.
研究者：柯林·努南（Cóilín Nunan）；協(xié)助研究者：卡瑟琳·惠勒特（Kathleen Hewlett）。
Written by Gundula Azeez and Cóilín Nunan.
撰寫(xiě)者：宮杜拉·阿紫資（Gundula Azeez）與柯林·努南（Cóilín Nunan）。
With many thanks to all the farmers who supplied samples and answered our questions, and Genetic ID for testing the samples.
致謝：對(duì)于向我們提供樣品、回復(fù)我們的詢問(wèn)的所有農(nóng)民們，以及協(xié)助檢測(cè)樣品的“基因鑒別”（Genetic ID）致謝！
Produced by the Soil Association (layout by Yael Hodder, proofing by Anna Groves).
制作方：土壤協(xié)會(huì)（Soil Association）（排版者：亞伊爾·霍德；校對(duì)者：安娜·格魯維斯）
Soil Association
（英國(guó)）土壤協(xié)會(huì)介紹
The Soil Association is the UK’s leading environmental charity campaigning for a global shift to sustainable, organic food and farming practices.
“土壤協(xié)會(huì)”是英國(guó)領(lǐng)先的環(huán)保慈善組織，為全球轉(zhuǎn)向可持續(xù)有機(jī)食品和耕作方式而斗爭(zhēng)。
Founded in 1946 by a far-sighted group of farmers, doctors and concerned citizens, the organization is dedicated to bringing about change by creating a growing body of public opinion that understands the direct link between farming practice and plant, animal, human and environmental health.
（英國(guó)）“土壤協(xié)會(huì)”1946年由有遠(yuǎn)見(jiàn)的農(nóng)民、醫(yī)生和有關(guān)人士創(chuàng)立。該組織致力于越來(lái)越多人士對(duì)于耕作方法和植物、動(dòng)物、人類和環(huán)境健康之間直接關(guān)系的取得共同理解的輿論推進(jìn)改變。
Today the Soil Association is an internationally respected authority on sustainable agriculture and recognized champion of healthy food, which uniquely represents and offers practical solutions to everyone involved in the food chain – farmers, food processors, retailers and consumers.
今天，“土壤協(xié)會(huì)”在可持續(xù)農(nóng)業(yè)方面在國(guó)際上享有權(quán)威性，同時(shí)是健康食品方面公認(rèn)的冠軍，使其獨(dú)特地代表并向食物鏈中的所有人--農(nóng)民、食品加工商、零售商和消費(fèi)者—提供切實(shí)可行的解決方案。
The Soil Association is reliant on the support of its members, donors and the public to carry out its work. You can help grow the organic movement, by joining the Soil Association you will be part of a dynamic organisation pressing to change the predominant food culture in this country.
土壤協(xié)會(huì)依賴于其成員、捐助者和公眾的支持開(kāi)展工作。通過(guò)加入土壤協(xié)會(huì)，成為充滿活力迫切要改變這個(gè)國(guó)家主要的飲食文化組織的一部分，你可以幫助有機(jī)運(yùn)動(dòng)的發(fā)展。
Single UK membership costs just £24 a year.
個(gè)人英國(guó)會(huì)員費(fèi)用每年僅24英鎊。
Soil Association
土壤協(xié)會(huì)通訊地址：
Soil Association
South Plaza
Marlborough Street
Bristol BS1 3NX, UK
T 0117 314 5000
F 0117 314 5001
官方網(wǎng)站：www.soilassociation.org
（英國(guó)）土壤協(xié)會(huì)2008年公布的該研究報(bào)告證明：基因工程確實(shí)對(duì)健康造成了真實(shí)的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)，轉(zhuǎn)基因農(nóng)作物是不安全的，不應(yīng)該作為動(dòng)物與人類的食品，而且，用轉(zhuǎn)基因農(nóng)作物飼料喂養(yǎng)的雞生的蛋、用轉(zhuǎn)基因農(nóng)作物飼料喂養(yǎng)的牛的牛奶與肉類檢測(cè)出含有轉(zhuǎn)基因物質(zhì)，也不應(yīng)該作為人類的食品！
（英國(guó)）土壤協(xié)會(huì)公布的研究報(bào)告：轉(zhuǎn)基因農(nóng)作物對(duì)健康的影響—引言
GM crops -- the health effects, A report by the Soil Association, UK
陳一文譯（[email protected]）
*
陳一文顧問(wèn)按：
“一些證據(jù)開(kāi)始顯現(xiàn)，表明轉(zhuǎn)基因農(nóng)作物喂養(yǎng)動(dòng)物造成肉類和奶制品中出現(xiàn)少量的轉(zhuǎn)基因物質(zhì)，以前沒(méi)有發(fā)現(xiàn)過(guò)這樣的問(wèn)題。……引起對(duì)于轉(zhuǎn)基因農(nóng)作物喂養(yǎng)動(dòng)物生產(chǎn)的食品依然不貼標(biāo)簽的重大倫理問(wèn)題的擔(dān)心。”
請(qǐng)注意，由于這篇研究報(bào)告2008年發(fā)表，因而不包括2009 – 2010年世界更多地方揭露出來(lái)的轉(zhuǎn)基因農(nóng)作物、轉(zhuǎn)基因食品更加廣泛更加嚴(yán)重的危害！
*
Introduction
引言
One of the main concerns about GM crops is whether they will have negative effects on health. This was initially a theoretical concern. However, considerable scientific evidence has emerged over the last few years that has substantially developed our understanding and shows that there are indeed real health risks from genetic engineering.
對(duì)轉(zhuǎn)基因農(nóng)作物憂慮的主要問(wèn)題是，轉(zhuǎn)基因農(nóng)作物是否會(huì)對(duì)健康造成負(fù)面影響。這最初是一個(gè)理論問(wèn)題。然而，過(guò)去幾年暴露出來(lái)的大量的科學(xué)證據(jù)，使我們的理解有了大幅發(fā)展，表明基因工程確實(shí)對(duì)健康造成了真實(shí)的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。
There is now a worrying body of published, peer-reviewed scientific evidence from controlled animal studies carried out in many countries and by different parties (government, independent and company studies) that demonstrates that GMOs cause a wide range of serious unexpected health impacts.
不同國(guó)家、不同機(jī)構(gòu)（政府，獨(dú)立的和公司的研究）通過(guò)對(duì)照動(dòng)物進(jìn)行的許多研究經(jīng)審查的科學(xué)證據(jù)令人擔(dān)心的表明，轉(zhuǎn)基因生物體（GMOs）對(duì)健康確實(shí)造成了一系列沒(méi)有料想到的嚴(yán)重的影響。
Evidence is also beginning to emerge that if GM crops are fed to animals, small amounts of GM material appear in the resulting meat and dairy products, and this had not been previously identified.
除此之外，一些證據(jù)開(kāi)始顯現(xiàn)，表明轉(zhuǎn)基因農(nóng)作物（GM crops）喂養(yǎng)動(dòng)物造成肉類和奶制品中出現(xiàn)少量的轉(zhuǎn)基因物質(zhì)（GM material），以前沒(méi)有發(fā)現(xiàn)過(guò)這樣的問(wèn)題。
Both of these issues raise serious human and animal health concerns about the use of GMOs in food, and also major ethical concerns about the fact that foods from GM-fed animals remain unlabelled. The findings also raise serious questions about the reliability of the European safety assessment and advisory procedures.
這兩個(gè)問(wèn)題引起對(duì)在食品中使用轉(zhuǎn)基因生物體（GMOs）對(duì)于人類和動(dòng)物嚴(yán)重健康問(wèn)題的擔(dān)心，同時(shí)也引起對(duì)于轉(zhuǎn)基因農(nóng)作物喂養(yǎng)動(dòng)物生產(chǎn)的食品依然不貼標(biāo)簽的重大倫理問(wèn)題的擔(dān)心。這些研究發(fā)現(xiàn)也使人們對(duì)于歐洲安全評(píng)估和咨詢程序的可靠性提出的嚴(yán)重的質(zhì)疑。
With this evidence, the Soil Association believes that GM crops are unsafe and should not be used for food.
依據(jù)這些證據(jù)，土壤協(xié)會(huì)認(rèn)為，轉(zhuǎn)基因農(nóng)作物是不安全的，不應(yīng)該用于食品。
來(lái)自轉(zhuǎn)基因農(nóng)作物喂養(yǎng)動(dòng)物的牛奶、雞蛋和肉類含有轉(zhuǎn)基因物質(zhì)？
（英國(guó)）土壤協(xié)會(huì)公布的研究報(bào)告：轉(zhuǎn)基因農(nóng)作物對(duì)健康的影響（1）
GM crops -- the health effects, A report by the Soil Association, UK（1）
陳一文譯（[email protected]）
*
陳一文顧問(wèn)按：
*
Do milk, eggs and meat from GM-fed animals contain GM material?
來(lái)自轉(zhuǎn)基因農(nóng)作物喂養(yǎng)動(dòng)物的牛奶、雞蛋和肉類含有轉(zhuǎn)基因物質(zhì)？
It was often suggested by the advocates of GM crops that there should be no concerns about this issue because GM crop material is degraded during processing into feed and during digestion. (There are, for instance, significant secretions of nucleases, enzymes which break down DNA, along the gut.)1
轉(zhuǎn)基因農(nóng)作物的擁護(hù)者們經(jīng)常建議，這個(gè)問(wèn)題不應(yīng)令人擔(dān)心，因?yàn)檗D(zhuǎn)基因農(nóng)作物材料在加工為飼料和消化過(guò)程中被降解。（例如，大量分泌物核酸、酶沿腸道分解DNA）[1]
Until a couple of years ago, none of the published studies had detected transgenic (GM) DNA in the milk, eggs or meat of GM-fed animals. [2, 3, 4, 5]
直到幾年前，已發(fā)表的研究論文都沒(méi)有發(fā)現(xiàn)轉(zhuǎn)基因農(nóng)作物飼料喂養(yǎng)的牛奶、雞蛋或肉類含有轉(zhuǎn)基因（GM）的基因。[2, 3, 4, 5]
Nevertheless, several of these studies found that plant chloroplast DNA from animal feed is present in milk, eggs and meat.[2, 3, 4] This plant DNA was not nuclear DNA, the DNA contained in the nuclei of cells which is where the novel genes (‘trangenes’) are usually inserted for making GM crops. It was instead the DNA that is found in the chloroplasts, the plant ‘organelles’ that photosynthesise and which are present in large numbers in plant cells.
然而，其中一些研究發(fā)現(xiàn)，牛奶，雞蛋和肉類中存在著來(lái)自動(dòng)物飼料的植物葉綠體基因（plant chloroplast DNA）。[2, 3, 4]這種植物基因（plant DNA）不是核基因（nuclear DNA）；細(xì)胞的細(xì)胞核中含有的基因通常用來(lái)插入外來(lái)新奇基因（novel genes -- 'trangenes'）使其成為轉(zhuǎn)基因農(nóng)作物。與此相反，（牛奶，雞蛋和肉類中）發(fā)現(xiàn)的基因是葉綠體中發(fā)現(xiàn)的基因（DNA），是光合作用的植物細(xì)胞器（the plant ‘organelles’ that photosynthesise），它們?cè)谥参锛?xì)胞中大量存在。
Chloroplast DNA is vastly more abundant than nuclear DNA, since each plant cell can have thousands of copies of chloroplast genes but just two to four copies of each nuclear gene. Plant chloroplast DNA is therefore thought to be more detectable in animal products than nuclear DNA simply because of its greater abundance, not because it is less susceptible to breakdown during processing or digestion.
葉綠體基因（Chloroplast DNA）遠(yuǎn)比核基因（nuclear DNA）豐富，因?yàn)槊總€(gè)植物細(xì)胞可以有數(shù)千個(gè)葉綠體基因，但是每個(gè)核基因只有兩個(gè)到四個(gè)核基因副本。動(dòng)物產(chǎn)品中的植物葉綠體基因因此被認(rèn)為更容易被檢測(cè)到，簡(jiǎn)單是因?yàn)樗燃?xì)胞核基因數(shù)量更大，而不是因?yàn)轱暳霞庸せ蛳^(guò)程中更加不易被分解。
It is therefore in fact likely that many studies were failing to detect GM crop (‘transgenic’) DNA in animal products and tissues because of its comparatively low level of presence and limitations in the sensitivity of the analytic methods being used, rather than because transgenic DNA does not actually make its way into animal products and tissues.
事實(shí)上，過(guò)去許多研究在動(dòng)物產(chǎn)品中沒(méi)有發(fā)現(xiàn)轉(zhuǎn)基因農(nóng)作物（“轉(zhuǎn)基因”—‘transgenic’），是由于它的存在的水平相對(duì)低，以及所應(yīng)用的分析方法的靈敏度的局限性，而不是轉(zhuǎn)基因并非真正進(jìn)入動(dòng)物產(chǎn)品和動(dòng)物組織。
Since late 2005, however, three published studies by three different scientific teams and one unpublished study have actually detected transgenic plant DNA in animal tissues and milk.
2005年底以來(lái)，三個(gè)不同的科學(xué)研究小組發(fā)表的三篇研究報(bào)告以及一篇發(fā)表的研究報(bào)告事實(shí)上在動(dòng)物組織和牛奶中檢測(cè)到轉(zhuǎn)基因植物的基因。
Reference:
參考文獻(xiàn)：
[1] “GMOs: should they be fed to farm livestock?”, in The Chemical Engineer, Issue 746, by David Beever and Richard Phipps, Centre for Dairy Research, University of Reading
[1]“轉(zhuǎn)基因生物：是否應(yīng)該用來(lái)喂養(yǎng)農(nóng)場(chǎng)牲畜？”，化學(xué)工程師，第746期，作者：大衛(wèi)•比弗和理查德•菲普斯，乳品研究中心，雷丁大學(xué)
[2] “Detection of transgenic and endogenous plant DNA in rumen fluid, duodenal digesta, milk, blood, and feces of lactating dairy cows”, J Dairy Sci., vol. 86, pp. 4070–4078, Phipps R.H., Deaville E.R. and Maddison B.C., 2003
[2]“檢測(cè)到奶牛瘤胃液，十二指腸食糜，牛奶，血液和糞便中有轉(zhuǎn)基因（transgenic）和內(nèi)源植物基因”，乳業(yè)科學(xué)雜志，第86，4070-4078頁(yè)，作者：Phipps R.H., Deaville E.R. and Maddison B.C.，2003年
[3] “Fate of maize intrinsic and recombinant genes in calves fed genetically modified maize Bt11”, J Food Prot, vol. 67, pp. 365–370, Chowdhury E.H., Mikami O., Murata H., Sultana P., Shimada
N., Yoshioka M., Guruge K.S., Yamamoto S., Miyazaki S., Yamanaka N. and Nakajima Y., 2004
[3] “牛犢喂養(yǎng)的轉(zhuǎn)基因玉米Bt11的玉米內(nèi)在和重組基因的命運(yùn)”，食品保護(hù)雜志，第67卷，第365-370頁(yè)，作者：Chowdhury E.H., Mikami O., Murata H., Sultana P., Shimada
N., Yoshioka M., Guruge K.S., Yamamoto S., Miyazaki S., Yamanaka N. and Nakajima Y.，2004
[4] “The fate of forage plant DNA in farm animals :a collaborative case-study investigating cattle and
chicken fed recombinant plant material”, European food research and technology, vol. 212, pp. 129–134, Einspanier R., Klotz A., Kraft J., Aulrich K., Poser R., Schwagele F., Jahreis G. and Flachowsky G., 2001
[4]“農(nóng)場(chǎng)動(dòng)物飼料植物基因的命運(yùn)：對(duì)喂養(yǎng)牛雞的重組植物材料的合作案例研究和調(diào)查”，歐洲食品研究與技術(shù)雜志，第212卷，第129-134頁(yè)，作者：Einspanier R., Klotz A., Kraft J., Aulrich K., Poser R., Schwagele F., Jahreis G. and Flachowsky G.，2001
[5] “Detection of transgenic DNA in milk from cows receiving herbicide tolerant (CP4EPSPS) soyabean meal”, Livestock Production Science, Phipps R.H., Beever D.E. and Humphries D.J., 2002. vol. 74, pp. 269–273
[5]“檢測(cè)到喂養(yǎng)耐除草劑轉(zhuǎn)基因（CP4EPSPS）大豆飼料牛的牛奶中有轉(zhuǎn)基因”，畜牧生產(chǎn)科學(xué)雜志，第74卷，第269-273頁(yè)，作者：Phipps R.H., Beever D.E. and Humphries D.J.，
加拿大、意大利、德國(guó)、英國(guó)對(duì)轉(zhuǎn)基因飼料喂養(yǎng)動(dòng)物的牛奶、蛋和肉檢測(cè)的結(jié)果
（英國(guó)）土壤協(xié)會(huì)公布的研究報(bào)告：轉(zhuǎn)基因農(nóng)作物對(duì)健康的影響（2）
GM crops -- the health effects, A report by the Soil Association, UK（2）
陳一文譯（[email protected]）
*
陳一文顧問(wèn)按：
德國(guó)科學(xué)家“在喂食了大量轉(zhuǎn)基因植物的牛的牛奶中也發(fā)現(xiàn)了轉(zhuǎn)基因材料（來(lái)自轉(zhuǎn)基因大豆與轉(zhuǎn)基因玉米）。”
*
Study by a Canadian team: Pigs and Sheep
加拿大研究組進(jìn)行的研究：豬和羊
A Canadian team fed pigs and sheep Roundup Ready oilseed rape and then examined various tissues from the animals. They found that a liver, a kidney and intestinal tissues from the pigs, and intestinal tissues from the sheep contained fractions of the transgenes.[6]
一個(gè)加拿大研究組用（蒙山都公司）抗“終結(jié)者”除草劑油菜（Roundup Ready oilseed rape）喂養(yǎng)豬和羊，然后對(duì)動(dòng)物的各種組織進(jìn)行檢查。他們?cè)谪i的一個(gè)肝臟、一個(gè)腎臟和豬的腸組織中，
以及羊的腸組織中，檢測(cè)到發(fā)現(xiàn)轉(zhuǎn)基因的片段。[6]
Study by an Italian team: Piglets
意大利研究組進(jìn)行的研究：豬仔
In another study, Italian scientists fed piglets for 35 days on Monsanto’s GM maize (Mon 810). They subsequently found fragments of a transgene in the blood, liver, spleen and kidney of the animals.7
在另一項(xiàng)研究中，意大利科學(xué)家用孟山都公司的轉(zhuǎn)基因玉米（Mon 810）喂養(yǎng)仔豬35天。他們后來(lái)發(fā)現(xiàn)，仔豬的血、肝臟、脾與腎臟中檢測(cè)到轉(zhuǎn)基因片段。[7]
Study by another Italian team: Milk
另一個(gè)意大利研究組進(jìn)行的研究：牛奶
Another Italian research team, from the University of Catania, detected GM soya and GM sequences in shop-bought milk in Italy.8
意大利卡塔尼亞大學(xué)（University of Catania）的另一個(gè)研究小組在商店購(gòu)買的牛奶中發(fā)現(xiàn)轉(zhuǎn)基因大豆和轉(zhuǎn)基因序列.[8]
Study by an German team: Milk
德國(guó)研究組進(jìn)行的研究：牛奶
An unpublished study, carried out in the year 2000 at the University of Weihenstephan in Germany, also detected GM material (from GM soya and GM maize) in the milk of cows which had been fed large amounts of GM plants.
德國(guó)魏恩斯梯芬大學(xué)（University of Weihenstephan）2000年進(jìn)行的尚未發(fā)表論文的研究，在喂食了大量轉(zhuǎn)基因植物的牛的牛奶中也發(fā)現(xiàn)了轉(zhuǎn)基因材料（來(lái)自轉(zhuǎn)基因大豆與轉(zhuǎn)基因玉米）。
The results of the study were published by Greenpeace in 2004.9,10 The researcher has suggested that the DNA may have been a result of contamination of the milk by dust from the GM feed in the dairy.
綠色和平組織2004年9月10日發(fā)表了該項(xiàng)研究的結(jié)果。[9、10] 研究者提出，（牛奶中檢測(cè)的轉(zhuǎn)基因）也可能奶牛場(chǎng)的轉(zhuǎn)基因飼料灰塵對(duì)牛奶造成污染的結(jié)果。
Whilst this is unproven, this points to a potential common source of contamination with the use of GM feed and does not change or undermine the fact that the researcher found GM DNA in the milk.
雖然這一點(diǎn)未經(jīng)證實(shí)，但是依然指出使用轉(zhuǎn)基因飼料成為造成（牛奶）污染的一個(gè)潛在的共同污染源，并且并非改變研究者在牛奶中發(fā)現(xiàn)了轉(zhuǎn)基因基因的事實(shí)。
Study by the Soil Association: Milk
（英國(guó)）土壤協(xié)會(huì)進(jìn)行的研究：牛奶
The Soil Association decided to also investigate this issue. We asked those farmers whose feeds we had found contained high levels of GM soya, if they would also provide samples of their milk or eggs for testing for the presence of GM DNA or GM protein. Two dairy farmers and one egg producer agreed to provide samples. Each farmer provided two samples of milk (from two different cows) or two samples of eggs, as well as another sample of feed to re-check the GM soya level.
土壤協(xié)會(huì)決定對(duì)這個(gè)問(wèn)題也開(kāi)展調(diào)查。我們向應(yīng)用我們發(fā)現(xiàn)含有高水平轉(zhuǎn)基因大豆飼料的那些農(nóng)民提出，他們能否向我們提供他們的牛奶或雞蛋樣品供我們檢測(cè)是否存在轉(zhuǎn)基因基因或轉(zhuǎn)基因蛋白質(zhì)。兩位農(nóng)民與一個(gè)雞蛋生產(chǎn)商同意提供樣品。每個(gè)農(nóng)民提供了兩個(gè)樣品的牛奶（從兩個(gè)不同的奶牛）或兩個(gè)雞蛋樣本，以及飼料樣品，以重新檢查轉(zhuǎn)基因大豆的轉(zhuǎn)基因水平。
All samples were tested by Genetic ID in Germany. The soya in all three feed samples was found to be 100% GM. However, our tests did not detect any GM DNA or protein in any of the milk or egg samples. In several of the milk samples, plant DNA, including soya DNA, was detected, indicating
the possibility that a very low level of undetected GM DNA may have been present. Subsequently, when we became aware of the Italian research which had detected GM DNA in shop-bought milk,
we also carried out a similar, but smaller scale survey. Milk samples were collected from 10 different leading supermarket or corner shop chains.
所有的樣品提交各在德國(guó)的“基因鑒定”機(jī)構(gòu)進(jìn)行檢測(cè)。所有三個(gè)大豆飼料樣品發(fā)現(xiàn)為100％轉(zhuǎn)基因大豆。然而，在我們的測(cè)試中，在牛奶或雞蛋樣品中沒(méi)有發(fā)現(xiàn)任何轉(zhuǎn)基因基因或轉(zhuǎn)基因蛋白質(zhì)。但是，在數(shù)個(gè)牛奶樣品中，檢測(cè)到植物基因（plant DNA），包括大豆基因（soya DNA），表明可能存在著沒(méi)有檢測(cè)出來(lái)的非常低水平的轉(zhuǎn)基因基因。后來(lái)，當(dāng)我們了解到意大利的研究在商店中買的牛奶中檢測(cè)到轉(zhuǎn)基因基因，我們也進(jìn)行了一個(gè)類似的，但是較小規(guī)模的調(diào)查。從10個(gè)不同的領(lǐng)先的超市或路口聯(lián)網(wǎng)商店收集了牛奶樣品。
All of the samples were analysed using the same analytic technique used by the scientists from Catania, as well as by an in-house method. Again, no GM DNA or protein was detected, but several samples contained traces of plant DNA, including soya DNA.
采用了意大利卡塔尼亞大學(xué)（University of Catania）采用的相同分析技術(shù)對(duì)所有樣品進(jìn)行了分析，同時(shí)用一種內(nèi)部方法進(jìn)行了分析。再次沒(méi)有檢測(cè)出轉(zhuǎn)基因基因或轉(zhuǎn)基因蛋白質(zhì)，但是有幾個(gè)樣本檢測(cè)出微量的植物基因，其中包括大豆的基因。
Conclusion:
結(jié)論：
In conclusion, based on the fact that crop chloroplast DNA is commonly found in milk, eggs and animal tissues, and that four research teams now have, between them, detected GM crop DNA in the milk, blood, liver, kidneys and intestinal tissues of GM-fed animals, we conclude that it is likely that
people are being frequently exposed to GM DNA by eating milk and meat from GM-fed animals, albeit at very low levels. Further research into this subject is needed.
結(jié)論：基于農(nóng)作物葉綠體基因常見(jiàn)于牛奶、雞蛋和動(dòng)物組織，以及目前有四個(gè)研究小組之中在牛奶、血液、肝臟、腎臟與腸組織中檢測(cè)到轉(zhuǎn)基因農(nóng)作物基因，我們得出的結(jié)論是，通過(guò)食用轉(zhuǎn)基因農(nóng)作物飼料的動(dòng)物的奶與肉類，人們經(jīng)常暴露于轉(zhuǎn)基因基因，盡管其水平很低。因此對(duì)這個(gè)課題有必要進(jìn)一步研究。
References
參考文獻(xiàn)：
[6] “Detection of Transgenic and Endogenous Plant DNA in Digesta and Tissues of Sheep and Pigs Fed Roundup Ready Canola Meal”, J. Agric. Food Chem.,vol. 54, pp. 1699–1709, Sharma R., Damgaard D., Alexander T.W., Dugan M.E.R., Aalhus J.L., Stanford K. and McAllister T.A., 2006
[6]“在喂養(yǎng)（孟山都公司）抗“終結(jié)者”除草劑油菜飼料（Roundup Ready Canola Meal）的羊與豬消化物與組織中檢測(cè)到轉(zhuǎn)基因和內(nèi)源食糜植物基因”，農(nóng)業(yè)食品化學(xué)雜志，第54卷，第1699至1709頁(yè)，作者：Sharma R., Damgaard D., Alexander T.W., Dugan M.E.R., Aalhus J.L., Stanford K. and McAllister T.A.，2006年
[7] “Assessing the transfer of genetically modified DNA from feed to animal tissues”, Transgenic Res., vol. 14, pp. 775–784, Mazza R., Soave M., Morlacchini M., Piva G. and Marocco A., 2005
[7]“評(píng)估轉(zhuǎn)基因基因從飼料到物組織的轉(zhuǎn)移”，轉(zhuǎn)基因研究雜志，第14卷，第775-784頁(yè)，作者：Mazza R., Soave M., Morlacchini M., Piva G. and Marocco A.，2005年
[8] “Detection of genetically modified DNA sequences in milk from the Italian market”, Int J Hyg Environ Health, vol. 209, pp. 81–88, Agodi A., Barchitta M., Grillo A. and Sciacca S., 2006
[8]“意大利市場(chǎng)中的牛奶中檢測(cè)轉(zhuǎn)基因基因序列”，衛(wèi)生環(huán)境健康雜志，第209卷，第81-88頁(yè)，作者：Agodi A., Barchitta M., Grillo A. and Sciacca S.，2006年
[9] “How do genes get into milk?”, Greenpeace, 2004
[9]“基因如何進(jìn)入牛奶？”，綠色和平組織，2004年
[10] “Report on examination to determine plant and Bt-maize residues in cow milk”, conducted at the
Weihenstephan research centre for milk and foodstuffs of the Technical University of Munich- Freising, Ralf Einspanier, 20 October 2000 and 20 December 2000
[10]“確定牛奶中植物與（抗除草劑）Bt玉米殘余物的檢查報(bào)告”，慕尼黑—佛雷星技術(shù)大學(xué)Weihenstephan牛奶與食品研究中心的研究，Ralf Einspanier，2000年10月20日與2000年12月20日
原先無(wú)害的豆科蛋白質(zhì)插入到一個(gè)豌豆中，導(dǎo)致這種豌豆對(duì)老鼠造成了過(guò)敏反應(yīng)。插入的基因往往是不穩(wěn)定的，隨著時(shí)間的推移，發(fā)現(xiàn)它們?cè)谥参锘蚪M中重新排列。轉(zhuǎn)基因生物體被吃下進(jìn)入口腔和腸道中的細(xì)菌群體后，插入轉(zhuǎn)基因生物體中的外源基因能夠脫離轉(zhuǎn)基因生物體。這種遺傳不穩(wěn)定意味著，插入基因的方式所表達(dá)的植物形狀以及其對(duì)健康的影響，可能隨時(shí)間而改變。
轉(zhuǎn)基因食品對(duì)健康是否有影響？
（英國(guó)）土壤協(xié)會(huì)公布的研究報(bào)告：轉(zhuǎn)基因農(nóng)作物對(duì)健康的影響（3）
GM crops -- the health effects, A report by the Soil Association, UK（3）
陳一文譯（[email protected]）
*
陳一文顧問(wèn)按：面對(duì)全球人類持續(xù)安全健康生存與繁衍的問(wèn)題，轉(zhuǎn)基因農(nóng)作物、轉(zhuǎn)基因食品的“專家們”沒(méi)有資格沉默不語(yǔ)，針對(duì)本節(jié)內(nèi)容必須向人民說(shuō)明為自己為轉(zhuǎn)基因農(nóng)作物危害申辯的理由！
*
Do GM foods have health impacts?
轉(zhuǎn)基因食品對(duì)健康是否有影響？
Biotechnology companies have claimed that genetic engineering is no more unpredictable and dangerous than traditional cross-breeding, and as a result GM crops should not be subjected to special or extensive safety assessments.
生物技術(shù)公司聲稱，基因工程并不比傳統(tǒng)的雜交育種更加不可預(yù)測(cè)與危險(xiǎn)，并因此提出對(duì)轉(zhuǎn)基因農(nóng)作物不應(yīng)該實(shí)施特殊的或更嚴(yán)謹(jǐn)?shù)陌踩u(píng)估。
In reality, genetic modification differs fundamentally from traditional crossbreeding, and there are very good scientific reasons for being concerned about the safety of GM crops.
在現(xiàn)實(shí)中，基因改造與傳統(tǒng)雜交育種根本性不同，有非常良好的科學(xué)理由使人們要關(guān)心轉(zhuǎn)基因農(nóng)作物的安全問(wèn)題。
Genetic engineering usually involves introducing a package of genetic material derived from one organism (or several) into the DNA of another, often a completely different species. It is never based on the plant’s normal reproductive processes, which are used in traditional cross-breeding.
基因工程通常涉及將另外的一個(gè)生物體（或幾個(gè)生物體）遺傳物質(zhì)引入（進(jìn)行改造的農(nóng)作物的）基因，往往是一個(gè)完全不同的物種。基因工程從來(lái)沒(méi)有根據(jù)傳統(tǒng)雜交育種中應(yīng)用的植物正常繁殖過(guò)程。
Instead, the foreign DNA is inserted into the plants own DNA either by using the infective process of a disease bacteria or by bombarding the cells with fine metal particles coated with the foreign DNA.
與傳統(tǒng)雜交育種中應(yīng)用的植物正常繁殖過(guò)程不同，外源基因被插入到植物自身的基因中，采用的方法或者使用細(xì)菌感染疾病過(guò)程的方式，或者采用外源基因涂層的細(xì)金屬顆粒轟擊細(xì)胞的方式。
This artificial DNA insertion breaks down the natural biological mechanisms that normally maintain the genetic integrity of species. At various stages in the process, the number of cells are increased by a laboratory method called a "tissue culture".
這種人造基因的插入，打破了維護(hù)生物物種遺傳完整性的自然的正常生物機(jī)制。在這個(gè)過(guò)程的不同階段，稱之為“組織培養(yǎng)”的實(shí)驗(yàn)室方法導(dǎo)致細(xì)胞數(shù)量增加。
The technique has several serious flaws. This means there is a large number of risks inherent in GM crops, which do not apply to plants produced by traditional cross-breeding:
這種技術(shù)有幾項(xiàng)嚴(yán)重的缺陷。這意味著轉(zhuǎn)基因農(nóng)作物固有多種風(fēng)險(xiǎn)，傳統(tǒng)雜交育種產(chǎn)生的植物不具有轉(zhuǎn)基因農(nóng)作物固有的這些風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。
l
l
l
l
Additionally, the tissue culture stages cause numerous changes to the rest of the plant's DNA. There is well-documented evidence by the FSA and others that genetic engineering causes extensive ‘genome-wide’ mutations and changes in the activity of very many of the plant’s own genes as a result of genetic engineering.[12]
此外，組織培養(yǎng)階段對(duì)植物其他的基因也造成許多變化。FSA（食物安全局）與其他單位保存有關(guān)這些證據(jù)的完好檔案，表明基因工程造成廣泛的“基因組”突變以及對(duì)植物自己基因許多活動(dòng)變化。[12]
These widespread genetic effects are not predictable or controllable.
這些廣泛發(fā)生的遺傳效應(yīng)無(wú)法預(yù)測(cè)或無(wú)法控制。
References
參考文獻(xiàn)：
[11] “Tools you can trust”, New Scientist, Michel Le Page, 10 June 2006
[11]“你可以信任的工具，”新科學(xué)家，作者：Michel Le Page， 2006年6月10日
[12] “Food Standards Agency news”, No. 48, June 2005. ‘The mutational consequences of plant transformation”, J Biomed Biotechnol., 2006(2):25376, Latham J.R., Wilson A.K., Steinbrecher R.A., 2006
[12]“食品標(biāo)準(zhǔn)局新聞”，第48號(hào)，2005年6月。“植物轉(zhuǎn)化的突變性后果”，生物醫(yī)學(xué)生物技術(shù)雜志，2006（2）：25376，作者：Latham J.R., Wilson A.K., Steinbrecher R.A.，2006年
對(duì)植物轉(zhuǎn)基因與細(xì)胞相互作用調(diào)制機(jī)制學(xué)界目前遠(yuǎn)未充分理解
（英國(guó)）土壤協(xié)會(huì)公布的研究報(bào)告：轉(zhuǎn)基因農(nóng)作物對(duì)健康的影響（4）
GM crops -- the health effects, A report by the Soil Association, UK（4）
陳一文譯（[email protected]）
*
陳一文顧問(wèn)按：
*
The result is that the same gene can behave in 10 different ways in 10 different locations, depending on the regulatory elements it ends up next to.11 As genetic engineers cannot control where the genes end up in the plant DNA and do not know the effects of the different locations, unpredicted side effects easily occur.
其結(jié)果是，同一個(gè)基因能在10個(gè)不同的位置有10種不同的行為，取決它最終鄰近的調(diào)控元件。[11] 由于遺傳工程師無(wú)法控制其中的基因最終位于植物基因中的何處，也不知道這樣的基因處于不同位置的影響，不可預(yù)知的副作用很容易出現(xiàn)。
This was recently highlighted by Australian scientists who inserted a previously harmless bean protein into a pea, which then caused allergic reactions in mice.[13,14,15] Genetic engineers are unable to accurately predict and control this effect.
澳大利亞的科學(xué)家們最近強(qiáng)調(diào)了了這種情況，他們將一個(gè)原先無(wú)害的豆科蛋白質(zhì)插入到一個(gè)豌豆中，導(dǎo)致這種豌豆對(duì)老鼠造成了過(guò)敏反應(yīng)。[13,14,15] 遺傳工程師們未能準(zhǔn)確預(yù)測(cè)和控制這種影響。
References
參考文獻(xiàn)：
[13] “Transgenic expression of bean alpha-amylase inhibitor in peas results in altered structure and
immunogenicity”, J Agric Food Chem., vol 53, pp. 9023–9030, Prescott V.E., Campbell P.M., Moore
A., Mattes J., Rothenberg M.E., Foster P.S., Higgins T.J. and Hogan S.P., 2005
[13]“大豆轉(zhuǎn)基因的表達(dá)α-淀粉酶抑制劑在改變結(jié)構(gòu)和豌豆結(jié)果
免疫原性“，強(qiáng)Agric食品化學(xué)。，第53，第9023-9030，普雷斯科特維生素E，坎貝爾下午，摩爾答：，馬茨j的，羅森伯格ME的，福斯特聚苯乙烯，希金斯TJ和霍根S.P.，2005
[14] “GM pea causes allergic damage in mice”, NewScientists.com, Emma Young, 21 November 2005
[14] “轉(zhuǎn)基因豆導(dǎo)致小鼠過(guò)敏性損害”，新科學(xué)家網(wǎng)站（NewScientists.com），作者：Emma Young，2005年11月21日
[15] “Frankenstein peas”, Ecologist, Jeffrey Smith, March 2006
[15]“佛蘭克斯坦豆”（“Frankenstein peas”），生態(tài)學(xué)家雜志，作者：Jeffrey Smith，2006年3月
[16] “Assessing the survival of transgenic plant DNA in the human gastrointestinal tract”, Nature Biotechnology, vol. 22, pp. 204–209, Netherwood T., Martin-Orúe S.M., O’Donnell A.G.O., Gockling S., Graham J., Mathers J.C. and Gilbert H.J., 2004
[16]“評(píng)估人體胃腸道中的轉(zhuǎn)基因植物基因的生存”，自然生物技術(shù)雜志，第22卷，第204-209頁(yè)，作者：Netherwood T., Martin-Orúe S.M., O’Donnell A.G.O., Gockling S., Graham J., Mathers J.C. and Gilbert H.J.，2004
[17] “Fate of genetically modified maize DNA in the oral cavity and rumen of sheep”, British Journal of Nutrition, 89(2): 159-166, Duggan et al, 2003
[17]“轉(zhuǎn)基因玉米基因在綿羊口腔和瘤胃中的命運(yùn)”，英國(guó)營(yíng)養(yǎng)學(xué)雜志，89（2）：159-166，作者：Duggan等，2003
[18] “Characterization of commercial GMO inserts: a source of useful material to study genome fluidity”, Poster presented at ICPMB: International Congress for Plant Molecular Biology (n°VII), Barcelona, Collonier C., Berthier G., Boyer F., Duplan M.-N., Fernandez S., Kebdani N., Kobilinsky A., Romanuk M. and Bertheau Y., 23–28 June 2003
[18]“商業(yè)性轉(zhuǎn)基因插入的特征：研究基因組的流動(dòng)性的一個(gè)有用的物質(zhì)來(lái)源”，在ICPMB展示的論文展板：國(guó)際植物分子生物學(xué)大會(huì)（第七屆），巴塞羅那，作者：Collonier C., Berthier G., Boyer F., Duplan M.-N., Fernandez S., Kebdani N., Kobilinsky A., Romanuk M. and Bertheau Y.，2003年6月23日至28日。
[19] “Dead babies”, Ecologist, Jeffrey Smith, December/January 2006
[19]“死嬰”，生態(tài)學(xué)家雜志，Jeffrey Smith,，2005年12月/ 2006年1月
[20] “Unstable transgenic lines illegal”, Institute of Science in Society, Mae-Wan Ho, 3 December, 2003
[20]“不穩(wěn)定轉(zhuǎn)基因株系的非法性”，社會(huì)科學(xué)研究所，作者：（英籍華人）侯美婉（Mae-Wan Ho），2003年12月3日
自從“實(shí)質(zhì)等同”最初由美國(guó)政府提出作為批準(zhǔn)轉(zhuǎn)基因作物的程序以來(lái)，對(duì)這樣的程序出現(xiàn)了強(qiáng)烈的批評(píng)，認(rèn)為這樣的過(guò)程根本不科學(xué)，對(duì)安全性評(píng)價(jià)來(lái)講根本不足。盡管如此，這項(xiàng)政策獲得通過(guò)，然后接著由歐洲和其他國(guó)家采納。
美國(guó)、歐盟對(duì)轉(zhuǎn)基因農(nóng)作物官方安全評(píng)估過(guò)于狹窄
（英國(guó)）土壤協(xié)會(huì)公布的研究報(bào)告：轉(zhuǎn)基因農(nóng)作物對(duì)健康的影響（5）
GM crops -- the health effects, A report by the Soil Association, UK（5）
陳一文譯（[email protected]）
*
陳一文顧問(wèn)按：
面對(duì)全球人類持續(xù)安全健康生存與繁衍的問(wèn)題，轉(zhuǎn)基因農(nóng)作物、轉(zhuǎn)基因食品的“專家們”沒(méi)有資格沉默不語(yǔ)，你們必須向人民說(shuō)明你們推薦實(shí)施的中國(guó)轉(zhuǎn)基因農(nóng)作物、轉(zhuǎn)基因食品安全性評(píng)估程序哪些方面“與國(guó)際接軌”同樣“過(guò)于狹窄”、過(guò)于寬松？又在哪些方面比美國(guó)、歐洲“過(guò)于狹窄”、過(guò)于寬松的安全性評(píng)估程序更加嚴(yán)密，更加有效？
你們推薦實(shí)施的中國(guó)轉(zhuǎn)基因農(nóng)作物、轉(zhuǎn)基因食品安全性評(píng)估程序，是否要求并進(jìn)行長(zhǎng)期、連續(xù)多代動(dòng)物喂食試驗(yàn)？
如果中國(guó)的安全性評(píng)估程序不包括進(jìn)行長(zhǎng)期、連續(xù)多代動(dòng)物喂食試驗(yàn)的話，你們必須向中國(guó)人民詳細(xì)說(shuō)明不要求這樣做的詳細(xì)理由？
*
Official safety assessments are far too narrow
官方安全評(píng)估過(guò)于狹窄
One of the most remarkable facts about the development of GM crops is that, despite years of immense public concern, political controversy and the developing scientific understanding of the risks of GMOs, very few of these risks are actually checked in the official regulatory approval process.
關(guān)于轉(zhuǎn)基因作物發(fā)展最引人注目的事實(shí)之一是，盡管有巨大的公眾關(guān)注、政治的爭(zhēng)議以及對(duì)于轉(zhuǎn)基因生物的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)的科學(xué)認(rèn)識(shí)有發(fā)展，但是，官方監(jiān)管機(jī)構(gòu)的批準(zhǔn)程序中對(duì)極少這些風(fēng)險(xiǎn)進(jìn)行了核查。
There is a long regulatory process that requires the companies to submit considerable amounts of information, but almost none except a small sub-set of the above concerns are routinely investigated
in the process.
還有很長(zhǎng)的監(jiān)管過(guò)程，它需要公司提交的資料相當(dāng)多，但幾乎沒(méi)有，除了一個(gè)小的子集的上述問(wèn)題，例行調(diào)查在這個(gè)過(guò)程中。
Those opposed to GM crops generally believe that any overall assessment of the list of risks indicates that GM crops are currently far too risky to be used for food or animal feed.
反對(duì)轉(zhuǎn)基因作物的人士一般相信任何風(fēng)險(xiǎn)清單的總體評(píng)估表明，將轉(zhuǎn)基因農(nóng)作物用于食品或動(dòng)物飼料使用，目前風(fēng)險(xiǎn)太大。
Governments, however, have been persuaded to allow GM crops to be grown and used for food or animal feed as long as there is a ‘case-by-case’ risk assessment.
不過(guò)，政府已被說(shuō)服允許轉(zhuǎn)基因農(nóng)作物種植和作為食品或動(dòng)物飼料，只要實(shí)施“逐案”的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)評(píng)估即可。
The problem is that the impacts of the genetic engineering process on the biology of organisms is so complex, and scientific knowledge of plant biochemistry so limited, that it is completely impossible for scientists to model and predict the actual health effects of each genetic engineering attempt.
問(wèn)題是，基因工程對(duì)生物的生物學(xué)過(guò)程的影響是如此復(fù)雜，對(duì)于植物生物化學(xué)的知識(shí)是那么有限，以至科學(xué)家完全不可能對(duì)基因工程的每一個(gè)嘗試對(duì)于健康的實(shí)際影響建立模型進(jìn)行預(yù)測(cè)。
動(dòng)物喂食試驗(yàn)是評(píng)估轉(zhuǎn)基因農(nóng)作物、轉(zhuǎn)基因食品安全風(fēng)險(xiǎn)的唯一可靠方法
（英國(guó)）土壤協(xié)會(huì)公布的研究報(bào)告：轉(zhuǎn)基因農(nóng)作物對(duì)健康的影響（6）
GM crops -- the health effects, A report by the Soil Association, UK（6）
陳一文譯（[email protected]）
*
陳一文顧問(wèn)按：
*
The only way that the risks listed above could be assessed on a case-by-case basis, with some level of accuracy, would be to use animal feeding trials. This is how the safety of medical drugs and pesticides are assessed.
在逐案基礎(chǔ)上有一定準(zhǔn)確度水平的對(duì)上邊列出的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)進(jìn)行評(píng)估的唯一方法，是采用動(dòng)物喂食試驗(yàn)的方法。這也是醫(yī)學(xué)藥物與殺蟲(chóng)劑安全性如何評(píng)估。
However, the biotechnology companies are not normally required to undertake such animal feeding trials in Europe, the US, or indeed anywhere.
然而，在歐洲、美國(guó)或任何地方一般不要求生物技術(shù)公司進(jìn)行這種動(dòng)物喂食試驗(yàn)。
Although this was the initial intention of the UK and US Governments, the use of animal feeding trials for risk assessment was quickly abandoned after the first of such trials, on GM tomatoes and potatoes, found unexpected adverse effects on the animals (see later).
雖然英國(guó)和美國(guó)政府當(dāng)初有這樣的意向，在對(duì)轉(zhuǎn)基因西紅柿和土豆進(jìn)行這樣的動(dòng)物喂食試驗(yàn)發(fā)現(xiàn)對(duì)動(dòng)物造成了意外的不良影響后，很快就放棄了進(jìn)行動(dòng)物喂食試驗(yàn)（參看后邊的內(nèi)容）。
Instead, regulators mainly rely on an assessment process that is much more limited.
相反，監(jiān)管機(jī)構(gòu)主要依靠一種更加有限的評(píng)估過(guò)程。
Under this approach (commonly referred to as ‘substantial equivalence’), a limited number of comparisons are made with the non-GM equivalent plant. Several of the physical characteristics of the new GM plant are compared with the non-GM variety.
在這種處理問(wèn)題的途徑下（通常被稱為“實(shí)質(zhì)等同”），只進(jìn)行有限數(shù)量與非轉(zhuǎn)基因植物的比較。新的轉(zhuǎn)基因植物的某幾種物理特性與非轉(zhuǎn)基因品種進(jìn)行比較。
Then, a chemical comparison is made. But, although plants have up to 10,000 different biochemicals, the levels of only a small number of the GM plant’s biochemicals are checked with the non-GM plant, such as key nutrients and known toxins. If the levels of these are considered ‘similar’, it is then assumed that the whole chemistry of the GM plant is similar as regards safety in almost every other way.
接著，進(jìn)行化學(xué)方面比較。但是，盡管植物具有多達(dá)10,000種不同生化物質(zhì)，只對(duì)轉(zhuǎn)基因植物極少數(shù)量生化物質(zhì)與非轉(zhuǎn)基因植物進(jìn)行比較，如主要營(yíng)養(yǎng)物質(zhì)和某些已知的毒素。如果比較中它們的水平被認(rèn)為“類似”，就據(jù)此假設(shè)與安全性相關(guān)的轉(zhuǎn)基因植物化學(xué)在幾乎所有方面也全面類似。
The GM crop is considered ‘substantially equivalent’ to the non-GM plant, and no further special safety tests have to be carried out. The OECD, for example, suggested that, “If a new food or food component is found to be substantially equivalent to an existing food or food component, it can be treated in the same manner with respect to safety”. [21]
轉(zhuǎn)基因作物一旦被認(rèn)為與非轉(zhuǎn)基因植物“實(shí)質(zhì)上等同”，就不再必須進(jìn)行任何進(jìn)一步的專項(xiàng)安全檢查。例如，OECD（歐洲經(jīng)合組織）建議說(shuō)，“如果一個(gè)新的食物或食物成分被發(fā)現(xiàn)實(shí)質(zhì)上等同于現(xiàn)有的食物或食物成分，它可以在安全方面以同樣的方式對(duì)待”.[21]
Under the EU assessment procedure, some other checks are required beyond this basic comparison, but the ‘substantial equivalence’ approach still rules. So, the EU usually requires testing to show whether the protein produced by the gene is toxic or allergenic. However, the safety of all the other novel proteins and biochemical by-products produced by the GMO are not usually checked. The stability of the inserted gene has to be checked, but not the stability of the whole genome and thus not the GMO as a whole. These other aspects are essentially just assumed, without any basis, to be safe. No GMO has ever been rejected under this assessment process.
根據(jù)歐盟的評(píng)估程序，還需要一些超越這種基本的比較的其他檢查，但是依然遵循這種“實(shí)質(zhì)等同”做法。因此，歐盟通常要求檢測(cè)，證明基因的蛋白質(zhì)是否產(chǎn)生毒性或過(guò)敏反應(yīng)。然而，轉(zhuǎn)基因生物產(chǎn)生的所有其他新蛋白和生化副產(chǎn)品的安全性通常不再檢查。插入的基因的穩(wěn)定性需要檢查，而整個(gè)基因組的穩(wěn)定性，因而整體轉(zhuǎn)基因成分的穩(wěn)定性，不需要進(jìn)行檢查。對(duì)其他這些方面，本質(zhì)上只是假設(shè)，而且是沒(méi)有任何根據(jù)基礎(chǔ)上的假設(shè)，認(rèn)為安全。沒(méi)有任何轉(zhuǎn)基因生物體根據(jù)這樣的評(píng)估過(guò)程予以否決。
Ever since ‘substantial equivalence’ was first proposed by the US Government for approving GM crops, there has been strong criticism of this process as fundamentally unscientific and inadequate for safety assessment. In 1992, when the US Government proposed using the concept instead of animal trials, the scientific advisers of the US Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) did not support the Government’s policy, arguing that animal feeding trials were needed to identify undesirable effects.22
自從“實(shí)質(zhì)等同”最初由美國(guó)政府提出作為批準(zhǔn)轉(zhuǎn)基因作物的程序以來(lái)，對(duì)這樣的程序出現(xiàn)了強(qiáng)烈的批評(píng)，認(rèn)為這樣的過(guò)程根本不科學(xué)，對(duì)安全性評(píng)價(jià)來(lái)講根本不足。1992年，當(dāng)美國(guó)政府提出用這種“實(shí)質(zhì)等同”的概念來(lái)代替進(jìn)行動(dòng)物試驗(yàn)，美國(guó)食品和藥物管理局（FDA）的科學(xué)顧問(wèn)不支持政府的這種政策，認(rèn)為需要進(jìn)行動(dòng)物飼養(yǎng)試驗(yàn)以確定不良影響.[22]
The policy was adopted anyway and then taken up by Europe and other countries.
盡管如此，這項(xiàng)政策獲得通過(guò)，然后接著由歐洲和其他國(guó)家采納。
In 2001, a review for the Canadian Government by the Royal Society of Canada concluded that, “The Panel finds the use of ‘substantial equivalence’ as a decision threshold tool to exempt GM agricultural products from rigorous scientific assessment to be scientifically unjustifiable.”23 Other scientists, writing in the eminent scientific journal Nature have described substantial equivalence as “a pseudo-scientific concept” which is inherently “anti-scientific because it was created primarily to provide an excuse for not requiring biochemical or toxicological tests”.
2001年，由加拿大皇家學(xué)會(huì)為加拿大政府進(jìn)行的審查結(jié)論為：“該小組認(rèn)為，將‘實(shí)質(zhì)等同’作為一種決策工具門檻，用來(lái)豁免轉(zhuǎn)基因農(nóng)產(chǎn)品通過(guò)嚴(yán)格的科學(xué)評(píng)估，在科學(xué)上毫無(wú)道理。”[23] 其他科學(xué)家，在著名科學(xué)雜志《自然》上將這種“實(shí)質(zhì)等同”的概念描述為“偽科學(xué)的概念”，認(rèn)為是固有“反科學(xué)的，因?yàn)樗慕⒅饕菫榱瞬恍枰M(jìn)行生化或毒性測(cè)試的借口”。
They point out that scientists are not able to reliably predict the effects of a GM food from knowledge of its chemical composition, and so active investigation of the safety and toxicity of GM crops is required.[24]
他們指出，依據(jù)目前對(duì)于轉(zhuǎn)基因化學(xué)成分的知識(shí)，科學(xué)家無(wú)法可靠地預(yù)測(cè)轉(zhuǎn)基因的影響，因而對(duì)轉(zhuǎn)基因農(nóng)作物的安全性與毒性主動(dòng)進(jìn)行調(diào)查實(shí)屬必要。[24]
Even the former Chair of the FSA’s advisory committee, the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes (ACNFP), which until 2004 was responsible for carrying out safety assessments of GM foods, has said, “The presumption of safety of novel GM plants on the basis of substantial equivalence lacks scientific credibility.”[25]
即便FSA（食品安全局）以及ACNFP（新型食品和過(guò)程）咨詢委員會(huì)（該委員會(huì)在2004年之前負(fù)責(zé)開(kāi)展轉(zhuǎn)基因食品的安全評(píng)估工作）的前主席也說(shuō)，“在實(shí)質(zhì)等同的基礎(chǔ)上，推定新型轉(zhuǎn)基因植物安全，缺乏科學(xué)可信性。”[25]
References
參考文獻(xiàn)：
[21] “Safety evaluation of foods derived by modern biotechnology”, OECD, 1993
[21]“安全性評(píng)價(jià)的現(xiàn)代生物技術(shù)食品”，經(jīng)合組織，1993年
[22] Alliance for Bio-Integrity, www.biointegrity.org
[22] “生物完整性聯(lián)盟”www.biointegrity.org，
[23] “Elements of precaution: recommendations for the regulation of food biotechnology in Canada”,
An Expert Panel Report on the Future of Biotechnology prepared by the Royal Society of Canada at the request of Health Canada, Canadian Food Inspection Agency and Environment Canada, The Royal Society of Canada, January 2001
[23]“預(yù)防措施的要素：對(duì)加拿大食品生物技術(shù)的監(jiān)管建議”，一個(gè)專家小組根據(jù)加拿大衛(wèi)生部、加拿大食品檢驗(yàn)局與加拿大環(huán)境部的要求對(duì)生物技術(shù)的未來(lái)的報(bào)告，由加拿大皇家學(xué)會(huì)編寫(xiě)，英國(guó)皇家學(xué)會(huì)，2001年1月
[24] “Beyond substantial equivalence”, Nature, vol. 401, pp. 525–526, Millstone E., Brunner E. and Mayer S., 1999
[24]“‘實(shí)質(zhì)等同’之后”，自然雜志，第401卷，第525-526頁(yè)，作者：Millstone E., Brunner E. and Mayer S.，1999
[25] “The use of substantial equivalence in the risk assessment of GM food”, www.royalsoc.ac.uk, Janet Bainbridge, May 2001
[25] “在轉(zhuǎn)基因食品風(fēng)險(xiǎn)評(píng)估中使用‘實(shí)質(zhì)等同’”，www.royalsoc.ac.uk，作者：Janet Bainbridge，2001年5月
對(duì)孟山都抗除草劑轉(zhuǎn)基因大豆安全性的評(píng)價(jià)程序低劣，沒(méi)有進(jìn)行任何毒理測(cè)試。也沒(méi)有進(jìn)行任何長(zhǎng)期喂食的研究。安全性的科學(xué)證據(jù)非常脆弱。對(duì)孟山都公司的證據(jù)沒(méi)有進(jìn)行能夠確定孟山都公司抗除草劑轉(zhuǎn)基因大豆安全性的任何客觀評(píng)估。
對(duì)孟山都抗除草劑“終結(jié)者”轉(zhuǎn)基因大豆安全性的評(píng)價(jià)程序低劣
（英國(guó)）土壤協(xié)會(huì)公布的研究報(bào)告：轉(zhuǎn)基因農(nóng)作物對(duì)健康的影響（7）
GM crops -- the health effects, A report by the Soil Association, UK（7）
陳一文譯（[email protected]）
*
陳一文顧問(wèn)按：
面對(duì)全球人類持續(xù)安全健康生存與繁衍的問(wèn)題，轉(zhuǎn)基因農(nóng)作物、轉(zhuǎn)基因食品的“專家們”沒(méi)有資格沉默不語(yǔ)，你們必須向人民說(shuō)明你們推薦的中國(guó)轉(zhuǎn)基因農(nóng)作物、轉(zhuǎn)基因食品的安全性評(píng)估程序?qū)τ趶拿仙蕉嫉裙揪蘖窟M(jìn)口的轉(zhuǎn)基因大豆、轉(zhuǎn)基因玉米哪些方面“與國(guó)際接軌”同樣“低劣”、過(guò)于寬松？又在哪些方面比美國(guó)、歐洲“低劣”、過(guò)于寬松的安全性評(píng)估程序更加嚴(yán)密，更加有效？
你們推薦實(shí)施的中國(guó)轉(zhuǎn)基因農(nóng)作物、轉(zhuǎn)基因食品安全性評(píng)估程序，是否要求并進(jìn)行長(zhǎng)期、連續(xù)多代動(dòng)物喂食試驗(yàn)？
如果中國(guó)的安全性評(píng)估程序不包括進(jìn)行長(zhǎng)期、連續(xù)多代動(dòng)物喂食試驗(yàn)的話，你們必須向中國(guó)人民詳細(xì)說(shuō)明不要求這樣做的詳細(xì)理由？
*
Poor safety assessment of Roundup Ready soya
對(duì)孟山都抗除草劑轉(zhuǎn)基因大豆安全性的評(píng)價(jià)程序低劣
Monsanto’s Roundup Ready soya (RR soya) is the most widely grown GM crop variety in the world and the most widely used GM crop in commercial animal feed. Its safety assessment is therefore of particular interest. ‘Roundup Ready’ soya varieties tolerate applications of Monsanto’s ‘broad spectrum’ glyphosate herbicide, Roundup, which destroys all other plants. The summary of the safety data used in the regulatory approval process is available from Monsanto’s website.[26] It does not, however, make for reassuring reading for it shows that Monsanto’s scientific case is very flimsy.
孟山都公司的“終結(jié)者”（Roundup Ready）抗除草劑轉(zhuǎn)基因大豆（RR為大豆）是最廣泛種植轉(zhuǎn)基因農(nóng)作物品種，也是世界商業(yè)飼料中使用最廣泛的轉(zhuǎn)基因農(nóng)作物。它的安全性評(píng)估，因此特別令人有興趣。孟山都公司的耐“終結(jié)者”抗除草劑轉(zhuǎn)基因大豆大豆品種，能夠忍受孟山都公司能夠殺滅所有其他植物的“光譜”草甘膦除草劑農(nóng)達(dá)（Roundup）的應(yīng)用。監(jiān)管審批程序使用的安全性數(shù)據(jù)匯總可以從孟山都公司的網(wǎng)站獲得。[26]然而，閱讀這些數(shù)據(jù)不能堅(jiān)定對(duì)于安全性的信心，反而表明孟山都公司這一案例的科學(xué)證據(jù)非常脆弱。
The new protein which the genetic modification had introduced to the soya was compared with other proteins already in the food chain, and deemed to be ‘functionally similar’. Its amino acid sequence was compared with known protein toxins and allergens, and found to be different. Monsanto then claimed that ‘compositional analyses’ established that the GM soya (as a whole) was substantially equivalent to the non-GM parent variety and other soya varieties.
經(jīng)基因改造引入轉(zhuǎn)基因大豆的新的蛋白質(zhì)，與食物鏈已經(jīng)存在的其他蛋白質(zhì)相比，被認(rèn)為是“功能類似”。它的氨基酸序列與已知的蛋白質(zhì)毒素和過(guò)敏原進(jìn)行比較，發(fā)現(xiàn)它們不同。孟山度公司然而聲稱，“成分分析”確定該基因大豆（作為整體）與非轉(zhuǎn)基因大豆的父母和其他多種品種相比大體上等同。
The safety of the novel protein was assessed only in one short-term (acute) feeding trial with mice. The safety of the protein was not tested on any of the species that are now actually eating the novel protein in animal feed. The only feeding tests carried out with the soya were ‘nutritional’ feeding studies, which assessed growth rate in a variety of animals and milk production in dairy cows. No animal feeding studies were carried out which were specifically designed to determine the safety of the whole GM soya; in particular no toxicological tests were done. No long-term feeding studies were carried out.
對(duì)新的蛋白質(zhì)的安全評(píng)估僅通過(guò)短期的（急速的）小鼠飼養(yǎng)試驗(yàn)進(jìn)行。在喂食試驗(yàn)中，沒(méi)有通過(guò)小鼠目前實(shí)際喂食的任何大豆品種食用這種新蛋白質(zhì)的方法對(duì)這種蛋白質(zhì)的安全性進(jìn)行試驗(yàn)。采用這種轉(zhuǎn)基因大豆所進(jìn)行的唯一喂食試驗(yàn) ，是“營(yíng)養(yǎng)”喂食研究，它評(píng)估不同種類動(dòng)物與奶牛產(chǎn)奶量的增長(zhǎng)速度。沒(méi)有進(jìn)行特別設(shè)計(jì)來(lái)確定整個(gè)轉(zhuǎn)基因大豆的安全性的任何試驗(yàn)，而且，特別是沒(méi)有進(jìn)行任何毒理測(cè)試。也沒(méi)有進(jìn)行任何長(zhǎng)期喂食的研究。
In the absence of such basic scientific investigations, it is clear that no objective assessment of Monsanto’s evidence could conclude that the safety of RR soya has been determined.
在缺乏這種基本的科學(xué)調(diào)查研究的情況下，顯然對(duì)孟山都公司的證據(jù)沒(méi)有進(jìn)行能夠確定孟山都公司抗除草劑轉(zhuǎn)基因大豆安全性的任何客觀評(píng)估。
References
參考文獻(xiàn)：
[26] “Safety assessment of Roundup Ready soybean event 40–3– 2”, Monsanto, www.monsanto.com
[26] “抗‘終結(jié)者’除草劑大豆40-3-2的安全評(píng)估”，孟山都，www.monsanto.com
俄羅斯科學(xué)家用轉(zhuǎn)基因大豆喂食小鼠試驗(yàn)的令人震驚結(jié)果
（英國(guó)）土壤協(xié)會(huì)公布的研究報(bào)告：轉(zhuǎn)基因農(nóng)作物對(duì)健康的影響（8）
GM crops -- the health effects, A report by the Soil Association, UK（8）
陳一文譯（[email protected]）
*
陳一文顧問(wèn)按：
*
Animal feeding tests show negative effects of GM crops
動(dòng)物喂養(yǎng)試驗(yàn)表明了轉(zhuǎn)基因作物的負(fù)面影響
The biotechnology companies frequently refer to the large number of published animal feeding studies as evidence of the safety of GM feed. However, it is important to stress that the vast majority of these are not safety studies. They are not toxicological studies, which would involve analysing the animal tissue for toxic effects, or studies of other safety aspects such as the rate of horizontal gene transfer. Instead, these studies are mostly of commercial interest, designed to evaluate the effect of the GM crops on commercial feed performance indicators, such as livestock growth rates or milk production.
生物技術(shù)公司經(jīng)常提到許多動(dòng)物飼養(yǎng)研究發(fā)表的大量論文作為轉(zhuǎn)基因飼料安全性的證據(jù)。然而，重要的是要強(qiáng)調(diào)，絕大部分這些研究并不是安全性研究。它們不是毒理學(xué)研究。毒理學(xué)研究涉及分析動(dòng)物組織研究毒性作用，或其他安全方面的研究，如橫向基因轉(zhuǎn)移率。與此不同，這些研究絕大部分是商業(yè)利益性質(zhì)的研究，這樣的研究的設(shè)計(jì)旨在評(píng)估轉(zhuǎn)基因農(nóng)作物對(duì)商業(yè)飼料性能指標(biāo)的影響，如牲畜的生長(zhǎng)速度或牛奶的生產(chǎn)率。
In contrast, if we look at the much smaller number of genuine animal safety studies, some of which were conducted by the companies themselves, a very different and very worrying picture emerges. We summarise below the alarming findings that have now accumulated for the GM crops being used as food and animal feed.
與此相反，如果我們看看數(shù)量較小的真正的動(dòng)物安全性研究，其中一些還是由（轉(zhuǎn)基因種子）公司自己進(jìn)行的，那么，呈現(xiàn)出來(lái)的講授另外一幅非常不同與非常令人擔(dān)憂的圖景。我們?cè)谙旅婵偨Y(jié)了正在積累的一些關(guān)于轉(zhuǎn)基因農(nóng)作物作為食品和動(dòng)物飼料的令人震驚的后果。
(i) GM soya
（一）轉(zhuǎn)基因大豆
Russian rat trial –
俄羅斯的老鼠試驗(yàn) -
A Russian scientist, Dr. Irina Ermakova, investigated the effects of feeding Roundup Ready soya to rats, with dramatic findings of apparent generational effects. A group of female rats were fed RR soya before mating, during pregnancy and during lactation. Very high mortality rates occurred in the rat pups: 56% died within three weeks of birth, compared with only 9% in the control rats fed non-GM soya.
一位俄羅斯科學(xué)家，伊莉娜•葉爾馬科娃博士（Dr. Irina Ermakova），研究了蒙山都公司抗草甘膦除草劑轉(zhuǎn)基因大豆喂養(yǎng)老鼠的影響，發(fā)現(xiàn)有明顯的代際影響結(jié)果。一組雌性鼠交配前、孕期和哺乳期喂食蒙山都公司的轉(zhuǎn)基因大豆。出生的幼鼠出現(xiàn)非常高的死亡率：56％死于出生后三周內(nèi)，而喂食非轉(zhuǎn)基因大豆的對(duì)照組鼠的幼鼠死亡率只有9％。
Additionally, stunted growth was observed in the surviving progeny, with some of the organs in the smaller GM-fed pups being tiny in comparison with those from control groups.[27] This study has now been published.[28] Dr Ermakova was shocked by her own results and has called for further detailed investigations to be undertaken.[29]
此外，后代生存觀察到發(fā)育不良，與對(duì)照組相比，還觀察到轉(zhuǎn)基因喂養(yǎng)的幼鼠某些器官非常微小。[27] 該項(xiàng)研究已經(jīng)出版。[28] 葉爾馬科娃博士被她自己的試驗(yàn)結(jié)果感到震驚，呼吁進(jìn)一步詳細(xì)調(diào)查研究。[29]
(The ACNFP reviewed an early draft of Ermakova’s work and said it lacked detail, in particular about the geographical origins of the GM and non-GM soya used and whether they contained mycotoxins, and said no conclusions could be drawn.30 They also claimed that her results were inconsistent with another feeding trial of RR soya which had not found any adverse effects.31 The ACNFP’s comments are seen as biased, however, as the latter study was not a valid comparison since it used male mice, not pregnant rats, and, while the ACNFP called this study “well controlled”, it had less nutritional detail than Ermakova’s study.32)
（新型食品及其加工咨詢委員會(huì)（ACNFP）對(duì)葉爾馬科娃的工作初稿進(jìn)行了審查，提出該項(xiàng)研究報(bào)告缺乏細(xì)節(jié)，特別是關(guān)于使用的轉(zhuǎn)基因和非轉(zhuǎn)基因大豆的地理來(lái)源，以及是否包含霉菌毒素（mycotoxins），并說(shuō)該項(xiàng)研究得不出結(jié)論。[30]他們還聲稱，她的研究結(jié)果與沒(méi)有找到任何負(fù)面影響的另外一項(xiàng)孟山都公司抗草甘膦除草劑轉(zhuǎn)基因大豆（RR soya）的試驗(yàn)不一致。[31] 新型食品及其加工咨詢委員會(huì)（ACNFP）的這些評(píng)論被看作有偏見(jiàn)的，因?yàn)楹笳叩难芯坎皇且粋€(gè)有效的比較，它使用雄性小鼠，不是懷孕的雌鼠，而ACNFP將這樣一項(xiàng)研究稱之為“良好控制”的研究，它在營(yíng)養(yǎng)學(xué)方面的細(xì)節(jié)反而比葉爾馬科娃的研究更少。[32]）
References
參考文獻(xiàn)：
[27] “Genetically modified organisms and biological risks”, Proceedings of the International Disaster
Reduction Conference, Davos, Switzerland, Ermakova I.V., August–September 2006, pp.168–171
[27]“轉(zhuǎn)基因生物體和生物風(fēng)險(xiǎn)”，國(guó)際減災(zāi)會(huì)議，達(dá)沃斯，瑞士，作者：Ermakova I.V.，2006年8月至9月，第168-171頁(yè)
[28] “Genetically modified soy leads to the decrease of weight and high mortality of rat pups of the first generation”, preliminary studies. EcosInform 2006, 1, 4–9 (in Russian), Ermakova IV. A fuller paper is in press: “Genetics and ecology”, in: “Actual problems of science”, Moscow, 2005, pp.53–59 (in Russian), Ermakova IV
[28]“轉(zhuǎn)基因大豆導(dǎo)致第一代仔鼠體重下降和的高死亡率”，初步研究報(bào)告,，EcosInform 2006年，1，4-9（俄文），作者：Ermakova IV.，。更全面待出版文件：“遺傳與生態(tài)”雜志，收錄：“科學(xué)的實(shí)際問(wèn)題”，莫斯科，2005年，pp.53 - 59（俄文），作者：Ermakova IV.
[29] “Reply to ACNFP from Dr Irina Ermakova”, Irina Ermakova, www.gmwatch.org, 28 September
2006
[29]“Irina Ermakova博士對(duì)ACNFP（新型食品及其加工咨詢委員會(huì)）的回復(fù)”，Ermakova IV.，www.gmwatch.org，2006年9月28日
[30] “Statement on the effect of GM soya on new-born rats”, The Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes (ACNFP), 2005
[30]“對(duì)于轉(zhuǎn)基因大豆對(duì)新出生鼠仔影響的聲明”，新型食品及其加工咨詢委員會(huì)（ACNFP），2005
[31] “A generational study of glyphosate-tolerant soybeans on mouse fetal, postnatal, pubertal and adult testicular development”, Food Chem. Toxicol., vol. 42, pp. 29–36, Brake D.G. and Evenson D.P., 2004
[31] “抗草甘膦除草劑大豆對(duì)小鼠胎兒、出生后、青春期到成年鼠睪丸發(fā)育影響的一代鼠研究”食品化學(xué)雜志，毒理學(xué)，第42卷，第29-36頁(yè)，作者：Brake D.G. and Evenson D.P.，2004
[32] “Pusztai responds to ACNFP over Ermakova”, Arpad Pusztai, www.gmwatch.org, 19 January 2006
[32]“Arpad Pusztai就Ermakova博士對(duì)ACNFP（新型食品及其加工咨詢委員會(huì)）的回復(fù)””，作者：Arpad Pusztai，www.gmwatch.org，2006年1月19日
用孟山都公司轉(zhuǎn)基因大豆喂食小鼠24個(gè)月后，科學(xué)家發(fā)現(xiàn)小鼠的肝臟、胰腺與睪丸細(xì)胞出現(xiàn)了顯著的的變化，涉及到結(jié)構(gòu)變化和/或功能變化。
意大利科學(xué)家用轉(zhuǎn)基因大豆喂食小鼠試驗(yàn)的令人震驚結(jié)果
（英國(guó)）土壤協(xié)會(huì)公布的研究報(bào)告：轉(zhuǎn)基因農(nóng)作物對(duì)健康的影響（9）
GM crops -- the health effects, A report by the Soil Association, UK（9）
陳一文譯（[email protected]）
*
陳一文顧問(wèn)按：
面對(duì)全球人類持續(xù)安全健康生存與繁衍的問(wèn)題，轉(zhuǎn)基因農(nóng)作物、轉(zhuǎn)基因食品的“專家們”沒(méi)有資格沉默不語(yǔ)，你們必須向人民說(shuō)明你們推薦的中國(guó)轉(zhuǎn)基因農(nóng)作物、轉(zhuǎn)基因食品的安全性評(píng)估程序?qū)τ趶拿仙蕉嫉裙揪蘖窟M(jìn)口的轉(zhuǎn)基因大豆、轉(zhuǎn)基因玉米哪些方面“與國(guó)際接軌”同樣“低劣”、過(guò)于寬松？又在哪些方面比美國(guó)、歐洲“低劣”、過(guò)于寬松的安全性評(píng)估程序更加嚴(yán)密，更加有效？
你們推薦實(shí)施的中國(guó)轉(zhuǎn)基因農(nóng)作物、轉(zhuǎn)基因食品安全性評(píng)估程序，是否要求并進(jìn)行長(zhǎng)期、連續(xù)多代動(dòng)物喂食試驗(yàn)？
如果中國(guó)的安全性評(píng)估程序不包括進(jìn)行長(zhǎng)期、連續(xù)多代動(dòng)物喂食試驗(yàn)的話，你們必須向中國(guó)人民詳細(xì)說(shuō)明不要求這樣做的詳細(xì)理由？
*
Italian mouse trial –
意大利的老鼠試驗(yàn) -
One of the only long-term feeding studies carried out on GM crops was undertaken by scientists from Urbino, in Italy, and found that Roundup Ready soya affects key body organs. Mice were fed RR soya for up to 24 months. A variety of organs and body fluids were then examined. The scientists found significant cellular changes in the liver, pancreas and testes of mice, which involved structural changes and/or functional changes.[33, 34, 35, 36, 37]
唯一的一項(xiàng)轉(zhuǎn)基因農(nóng)作物長(zhǎng)期飼養(yǎng)研究由意大利Urbino地方的一些科學(xué)家進(jìn)行，他們發(fā)現(xiàn)孟山都公司抗草甘膦除草劑轉(zhuǎn)基因大豆（RR soya）對(duì)老鼠的關(guān)鍵器官造成了影響。給小鼠喂養(yǎng)了24個(gè)月的孟山都公司除草劑轉(zhuǎn)基因大豆（RR soya）。然后對(duì)小鼠不同種類的器官與體液進(jìn)行了檢查。這些科學(xué)家發(fā)現(xiàn)小鼠的肝臟、胰腺與睪丸細(xì)胞出現(xiàn)了顯著的的變化，涉及到結(jié)構(gòu)變化和/或功能變化。[33, 34, 35, 36, 37]
The cellular changes in the liver, which metabolises toxic compounds, suggested that RR soya causes an increased metabolic rate.
對(duì)有毒化合物發(fā)揮新陳代謝作用的肝臟細(xì)胞變化表明，轉(zhuǎn)基因大豆是代謝率增加的原因。
References
參考文獻(xiàn)：
[33] “Fine structural analyses of pancreatic acinar cell nuclei from mice fed on GM soybean”, Eur. J.
Histochem., vol. 47 pp. 385–388, Malatesta M., Biggiogera M., Manuali E., Rocchi M.B.L., Baldelli B. and Gazzanelli G, 2003
[33]“轉(zhuǎn)基因大豆喂養(yǎng)老鼠胰腺腺泡細(xì)胞細(xì)胞核的精細(xì)結(jié)構(gòu)分析”，歐洲組織化學(xué)雜志，第47卷，第385-388頁(yè)，作者：Malatesta M., Biggiogera M., Manuali E., Rocchi M.B.L., Baldelli B. and Gazzanelli G，2003
[34] “Ultrastructural morphometrical and immunocytochemical analyses of hepatocyte nuclei
from mice fed on genetically modified soybean”, Cell Struct. Funct., vol. 27, pp. 73–180, Malatesta M., Caporaloni C., Gavaudan S., Rocchi M.B.L., Tiberi C. and Gazzanelli G., 2002
[34] “轉(zhuǎn)基因大豆喂食老鼠肝細(xì)胞核的超微結(jié)構(gòu)形態(tài)計(jì)量學(xué)和免疫細(xì)胞化學(xué)分析”，細(xì)胞結(jié)構(gòu)功能雜志，第27卷，第73-180頁(yè)，作者：Malatesta M., Caporaloni C., Gavaudan S., Rocchi M.B.L., Tiberi C. and Gazzanelli G.，2002
[35] “Ultrastructural analysis of pancreatic acinar cells from mice fed on genetically modifed soybean”, J. Anat., vol. 201, pp. 409–416, Malatesta M., Caporaloni C., Rossi L., Battistelli S., Rocchi M.B.L., Tonucci F. and Gazzanelli G, 2002
[35]“轉(zhuǎn)基因大豆喂食老鼠胰腺腺泡細(xì)胞超微結(jié)構(gòu)分析”，解剖學(xué)雜志，第201卷，第409-416頁(yè)，作者：Malatesta M., Caporaloni C., Rossi L., Battistelli S., Rocchi M.B.L., Tonucci F. and Gazzanelli G，2002
[36] “Reversibility of hepatocyte nuclear modifications in mice fed on genetically modified soybean”, Eur. J. Histochem., vol. 49, pp. 237–242, Malatesta M., Tiberi C., Baldelli B., Battistelli S., Manuali E and Biggiogera B., 2005
[36]“轉(zhuǎn)基因大豆喂食老鼠肝細(xì)胞核修改的可逆性”，歐洲組織化學(xué)雜志，第49卷，第237-242頁(yè)，作者：Malatesta M., Tiberi C., Baldelli B., Battistelli S., Manuali E and Biggiogera B.，2005
[37] “Ultrastructural analysis of testes from mice fed on genetically modified soybean’”, Eur. J. Histochem., vol. 48, pp. 449–45, Vecchio L., Cisterna B., Malatesta M., Martin T.E. and Biggiogera B., 2004
[37]“轉(zhuǎn)基因大豆飼喂小鼠睪丸的超微結(jié)構(gòu)分析”，歐洲組織化學(xué)雜志，第48卷，第449-45頁(yè)，作者：Vecchio L., Cisterna B., Malatesta M., Martin T.E. and Biggiogera B.，2004
志愿者進(jìn)行了食用轉(zhuǎn)基因大豆食品的試驗(yàn)，科學(xué)家發(fā)現(xiàn)轉(zhuǎn)基因大豆中含有的整個(gè)被改造過(guò)基因的基因通過(guò)胃和小腸的過(guò)程中繼續(xù)生存，而且，一部分從轉(zhuǎn)基因食品“橫向”遷移移進(jìn)入某些志愿者腸道細(xì)菌。同樣令人震驚的事實(shí)是，政府的食品安全局決定對(duì)外不披露“橫向”遷移這項(xiàng)關(guān)鍵性的重要事實(shí)！
英國(guó)志愿者進(jìn)行食用轉(zhuǎn)基因大豆食品試驗(yàn)的令人震驚結(jié)果
（英國(guó)）土壤協(xié)會(huì)公布的研究報(bào)告：轉(zhuǎn)基因農(nóng)作物對(duì)健康的影響（10）
GM crops -- the health effects, A report by the Soil Association, UK（10）
陳一文譯（[email protected]）
*
陳一文顧問(wèn)按：
面對(duì)全球人類持續(xù)安全健康生存與繁衍的問(wèn)題，轉(zhuǎn)基因農(nóng)作物、轉(zhuǎn)基因食品的“專家們”沒(méi)有資格沉默不語(yǔ)，你們必須向人民說(shuō)明你們推薦的中國(guó)轉(zhuǎn)基因農(nóng)作物、轉(zhuǎn)基因食品的安全性評(píng)估程序?qū)τ趶拿仙蕉嫉裙揪蘖窟M(jìn)口的轉(zhuǎn)基因大豆、轉(zhuǎn)基因玉米哪些方面“與國(guó)際接軌”同樣“低劣”、過(guò)于寬松？又在哪些方面比美國(guó)、歐洲“低劣”、過(guò)于寬松的安全性評(píng)估程序更加嚴(yán)密，更加有效？
你們推薦實(shí)施的中國(guó)轉(zhuǎn)基因農(nóng)作物、轉(zhuǎn)基因食品安全性評(píng)估程序，是否要求并進(jìn)行長(zhǎng)期、連續(xù)多代動(dòng)物喂食試驗(yàn)？
如果中國(guó)的安全性評(píng)估程序不包括進(jìn)行長(zhǎng)期、連續(xù)多代動(dòng)物喂食試驗(yàn)的話，你們必須向中國(guó)人民詳細(xì)說(shuō)明不要求這樣做的詳細(xì)理由？
你們還應(yīng)當(dāng)向中國(guó)人民詳細(xì)說(shuō)明，中國(guó)轉(zhuǎn)基因農(nóng)作物、轉(zhuǎn)基因食品的“專家們”，是否組織過(guò)中國(guó)轉(zhuǎn)基因農(nóng)作物、轉(zhuǎn)基因食品的“專家們”中的志愿者進(jìn)行過(guò)人喂食轉(zhuǎn)基因食品試驗(yàn)？如果沒(méi)有組織過(guò)這樣的試驗(yàn)的話，你們必須向中國(guó)人民詳細(xì)說(shuō)明為什么拒絕求這樣做的詳細(xì)理由？
英國(guó)的志愿者能夠自愿進(jìn)行人喂食轉(zhuǎn)基因食品試驗(yàn)，中國(guó)轉(zhuǎn)基因農(nóng)作物、轉(zhuǎn)基因食品的擁護(hù)者們?yōu)槭裁床桓疫@樣做？
方舟子，你敢不敢進(jìn)行這樣的試驗(yàn)？方舟子的支持者們，你們敢不敢進(jìn)行這樣的試驗(yàn)？
*
FSA human feeding trial –
食品安全局組織的人喂食轉(zhuǎn)基因食品試驗(yàn) -
The only published trial of GM foods on humans was carried out by Newcastle University for the Food Standards Agency, and published in 2004. It was designed to study what happens to transgenic DNA in the human gut and whether it could pass out and enter bacteria in the body, a long-standing concern. It found that the entire transgenic gene in GM soya survives the passage through the stomach and small intestine, though not through the colon.
對(duì)轉(zhuǎn)基因食品對(duì)人體影響試驗(yàn)發(fā)表的論文的試驗(yàn)是紐卡斯?fàn)柎髮W(xué)（Newcastle University）為食物標(biāo)準(zhǔn)局完成的試驗(yàn)報(bào)告，它于2004年出版。該項(xiàng)試驗(yàn)的目的是研究被基因改造過(guò)的基因（transgenic DNA）在人體腸道中發(fā)生了什么，以及它是否可以轉(zhuǎn)移出來(lái)進(jìn)入人體內(nèi)的細(xì)菌，這是受到長(zhǎng)期擔(dān)心的問(wèn)題。該項(xiàng)研究發(fā)現(xiàn)，轉(zhuǎn)基因大豆中含有的整個(gè)被改造過(guò)基因的基因（entire transgenic gene）通過(guò)胃和小腸的過(guò)程中繼續(xù)生存，雖然沒(méi)有通過(guò)結(jié)腸。
The study also discovered that portions of transgenic DNA had ‘horizontally’ transferred from GM food into the intestinal bacteria of some of the volunteers, which was a shocking discovery with implications for the long-term impacts of GM consumption.[16, 38] Just as shocking, however, was the fact that at the time the FSA chose not to mention this key finding in its communications on the study, thus widely giving the impression that horizontal gene transfer had not been identified in the study.
該項(xiàng)研究還發(fā)現(xiàn)，被基因改造過(guò)的基因（transgenic DNA）的一部分從轉(zhuǎn)基因食品“橫向”轉(zhuǎn)移進(jìn)入某些志愿者腸道細(xì)菌，這是一項(xiàng)令人震驚的發(fā)現(xiàn)，牽連到轉(zhuǎn)基因消費(fèi)的長(zhǎng)期影響。[16,38]然而，同樣令人震驚的事實(shí)是，當(dāng)時(shí)的食品安全局（FSA）決定在其關(guān)于該項(xiàng)試驗(yàn)的通訊中不提及這向關(guān)鍵性的重要發(fā)現(xiàn)，因而給人該項(xiàng)研究中沒(méi)有發(fā)現(xiàn)橫向基因轉(zhuǎn)移的印象。
References
參考文獻(xiàn)：
[16] “Assessing the survival of transgenic plant DNA in the human gastrointestinal tract”, Nature Biotechnology, vol. 22, pp. 204–209, Netherwood T., Martin-Orúe S.M., O’Donnell A.G.O., Gockling S., Graham J., Mathers J.C. and Gilbert H.J., 2004
[16]“評(píng)估人體胃腸道中的轉(zhuǎn)基因植物基因的生存”，自然生物技術(shù)雜志，第22卷，第204-209頁(yè)，作者：Netherwood T., Martin-Orúe S.M., O’Donnell A.G.O., Gockling S., Graham J., Mathers J.C. and Gilbert H.J.，2004
[38] “The fate of transgenes in the human gut”, Nature Biotechnology, vol. 22, pp.170–172, Heritage J., 2004
[38]“人類腸道中轉(zhuǎn)基因的命運(yùn)”，自然生物技術(shù)雜志，第22卷，第170 – 172頁(yè)，作者：Heritage J.，2004
法國(guó)科學(xué)家用轉(zhuǎn)基因玉米喂食小鼠試驗(yàn)的令人震驚結(jié)果
（英國(guó)）土壤協(xié)會(huì)公布的研究報(bào)告：轉(zhuǎn)基因農(nóng)作物對(duì)健康的影響（11）
GM crops -- the health effects, A report by the Soil Association, UK（11）
陳一文譯（[email protected]）
*
陳一文顧問(wèn)按：
(ii) GM maize Monsanto rat trial –
（二）對(duì)孟山都轉(zhuǎn)基因玉米進(jìn)行的老鼠試驗(yàn) -
In June 2005, after a German court ruling in favour of Greenpeace, Monsanto was forced to release the full details of its safety data for the GM maize, MON 863, which was being evaluated by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). The maize had been genetically modified to produce a Bt-toxin which kills the corn rootworm, a maize pest. Monsanto’s studies showed that the Bt maize had several statistically significant effects on the rats: increased white blood cells, a drop in immature red blood cells, decreased kidney weight and increased blood sugar levels.[39, 40]
2005年6月后，在德國(guó)法院做出的判決有利于綠色和平組織后，孟山都公司被迫公布?xì)W洲食品安全局（EFSA）正在評(píng)價(jià)自己轉(zhuǎn)基因玉米MON863有關(guān)安全性數(shù)據(jù)的全部細(xì)節(jié)。這種玉米經(jīng)過(guò)基因修改以產(chǎn)生一種能夠殺死玉米害蟲(chóng)根蟲(chóng)的Bt毒素。孟山度公司的研究表明，Bt玉米對(duì)老鼠有數(shù)項(xiàng)顯著的影響：增加白血細(xì)胞，不成熟的紅血細(xì)胞的減少，腎臟重量降低，血糖水平增高。[39，40]
The chemical data also showed signs of toxic effects to the liver and kidney systems. Professor Gilles-Eric Séralini, a molecular endocrinologist and member of two French government commissions that evaluate GM food, said that the rats likely suffered a toxic reaction.
有關(guān)化學(xué)數(shù)據(jù)還顯示對(duì)肝臟和腎臟系統(tǒng)造成毒性反應(yīng)的跡象。Gilles-Eric Séralini教授，一位分子內(nèi)分泌學(xué)家，擔(dān)任兩個(gè)法國(guó)政府委員會(huì)評(píng)估轉(zhuǎn)基因食品的成員，他說(shuō)，老鼠看來(lái)遭受了毒性反應(yīng)。
A full analysis of the chemical data by Professor Séralini and his team was published in May 2007.
It states, “with the present data it cannot be concluded that GM corn MON 863 is a safe product”.41
Seralini教授和他的團(tuán)隊(duì)進(jìn)行全面分析的化學(xué)數(shù)據(jù)于2007年5月出版。該報(bào)告指出，“依據(jù)現(xiàn)在的這些數(shù)據(jù)，不能被認(rèn)為轉(zhuǎn)基因玉米MON863是一個(gè)安全的產(chǎn)品”。[41]
The EFSA GMO Panel, nonetheless, recommended the GM maize should be approved, accepting Monsanto arguments as to why the statistically significant differences should be ignored. (The Panel has been accused of being pro-GM and having financial links to the industry. For example, according to Friends of the Earth, two of its members have appeared in industry videos promoting biotechnology). [40, 42]
盡管如此，歐洲食品安全局轉(zhuǎn)基因小組依然建議這種轉(zhuǎn)基因玉米應(yīng)當(dāng)獲得批準(zhǔn)，接受了孟山都公司強(qiáng)調(diào)有顯著差異的這些數(shù)據(jù)應(yīng)該被忽略的爭(zhēng)辯。（該歐洲食品安全局轉(zhuǎn)基因小組被指責(zé)為贊同轉(zhuǎn)基因并與該行業(yè)有金融聯(lián)系。例如，根據(jù)“地球之友”披露，歐洲食品安全局轉(zhuǎn)基因小組的兩名成員在該產(chǎn)業(yè)推動(dòng)生物技術(shù)的行業(yè)視頻中曾經(jīng)出現(xiàn)）[40,42]
Despite the EFSA’s endorsement, the EU's Council of Ministers voted to not approve the GM maize. However, the vote required a ‘qualified majority’. This was not achieved, so the Commission had the final say. It approved MON 863 on the basis of the ‘scientific advice’ of the GMO Panel, in January 2006. [40, 43]
盡管有EFSA（歐洲食品安全局）的認(rèn)可，歐盟部長(zhǎng)理事會(huì)對(duì)不批準(zhǔn)轉(zhuǎn)基因玉米進(jìn)行了投票。然而，這種投票需要達(dá)到某種“有效多數(shù)”。由于未能達(dá)到這樣的“有效多數(shù)”，因此委員會(huì)有權(quán)做出最終決定。該委員會(huì)在歐洲食品安全局轉(zhuǎn)基因小組提交的“科學(xué)建議”基礎(chǔ)上于2006年1月對(duì)孟山都公司的MON863轉(zhuǎn)基因玉米予以批準(zhǔn)。[40, 43]
References
參考文獻(xiàn)：
[39] “13–Week Dietary Subchronic Comparison Study with MON 863 Corn in Rats Preceded by a 1-Week Baseline Food Consumption Determination with PMI Certified Rodent Diet #5002”, Monsanto’s report on its 90-day rat feeding trial of MON 863 submitted to EFSA, the European body which approves GMOs, as part of its application for approval of the maize (1139 pages), 17 December 2002,www.monsanto.com. Reviewed by Dr Arpad Pusztai for the German environment agency BfN, in September and November 2004, available on: www.gmwatch.org
[39]“喂食轉(zhuǎn)基因863玉米老鼠13周飲食亞慢性比較研究，在此之前1周喂食基礎(chǔ)食物，消費(fèi)量由PMI認(rèn)證的鼠類飲食＃5002進(jìn)行確定”，孟山都公司提交歐洲食品安全局（EFSA）對(duì)其采用轉(zhuǎn)基因MON863玉米喂養(yǎng)90天的鼠報(bào)告。歐洲食品安全局（EFSA）是歐盟批準(zhǔn)轉(zhuǎn)基因生物體的機(jī)構(gòu)，該報(bào)告為孟山都公司對(duì)其轉(zhuǎn)基因MON863玉米的申請(qǐng)報(bào)告（1139頁(yè)）批準(zhǔn)應(yīng)用程序的一部分。2002年12月17日，www.monsanto.com，。受德國(guó)環(huán)境局BfN委托的審評(píng)者：Arpad Pusztai博士，2004年9月與11月，可查閱：www.gmwatch.org
[40] “Cause for concern”, Ecologist, Jeffrey Smith, October 2005
[40]“令人擔(dān)憂的原因”，生態(tài)學(xué)家雜志，作者：Jeffrey Smith，2005年10月
[41] “New analysis of a rat feeding study with a genetically modified maize reveals signs of hepatorenal toxicity”, Arch Environ Contam Toxicol. 52(4): 596–602, Séralini GE, Cellier D, de Vendomois JS, May 2007
[41]“轉(zhuǎn)基因玉米喂養(yǎng)老鼠新的研究分析顯示大鼠肝腎毒性跡象”，環(huán)境污染毒理學(xué)雜志，52（4）：596-602，作者：Séralini GE, Cellier D, de Vendomois JS，2007年5月
[42] “Throwing caution to the wind”, Friends of the Earth Europe, November 2004
[42]“潮流中要謹(jǐn)慎”，歐洲地球之友，2004年11月
[43] “Commission decision of 13 January 2006 authorizing the placing on the market of foods and food ingredients derived from genetically modified maize line MON 863 as novel foods or novel food ingredients under Regulation (EC) No. 258/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council
[43]“歐盟議會(huì)及其委員會(huì)2006年1月13日決定授權(quán)允許將來(lái)自轉(zhuǎn)基因MON 863玉米的食品成分依據(jù)（歐共體）歐洲議會(huì)及其委員會(huì)第258/97號(hào)規(guī)定上市作為新型食品或新型食品成分。
科學(xué)家用轉(zhuǎn)基因玉米喂食雞與小鼠試驗(yàn)的令人震驚結(jié)果
（英國(guó)）土壤協(xié)會(huì)公布的研究報(bào)告：轉(zhuǎn)基因農(nóng)作物對(duì)健康的影響（12）
GM crops -- the health effects, A report by the Soil Association, UK（12）
陳一文譯（[email protected]）
*
陳一文顧問(wèn)按：
*
Aventis’s chicken and rat trials –
安萬(wàn)特公司的雞和老鼠試驗(yàn) -
Aventis (since purchased by Bayer) carried out two controversial feeding trials of its herbicide- tolerant Chardon ‘Liberty Link’ (T25) maize, which it submitted for approval at the end of 1995. In a 42-day feeding trial with chickens, there was a 7% mortality rate for chickens fed the T25 maize, twice the rate of the non-GM fed chickens (10 of 140 died versus five of 140 of those fed non-GM maize).
安萬(wàn)特公司（由德國(guó)拜耳公司收購(gòu)之后）對(duì)其耐除草劑Chardon“自由鏈接”（T25）轉(zhuǎn)基因玉米進(jìn)行了兩次有爭(zhēng)議的雞飼養(yǎng)試驗(yàn)，于1995年底提交報(bào)告申請(qǐng)審批。在一次持續(xù)42天的雞飼養(yǎng)試驗(yàn)中，喂食T25轉(zhuǎn)基因玉米的雞的死亡率為7％，兩倍于食用非轉(zhuǎn)基因飼料雞的死亡率（喂食轉(zhuǎn)基因玉米的140只中死亡了10只，喂食非轉(zhuǎn)基因玉米的140只中死亡了5只）。
Compositional tests revealed a significant difference in the level of fats and carbohydrate between the GM and non-GM maize, suggesting alterations in some biochemical pathways. [44]
成分測(cè)試顯示，轉(zhuǎn)基因玉米和非轉(zhuǎn)基因玉米在脂肪和碳水化合物水平有者顯著的差異，建議對(duì)某些生物化學(xué)路徑進(jìn)行修改。[44]
Separately, Aventis also tested just the transgenic PAT protein which is produced by the modified maize and which gives resistance to the company’s herbicide, glufosinate. In a short-term, 14-day rat
feeding study, the effects of the isolated protein were tested on four groups of rats, two of which were fed the PAT protein, one at a low level and one at a high level.
此外，安萬(wàn)特公司僅對(duì)于轉(zhuǎn)基因玉米產(chǎn)生的轉(zhuǎn)基因PAT蛋白進(jìn)行測(cè)試，這種蛋白對(duì)這種轉(zhuǎn)基因玉米賦予了對(duì)該公司除草劑性與抗草丁膦（glufosinate）的容忍性。在較短期的14天老鼠喂食研究中，對(duì)分離蛋白的影響在四組老鼠身上進(jìn)行測(cè)試，兩組喂食PAT蛋白，一組進(jìn)行低水平的測(cè)試，另外一組進(jìn)行高水平的測(cè)試。
The design of the studies meant that any negative effects that occurred would be obscured, unless they were very dramatic: only five male and five female rats were tested in each group (restricting the chance of establishing statistical significance for any effects), the starting weights varied by +/-20%
(rather than the usual +/-2%), and the group receiving the high level of the transgenic PAT protein had the highest starting body weights. Despite this, and the fact that the high PAT protein group showed the highest feed intake, this group ended up with the lowest body weights, significantly less than the group receiving the equivalent non-GM diet and the group receiving the low level of PAT protein. Biochemical differences and measurements of the urine volume indicated an increased metabolic load on the rats fed the PAT protein. [44]
如此設(shè)計(jì)的試驗(yàn)意味著，任何負(fù)面的影響是模糊的，除非這種負(fù)面影響非常引人注目：每組老師只有五雄五雌共十只成年鼠（限制建立任何有影響統(tǒng)計(jì)意義的機(jī)會(huì)）進(jìn)行測(cè)試，所有老鼠的起始重量不同，有多達(dá)+ / -20％的偏差（而不是通常應(yīng)當(dāng)控制的+ / -2％的偏差），而且，喂食高水平轉(zhuǎn)基因PAT蛋白的試驗(yàn)鼠的起始體重最高。事實(shí)上，盡管喂食高水平轉(zhuǎn)基因PAT蛋白的試驗(yàn)鼠的喂食量最高，該組老鼠試驗(yàn)結(jié)果時(shí)的體重反而最低，比喂食同量非轉(zhuǎn)基因日食量的組與喂食低水平轉(zhuǎn)基因PAT蛋白的試驗(yàn)鼠試驗(yàn)結(jié)果時(shí)的體重低很多。生化差異和尿量測(cè)量表明，喂食轉(zhuǎn)基因PAT蛋白的試驗(yàn)鼠的代謝負(fù)荷增加。[44]
Despite this opposing scientific evidence, T25 maize was approved for consumption by the EU in April 1998.
盡管如此負(fù)面的科學(xué)證據(jù)，歐盟1998年4月依然批準(zhǔn)轉(zhuǎn)基因T25玉米的消費(fèi)。
Liberty Link GM maize has been widely marketed in North America by Bayer Crop-Science.
“自由鏈接”（Liberty Link）轉(zhuǎn)基因玉米目前由拜耳作物科學(xué)公司（Bayer Crop-Science）在北美廣泛銷售。
References
參考文獻(xiàn)：
[44] “Non-suitability of genetically engineered feed for animals”, Report for the Chardon LL Hearing by Eva Novotny, Scientists for Global Responsibility, May 2002. Chardon LL Hearing: Analysis of
“The Chicken Study”, The effect of glufosinate resistant corn on growth of male broiler chickens, Department of Animal and Poultry Sciences, University of Guelph, November 2000.
Also, review in “Food safety – contaminants and toxins”, CABI Publishing, 2003
[44]“非轉(zhuǎn)基因飼料對(duì)動(dòng)物的不適宜性”，為Chardon LL聽(tīng)證會(huì)提交的科學(xué)家報(bào)告，作者：Eva Novotny，“全球責(zé)任”受委托的科學(xué)家，2002年5月。Chardon LL Hearing聽(tīng)證會(huì)：對(duì)“雞研究”的分析，抗草銨膦除草劑玉米對(duì)雄性肉雞生長(zhǎng)的影響，加拿大Guelph大學(xué)動(dòng)物和家禽科學(xué)部，2000年11月。
英國(guó)2003年出版的對(duì)羊進(jìn)行的一項(xiàng)研究發(fā)現(xiàn)，轉(zhuǎn)基因玉米被羊吃了之后，僅僅八分鐘后，插入轉(zhuǎn)基因玉米的外源基因中有些從轉(zhuǎn)基因玉米“橫向”遷移轉(zhuǎn)入羊在口腔中的細(xì)菌，導(dǎo)致大腸桿菌的細(xì)菌對(duì)抗生素產(chǎn)生抗藥性。證明插入轉(zhuǎn)基因的基因容易發(fā)生“橫向基因轉(zhuǎn)移”.
英國(guó)對(duì)轉(zhuǎn)基因玉米飼料中轉(zhuǎn)基因遷移轉(zhuǎn)入羊口腔中細(xì)菌對(duì)抗生素產(chǎn)生抗藥性的研究
（英國(guó)）土壤協(xié)會(huì)公布的研究報(bào)告：轉(zhuǎn)基因農(nóng)作物對(duì)健康的影響（13）
GM crops -- the health effects, A report by the Soil Association, UK（13）
陳一文譯（[email protected]）
*
陳一文顧問(wèn)按：
面對(duì)全球人類持續(xù)安全健康生存與繁衍的問(wèn)題，轉(zhuǎn)基因農(nóng)作物、轉(zhuǎn)基因食品的“專家們”沒(méi)有資格沉默不語(yǔ)，你們必須向人民說(shuō)明你們推薦的中國(guó)轉(zhuǎn)基因農(nóng)作物、轉(zhuǎn)基因食品的安全性評(píng)估程序?qū)τ趶拿仙蕉嫉裙揪蘖窟M(jìn)口的轉(zhuǎn)基因大豆、轉(zhuǎn)基因玉米哪些方面“與國(guó)際接軌”同樣“低劣”、過(guò)于寬松？又在哪些方面比美國(guó)、歐洲“低劣”、過(guò)于寬松的安全性評(píng)估程序更加嚴(yán)密，更加有效？
你們推薦實(shí)施的中國(guó)轉(zhuǎn)基因農(nóng)作物、轉(zhuǎn)基因食品安全性評(píng)估程序，是否要求并進(jìn)行長(zhǎng)期、連續(xù)多代動(dòng)物喂食試驗(yàn)？
如果中國(guó)的安全性評(píng)估程序不包括進(jìn)行長(zhǎng)期、連續(xù)多代動(dòng)物喂食試驗(yàn)的話，你們必須向中國(guó)人民詳細(xì)說(shuō)明不要求這樣做的詳細(xì)理由？
*
UK study of gene transfer in sheep –
英國(guó)對(duì)羊中轉(zhuǎn)基因遷移的研究 -
A UK study with sheep, published in 2003, found that when GM maize was eaten, after only eight minutes, some of the inserted transgenes moved out from the maize and ‘horizontally’ transferred into
the bacteria in the mouth. One of the inserted genes coded for resistance to the antibiotic kanamycin.
英國(guó)2003年出版的對(duì)羊進(jìn)行的一項(xiàng)研究發(fā)現(xiàn)，轉(zhuǎn)基因玉米被羊吃了之后，僅僅八分鐘后，插入轉(zhuǎn)基因玉米的外源基因中有些從轉(zhuǎn)基因玉米“橫向”遷移轉(zhuǎn)入羊在口腔中的細(xì)菌。這種轉(zhuǎn)基因玉米中插入的基因的編碼為“抵抗抗生素卡那霉素”。
After the transgenes transferred, the E.coli bacteria were found to be resistant to the antibiotic, showing that the transgenes had integrated into the bacteria's own DNA.
轉(zhuǎn)基因“橫向”遷移轉(zhuǎn)讓后，大腸桿菌的細(xì)菌被發(fā)現(xiàn)對(duì)抗生素產(chǎn)生抗藥性，顯示出轉(zhuǎn)基因轉(zhuǎn)入了細(xì)菌的基因。
This proved that ‘horizontal gene transfer’ of inserted genes can happen relatively easily.[17]
這證明，插入轉(zhuǎn)基因的基因容易發(fā)生“橫向基因轉(zhuǎn)移”。[17]
References
參考文獻(xiàn)：
[17] “Fate of genetically modified maize DNA in the oral cavity and rumen of sheep”, British Journal of Nutrition, 89(2): 159-166, Duggan et al, 2003
[17]“轉(zhuǎn)基因玉米基因在綿羊口腔和瘤胃中的命運(yùn)”，英國(guó)營(yíng)養(yǎng)學(xué)雜志，89（2）：159-166，作者：Duggan等，2003
孟山都公司自己進(jìn)行的轉(zhuǎn)基因油菜喂食老鼠試驗(yàn)令人震驚的結(jié)果
（英國(guó)）土壤協(xié)會(huì)公布的研究報(bào)告：轉(zhuǎn)基因農(nóng)作物對(duì)健康的影響（14）
GM crops -- the health effects, A report by the Soil Association, UK（14）
陳一文譯（[email protected]）
*
陳一文顧問(wèn)按：
*
(iii) GM oilseed rape
（三）轉(zhuǎn)基因油菜
Monsanto rat trials –
孟山都公司進(jìn)行的老鼠試驗(yàn) -
The GM oilseed rape, GT73, has been approved in Europe since 2004, although documentation published by the US FDA shows that two of Monsanto’s rat feeding studies found statistically significant adverse effects. [45]
2004年在歐洲批準(zhǔn)了孟山都公司GT73轉(zhuǎn)基因油菜，盡管美國(guó)FDA（美國(guó)藥物與食品管理署）公布的文件顯示，孟山都公司自己進(jìn)行的兩項(xiàng)老鼠飼養(yǎng)研究都發(fā)現(xiàn)了顯著負(fù)面的影響。[45]
GT73 is a glyphosate-tolerant ‘Roundup Ready’ (RR)variety.
GT73是一種抗草甘膦“終結(jié)者”（RR）除草劑的品種。
The first study, carried out with a mixture of two of Monsanto’s glyphosatetolerant oilseed rape varieties, including GT73, found statistically significant decreases in terminal body weight and cumulative body weight gains in male rats (but not female rats) fed GM rape, compared to rats fed non-GM rape.
第一項(xiàng)研究，使用了混合有孟山都公司兩種抗草甘膦“終結(jié)者”（RR）除草劑的油菜品種，包括轉(zhuǎn)基因GT73油菜。通過(guò)試驗(yàn)發(fā)現(xiàn)，與喂食非轉(zhuǎn)基因油菜的大鼠對(duì)照組相比，喂食轉(zhuǎn)基因油菜老鼠在試驗(yàn)結(jié)束時(shí)的體重，以及雄性大鼠累積增加體重（但不是雌性），都顯著下降。
Monsanto, however, argued that there were ‘technical’ problems with the study, and repeated it.
然而，孟山都公司爭(zhēng)辯該項(xiàng)研究存在著“技術(shù)”問(wèn)題，并重復(fù)進(jìn)行了一遍試驗(yàn)。
Interestingly, while the US FDA clearly states that statistically significant differences in the body weights of the male rats were found, the EFSA claimed that the study found no differences in body weights (though they admitted that the GM-fed rats had higher liver to body weight ratios). [46]
有趣的是，雖然美國(guó)FDA（藥物與食品管理署）清楚確認(rèn)，確實(shí)發(fā)現(xiàn)了雄性鼠體重顯著差異，EFSA（歐洲食品安全局）依然聲稱該項(xiàng)研究中沒(méi)有發(fā)現(xiàn)體重明顯的差異（盡管他們承認(rèn)，喂養(yǎng)轉(zhuǎn)基因飼料的大鼠的肝重量/體重的重量比較高）。[46]
The second study, conducted solely with the GT73 variety, found that rats fed this GM rape had relative liver weights that were increased up to 16% compared to those fed the non-GM parental line.
第二項(xiàng)研究中，單獨(dú)對(duì)轉(zhuǎn)基因GT73油菜品種進(jìn)行試驗(yàn)，發(fā)現(xiàn)喂食這種轉(zhuǎn)基因油菜老鼠的肝臟重量相對(duì)增加，與喂食非轉(zhuǎn)基因親本油菜老鼠的肝臟重量相比提高了16％。
Apparently forgetting that there had been ‘technical’ problems with the first study and that the rats had not been fed exactly the same GM rape in both studies, Monsanto argued that the results of the second study should also be ignored since the results of the two trials were ‘inconsistent’.
顯然忘記了第一項(xiàng)研究出現(xiàn)的“技術(shù)”問(wèn)題，以及這兩項(xiàng)研究中沒(méi)有給老鼠喂食完全相同的轉(zhuǎn)基因油菜，孟山都公司再次爭(zhēng)辯第二項(xiàng)研究的結(jié)果應(yīng)當(dāng)忽視因?yàn)閮纱卧囼?yàn)的結(jié)果“不一致”。
They carried out a third study which did not find any problems. [45]
他們?cè)俅芜M(jìn)行了第三次研究，沒(méi)有發(fā)現(xiàn)任何問(wèn)題。[45]
In August 2004, GT73 was approved for food and feed use in the EU.
2004年8月，轉(zhuǎn)基因GT73油菜被批準(zhǔn)在歐盟用于食品和飼料使用。
References
參考文獻(xiàn)：
[45] Office of Food Additive Safety, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, U.S. Food and
Drug Administration, “Biotechnology Consultation Note to the File BNF No. 000077”, September 4,
2002
[45] 美國(guó)食品與藥品監(jiān)督管理局食品安全和應(yīng)用營(yíng)養(yǎng)中心食品添加劑安全辦公室，“對(duì)BNF號(hào)000077檔案的生物技術(shù)咨詢意見(jiàn)”，2002年9月4日
[46] Opinion of the Scientific Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms on a request from the Commission related to the Notification (Reference C/NL/98/11) for the placing on the market of herbicide-tolerant oilseed rape GT73, for import and processing, under Part C of Directive 2001/18/EC from Monsanto1
(Question N° EFSA-Q-2003-078) Opinion adopted on 11 February 2004
[46]科學(xué)委員會(huì)根據(jù)委員會(huì)要求就抗除草劑轉(zhuǎn)基因油菜GT73進(jìn)入市場(chǎng)、進(jìn)口與加工的通知（參考C/NL/98/11）對(duì)轉(zhuǎn)基因生物體的意見(jiàn)，依據(jù)孟山都公司2001/18/EC號(hào)指令部分C。
（問(wèn)題第EFSA-Q-2003-078號(hào)）的意見(jiàn)2004年2月11日獲得采納
小白鼠喂食轉(zhuǎn)基因豌豆四周后，豌豆引發(fā)了老鼠身發(fā)生過(guò)敏性反應(yīng)：肺組織變得紅腫。這些老鼠也對(duì)某些其他物質(zhì)出現(xiàn)敏感，雞蛋白過(guò)敏，而那些喂食非轉(zhuǎn)基因豌豆沒(méi)有這種情況。即使喂食煮熟后的豌豆，這些老鼠仍然有過(guò)敏反應(yīng)。
澳大利亞科學(xué)家用生轉(zhuǎn)基因豌豆喂食老鼠與煮熟轉(zhuǎn)基因豌豆喂食的惡果相同
（英國(guó)）土壤協(xié)會(huì)公布的研究報(bào)告：轉(zhuǎn)基因農(nóng)作物對(duì)健康的影響（15）
GM crops -- the health effects, A report by the Soil Association, UK（15）
陳一文譯（[email protected]）
*
陳一文顧問(wèn)按：
澳大利亞科學(xué)家發(fā)現(xiàn)：“被引入豌豆中的基因所表達(dá)的這種新的蛋白質(zhì)，與蕓豆中的蛋白質(zhì)在化學(xué)上相同。然而，進(jìn)一步的審查揭示，雖然轉(zhuǎn)基因豌豆中的蛋白質(zhì)具有與蕓豆中的蛋白質(zhì)相同的氨基酸序列，現(xiàn)在附在這種蛋白質(zhì)上邊的糖有所不同（由于糖基化）。科學(xué)家們得出結(jié)論：“植物中的非天然蛋白質(zhì)的轉(zhuǎn)基因因表達(dá)，可能導(dǎo)致具有免疫原性改變的結(jié)構(gòu)變異合成”。換句話說(shuō)，原生植物中無(wú)毒的一種蛋白質(zhì)，轉(zhuǎn)入轉(zhuǎn)基因植物后的表達(dá)，并不能假設(shè)保持無(wú)毒”。
澳大利亞科學(xué)家的這種發(fā)現(xiàn)，不僅對(duì)全球人類更深刻轉(zhuǎn)基因農(nóng)作物無(wú)法克服的越來(lái)越多危害具有世界科學(xué)意義，對(duì)于更深刻認(rèn)識(shí)生物體相同物質(zhì)處于生物體微觀結(jié)構(gòu)不同位置可能具有不同生物化學(xué)作用，而且對(duì)于中國(guó)中藥現(xiàn)代化必須反思的“中藥現(xiàn)代化=中藥西藥化”誤區(qū)有重大科學(xué)意義。
許多中藥的現(xiàn)代化主要采取篩選提純“有效物質(zhì)”的途徑，將中藥藥方不同種類配伍藥棄置不用，同時(shí)將許多植物性中藥原生態(tài)的必要性棄置不用。
殊不知許多中藥藥方中經(jīng)過(guò)篩選提純的“有效物質(zhì)”之所以“有效”，不僅與配伍藥中許多看起來(lái)沒(méi)有什么作用的“無(wú)用物質(zhì)”有關(guān)，而且與這種“有效物質(zhì)”與植物性中藥原生態(tài)中許多相互依存的看起來(lái)沒(méi)有什么作用的“無(wú)用物質(zhì)”有關(guān)。
本顧問(wèn)為此建議，中藥界應(yīng)當(dāng)對(duì)所有采取“中藥西藥化”的所有“中藥現(xiàn)代化”成果重新審查！
澳大利亞科學(xué)家還發(fā)現(xiàn)“即使喂食煮熟后的轉(zhuǎn)基因豌豆，這些老鼠仍然有過(guò)敏反應(yīng)。”
希望這項(xiàng)發(fā)現(xiàn)對(duì)于人們更深刻認(rèn)清轉(zhuǎn)基因農(nóng)作物與轉(zhuǎn)基因食品不可克服的危害至少具有敲響警鐘的作用！
*
(iv) GM peas
（四）轉(zhuǎn)基因豌豆
Australian mice trial –
澳大利亞進(jìn)行的小鼠試驗(yàn) -
The results of recently published research by Australian scientists on the safety of GM peas raises serious questions about the safety of GM crops in general. The researchers inserted a gene, normally found in kidney beans, to peas to make them resistant to the pea weavil, and then fed the GM peas to mice for four weeks. The peas triggered allergic reactions in the mice: the lung tissue became inflamed. The mice also became sensitive to other substances, reacting to egg white, whereas those fed non-GM peas did not. Even after cooking the peas, the mice still had an allergic reaction.[13, 14, 15]
澳大利亞科學(xué)家對(duì)轉(zhuǎn)基因豌豆的安全最近公布的研究結(jié)果，引起人們對(duì)轉(zhuǎn)基因作物一般性的安全提出許多嚴(yán)重的問(wèn)題。研究人員對(duì)豌豆插入一個(gè)基因，通常是在蕓豆中發(fā)現(xiàn)的一種基因，使他們以抗豌豆豌豆象甲蟲(chóng)（peaweavil），然后用這種轉(zhuǎn)基因豌豆對(duì)小白鼠喂食四周。豌豆引發(fā)了老鼠身發(fā)生過(guò)敏性反應(yīng)：肺組織變得紅腫。這些老鼠也對(duì)某些其他物質(zhì)出現(xiàn)敏感，雞蛋白過(guò)敏，而那些喂食非轉(zhuǎn)基因豌豆沒(méi)有這種情況。即使喂食煮熟后的轉(zhuǎn)基因豌豆，這些老鼠仍然有過(guò)敏反應(yīng)。[13, 14, 15]
This was considered a surprising result as the mice did not have an allergic reaction to non-GM peas or to the kidney beans, and because the new protein being expressed by the introduced gene in the peas was chemically identical to the protein in the kidney beans. Closer examination, however, revealed that although the protein in the GM peas had an identical amino acid sequence to the protein in beans, there were now differences in the sugars attached to it (due to glycosylation).
這被認(rèn)為是一個(gè)令人驚訝的結(jié)果，因?yàn)槔鲜髮?duì)非轉(zhuǎn)基因豌豆或蕓豆沒(méi)有這種過(guò)敏反應(yīng)，而且由于，被引入豌豆中的基因所表達(dá)的這種新的蛋白質(zhì)，與蕓豆中的蛋白質(zhì)在化學(xué)上相同。然而，進(jìn)一步的審查揭示，雖然轉(zhuǎn)基因豌豆中的蛋白質(zhì)具有與蕓豆中的蛋白質(zhì)相同的氨基酸序列，現(xiàn)在附在這種蛋白質(zhì)上邊的糖有所不同（由于糖基化）。
The scientists concluded that “transgenic expression of non-native proteins in plants may lead to the synthesis of structural variants possessing altered immunogenicity”. [13] In other words, a protein which is non-toxic in its native plant cannot be assumed to remain nontoxic when transferred and expressed in a GM plant– yet this is precisely what has been assumed by regulators so far.
科學(xué)家們得出結(jié)論：“植物中的非天然蛋白質(zhì)的轉(zhuǎn)基因因表達(dá)，可能導(dǎo)致具有免疫原性改變的結(jié)構(gòu)變異合成”。[13] 換句話說(shuō)，原生植物中無(wú)毒的一種蛋白質(zhì)，轉(zhuǎn)入轉(zhuǎn)基因植物后的表達(dá)，并不能假設(shè)保持無(wú)毒 --
The ‘substantial equivalence’ approach does not assess the possibility of such harmful glycosylation occurring.
在“實(shí)質(zhì)等同”的做法并沒(méi)有評(píng)估這種有害的糖基化發(fā)生的可能性。
References
參考文獻(xiàn)：
[13] “Transgenic expression of bean alpha-amylase inhibitor in peas results in altered structure and
immunogenicity”, J Agric Food Chem., vol 53, pp. 9023–9030, Prescott V.E., Campbell P.M., Moore
A., Mattes J., Rothenberg M.E., Foster P.S., Higgins T.J. and Hogan S.P., 2005
[13]“大豆轉(zhuǎn)基因的表達(dá)α-淀粉酶抑制劑在改變結(jié)構(gòu)和豌豆結(jié)果
免疫原性“，強(qiáng)Agric食品化學(xué)。，第53，第9023-9030，普雷斯科特維生素E，坎貝爾下午，摩爾答：，馬茨j的，羅森伯格ME的，福斯特聚苯乙烯，希金斯TJ和霍根S.P.，2005
[14] “GM pea causes allergic damage in mice”, NewScientists.com, Emma Young, 21 November 2005
[14] “轉(zhuǎn)基因豆導(dǎo)致小鼠過(guò)敏性損害”，新科學(xué)家網(wǎng)站（NewScientists.com），作者：Emma Young，2005年11月21日
[15] “Frankenstein peas”, Ecologist, Jeffrey Smith, March 2006
[15]“佛蘭克斯坦豆”（“Frankenstein peas”），生態(tài)學(xué)家雜志，作者：Jeffrey Smith，2006年3月
美國(guó)Calgene公司喂食轉(zhuǎn)基因西紅柿老鼠試驗(yàn)中，兩位專家分別對(duì)每組20只老鼠的兩組老鼠中，在一組中確定了4只鼠腸壁病變，另一組中確定了7只鼠有病變。另外一次試驗(yàn)中，除了再次發(fā)現(xiàn)老鼠腸壁病變外，40只喂食轉(zhuǎn)基因西紅柿老鼠中有7只鼠在兩周內(nèi)死亡。孟山都公司后來(lái)在1997年購(gòu)得這個(gè)Calgene公司的全部股權(quán)。
美國(guó)科學(xué)家用轉(zhuǎn)基因番茄喂食老鼠的令人震驚惡果
（英國(guó)）土壤協(xié)會(huì)公布的研究報(bào)告：轉(zhuǎn)基因農(nóng)作物對(duì)健康的影響（16）
GM crops -- the health effects, A report by the Soil Association, UK（16）
陳一文譯（[email protected]）
*
陳一文顧問(wèn)按：
面對(duì)全球人類持續(xù)安全健康生存與繁衍的問(wèn)題，轉(zhuǎn)基因農(nóng)作物、轉(zhuǎn)基因食品的“專家們”沒(méi)有資格沉默不語(yǔ)，你們必須向人民說(shuō)明你們推薦的中國(guó)轉(zhuǎn)基因農(nóng)作物、轉(zhuǎn)基因食品的安全性評(píng)估程序?qū)τ趶拿仙蕉嫉裙揪蘖窟M(jìn)口的轉(zhuǎn)基因大豆、轉(zhuǎn)基因玉米哪些方面“與國(guó)際接軌”同樣“低劣”、過(guò)于寬松？又在哪些方面比美國(guó)、歐洲“低劣”、過(guò)于寬松的安全性評(píng)估程序更加嚴(yán)密，更加有效？
你們推薦實(shí)施的中國(guó)轉(zhuǎn)基因農(nóng)作物、轉(zhuǎn)基因食品安全性評(píng)估程序，是否要求并進(jìn)行長(zhǎng)期、連續(xù)多代動(dòng)物喂食試驗(yàn)？
如果中國(guó)的安全性評(píng)估程序不包括進(jìn)行長(zhǎng)期、連續(xù)多代動(dòng)物喂食試驗(yàn)的話，你們必須向中國(guó)人民詳細(xì)說(shuō)明不要求這樣做的詳細(xì)理由？
*
(v) GM tomatoes
（五）轉(zhuǎn)基因西紅柿
Calgene mice trials –
（美國(guó)）Calgene公司進(jìn)行的小鼠試驗(yàn) -
Unpublished trials with GM Flavr Savr tomatoes commissioned by the company Calgene and submitted to the US FDA in order to gain approval for the first GM food, found that mice fed the tomatoes developed lesions in the gut wall. In a 28-day trial, groups of 40 rats were fed GM tomato or a control diet.
尚未發(fā)表的受Calgene公司委托為申請(qǐng)作為第一項(xiàng)轉(zhuǎn)基因食品提交給美國(guó)FDA（藥物與食品管理署）的對(duì)轉(zhuǎn)基因Flavr Savr西紅柿進(jìn)行的試驗(yàn)，發(fā)現(xiàn)食用這種轉(zhuǎn)基因西紅柿的老鼠發(fā)生了腸壁病變。在為期28天的試驗(yàn)中，對(duì)40個(gè)老鼠的動(dòng)物組喂食了轉(zhuǎn)基因西紅柿或受控喂食。
（譯者注：孟山都公司后來(lái)在1997年購(gòu)得Calgene公司全部股權(quán)，使其成為孟山都公司的全資子公司）
Out of 20 female rats fed the GM tomato, lesions were identified in four and seven rats, by two expert groups respectively.
在喂食轉(zhuǎn)基因西紅柿的每組20只雌性大鼠的試驗(yàn)組中，兩位專家分別對(duì)兩組老鼠中，在一組中確定了四只鼠有病變，另一組中確定了七只鼠有病變。
No such effects were found in the control rats. The FDA requested another study to be carried out. Lesions occurred again (2 of 15 rats) and, additionally, seven out of 40 (17.5%) of the rats fed the GM tomatoes died within two weeks. [47]
沒(méi)有這樣的影響，發(fā)現(xiàn)在控制組。美國(guó)FDA（藥物與食品管理署）要求再進(jìn)行另一次研究。再次進(jìn)行的試驗(yàn)中再次發(fā)生病變（試驗(yàn)了15只鼠，發(fā)現(xiàn)2只鼠有病變），而且除此之外，40只喂食轉(zhuǎn)基因西紅柿的老鼠中七只鼠在兩周內(nèi)死亡。[47]
Following this, the biotechnology industry and US Government agreed to instead use the ‘substantial equivalence’ concept for approving GM crops, rather than animal feeding trials.
在此之后，生物技術(shù)產(chǎn)業(yè)與美國(guó)政府同意對(duì)轉(zhuǎn)基因農(nóng)作物采納“實(shí)質(zhì)等同”的概念，而不再采用動(dòng)物喂食試驗(yàn)的方式。
Calgene's Flavr Savr tomato and Zeneca's similar GM tomato variety were approved by the FDA in mid-1994.
結(jié)果，Calgene公司的轉(zhuǎn)基因Flavr Savr番茄以及Zeneca公司類似的轉(zhuǎn)基因番茄品種在1994年獲得了美國(guó)FDA（藥物與食品管理署）的批準(zhǔn)。
Both varieties were also cleared for sale in the UK, although only Zeneca's (then AstraZeneca) product was sold, as tomato paste until June 1999.
后來(lái)，這兩個(gè)品種在英國(guó)排除障礙上市銷售，盡管只有Zeneca公司（當(dāng)時(shí)稱為AstraZeneca）的產(chǎn)品以番茄醬的方式銷售，一直到1999年6月。
References
參考文獻(xiàn)：
[47] Unpublished studies carried out for Calgene and at the request of the FDA respectively, in early
1990s, in reviewed “Food safety – contaminants and toxins”, CABI Publishing, 2003
[47]為Calgene并根據(jù)FDA（美國(guó)食品與藥物管理署）90年代初期的要求完成的待發(fā)表的研究報(bào)告，在審查“食品安全 - 污染物和毒素”，CABI出版社，2003
在英國(guó)的第一個(gè)喂食轉(zhuǎn)基因飼料動(dòng)物試驗(yàn)中發(fā)現(xiàn)了與前邊介紹的轉(zhuǎn)基因西紅柿類似的大鼠腸壁病變。主持該項(xiàng)試驗(yàn)的有社會(huì)責(zé)任感的英國(guó)科學(xué)家Arpad Pusztai博士1999年發(fā)表了研究報(bào)告，堅(jiān)持要求必須對(duì)轉(zhuǎn)基因農(nóng)作物進(jìn)行動(dòng)物喂食試驗(yàn)，為此最終失去了他的工作。
英國(guó)科學(xué)家發(fā)現(xiàn)轉(zhuǎn)基因土豆造成試驗(yàn)老鼠腸壁病變，堅(jiān)持必須進(jìn)行動(dòng)物喂食試驗(yàn)
（英國(guó)）土壤協(xié)會(huì)公布的研究報(bào)告：轉(zhuǎn)基因農(nóng)作物對(duì)健康的影響（17）
GM crops -- the health effects, A report by the Soil Association, UK（17）
陳一文譯（[email protected]）
*
陳一文顧問(wèn)按：
面對(duì)全球人類持續(xù)安全健康生存與繁衍的問(wèn)題，轉(zhuǎn)基因農(nóng)作物、轉(zhuǎn)基因食品的“專家們”沒(méi)有資格沉默不語(yǔ)，你們必須向人民說(shuō)明你們推薦的中國(guó)轉(zhuǎn)基因農(nóng)作物、轉(zhuǎn)基因食品的安全性評(píng)估程序?qū)τ趶拿仙蕉嫉裙揪蘖窟M(jìn)口的轉(zhuǎn)基因大豆、轉(zhuǎn)基因玉米哪些方面“與國(guó)際接軌”同樣“低劣”、過(guò)于寬松？又在哪些方面比美國(guó)、歐洲“低劣”、過(guò)于寬松的安全性評(píng)估程序更加嚴(yán)密，更加有效？
你們推薦實(shí)施的中國(guó)轉(zhuǎn)基因農(nóng)作物、轉(zhuǎn)基因食品安全性評(píng)估程序，是否要求并進(jìn)行長(zhǎng)期、連續(xù)多代動(dòng)物喂食試驗(yàn)？
如果中國(guó)的安全性評(píng)估程序不包括進(jìn)行長(zhǎng)期、連續(xù)多代動(dòng)物喂食試驗(yàn)的話，你們必須向中國(guó)人民詳細(xì)說(shuō)明不要求這樣做的詳細(xì)理由？
*
(vi) GM potatoes
（六）轉(zhuǎn)基因土豆
UK rat trials –
英國(guó)進(jìn)行的老鼠試驗(yàn) -
Similar results to GM tomatoes were found by the first animal feeding trial in the UK, and with the same consequence. GM potatoes were famously found to cause lesions in the gut wall of rats in a controlled trial by Dr Arpad Pusztai, working at the Rowett Research Institute in Scotland.
在英國(guó)的第一個(gè)喂食轉(zhuǎn)基因飼料動(dòng)物試驗(yàn)中發(fā)現(xiàn)了與前邊介紹的轉(zhuǎn)基因西紅柿類似的結(jié)果與同樣的后果。在蘇格蘭Rowett研究所工作的Arpad Pusztai博士從事的對(duì)照試驗(yàn)中，轉(zhuǎn)基因馬鈴薯導(dǎo)致在大鼠腸壁病變非常知名。
The findings, which were publicized in 1998, caused major controversy and misinformation was widely spread by proponents of GM crops that the trials had not been controlled.
1998年公布的調(diào)查結(jié)果，造成了重大的爭(zhēng)議，轉(zhuǎn)基因農(nóng)作物的支持者廣泛傳播誤解性的信息，稱這次試驗(yàn)并非很好對(duì)照控制。
Pusztai’s studies had been commissioned by the UK Government in order to develop a protocol for
using animal feeding trials for the risk assessment of GM crops, so the findings should have been taken very seriously.
Pusztai博士的研究是英國(guó)政府委托的研究，以制定通過(guò)動(dòng)物喂食試驗(yàn)對(duì)轉(zhuǎn)基因農(nóng)作物的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)評(píng)估的條例，所以該項(xiàng)試驗(yàn)的結(jié)果應(yīng)該予以非常認(rèn)真對(duì)待。
Instead, Pusztai was suspended, gagged, and eventually lost his job.
相反，Pusztai被“掛起來(lái)”，“封口”，并最終失去了他的工作。
The UK Government abandoned its plan to require animal feeding trials and instead followed the US Government’s policy of relying primarily on ‘substantial equivalence’.
英國(guó)政府放棄了他們?cè)扔?jì)劃規(guī)定要求進(jìn)行的動(dòng)物喂食試驗(yàn)，并與此相反尾隨美國(guó)政府依賴“實(shí)質(zhì)等同”為主的政策。
Pusztai’s study was published in the Lancet medical journal, [48] which recommended that it be repeated. To this day, this has not been done.
Pusztai博士的研究結(jié)果發(fā)表在醫(yī)學(xué)雜志“柳葉刀”，[48]建議必須繼續(xù)進(jìn)行動(dòng)物喂食試驗(yàn)。到今天為止，依然沒(méi)有這樣做。
References
參考文獻(xiàn)
[48] “Effect of diets containing genetically modified potatoes expressing Galanthus nivalis lectin on rat small intestine’”, vol. 354, pp. 1353–1354, Ewen S.W. and Pusztai A., 1999
[48]“對(duì)含有轉(zhuǎn)基因馬鈴薯日常飲食反映的雪花蓮凝血?jiǎng)?duì)大鼠小腸的影響”，第354卷，第1353至1354頁(yè)，作者：Ewen S.W. and Pusztai A.，1999.
相關(guān)文章
- 劉金華：關(guān)注轉(zhuǎn)基因，這個(gè)問(wèn)題不簡(jiǎn)單
- 視頻附文字稿: 《轉(zhuǎn)基因賭局：用生命下注》
- 佟屏亞：轉(zhuǎn)基因作物能抗蟲(chóng)、增產(chǎn)是騙人的
- 顧秀林：世界數(shù)百科學(xué)家公開(kāi)宣言：轉(zhuǎn)基因安全無(wú)共識(shí)
- 最經(jīng)得起科學(xué)考驗(yàn)的轉(zhuǎn)基因問(wèn)題意見(jiàn)書(shū)（全）
- 孟山都的黑心成長(zhǎng)史
- 佟屏亞：農(nóng)業(yè)部把轉(zhuǎn)基因謊言“科普”到中學(xué)生課堂，罪過(guò)！
- 楊昭友：轉(zhuǎn)基因鬼子來(lái)了，中華民族何處去？
- 直言了 | 官方機(jī)構(gòu)和官方媒體合伙撒謊：聯(lián)合國(guó)沒(méi)說(shuō)“上市的轉(zhuǎn)基因食品都安全”
- 江曉原：為何要回避轉(zhuǎn)基因主糧的專利問(wèn)題？
「 支持烏有之鄉(xiāng)！」
烏有之鄉(xiāng) WYZXWK.COM
您的打賞將用于網(wǎng)站日常運(yùn)行與維護(hù)。
幫助我們辦好網(wǎng)站，宣傳紅色文化！
歡迎掃描下方二維碼，訂閱烏有之鄉(xiāng)網(wǎng)刊微信公眾號(hào)
