陳一文譯：生物學家揭露美國轉基因作物草甘膦殘留量大騙局

Genetic Engineering: the Glyphosate threat 2 health issues　　

轉基因：草甘膦的威脅2健康問題　　

By Heimen Julius　　

作者：黑門·居里斯　　

本文原文鏈接/Link to original paper：　　

http://www.rag.org.au/modifiedfoods/rounduphealthissues.htm　　

Translator: Chen I-wan ([email protected])　　

譯者：陳一文（[email protected]）　　

《新浪網》“陳一文顧問博客”全文發布：http://blog.sina.com.cn/cheniwan　　

Posted at Advisor Chen I-wan Blog: http://blog.sina.com.cn/cheniwan　　

侵界多：報告家礎除草劑的e United States, but e to maintain persisting nkind health which theral understanding of the issue of earthquake pr　　

*                                  *                                  *　　

陳一文顧問按：　　

Comments by Advisor Chen I-wan:　　

黑門·居里斯是澳大利亞一位有社會責任感的生物學家。澳大利亞轉基因食品網站發表了他撰寫的兩篇文章：《轉基因：草甘膦威脅1–環境問題》（Genetic Engineering: the Glyphosate threat 1 environment issues）與《轉基因：草甘膦威脅2–健康問題》（Genetic Engineering: the Glyphosate threat 2 health issues）。本文為第二篇英中文對照全文。　　

Heimen Julius is a biologist with sense of social responsibility from 　　Australia　　. The Australian GM Food website posted two papers written by him: “Genetic Engineering: the Glyphosate threat 1 environment issues”, and Genetic Engineering: the Glyphosate threat 2 health issues”. This paper is his second paper in corresponding English/ Chinese format.　　

譯者者已翻譯的大量科學論文有效證明：世界無論任何地方用孟山都轉基因大豆種子種植必須施用草甘膦除草劑的抗草甘膦轉基因大豆草甘膦殘留量很高，對動物與人類持續健康生存與繁衍造成一系列嚴重危害！　　

The large amount of science papers translated by the translator has effectively proved: Using the Monsanto RR soy seeds growing glyphosate-resistant soy, regardless where they are grown, all applied with glyphosate herbicides, resulting the grown GM soy all have considerable high glyphosate residue levels, which cause a series of serious harm to animals and continue safety and healthy survival and reproduction of mankind!　　

請衛生部向全國人大常委會、全國政協、國務院、新聞界與全國人民通報說明：中國目前對于大豆（無論非轉基因大豆或抗草甘膦轉基因大豆）“草甘膦殘留最高限量”的國家標準是多少mg/kg？　　

The Ministry of Health, please report to the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress, the CPPCC, the State Council, the media and the Chinese people: What is the 　　mg/kg　 　State　　 Standard for the “glyphosate residue maximum limit” for glyphosate-resistant soys?　　

近年來，中國每年大量進口孟山都轉基因大豆種子種植的抗草甘膦轉基因大豆的草甘膦殘留量很高。　　

During recent years, 　　China　　 each year imports large amounts of glyphosate-resistant soy with very high glyphosate residue levels grown from Monsato’s GM soy seeds.　　

請國家質量監督檢驗檢疫總局向全國人大常委會、全國政協、國務院、新聞界與全國人民通報說明：中國每年大量進口的抗草甘膦轉基因大豆入關時監測到的草甘膦殘留量水平是多少mg/kg？　　

The General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine, please tell the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress, the CPPCC, the State Council, the media and the Chinese people: What is the mg/kg glyphosate residue level inspected and measured from the large amount of glyphosate-resistant soy imported each year during recent years?　　

衛生部與國家質量監督檢驗檢疫總局通報說明的結果，必定讓全國人大常委會、全國政協、國務院、新聞界與全國人民大吃一驚！　　

The report and explanations by the Ministry of Health and the General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine surely will shock the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress, the CPPCC, the State Council, the media and the Chinese people!　　

*                                  *                                  *　　

Abstract: Glyphosate residues in food (from spraying food crops with glyphosate) will increase when more and more genetically modified foods reach the markets. Glyphosate sinks are bone and internal organs. It is unknown what the effects will be on the human body of ingesting glyphosate over a life time. When people reach their 50s how will they stand up to the accumulated glyphosate sludge in their internal organs? And would older people have more brittle bones? And what about people with allergies? 　　

原文摘要：隨著越來越多轉基因食品進入市場，食品中草甘膦殘留量（來自對食物作物噴灑草甘膦）將增加。草甘膦在動物的骨頭與某些器官中沉積。不知道持續食用食物草甘膦殘留量一生對人體造成什么影響。內部器官不斷積累草甘膦垃圾情況下，到50歲時人體怎么應付？更老的人是否造成更脆的骨頭？有過敏癥的人又怎么辦？　　

目錄/Index　　

http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_4bb17e9d0100naai.html　　

（1）陳一文：關于生物學家揭露轉基因危害報告對中國讀者的話　　

Chen I-wan: Words to the Chinese readers by the translator　　

一位學者怎么樣才能被認為是真正的“打假、反偽”斗士，即便此種“造假、作偽證、偽科學”出自不惜危害人民健康的不良企業的商業利益、屈服于這樣的不良企業商業利益的政府部門以至權威性國際組織！

1. The translator’s words to the Chinese readers

Genetic Engineering: the Glyphosate threat 2 health issues

1、譯者關于澳大利亞生物學家生物學家揭露轉基因危害研究報告對中國讀者的話

轉基因：草甘膦的威脅2健康問題

By Heimen Julius

作者：黑門·居里斯

本文原文鏈接/Link to original paper：

http://www.rag.org.au/modifiedfoods/rounduphealthissues.htm

Translator: Chen I-wan ([email protected])

譯者：陳一文（[email protected]）

《轉基因：草甘膦威脅2–健康問題》不僅揭示施用孟山都1971年開發草甘膦除草劑危害動物與人類健康，揭示孟山都開發越來越多抗草甘膦轉基因作物加工食物草甘膦殘留量情況及其在動物體內的不均勻分布；介紹美國環境保護部1985年基于動物實驗確定草甘膦人類“可接受的每日攝取量”為0.10 mg/kg體重/天，又在沒有解釋任何理由情況下1993年9月將它突然提高20倍為 2 mg/kg體重/天，而且改稱它為“參考劑量”；詳細揭示1982年將人類對麥粒草甘膦“殘留量耐受水平”確定0.10 mg/kg，如何在孟山都轉基因作物推出后1997年沒有任何科學理由提高為原先的50倍達到5 mg/kg；1982年大豆“殘留量耐受水平”確定為6 mg/kg，如何在1997年孟山都抗草甘膦轉基因大豆獲得商業生產批準后，沒有任何科學理由提高為原先的3.33倍達到20 mg/kg。

 “Genetic Engineering: the Glyphosate threat 2 health issues” not only reveals the harm of the glyphosate herbicide, developed by Monsanto in 1971, to animal and human health, reveals the glyphosate-residue contained in food processed from more and more glyphosate-resistant GM plants developed by Monsanto and it’s non-uniform distribution within animal and human body; introduces how the American Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 1985, based on certain animal tests, determines the “acceptable daily intake” (ADI) of 0.10 mg/per kg bodyweight per day for humans, and then in September 1993 without any reason explanation suddenly increases this “acceptable daily intake” for humans 20 times up to 2 mg per kg bodyweight per day, and changed its name to a 'reference dose.' The paper also provides details how the American EPA in 1982 determines the “Maximum residue tolerances” of glyphosate in grain products, including wheat grains at 0.10 ppm (= mg/kg), and then, after Monsanto began to introduce its GM crops how the EPA with no scientific reason increased it 50 times to 5 ppm; and also in 1982 determines the “Maximum residue tolerances” of glyphosate in soy as 6 ppm, and after Monsanto began to commercialize production of its glyphosate-resistant GM soy (RR) how the EPA again with no scientific reason increased it 3.33 times to 20 ppm.

論文同時揭示世界衛生組織如何在食品草甘膦“殘留量耐受水平”問題上屈從于美國環境保護部在這個問題上代表的孟山都抗草甘膦轉基因作物商業利益，因而在這個問題上未能履行了自己對世界人民健康承擔的首要責任。

The paper also reveals how the World Health Organization (WHO) on the above mentioned “Maximum residue tolerances” of glyphosate in food lend themselves to the commercial interest of Monsanto’s glyphosate-resistant GM crops represented by the American EPA, and how the WHO on this issue fails to fulfill its primary responsibility to the health of the people of the World.

論文同時揭示，美國環境保護部沒有任何科學依據1997年確定的不同食品草甘膦“殘留量耐受水平”誤導世界衛生組織接受，成為美國利用世貿規則迫使誤導歐盟、中國等其他國家確定各自不同食品草甘膦“殘留量耐受水平”的世界標準。

The paper also reveals, how the American EPA misled the WHO to accept their “Maximum residue tolerances” of glyphosate in food determined without any scientific reasoning, made it the World’s standards for USA to use the WTO rules to force and mislead EU, China and other nations of the Word to establish their standards of “Maximum residue tolerances” of glyphosate in food.

以譯者之見，這是本文最重要的內容，也是筆者確定譯文總標題的緣由。只有了解了這些內容讀者們才有可能進一步理解歐盟、中國等許多國家衛生部為什么在這個問題上未能履行自己對本國人民健康承擔的首要責任。

According to the translator’s opinion, this is the most important content of this paper, is also the reason why the translator determines the title of the translated paper. Only upon learning about such content, will enable the readers to further understand how the EU, China and the Ministries of Health of many nations on this issue could fails to fulfill their primary responsibility to the health of their respective nations.

作者黑門·居里斯先生今年73歲，目前身患重病。在感謝他履行自己作為一個生物學家對全球人類健康的責任八年前撰寫的今天依然意義重大的論文的同時，譯者祝愿他恢復健康。

Heimen Julius, the author of the paper is 73 years old, and seriously ill at present. At the same time expressing appreciation to him fulfilling his responsibility to the health of global mankind and writing this paper eight years ago of which today still remains significant, the translator wishes him to recover his health.

讀者可以評論方式發表對于作者黑門·居里斯先生的感謝與祝愿，譯者將協助翻譯轉給他。

Readers can by form of comments express their appreciation and wishes to the author Heimen Julius, the translator will help to translate and forward to him.

為便于讀者審查譯文，采用英文/中文對照方式發布中譯文。讀者如果發現譯文有任何實質性錯誤，歡迎讀者發表評論或用郵件予以指正。

To enable readers check the translation, the present paper is posted in corresponding English/Chinese text. If readers find any essential mistake in the translation, they are welcomed to point them out with corrections through posting comments or via email to the translator.

居里斯先生這篇論文撰寫于2002年。為讀者掌握更新信息，在某些章節的后邊，提供了譯者翻譯推薦的相關資料鏈接。

Heimen’s paper was written in 2002. To enable readers master up-to-date information, at the end of certain sections, the translator has provided links to related materials.

農科院生物技術研究所農作物分子生物學重點實驗室主任黃大昉研究員2010年6月25日在十一屆全國人大常委會專題講座第十六講《黃大昉：農業轉基因技術和安全管理》聲稱：

Huang Dafang, researcher, director, agricultural plants molecular biology key laboratory, Biotechnology Research Institute, Academy of Agricultural Science, presented lecture “Huang Dafang: Agricultural genetic engineering technology and safety management” to the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress on June 25, 2010 stating:

http://world.people.com.cn/GB/41217/11975156.html

“全世界每年上億公頃土地種植轉基因作物，每年數億人群食用轉基因食品，迄今尚未發現確有科學實證的轉基因食用和環境安全問題。因此，應當肯定：農業轉基因作物總體上是安全的，它的風險是可以預防和控制的。”

“GM plants are grown every year over 100 million hectares of land in the World, a few hundred million people are eating GM food, to this date have never found any GM food consumption or environment safety problems proved with solid scientific evidence. Therefore, should assure: agricultural GM plants in overall is safety, its risks can be prevented and controlled.”

眾所周子，中國已經多年每年從美國與南美進口孟山都轉基因大豆種子種植并施用草甘膦除草劑的巨量抗草甘膦轉基因大豆，加工食用油、豆腐、豆奶、豆制品，同時加工動物飼料，使中國成為世界上進口孟山都抗草甘膦轉基因大豆的最大進口國之一（亦可能就是最大進口國）。

It is well known, China has for many years every year import massive amount of glyphosate-resistant GM soy from USA and South America grown from Monsanto’s GM RR soy seeds and applied with glyphosate herbicides, making China one of the largest importers of Monsanto’s GM RR soy products (perhaps is the largest importer in the World).

譯者請黃大昉研究員對人民負責地告訴我們：中國對每年進口的巨量抗草甘膦轉基因大豆檢測草甘膦“殘留量殘余量水平”的國家標準為多少 mg/kg？這對中國人民是否構成“轉基因食用安全問題”？

The translator requests researcher Huang Dafang responsible to the people tell us, what is the mg/kg level of the State Standard for inspecting the glyphosate “residue level”? Does this not cause “GM food consumption safety problems”?

如果黃大昉研究員結論不造成“轉基因食用安全問題”，請問你所依據的“科學實證”是什么？

If researcher Huang Dafang concludes that this does not cause any “GM food consumption safety problems”, please then tell us on what “solid scientific evidence” basis he reaches his conclusion?

（2）陳一文：怎樣做一位稱職的有社會責任感的生物學家？　　

Chen I-wan Preface: How to be a qualified and social responsible biologist？　　

黑門· 居里斯先生是一位普通的生物學家，但是他的研究報告向人們展示了生物學家怎么樣做能夠稱之為稱職的有社會責任感的生物學家，以及怎么樣做才能夠名副其實稱之為“打假”與“反偽科學”，而不是“掛羊頭賣狗肉”為虎作倀以“打假、反偽”之名行“造假、作偽證”之實！

2. Chen I-wan Preface: How to be a qualified and social responsible biologist？

Genetic Engineering: the Glyphosate threat 2 health issues

2、陳一文代序：怎樣做一位稱職的有社會責任感的生物學家？

轉基因：草甘膦的威脅2健康問題

By Heimen Julius

作者：黑門·居里斯

本文原文鏈接/Link to original paper：

http://www.rag.org.au/modifiedfoods/rounduphealthissues.htm

Translator: Chen I-wan ([email protected])

譯者：陳一文（[email protected]）

譯者認為，黑門·居里斯先生2002年撰寫的《轉基因：草甘膦威脅2–健康問題》（Genetic Engineering: the Glyphosate threat 2 health issues）研究報告，對至今盲目崇拜至少六次自稱自己“在美國生物信息公司兼任咨詢科學家”至今大力鼓吹轉基因作物與草甘膦的方舟子的許多“方粉”可能有重要教育作用：

The translator considers, the “Genetic Engineering: the Glyphosate threat 2 health issues” report prepared by Heimen Julius in 2002 might also play an important education role to many Fang-fans who to date still blindness worship Fang Zhouzi (Fang Shimin) who at least six times claimed that he “at an American bioinformatic company worked as a spare-time consultant scientist” and still strongly advocates GM plant and GM food:

黑門·居里斯先生是一位普通的生物學家，但是他的研究報告向人們展示了：

Heimen Julius is an ordinary biologist, but his report demonstrates to people:

生物學家怎么樣做能夠稱之為一位稱職的有社會責任感的生物學家？

How should a biologist perform to be considered a qualified and social responsible biologist？

怎么樣做才能夠名副其實稱之為“打假”與“反偽科學”，而不是“掛羊頭賣狗肉”為虎作倀以“打假、反偽”之名行“造假、作偽證”之實！

What activities could be truly called “fight sham” and “anti pseudoscience”, and not in fact posing and siding on the evil side, disguised under the name of “fight sham” and “anti pseudoscience” but in fact “creating fraud and forswearing”!  

學者怎么樣才能被認為是真正的“打假、反偽”斗士，即便此種“造假、作偽證、偽科學”出自不惜危害人民健康的不良企業的商業利益、屈服于這樣的不良企業商業利益的政府部門以至權威性國際組織？

How should a scholar perform to be considered as a true “fight sham, anti-pseudoscience” fighter, even if the “sham, foreswear and pseudoscience” results from commercial interest of bad enterprises at the cost of scarifying people’s health, and/or results from government departments, or even authoritative international organizations, who succumb to the commercial interest of such enterprises?

中國科學院《科學對社會的影響》2004年第2期發表譯者重要文章《中國科學技術、經濟和社會的高速健康發展呼喚向傳統科學技術基本理論提出挑戰的科技創新成果》對這個問題提出了指導性意見：

“Impact of Science on Society”, a journal under the China Academy of Science, published “Healthy Rapid Development of Chinese Science & Technology, Economy and Society Calls for Innovation Achievements Bringing Challenges to Traditional Basic Theories of Science and Technology”, an important paper by the translator’s, provides guidance on this issue:

http://cheniwan.sea3000.net/innovation/

作者認為，搞科學技術的人，無論學者還是科學技術管理者，或報道科學技術動態的新聞媒介，最重要、最寶貴的品格是出自高度社會責任感的“承認事實，講真話”，即便這種“事實、真話”有時可能與有關領域絕大多數其它人有所不同，甚至針鋒相對，也要能夠象安徒生童話“皇帝的新衣”中的那個小孩那樣，大膽的喊出“皇帝根本沒有穿衣服！”

The author considers, those involved in science and technology, irrespective if they are scholars or administrators of science and technology development, or medias reporting on science and technology developments, the most important, most precious character and morals is “respect facts and tell the truth”, even if such “facts, truth” sometimes are different to the opinion of most other people in the concerned field, and some times even completely different, they must still be able like the little boy in Andersen’s fairy tale “The Emperor’s new cloths”, fearlessly shout out: “But the Emperor is wearing no cloths!”

譯者推薦補充資料：

Supplementary material recommended by the translator:

方舟子：有關轉基因作物的種種新謠言：  

Fang Zhouzi: Varius new rumors about GM plants:

方舟子的文章鼓吹：

Fang Zhouzi’s paper preaches:

“孟山都的除草劑“農達”的活性成分為草甘膦，這是孟山都公司在上個世紀70年代開發的，專利早過期了，現在許多農藥公司都生產（包括中國的公司，阿根廷農民用的草甘膦除草劑相當大一部分是從中國進口的）。這是國際公認的低毒除草劑，對人體健康沒有任何危險。”

“The active composition of Monsanto’s Round-up herbicide is glyphosate, this was developed by Monsanto during the 70s of the past century, the patent has long ago expired, many herbicide companies are all producing it (including Chinese companies, a considerable portion of glyphosate herbcides used by Argentine farmers are imported from China). This is a international recognized low toxicity herbicide, has no danger to human health.”

（3）陳一文譯：抗草甘膦轉基因作物是孟山都推銷草甘膦的怪胎　　

Introduction – Glyphosate - The kill-all problem　　

孟山都1971年推出能夠殺死所有植物的草甘膦除草劑。通過轉基因技術使農作物耐草甘膦，使不加區別的噴灑草甘膦而只有不抗草甘膦的野草被殺死成為可行。在全球推廣轉基因作物使孟山都擴大草甘膦除草劑在全球銷售，同時從轉基因作物種子推銷獲暴利，但是將轉基因食品及其草甘膦殘留量對人類健康的危害置于不顧！

3. Introduction – Glyphosate - The kill-all problem

-- Genetic Engineering: the Glyphosate threat 2 health issues

3、引言--草甘膦--“全部殺死”的問題

-- 轉基因：草甘膦的威脅2健康問題

By Heimen Julius

作者：黑門·居里斯

Translator: Chen I-wan ([email protected])

譯者：陳一文顧問（[email protected]）

*                                  *                                  *

陳一文顧問按：

Advisor Chen I-wan comments:

轉基因大豆的95%，以及其他轉基因作物的75%，是抗草甘膦為基礎除草劑的轉基因作物。

95% of GM soy, 75% of other GM plants, are glyphosate-based herbicide resistant GM plants

世界絕大部分轉基因作物的種植與草甘膦基除草劑利益相關、密不可分，與噴灑草甘膦基除草劑對環境、生態多樣性、動物與人類的健康造成的一系列無法克服的危害密切相關，與轉基因大豆、玉米、稻米含有的草甘膦及其輔佐物與代謝物殘余量對動物與人類的健康與繁衍造成的一系列無法克服的危害密切相關！

The growing of most GM plants in the World are related with the interest of glyphosate-based herbicide, and are closely related with the series of harm caused by glyphosate-based herbicides to the environment, biodiversity, animal and mankind health which they not be overcome, and closely related to the series of harm caused by residue of glyphosate, adjuvants and metabolite contained in GM soy, GM maize, GM rice to animal and mankind health and reproduction!

以保持持久擴大推銷草甘膦除草劑商業利益為主要目的而開發轉基因作物，絕對不是“科技創新”與“科學道德”的象征，而是“反自然、反科學”邪惡的“怪胎”！

GM plants, developed with the main objective to maintaining the commercial interest of ongoing and expanding sales of glyphosate-based herbicides, absolutely do not stand for “science-technology innovation” and “science morality”, and only is an “anti-nature, anti-science” evil “monster”!

*                                  *                                  *

3. Introduction

3. 引言

Glyphosate

草甘膦

Glyphosate, a herbicide produced by Monsanto since 1971, is more widely known as 'Roundup.' It is available as a weed killer for gardens from supermarkets and hardware stores. To be effective it must be sprayed onto the leaves of the plant. It should be understood that herbicides or weed killers like glyphosate are taken up by the plant and work inside plants. Insecticides or insect killers on the other hand are left on the surface of plants and can be washed off.

草甘膦，孟山都公司自1971年開始生產的一種除草劑，更廣泛被人們知道的商品名稱為“終結者”（Roundup）。作為花園除草劑可以在超市或五金商店買到。為了有效，必須噴灑在植物的葉子上。應當了解，農藥或草甘膦這樣的除草劑被植物吸收，在植物內部發揮作用。

殺蟲劑則留在植物表面上，可以被洗掉。

Glyphosate is widely used in agriculture. Many weeds are deep-rooted perennials with tubers and rootstocks. This makes them very difficult to eradicate. Through glyphosate all these problems were solved. Because, once past the leaf surface glyphosate moves throughout the plant, reaches deep into the roots and kills.

草甘膦在農業中廣泛施用。許多野草有不斷深長的根，帶塊莖與根莖。這使殺掉他們很困難。施用草甘膦時這些問題都得到解決。因為一旦侵入葉子表面，草甘膦能夠傳播到整個植物，深深進入根部，殺死植物。

With such an all-round plant killer, you have to be very careful not to hit your crop as well.

施用這樣一種全部“終結”殺死的植物殺滅劑，你必須非常注意不要同時殺滅自己的作物。

The kill-all problem

“全部殺死”的問題

At this point a bright spark came up with the idea to make all crops glyphosate resistant. Then you could spray indiscriminately and only weeds would be killed. With the new genetic engineering techniques this idea was becoming feasible. It would result in convenient agricultural practices for farmers, who would also use much more glyphosate.

這時出現了明亮的一閃念，就是使所有農作物耐草甘膦的想法。這樣你可以不加區別的噴灑草甘膦，而只有不抗草甘膦的野草被殺死。新的轉基因技術使這種想法變為有可行性。這樣能夠導致對農民方便的農作操作，同時導致草甘膦的更多使用。

And guess what, this was good for Monsanto's bottom line. So, for the last ten years genetic engineers have been making a wide variety of crops glyphosate resistant. However, little thought was given to the long term health implications of ingesting glyphosate day in and day out.

你猜怎么樣，這對孟山都的利益底線非常好。因此，基因工程師在過去十年中使廣泛種類農作物成為耐草甘膦轉基因作物。然而，很少考慮了長期吞吃草甘膦對健康的長期影響。

（4）陳一文譯：喝孟山都除草劑能自殺引起對草甘膦毒性關注研究　　

Glyphosate toxicity to humans　　

1985年，孟山都研究者宣傳“草甘膦……對其他形式生命實質上沒有毒性”。1991/1992年醫學刊物報道喝草甘膦除草劑的自殺事件，促使人們關注，發現草甘膦對動物與人類健康有一系列毒性。2010年9月，方舟子在媒體上還在鼓吹“孟山都的除草劑“農達”的活性成分為草甘膦……這是國際公認的低毒除草劑，對人體健康沒有任何危險。”這是低智、糊涂，還是有償故意！

4. Glyphosate toxicity to humans

-- Genetic Engineering: the Glyphosate threat 2 health issues

4、草甘膦對人類的毒性

-- 轉基因：草甘膦的威脅2健康問題

By Heimen Julius

作者：黑門·居里斯

Translator: Chen I-wan ([email protected])

譯者：陳一文顧問（[email protected]）

*                                  *                                  *

陳一文顧問按：

Advisor Chen I-wan comments:

大量論文發表揭露孟山都公司草甘膦除草劑對環境、動物與人類健康造成一系列嚴重危害以后，包括1991年臺灣報道的人類草甘膦中毒事件以后大陸發生的多次草甘膦中毒事件。 （參看本文后邊的“參考文獻”與“譯者推薦補充資料）

Massive published facts revealed that Monsanto’s glyphosate based herbicide causes a series of serious harm to the environment, to animal and human health, including the glyphosate human poisoned events reported in Taiwain in 1991, and a series of glyphosate human poisoned events reported on the continent of China. (Please visit the References and “Supplementary material recommended by the translator” listed at the end of this paper.

大量事實披露出來證明草甘膦對對環境、動物與人類健康造成一系列嚴重危害以后，至少六次自稱自己“在美國生物信息公司兼任咨詢科學家”的方舟子2010年9月在中國媒體上還發表文章鼓吹“孟山都的除草劑“農達”的活性成分為草甘膦……這是國際公認的低毒除草劑，對人體健康沒有任何危險。”

After massive facts were published proving that Monsanto’s glyphosate based herbicide causes a series of serious harm to the environment, to animal and human health Fang Zhouzi, who has at least six times claimed that he worked “at an American biological information company as a part time consultant scientist”, on Sep. 2010 in his paper published by Chinese media still blew the trumpet claiming “the active composition of Monsanto’s Round-up herbicide is glyphosate …… this is an international widely recognized low toxicity herbicide, does not have any danger to human health”.

請方舟子認真讀一遍居里斯先生2002年寫的這篇論文，至少對自己負責地告訴我們，你現在是否依然堅持草甘膦“對人體健康沒有任何危險”？

The translator requests Fang Zhouzi to carefully read this paper written by Heimen Julius in 2002, and at responsible to himself tell us, if he still insist that glyphosate “does not have any danger to human health”?

如果方舟子依然堅持草甘膦“對人體健康沒有任何危險”，請告訴我們你所依據的“科學實證”是什么？

If Fang Zhouzi still insists that glyphosate “does not have any danger to human health”, then please tell us on what “solid scientific evidence” basis his reaches his conclusion?

*                                  *                                  *

4. Glyphosate toxicity to humans

4、草甘膦對人類的毒性

In 1985 a Monsanto researcher assured his readership that 'Glyphosate effectively controls 76 of the world's 78 worst weeds… and is essentially non-toxic to other life forms' [1].

1985年，孟山都的一位研究者向他的讀者們保證，“草甘膦能夠有效治理世界最嚴重的野草中的76 種……對其他形式生命實質上沒有毒性”[1]

How reassuring if this were true. However, in 1991/92 reports appeared in the medical literature of humans being poisoned by glyphosate [2, 3] . True, they attempted to commit suicide and drank a whole glass of Roundup concentrate. Still, if you would drink a whole glass of water, which is essentially non-toxic you would get a different result.

這種保證有多么真實？然而，1991/1992年醫學刊物出現有人受到草甘膦毒害的報告[2、3]確實，他們企圖自殺并喝了一杯“終結者”（Roundup）除草劑。但是，如果你喝了一杯水，確實實質上沒有毒性，你會獲得完全不同的結果。

It turned out that if you were under 40 years of age and got timely medical assistance you would probably survive, but if you were 50 years and over you would probably die [2, 3]. These 'results' are similar to a pharmaceutical company testing a new drug with a huge overdose. Then the evaluations start.

結果是，如果你不到40歲而且獲得了及時的醫學救助，你可能被救活，但是如果你50歲以上你大概將死亡[2、3]。這些“結果”類似于一家醫藥公司超量試驗一種新藥。這促使開始對草甘膦的評價。

References:

參考文獻：

[1] Franz J.E. 1985. Discovery, development and chemistry of glyphosate. in: The Herbicide Glyphosate 1985, by Butterworth & Co. (eds. E.Grossbard & D. Atkinson) p.16.

[1] Franz J.E. 1985。草甘膦的發現、發展與化學。收錄：除草劑草甘膦1985，Butterworth & Co.，(eds. E.Grossbard & D. Atkinson) p.16.

[2] Tominack R.L. et al. 1991. Taiwan National Poison Center survey of glyphosate - surfactant herbicide ingestions. Clinical Toxicology 29: 91-109.

[2] Tominack R.L. et al. 1991。臺灣國立中毒中心對草甘膦 – 表明活性劑攝取的調查。臨床毒理學刊物，29：91-109。

[3] Temple W.A. Et al. 1992. Glyphosate herbicide poisoning experience in New Zealand. New Zealand Medical Journal 105: 173-174.

[3] Temple W.A. Et al. 1992。在新西蘭的草甘膦除草劑中毒經驗。新西蘭醫學雜志，105：173-174。

（5）陳一文譯：對動物草甘膦一次性劑量研究有欺騙性導致誤導　　

Single dose studies with animals -- Glyphosate in fish　　

 “草甘膦并非全部從體內排出。雄鼠喂食一次性劑量后94-98%的草甘膦在48小時內排出，雌鼠喂食后82-84%的草甘膦在48小時內排出。計算顯示，這些劑量的大約1%保留在骨組織中。”這證明，長期持續食用攝取草甘膦的后果與一次性劑量使用草甘膦的后果有實質性的不同，對動物草甘膦一次性劑量研究有欺騙性導致誤導！

5. Single dose studies with animals -- Glyphosate in fish

-- Genetic Engineering: the Glyphosate threat 2 health issues

5、對動物進行的一次性劑量研究--魚中的草甘膦

-- 轉基因：草甘膦的威脅2健康問題

By Heimen Julius

作者：黑門·居里斯

Translator: Chen I-wan ([email protected])

譯者：陳一文顧問（[email protected]）

*                                  *                                  *

陳一文顧問按：

Advisor Chen I-wan comments:

本文揭示，哺乳動物食用含有某種“疑似毒素”的食物后是否產生毒性，必須進行持續的動物喂食實驗，而不能通過喂食一次性劑量的實驗進行證明。必須證明這些“疑似毒素”在每次動物喂食后合理時間內是否100%全部排出體外，還是其中一部分，無論多少，在體內某處（或幾處）沉積，并在持續沉積達到一定水平后，對某些器官以至動物總體健康造成損害？

This paper reveals, to verify if or not toxicity effects occur after mammals eat food containing certain “suspected toxic composition”, animal feed test continued for a length of time is required as a must, which can not be proved by a one time dosage animal feed simply followed by observation for a length of time; must also prove if such “suspected toxic composition” is 100% discharged out of the body with limited time after being fed to the animal, or, if a certain portion, regardless how less, is accumulated in certain areas within the body, and after continue accumulation reaches a certain level, does it cause harm to certain organs and then further to the overall health of the animal?

在這個問題上，譯者向讀者們推薦中國學者一篇論文試驗“結果”部分：

On this issue, the translator would like to recommend the “Result” portion of a paper by a Chinese scholar:

鄔惠瓊，草甘膦對大鼠細胞色素P450 2B1和P450 2C11基因表達的影響，《衛生毒理學雜志》1996年第10卷第4期，231-234頁

Wu Huiqiong, The effect of glyphosate on the expression of the cytochrome P450 2B1 and P450 2C11 genes of adult rats, Sanitation Toxicity Journal, 1996 Vol.10(4), pp231-234

http://www.docin.com/p-41695032.html

--------------------------------

結果：

一、草甘膦對大鼠體重和肝重的影響當以草甘膦I（劑量為1/6D）灌胃，連續處理7天后，大鼠體重顯著下降，與對照組比較，具有顯著意義（P<0.05）。分別以草甘膦I、草甘膦II（劑量為1、10LD50）灌胃，連續7天后，草甘膦I處理組大鼠體重增長延緩，與對照組大鼠體重增長比較，有顯著差異（P<0.05）；而草甘膦I號處理組大鼠體重增長與對照組比較，差異無顯著意義。以1/6LD50和1/10 LD50處理的大鼠肝重和體重之比（臟器系數）與對照組比較均無顯著差異（表1）。

二、草甘膦對微粒體細胞色素含量即細胞色素C氧化還原酶活性的影響（略）

三、草甘膦對幾種肝微粒體酶活性的影響（略）

四、草甘膦對大鼠肝、腎組織中細胞色素P450酶基因表達的影響（略）。

--------------------------------

這篇論文告訴我們：（1）對實驗老鼠進行了“灌胃連續7天”；（2）采用不同的劑量，對不同劑量的影響進行了比較；（3）進行了對照組比較的試驗；（4）不僅檢查不同對照組老鼠體重的變化進行比較，而且更深入對老鼠體內的器官（肝臟、腎臟）是否發生變化進行了比較。（5）不僅對器官宏觀異常（重量）進行觀察與比較，而且在更微觀更深入的細胞、酶、色素層次生物化學異常進行觀察與比較。

This paper tells us: (1) The stomach feeding test on the rat is continued for 7 days; (2) Different dosages is applied, comparing the effect of different dosages; (3) Test are carried out on controlled groups of animals for comparison; (4) Not only compares the overall weight of the different controlled groups of rats, but even further also compares the weight of internal organs (liver, kidney) of the rats; (5) Not only observes and compares macro abnormalities of the internal organs (weight), but also at more micro depths, observae and compare biochemistry anomalies of cells, enzymes and cytochrome.

這樣的動物實驗的科學意義，顯然與進行一次性劑量喂食后再觀察七天實驗的效果大不相同。

The science significance of such an animal laboratory test obviously is very different to an animal test with only one dosage feed and followed by observation for seven days.

然而，應當指出，如果含有某種“疑似毒素”的新型食物屬于人類經常使用的主糧，為了對人類持續安全健康生存與繁衍負責任，這樣的動物喂食試驗就不僅必須持續相當長的時間，必須同時對雄性的以及雌性的動物持續進行，而且必須持續至少三代，以便判斷這種“疑似毒素”是否可能對哺乳動物及其后代造成生育異常與生育缺陷。

However, it also needs to be pointed out that if a new type of food containing a certain type of “suspected toxic composition” is a type of main food consumed by humans on regular basis, then, to be responsible to mankind’s safe and healthy survival and reproduction, such animal feed tests not only must continue for a considerable length of time, but must also be conducted on both male and female animals, and continued for at least three generations, to determine if the food containing such “suspected toxic composition” might or not cause any birth problems or birth defects to the second and third generation of such animals.

*                                  *                                  *

5. Single dose studies with animals

5、對動物進行的一次性劑量研究

In 1985 it was reported that glyphosate fed to animals was slightly toxic. Based on animal feeding studies with a single dose it was claimed that the acute toxicity of Roundup to humans was less than table salt and half as much as aspirin [4]. A rather crude and unscientific extrapolation.

1985年有報告講，給動物喂食草甘膦發現稍有毒性。基于給動物一次劑量草甘膦的喂食研究,宣稱草甘膦“終結者”除草劑對人類的急性毒性少于食用鹽并比阿司匹林少一半[4]。這是一個比較粗糙而且不科學的推斷。

A publication of 1994 gives us some idea about these experiments. A single dose given to rats showed that 30 to 36% of glyphosate passed the gut wall and entered the body [6]. Inside the body glyphosate was hardly broken down and showed up in urine. It's breakdown product AMPA was also found, but in minuscule amounts [5]. In a follow up study, rats were fed radioactive glyphosate for 14 days. This revealed that 80 to 90% was excreted through faeces and around 10% through urine [6]. Similar studies with rabbits, laying hens and lactating goats indicated that 30% of ingested glyphosate got past the gut wall [5].

1994年發表的一篇論文讓我們對這樣的實驗獲得了一些認識。喂食給老鼠的一次性劑量顯示，30%-36%的草甘膦通過腸壁進入體內[6]。在體內，草甘膦很難分解在尿中排出。亦發現了其分解物AMPA（氨甲基膦酸），但是不重要量極少[5]。在繼續的研究中，對老鼠連續14天喂食（譯注：含有同位素）放射性草甘膦。這項研究揭示80%-90%的草甘膦通過糞便排出，大約10%通過尿排出[6]。用兔子、孵蛋的雞與哺乳期的羊進行了類似的研究，顯示吞食的草甘膦的30%通過腸壁[5]。

Ongoing trials found that glyphosate was not fully cleared from the body. Total body clearance of a single dose was after 48 hours in male rats 94-98% and in female rats 82-84% . Another study found that it took rats around 168 hours (7 days) to eliminate glyphosate. Here, a high dose of 10 mg glyphosate per kg body weight was given. Calculations indicated that around 1% of the dose was still present in bone tissue [7]. Glyphosate was also detected in egg whites and egg yolks in a study with laying hens using high glyphosate doses [5].

繼續進行的試驗發現，草甘膦并非全部從體內排出。雄鼠喂食一次性劑量后94-98%的草甘膦在48小時內排出，雌鼠喂食后82-84%的草甘膦在48小時內排出。另外一項研究發現，喂食一次性劑量的老鼠需要大約168小時（7天）才能排出完。該項研究中喂食的劑量很高，依照體重10 mg/kg的劑量。計算顯示，這些劑量的大約1%保留在骨組織中[7]。采用大劑量的草甘膦的孵蛋雞研究中，在蛋白與蛋黃中都檢測到草甘膦[5]。

Glyphosate in fish

魚中的草甘膦

Similar research was done on fish. Glyphosate was 'not expected' to accumulate in fish, crustaceans and molluscs [10]. Nonetheless, when fish and shellfish were first exposed to water containing glyphosate followed by removal of glyphosate from their water it was found that glyphosate did accumulate in their tissues [10]. So much for single dose studies, but what about ongoing glyphosate intake? The difference is that in a single dose study the animal has an opportunity to clear its body, while ongoing intake makes this impossible.

對魚進行了類似的研究。草甘膦“沒有預料”能夠在魚、甲殼動物與軟體動物中沉積[10]。雖然如此，當魚與甲殼類動物首先暴露接觸含有草甘膦的水接著從水中除去草甘膦時，發現草甘膦確實在它們的組織中沉積[10]。一次性劑量如此，持續食用草甘膦又將如何？區別在于，在一次性劑量研究中，動物有機會將它從體內排出，但是持續食用情況下使這不可能。

References:

參考文獻：

[4] Atkinson D. 1985. Toxicological properties of glyphosate - a summary. In: The Herbicide Glyphosate 1985, by Butterworth & Co. (eds. E. Grossbard & D. Atkinson) pp. 127-133.

[4] Atkinson D. 1985。草甘膦的毒理學性質 – 概述。收錄：除草劑草甘膦 1985，by Butterworth & Co. (eds. E. Grossbard & D. Atkinson) pp. 127-133。

[5] Mensink H. et al.1994. Glyphosate. Environmental Health Criteria 159, by World Health Organisation, Geneva. p. 66

[5] Mensink H. et al.1994。草甘膦環境健康標準159，世界衛生組織組織，日內瓦，p66。

[6] Ibid 5 at pp. 63-64

[6] 參考文獻[5] pp. 63-64

[7] Ibid 5 at p. 67.

[7] 參考文獻[5] p.67

[10] Ibid 5 at pp. 52-54.

[10] 參考文獻[5] pp. 52-54

（6）陳一文譯：草甘膦試驗論文含糊不清掩蓋真相有意欺騙誤導　　

Chronic vagueness and glyphosate intake　　

美國環保部1993年發表的一篇關于草甘膦喂食動物試驗論文強調：“使用老鼠、小鼠與獵兔犬的幾項慢性毒性/致癌性研究，基于所審查的指標沒有發現任何影響。” 論文沒有解釋是什么指標，沒有提供關鍵細節，整篇論文含糊不清。1977/1978年轉基因食物推出后，到2002年1月為止，1993年的這篇論文依然是美國環保局關于動物喂食試驗的最新論文。

6. Chronic vagueness and glyphosate intake - Evasiveness

-- Genetic Engineering: the Glyphosate threat 2 health issues

6、病態含糊不清與草甘膦攝取--回避

-- 轉基因：草甘膦的威脅2健康問題

By Heimen Julius

作者：黑門·居里斯

Translator: Chen I-wan ([email protected])

譯者：陳一文顧問（[email protected]）

*                                  *                                  *

陳一文顧問按：

Advisor Chen I-wan comments:

本文揭示，為了保護轉基因業的商業利益，孟山都與美國環保部許多試驗研究及其論文有意含糊不清、回避關鍵問題、掩蓋真相、欺騙與誤導公眾，將人民持續安全健康生存與繁衍置于次要地位以至不顧！

This paper reveals, to protect the commercial interest of the GM industry, many tests, studies and papers by Monsanto and the American EPA are intentionally vague, evasive and slide away from key issues, hide truths, deceive and mislead the public, and only give secondary consideration or even ignore the persistence safe and healthy survival and reproduction of the people!  

與此類似，轉基因作物安全證書審評問題上，農業部組織第三方進行試驗時，首先有一個基本立場問題：是堅持優先考慮維護中國人民持續安全健康生存與繁衍的立場，還是優先考慮如何讓農業部能夠堂而皇之向某個“轉基因作物研究團隊”頒發“轉基因作物安全證書”的立場，將中國人民持續安全健康生存與繁衍置于次要地位以至不顧！

Similarily, on the issue of examination and approving GM plant safe certificates, when the Ministry of Agriculture organizes third parties to carry out tests, there first is the issue of a basic standpoint: Taking the standpoint giving top priority consideration to maintaining the persistence safe and healthy survival and reproduction of the Chinese people, or taking the standpoint giving top priority consideration for the Ministry of Health to “openly and legally” issue the “GM pet-resistance rice safety certificate” to a certain “GM plant R&D team”, and only give secondary consideration or even ignore the persistence safe and healthy survival and reproduction of the Chinese people!  

在事關公眾健康問題的試驗研究問題上，國際上對“獨立研究者”從事的試驗研究給予高度重視，因為“獨立研究者”及其研究與企業商業利益很少瓜葛，他們對公眾健康具有更強的社會責任感，因而他們從事的試驗研究更為客觀與誠實，公眾的信任度較高。

On test and studies concerning public health, test and studies performed by independent researchers are highly recognized internationally, because independent researchers and their studies have less ties with commercial interests, independent researchers usually have stronger sense of responsibility to public health, therefore there tests and studies are more impersonal and honest; enjoy higher trust by the public.

譯者建議，中國必須創造必要的政策條件，允許與鼓勵私人研究所與獨立研究者在中國盡快發展起來，以便在事關公眾健康問題試驗研究問題上，同時依靠私人研究所與獨立研究者為公眾利益提供更為客觀與誠實的服務。

The translator suggests, China should create policy conditions, enable and encourage private research institutes and independent researchers to develop in China as fast as possible, enabling on test and studies concerning public health issues, also to rely on private research institutes and independent researchers to provide more impersonal and honest services for public interest.

*                                  *                                  *

6. Chronic vagueness and glyphosate intake

病態含糊不清與草甘膦攝取

A publication from 1985 tells us that 31 mg glyphosate per kg body weight was given each day in a 26-month study with rats and that this did not result in any observable tumour formation [11].

1985年發表的一篇論文告訴我們，依照31mg/kg體重劑量對老鼠每天喂食草甘膦連續進行26個月的研究沒有造成任何可觀察到的癌瘤形成[11]。

Was this the only thing they were looking for? It does not state that there was no tumour formation, only that it was not observable. And what about other toxic effects? A paper from the American Environmental Protection Agency from 1993 tells us that 'several chronic toxicity/carcinogenicity studies using rats, mice and beagle dogs resulted in no effects based on the parameters examined' [12]. Again vagueness. What were these parameters? What were they looking for? The same vagueness continues throughout this paper:

這是否是他們尋找的唯一情況？論文沒有說沒有癌瘤形成，只說”沒有可觀察到”癌瘤的形成。那么其他毒性作用如何？美國環保部1993年發表的一篇論文告訴我們，“使用老鼠、小鼠與獵兔犬的幾項慢性毒性/致癌性研究，基于所審查的指標沒有發現任何影響”[12]。再一次含糊。這是些什么指標？該項研究在找什么？整篇論文繼續這種含糊不清：

A sub-chronic feeding study with rats showed effects on blood and pancreas. On mice this resulted in reduced body weights [12].

“用老鼠進行的一項準慢性喂食研究顯示對血液與胰腺影響。對小鼠這造成了減輕體重[12]。”

In toxicity studies with pregnant rats and rabbits, glyphosate caused treatment-related effects such as diarrhoea, reduced weight, nasal discharge and death.

“用懷孕老鼠與兔子進行的毒性研究中，草甘膦造成了與該種處理相關的影響，如腹瀉、減輕體重、流鼻涕與死亡。”

In a toxicity study (rats), kidney effects showed up in male pups, and in another study digestive effects and decreased weight [12].

“在（老鼠）毒性研究中，雄性小鼠中顯示對腎的影響，在另外一項研究中顯示消化影響與減輕體重[12]。”

In rats it appeared that very little glyphosate reached the bone marrow and that it was rapidly eliminated from bone marrow and plasma [12].

“在老鼠中看來很少草甘膦進入骨髓，并且從骨髓與血漿zhog很快排出[12]。”

It was stressed adverse effects in these trials were only observed at the highest glyphosate doses.

論文強調這些試驗中的負面影響僅是在最高草甘膦劑量情況下觀察到。

Evasiveness

回避

Why this vagueness? What are blood effects? What are pancreatic effects? What are digestive effects? What are kidney effects? And why pretend that little glyphosate reached the bone marrow? If glyphosate reaches the blood, it reaches the bone marrow. The quick elimination from marrow and plasma was probably through uptake by bone as bone is a specific glyphosate sink.

為什么這樣含糊不清？沒有明確什么“血液影響”？什么“胰腺影響”？什么“消化影響”？什么“腎臟影響”？為什么假裝“很少草甘膦進入骨髓”？如果草甘膦進入血液，它當然達到骨髓。從骨髓與血漿的快速排出可能通過被骨攝取，因為骨頭是草甘膦特別沉積之處。

What was the duration of those chronic studies? What were the dosages given to the experimental animals and why were the feeding experiments not published on the Internet as an extension of this vague EPA paper?

也沒有明確這些長期研究的期限？也沒有明確喂食實驗動物的劑量以及為什么沒有將喂食實驗報告作為美國環保局這篇含糊不清論文的延伸內容發表在互聯網上？

Were there any updates of this EPA paper from 1993? Around 1997/8 genetically engineered foods were introduced for the first time. This paper from 1993 was the latest on feeding trials in January 2002 on the Internet.

美國環保局1993年這篇論文以來有沒有更新的內容？1977/1978年轉基因食物首次推出。到2002年1月為止，1993年的這篇論文依然是（美國環保局）關于動物喂食試驗的最新論文。

References

參考文獻：

[12] http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/search.htm in browsing you come somewhere across EPA R.E.D. FACTS this is the paper. You find in the heading EPA-738-F-93-011 September 1993. Go to section: Human Health Assessment.

[12] 瀏覽http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/search.htm你們可以訪問美國環保部EPA R.E.D. FACTS這篇報告。在標題EPA-738-F-93-011，1993年9月。訪問：“人類健康評估”這一段。

（7）陳一文譯：美國環保部草甘膦可接受每日攝取量ADI誤導世界　　

Acceptable glyphosate levels　　

美國環保部1985年這樣確定“可接受的每日攝取量”，簡稱ADI ：“在10 mg/kg 體重（對老鼠進行的繁殖研究）沒有可觀察到的影響水平以及安全因素100基礎上，（人體對）草甘膦可接受的每日攝取量（ADI）為每天0.10 mg/kg體重劑量。”在世界衛生組織下，這成為歐盟、中國等所有國家遵循的指導原則。

7. Acceptable glyphosate levels

-- Genetic Engineering: the Glyphosate threat 2 health issues

7. 可接受的草甘膦水平

-- 轉基因：草甘膦的威脅2健康問題

By Heimen Julius

作者：黑門·居里斯

Translator: Chen I-wan ([email protected])

譯者：陳一文顧問（[email protected]）

*                                  *                                  *

陳一文顧問按：

Advisor Chen I-wan comments:

如果向衛生部官員詢問，衛生部規定草甘膦“可接受的每日攝取量”（ADI）國家標準的依據是什么？衛生部的官員會告訴你：依據世界衛生組織推薦的草甘膦“可接受的每日攝取量”（ADI）。

If inquire officials of the Ministry of Public Health what is the basis for the Ministry to determine the “acceptable daily intake” (ADI) of glyphosate“? The officials of the Ministry will surely tell you: The basis is the “acceptable daily intake” (ADI) of glyphosate proposed by the WHO.

但是，如果進一步詢問，世界衛生組織草甘膦“可接受的每日攝取量”（ADI）數據是從哪里來的？衛生部的官員肯定答不出！

But, if you further inquire, where does the data for the WHO to determine the “acceptable daily intake” (ADI) of glyphosate“ come from? The officials of the Ministry of Public Health surely will not be able to reply!

讀了本文，了解到他們極為尊重的世界衛生組織推薦的草甘膦“可接受的每日攝取量”（ADI）數據來自美國，但不是來自美國衛生部，也不是來自美國食品藥物管理署（FDA），甚至不是來自美國農業部，而是來自美國環保部，而美國環保部的數據又從維護孟山都推銷草甘膦的商業利益而來，不知中國衛生部的官員有何感想！

Upon reading this paper, learning that the “acceptable daily intake” (ADI) of glyphosate“ proposed by the WHO, whom they highly respect, comes from the United States but does not come from the United States Ministry of Public Health, nor from the FDA or from the United States Department of Agriculture, but comes from the American Environment Protection Agency from maintaining the glyphosate sales commercial interest of Monsonta, what thoughts will the officials of the Ministry of Public Health have?

*                                  *                                  *

7 Acceptable glyphosate levels

7. 可接受的草甘膦水平

What matters most is of course how much glyphosate will end up in our food and whether these amounts could be harmful in any way.

最為重要的問題當然是我們的食物中最終含有多少草甘膦殘留量，以及這些含量的草甘膦能否以任何方式影響人們的健康。

Animals fed commodities from glyphosate treated fields (pre 1985) did not pass on detectable levels of glyphosate or AMPA to meat tissue, fat, eggs and milk. However, low levels were found in liver and kidney and therefore a tolerance level of 0.5 ppm was set for them [9].

1985年以前進行的動物喂食施用過草甘膦農作物商業產品的試驗，沒有發現傳遞到肉類、脂肪、雞蛋或牛奶的草甘膦或其代謝物AMPA（氨甲基膦酸）可檢測到的含量水平。然而，在喂食轉基因作物的動物的肝臟與腎臟中檢測到它們，因此對它們（草甘膦或其代謝物AMPA）設定了0.5ppm（=0.5 mg/kg）的耐受水平[9]。

The EPA (US Environmental Protection Agency) went even so far as to stipulate an acceptable dose for humans and the publication of 1985 spelled out how they arrived at this dose. They called this the acceptable daily intake or ADI, which was based on data going back to 1982.

美國環境保護部據此甚至規定了人類可以接受的劑量水平，并且在1985年的文件中解釋了他們如何確定了這樣的劑量水平。在1982年數據基礎上，美國環保局稱這樣的劑量水平為“可接受的每日攝取量”，簡稱ADI（= Acceptable Daily Intake）

"The acceptable daily intake (ADI) of glyphosate is 0.10 mg per kg body weight per day based on no observable effect level (NOEL) of 10 mg per kg body weight per day (rat reproduction study) and a safety factor of 100. On this basis, the maximum permitted intake (MPI) for a 60 kg man is calculated at 6.0 mg per day. With the addition of these new tolerances, the theoretical maximum residue contribution (TMRC) has been calculated at 1.39 mg per day for a 1.5 kg daily diet. All approved tolerances thus utilise about 23 percent of the ADI. These calculations suggest risks to be small relative to amounts of residue in the diet "[9].

“在10 mg/kg 體重（對老鼠進行的繁殖研究）沒有可觀察到的影響水平（NOEL= no observable effect level）以及安全因素100基礎上，草甘膦可接受的每日攝取量（ADI）為每天0.10 mg/kg體重劑量。在此基礎上，一位60 kg的男人的最大允許攝取量（MPI = maximum permitted intake）被計算為每天6.0 mg。有了這些新的額外耐受水平，對于每天1.5 kg飲食量的理論最大殘余貢獻（TMRC = theoretical maximum residue contribution）被計算為1.39 mg/每天。所有已經批準的耐受水平因而僅使用了草甘膦可接受的每日攝取量（ADI）的23%。這些計算提議，相對于飲食中的草甘膦殘留量而言風險小”[9]。

This calculation based on a rat reproduction study is a straight extrapolation from rats to humans. How valid is that? Anyway let us stick for the moment to 0.10 mg per kg body weight as acceptable daily intake. This calculated dose is from glyphosate on food crops when irrigation water had picked up glyphosate residues in the field. So, the glyphosate levels in question were very low anyway.

在老鼠繁殖研究基礎上進行的計算從老鼠直接推斷到人類。這樣做的有效性有多大？盡管如此，讓我們暫時假定每天0.10 mg/kg體重劑量是草甘膦“可接受的每日攝取量”（ADI）。這樣的計算的劑量來自食物農作物上的草甘膦，而灌溉用水還帶走了一部分農田中的草甘膦殘留量。因此，所涉及到的草甘膦水平實際上很低。

Surprise, surprise by September 1993 this acceptable daily intake had gone up to 2 mg per kg bodyweight per day. This time it was called a 'reference dose.'

令人驚奇又驚奇的是，1993年9月美國環保局將這個“可接受的每日攝取量”（ADI）（從0.10 mg/kg體重/每天）突然提高到了2 mg/kg體重/每天。這時它被改了名稱，稱之為“參考劑量”。

The EPA paper tells us about a dietary risk assessment for humans. This was based on a worst-case scenario, which meant that 100 percent of all possible commodities and acreage were treated with glyphosate and, that tolerance-level residues remained in/on all treated commodities.

美國環保局的論文對我們講述對人類的飲食風險進行評估。這基于最壞情景的情況，意味著施用草甘膦全部農田與全部可能的農產品的100%，以及意味著這些耐草甘膦農作物中所有草甘膦殘留量全部保留在所有經過這樣處理的農產品中。

The EPA concluded (how??) that the chronic dietary risk to humans was minimal. And so we are informed that the EPA had determined that 2 mg glyphosate per kg body weight per day would not cause adverse effects in humans throughout a lifetime [12]. This no doubt refers to those imaginary 'standard humans' who don't exist.

美國環保局結論（但不知道他們怎么得到這樣的結論？），對人類的長期飲食風險很小。因此我們被告知，美國環保局確定2 mg/kg體重/每天劑量的草甘膦，在人類的一生中都不會影響健康[12]。這樣的毫無疑問只能涉及根本不可能存在的想像中的“標準人類”。

This whole messing round with 'acceptable' glyphosate levels misses the point totally in the presence of body sinks for glyphosate. In those places glyphosate is accumulating no matter what. An acceptable level over a life time would only make any sense in case of an ongoing complete and quick elimination of glyphosate from the body. But as the following rat study illustrates this does not happen.

圍繞“可接受的”草甘膦水平的說法全部是胡扯，脫離了體內存在著草甘膦沉積處的關鍵點。（美國環保局認為）草甘膦在這些沉積之處的積累無關緊要。實際上，人的一生中可以接受的劑量水平，只有在草甘膦持續不斷快速從體內排出才合情合理。但是，下述老鼠研究說明這（持續不斷快速從體內排出）并不發生。

References

參考文獻：

[4] Atkinson D. 1985. Toxicological properties of glyphosate - a summary. In: The Herbicide Glyphosate 1985, by Butterworth & Co. (eds. E.Grossbard & D. Atkinson) pp. 127-133.

[4] Atkinson D. 1985。草甘膦的毒理學性質 – 概述。收錄：除草劑草甘膦 1985，by Butterworth & Co. (eds. E.Grossbard & D. Atkinson) pp. 127-133。

[9] Ibid 4 at p. 132.

[9] 參考文獻[4] p.132

[12] http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/search.htm in browsing you come somewhere across EPA R.E.D. FACTS this is the paper. You find in the heading EPA-738-F-93-011 September 1993. Go to section: Human Health Assessment.

[12] 瀏覽http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/search.htm你們可以訪問美國環保部EPA R.E.D. FACTS這篇報告。在標題EPA-738-F-93-011，1993年9月。訪問：“人類健康評估”這一段。

（8）陳一文譯：持續轉基因飼料草甘膦殘留量在老鼠不同器官分布　　

Ongoing glyphosate accumulation　　

草甘膦在老鼠體內分布表顯示，進行草甘膦一次性劑量喂食七天后，最高草甘膦集結處為骨頭。較次一些集結處為結腸、骨髓、脾、胃與肝臟。這個結論來自世界衛生組織1994年發表的文件。食品中毒素或“疑似毒素”在體內分布有沉積情況下，必須進行持續喂食試驗，以至持續多代喂食試驗，才能判斷這種沉積是否有毒性影響，有什么毒性影響？

8. Ongoing glyphosate accumulation

-- Genetic Engineering: the Glyphosate threat 2 health issues

8. 持續的草甘膦沉積

-- 轉基因：草甘膦的威脅2健康問題

By Heimen Julius

作者：黑門·居里斯

Translator: Chen I-wan ([email protected])

譯者：陳一文顧問（[email protected]）

*                                  *                                  *

陳一文顧問按：

Advisor Chen I-wan comments:

根據世界衛生組織1994年的文件揭示的事實，居里斯先生非常正確強調：“一旦你發現有證據顯示草甘膦在哺乳動物有某些特別的沉積之處，這種‘參考劑量’不再有任何合理之處，因為它是基于草甘膦從體內持續全部排出的假設。”

According to the facts revealed by the 1994 WHO publication, Heimen very correctly stresses: “Once you find evidence of specific sinks for glyphosate in the mammalian body, a reference dose makes no longer any sense as it is based on the assumption of ongoing total clearing of glyphosate from the body.”

該項事實顛覆了世界衛生組織遵循美國環保部意見推薦的草甘膦“可接受的每日攝取量”（ADI）與不同食物草甘膦“殘留最高限量”標準本來就不科學的基礎。

This fact topples the non-scientific basis establishing both the “acceptable daily intake” (ADI) of glyphosate“ as well as the “glyphosate residue maxium limit” for various foods proposed by the WHO following the opinion of the American EPA.

這事實上意味著草甘膦“可接受的每日攝取量”（ADI）與不同食物草甘膦“殘留最高限量”標準必須重新審查并通過科學的、仔細的與誠實的動物喂食試驗重新建立。

This in fact means that both the “acceptable daily intake” (ADI) of glyphosate“ as well as the “glyphosate residue maxium limit” for various foods must be re-examined and re-established through scientific, careful and honest animal feed tests.

*                                  *                                  *

8. Ongoing glyphosate accumulation

8. 持續的草甘膦沉積

A table on the distribution of glyphosate in rats showed that seven days after a single dose was given, the highest glyphosate concentration was in bone. Lesser concentrations were in the colon, bone marrow, spleen, stomach, kidney and liver [8].

下邊草甘膦在老鼠體內分布表顯示，進行草甘膦一次性劑量喂食七天后，最高草甘膦集結處為骨頭。較次一些集結處為結腸、骨髓、脾、胃與肝臟[8]。

Table: radioactive glyphosate per kg organ fresh weight

表：放射性草甘膦每公斤器官新鮮重量

The full description of the table was as follows: Concentrations of ^{14C label (as mg glyphosate-equivalents/kg fresh weight) in selected tissues of rats on day 7 after a single oral dose (rounded values) (Monsanto, 1988b).}

對該表格完整的描述如下：老鼠一次性劑量口服7天后有選擇的組織中的14碳同位素標記濃度（與mg草甘膦等值/kg新鮮重量）（孟山都文件，1988b）。

This table is from a 1994 WHO publication [8] and tells us that 'the isotope was widely distributed throughout the body, but was primarily found in bone'. As the table shows it concerns here two different doses: 10 and 1000 mg glyphosate per kg bodyweight.

該表格引自世界衛生組織（WHO）1994年發表的文件[8]，它告訴我們，“同位素在整個身體內廣泛分布，但是主要發現在骨頭中”。如表格顯示的那樣，其中涉及兩種不同的劑量：10 mg/每kg體重，與1000 mg/kg體重。

Another study is mentioned in this WHO paper whereby radioactive glyphosate was determined again in rat tissues. This occurred on several occasions throughout a treatment period of 14 days and a post-dosing withdrawal period of 10 days (dietary administration of radioactive glyphosate at 1, 10 and 100 mg/kg diet). Maximum tissue levels were reached after 10 days or less, with highest concentrations in kidneys. (Monsanto, 1973c). In this study no concentrations in bone or bone marrow were measured [8].

世界衛生組織（WHO）這份文件提到另外一項研究，也對老鼠組織中分布的放射性草甘膦進行確定。研究涉及連續14天喂食處理期間數次檢查，以及停止喂食后10天進行的檢查（檢查每天飲食含有1 mg/每kg體重、10 mg/每kg體重與100 mg/每kg體重不同劑量結果）。老鼠身體組織草甘膦濃度于喂食10天或更少天數達到最高水平，其中濃度最高之處為腎臟（孟山都文件, 1973c）。該項研究沒有檢測骨頭或骨髓中的濃度[8]。

These studies show that a proposed reference dose misses the point totally.

這些研究表明“參考劑量”完全脫離了關鍵點。

Once you find evidence of specific sinks for glyphosate in the mammalian body, a reference dose makes no longer any sense as it is based on the assumption of ongoing total clearing of glyphosate from the body.

一旦你發現有證據顯示草甘膦在哺乳動物有某些特別的沉積之處，這種“參考劑量”不再有任何合理之處，因為它是基于草甘膦從體內持續全部排出的假設。

So, the question becomes, how will glyphosate accumulate in people's bodies over a lifetime, and how will this affect their health? Let us have a closer look at some accumulation points and make an estimate of the possible consequences.

因此，真正的問題成為，草甘膦在人的一生中如何在人體內積累，以及這是否影響他們的健康？讓我們對某些積累之處進行更仔細的觀察，同時預計可能的后果。

References

參考文獻：

[5] Mensink H. et al.1994. Glyphosate. Environmental Health Criteria 159, by World Health Organisation, Geneva. p. 66

[5] Mensink H. et al.1994。草甘膦環境健康標準159，世界衛生組織組織，日內瓦，p66。

[8] Ibid 5 at pp. 64-65

[8] 參考文獻[5] pp. 64-65

（9）陳一文譯：轉基因食品草甘膦殘留量對人體各器官的影響　　

Effects of glyphosate in body　　

轉基因大豆的95%，以及其他轉基因作物的75%，是抗草甘膦除草劑轉基因作物。來自轉基因作物的轉基因食品，以及來自喂食轉基因作物飼料動物的肉類、器官、雞蛋、牛奶中的草甘膦殘留量進入人體后，對不同的器官可能發生什么作用？到目前為止，無論世界衛生組織，或者各國衛生部，回避對此組織全面深入調查研究。他們怕什么？

9. Effects of glyphosate in body

-- Genetic Engineering: the Glyphosate threat 2 health issues

9. 進入體內草甘膦對不同器官與部分可能造成的影響

-- 轉基因：草甘膦的威脅2健康問題

By Heimen Julius

作者：黑門·居里斯

Translator: Chen I-wan ([email protected])

譯者：陳一文顧問（[email protected]）

*                                  *                                  *

陳一文顧問按：

Advisor Chen I-wan comments:

本文探討了體內草甘膦對不同器官可能造成的損害。

This paper explored the possible harm caused by the glyphosate in the body to different internal organs of the body.

為了對中國人民持續安全健康生存與繁衍負責，本顧問建議衛生部對草甘膦可能造成的這些危害，盡快組織相關學科專家組成跨學科團隊進行深入研究。

To be responsible to the continue safety and healthy survival and reproduction of the Chinese people, Advisor Chen suggests the Ministry of Public Health as soon as possible organize trans-disciplinary teams of experts from concerned fields and carry out in-depth studies to these harmful effects caused by glyphosate in the body to different internal organs of the body.

*                                  *                                  *

9. Effects of glyphosate in body

9. 進入體內草甘膦對不同器官與部分可能造成的影響

Bone: this is a living tissue that is constantly broken down and reassembled, especially during growth and healing of broken bones. Its major constituent is calcium phosphate. In the plant world glyphosate acts as a fake phosphate. It may well act in a similar way in bone tissue and interfere in normal bone formation. Could any build-up in glyphosate cause weaker bones? Could it contribute to bone deformities? Could it slow down the healing of broken bones? And could it cause more brittle bones in old age? No one really knows.

骨頭：這是人體的一個活性的組織，不斷破碎并重新組合起來，特別在生長期與斷骨再生過程中。骨頭的主要成分是磷酸鈣。在植物界中，草甘膦起到“偽磷酸鹽”作用。在骨組織中，草甘膦或許以類似方式作用與干擾正常的骨形成。骨頭中草甘膦的不斷沉積是否能夠造成骨頭易碎？它能否造成骨頭畸形？它能否減緩碎骨恢復的過程？它能否使老年人的骨頭更脆？誰也不知道。

Bone marrow: here blood bodies are produced. How glyphosate influence these processes is anyone's guess. Could it lead to lower output of red blood bodies? In other words could it contribute to anaemia? And what about the many kinds of white blood bodies? Could glyphosate moving continuously through bone marrow on its way to being fixed in bone tissue lead to an impaired immune system? Or worse even, could it contribute to leukaemia ? No one really knows.

骨髓：血液的某些組份在骨髓中生成。草甘膦如何影響這些過程，誰也不知道。它能否導致聲稱較少的紅血球？換句話講，它能否導致貧血？對許多種類白血球又如何？草甘膦能否持續通過骨髓，在此過程中固定在骨頭組織中，導致損害免疫系統？或者更嚴重，它能否促進引發白血病？誰也不知道。

Spleen: this is another point where the immune system could be weakened by glyphosate build-up.

脾：如果草甘膦沉積，這是可能損害弱化免疫系統的另外一處。

Stomach: if lining the stomach wall with glyphosate would hamper stomach acid production, then this could spell troubles for digestive processes. Or, could glyphosate contribute to stomach ulcers through increased acid production? No one really knows.

胃：如果沉積在胃的內壁上，草甘膦可能妨礙胃酸的生產，那么將對消化過程造成麻煩。或者，草甘膦能否通過增加胃酸的生產導致胃潰瘍？還是沒有人知道。

Liver: here many functions are performed. One of them is detoxification. Given the glyphosate sinks in the body, this detoxification process is not very effective for glyphosate. A build-up of glyphosate would very likely impair liver functioning. Could glyphosate contribute to liver cancer? No one really knows.

肝臟：肝臟發揮許多功能，其中一個是去毒。在草甘膦在體內沉積的情況下，這種去毒過程對草甘膦并非非常有效。草甘膦在肝臟中的沉積將非常看來損害肝臟的功能。草甘膦能否促進肝癌？誰也不知道。

Pancreas: here are digestive enzymes secreted. If membranes become plastered with glyphosate, would this hamper the amount of enzyme secreted? Could this result in digestive problems? Also, the pancreas is where insulin is produced. Could insulin production be hampered by glyphosate build-up and contribute to diabetes? No one really knows.

胰腺：多種消化酶在這里分泌。如果胰腺薄膜粘貼上草甘膦，這是否會妨礙這些酶的分泌量？這是否造成消化問題？同時，胰腺也是胰島素產生之處。草甘膦的沉積是否阻礙胰島素的生產并促進糖尿病？沒有人知道。

Colon: this is the place where water is resorbed from the gut. It prevents water loss from the body. Often toxins are moved back into the body if the contents remains too long inside the colon. So, regular elimination is important (a shit a day, keeps the doctor away). If glyphosate starts to build up in the colon wall, could this hamper the water resorption? Could this mean in later life chronic diarrhoea and too much water loss? Could glyphosate build-up contribute to colon cancer? No one really knows.

結腸：這是腸內水分再吸收之處。他防止身體脫水。如果毒素在結腸中停留的時間過長，它們將再次移回到體內。因此，正常排出非常重要（“一天拉一次，大夫不來臨”）。如果草甘膦開始在結腸壁中沉積，這是否將阻礙水分的再吸收？這是否意味著年長時發生慢性腹瀉并過分脫水？草甘膦在結腸的沉積是否促進結腸癌》還是沒有人知道。

Kidneys: they filter blood and through resorption urine is separated from the blood. The kidneys are structured as a bundle of very fine tubes. Within these tubes filtration and resorption take place at different locations. It seems obvious that any glyphosate coating of those tubes will hamper the filtration and resorption processes. In other words it will lead to an impairment of the kidneys. How will ongoing impairment of the kidneys work out over a life time? No one really knows.

腎臟：它們對血液進行過濾，然后通過再吸收將尿從血液中分離。腎臟的結構像緊捆的非常細的管子。在這些細管中不同處進行過濾與尿液分離。非常明顯，如果草甘膦沉積形成這些細管的涂層，它們將阻礙這種過濾和分離過程。換言之，它將導致對腎臟的損害。一生對腎臟的持續損害將造成什么問題？誰也不知道。

（10）陳一文譯：WHO食物草甘膦殘留量標準對人類健康喪失責任　　

The peculiar role of the WHO 　　

到目前為止，世界衛生組織（WHO）對轉基因食品還沒有發表任何正式的意見。他們的態度奇怪又曖昧。他們包括草甘膦耐受程度的清單，傾向于是美國環保局的副本，使美國環保局顯然處于主導地位。盡管發現單項食品、飲水或飲食總量有草甘膦殘留量，到多年沒有任何直接檢測結果，甚至沒有推薦作為食物安全監查應進行這樣的檢測，全然喪失對人類健康責任。

10. The peculiar role of the WHO

-- Genetic Engineering: the Glyphosate threat 2 health issues

10. 世界衛生組織奇怪的作用

-- 轉基因：草甘膦的威脅2健康問題

By Heimen Julius

作者：黑門·居里斯

Translator: Chen I-wan ([email protected])

譯者：陳一文顧問（[email protected]）

*                                  *                                  *

陳一文顧問按：

Advisor Chen I-wan comments:

在中國當今許多學者來看，在事關人類健康的任何重大問題上，世界衛生組織（WHO）是一個享有極高權威性的國際機構，WHO確定的標準必定正確不會有錯誤，絕對不可能直接間接受到美國某個公司以犧牲人類健康為代價商業利益的誤導。

In views of many scholars in China, on any major issue concerning mankind’s health, the WHO is an international institution enjoying very high prestige, standards established by the WHO must be correct and not mistake, absolutely could not be mislead directly or indirectly by the commercial interest of a certain American corporation sacrificing mankind’s health.

本文揭示這樣的認識過于天真，揭示世界衛生組織2002年之前確確實實屈從于美國政府的影響，面臨美國政府批準孟山都推出抗草甘膦轉基因大豆商業化生產的轉基因大豆很高草甘膦殘留量的現實，世界衛生組織在轉基因食品問題上，在不同食品草甘膦殘留最高限量標準問題上，“傾向于是美國環保局的副本。因此，美國環保局顯然處于主導地位”，而美國環保局又確實屈從于孟山都草甘膦除草劑與抗草甘膦轉基因作物的商業利益，從而在這些問題上放棄了世界賦予世界衛生組織的優先對全球人類健康承擔的責任。

This paper reveals that such understandings are too naive, reveals that the WHO before 2002 truly bent over to the influence of the United States influence, facing the situation in which the United States government has approved commercial production of glyphosate-resistant GM soy and such GM soy contain very high glyphosate residue level, on the issue of GM food, and on the issue of the glyphosate residue maximum allowance standard for different foods, the WHO “tend to be copies of the EPA tables. So, the EPA is in general calling the shots”, thus on such issues the WHO failed its priority responsibility to mankind’s health assigned by the World. 

居里斯先生《轉基因：草甘膦的威脅2健康問題》研究報告最令人尊敬之處，就在于他沒有回避世界衛生組織在這些問題上的嚴重錯誤，而是如實詳盡予以揭露。

The most respectful aspect of Heimen’s “Genetic Engineering: the Glyphosate threat 2 health issues” report is he did not slide over the serious mistake of WHO on these issues, but faced them, and truthfully revealed them in detail.

譯者還必須指出，根據譯者目前掌握的信息，世界衛生組織目前還沒有采取任何實質性的有效措施，對世界衛生組織2002年以前在這些問題上的嚴重錯誤予以糾正。

The translator must also point out, according to the information learnt to date, the WHO to date has still not adopted any fundamental and effect measures, to correct the serious mistakes on these issues caused by the WHO before 2002.

*                                  *                                  *

10. The peculiar role of the WHO

10. 世界衛生組織奇怪的作用

So far the World Health Organisation has not made any waves about genetically engineered foods. Their attitude is rather peculiar. They also produce lists with glyphosate tolerances, which tend to be copies of the EPA tables. So, the EPA is in general calling the shots.

到（2002年8月）目前為止，世界衛生組織（WHO）對轉基因食品還沒有發表任何正式的意見。他們的態度相當奇怪。他們也產生了包括草甘膦耐受程度的清單，傾向于是美國環保局的副本。因此，美國環保局顯然處于主導地位。

A WHO report on glyphosate was published by them in 1994 as Environmental Health Criteria 159 [5]. It mentions another report claiming that glyphosate was found in groundwater in Texas, USA. No details were given about the measured concentration or the year of measurement [13]. This same WHO report informs us that when glyphosate was applied 5 to 14 days before the harvest of cereals that this resulted in significant residue uptake in the grain and plant materials. What happened then to these residues during milling, baking and brewing is also revealed.

1994年世界衛生組織（WHO）發表了關于草甘膦的“環境健康標準159”[5]的報告。它提到在美國德克薩斯州地下水發現草甘膦的另外一篇報告。但是對檢測到的濃度或者該項檢測的年代沒有提供詳細情況[13]。世界衛生組織的這同一個報告告訴我們，谷物收割前5到14天期間如果施用草甘膦的話，將造成谷粒與作物材料攝取顯著殘余量。這篇報告同時揭示了這些殘余量在谷物磨面、烘烤與釀造過程中的情況。

Residues in white flour were approximately 10-20% of those of wheat. Bran had 2 to 4 times more glyphosate than wheat. During baking no glyphosate was lost, but during bread making glyphosate levels were diluted [14].

白面粉中的草甘膦殘留量為麥子中殘余量的105-20%。麩皮中的草甘膦殘留量為麥子中殘余量的2 至4倍。面包烘烤過程中草甘膦殘留量沒有任何損失，但是制作面包過程中草甘膦殘留量被（摻入的非轉基因面粉—譯注）稀釋[14]。

Glyphosate in malt and beer originated from barley that was treated in the field. Levels in malt and beer were around 25 and 4% of that in barley. Some of the glyphosate was lost by washing, but most decrease was from dilution in the brewery processes [14].

麥芽與啤酒中的草甘膦殘留量來自農田施用過草甘膦的大麥。麥芽與啤酒中的草甘膦殘留量為大麥殘留量的大約25%與4%。清洗過程中損失了一些草甘膦，但是大部分減少來自釀造過程中的稀釋[14]。

Glyphosate in groats (processed oats) was around 50% of that in oats from fields with pre-harvest spraying of glyphosate [14].

碾去殼的燕麥（加工的燕麥）為收割前施用過草甘膦農田的燕麥[14]。

Despite these findings no direct measurements of glyphosate in foods (as part of food surveillance), in drinking water or in total diets had been carried out by 1994 [13, 14]. The odd thing here is that the WHO did not recommend that this should be done. They only establish this fact and then move on.

盡管有這些發現，對食品中的草甘膦殘留量，飲水或飲食總量中的殘留量，到1994年為止沒有任何直接檢測結果（作為食物監視的一部分）[13、14]。這方面另外一件古怪的事是世界衛生組織甚至沒有推薦應當進行這樣的檢測。他們僅僅確認這樣的事實后就不管了。

References

參考文獻：

[5] Mensink H. et al.1994. Glyphosate. Environmental Health Criteria 159, by World Health Organisation, Geneva. p. 66

[5] Mensink H. et al.1994。草甘膦環境健康標準159，世界衛生組織組織，日內瓦，p66。

[13] Ibid 5 at p. 55.

[13] 參考文獻[5] p.55

[14] Ibid 5 at 59.

[14] 參考文獻[5] p.59

（11）陳一文譯：WHO草甘膦標準報告大量引用公司未發表論文　　

Unpublished research - Some questions 　　

世界衛生組織1994年的“草甘膦—環境健康標準 159” 很少涉及人類健康影響。大部分健康影響涉及進行一次性劑量的動物試驗以及某些較長期一些的試驗。參考文獻部分列出了360篇參考文獻，但是只有159篇參考文獻來自發表的科學刊物，201篇參考文獻來自孟山都為首的一篇商業公司從來沒有發表過的研究。

11. Unpublished research - Some questions – What next?

-- Genetic Engineering: the Glyphosate threat 2 health issues

11. 沒有發表論文的研究 - 某些問題 – 后邊

-- 轉基因：草甘膦的威脅2健康問題

By Heimen Julius

作者：黑門·居里斯

Translator: Chen I-wan ([email protected])

譯者：陳一文顧問（[email protected]）

*                                  *                                  *

陳一文顧問按：

Advisor Chen I-wan comments:

轉基因“專家”及其支持者們告訴公眾，發展轉基因作物的目的是給公眾消費食用提供越來越多安全無害更好的轉基因食品。

The GM “specialists” and their supporters tell the public, the objective of developing GM plants is to provide more and more safety non-harmful better foods for the public to consume and eat.

既然給大眾消費食用提供安全無害更好的轉基因食品，當然應當公開透明發展，盡量讓公眾了解公眾希望了解的所有情況，而不應當暗箱操作、關門發展、對公眾保密!

Since it is to provide to provide more and more safety non-harmful better foods for the public to consume and eat, its development surely should be open and transparent, making efforts for the public to learn everything the public hopes to learn, and definitely should not be black-box operation, close door development, secrete to the public!

越是暗箱操作、關門發展、對公眾保密，公眾必然越有理由懷疑轉基因“專家”實際上是像“皇帝的新衣”中的兩個裁縫那樣，在搞見不得人的欺騙！

The more it is black-box operation, close door development, secrete to the public, the public then has even better reasons to suspect that the GM “specialists” are like to two tailors in the “Emperor’s new cloths”, they in fact are engaged in shady cheating!

世界衛生組織關于草甘膦的唯一的報告，即1994年的報告“草甘膦—環境健康標準159”，看來具有這樣的特征。

The WTO’s only report so far on glyphosate, i.e. the 1994 “Glyphosate - Environmental Health Criteria 159” report, appears to have such a character!

方舟子不是自我標榜有最求科學真相的“潔癖”嗎？為什么在這些問題上失語不“打假”！？

Does not Fang Zhouzi trumpet he suffers “cleanliness” in searching for science truth? Why he becomes silent on such issues and fails to “fight sham”?

*                                  *                                  *

Their only report so far on glyphosate seems to be the one of 1994: Glyphosate - Environmental Health Criteria 159 and is more about environmental issues than about human health.

到（2002）目前為止，世界衛生組織關于草甘膦的唯一的報告是1994年的那篇報告：“草甘膦—環境健康標準159”，它實際上更多關于環境問題而不是人類健康問題。

It was put together by 'an international task group of experts.' One expert from an Institute of Terrestrial Ecology, one from a College of Agriculture, two from a National Institute of Public Health and Environmental Hygiene, one from a National Environmental Protection Agency and … one from the US Environmental Protection Agency, their Health Effects Division.

世界衛生組織1994年的“草甘膦—環境健康標準159”的編撰者為“一個國際工作目標專家組”，包括來自陸地生態研究所的一名專家，來自農業學院的一名專家，來自國家公共衛生與環境衛生的兩名專家，來自國家環境保護局的一名專家……來自美國環境保護部健康影響部的一名專家。

Human health effects are hardly touched upon in this report. Most health effects concern animals in trials with a single dose or tests of some longer duration. Any adverse effects that show up are just mentioned without going into any depth about the human health implications.

這篇報告中很少涉及人類健康影響。大部分健康影響涉及進行一次性劑量的動物試驗以及某些較長期一些的試驗。顯示出來的任何負面影響僅僅提一下，而不涉及關于人類健康牽連問題的任何深度。

A cursory look through the reference section shows 360 references, but only 159 are from scientific journals and 201 from never published research. Oddly enough, the monograph on glyphosate from 1985 put together by genuine experts in their field [4] was not included.

粗略瀏覽這篇報告的參考文獻部分列出了360篇參考文獻，但是只有159篇參考文獻來自發表的科學刊物，201篇參考文獻來自從來沒有發表過的研究。更為稀奇的是，1985年由各自領域真正專家的關于草甘膦的專著[4]甚至沒有包括在參考文獻中。

11. Unpublished research

11. 沒有發表論文的研究

It turns out that this unpublished research was done by the following big companies：

原來，這些沒有發表過論文的研究是由下述一些大公司進行的研究：

.

Monsanto, - Rhone Poulenc (French), - Luxan BV (Dutch), - Agrichem BV (Dutch), - Institute for Technical Scientific Services GmnH (German), - Cheminova A/S (Danish), - Institute for Environmental Analysis and Biotechnology (German), - International Bioresearch Hannover (Germany), - Huntingdon Research Centre (UK), - Food & Drug Research Laboratories Waverly, New York (USA), - EVS Consultants Seattle, Washington (USA), - Analytical Biochemistry Laboratories Inc. Columbia, Missouri (USA), - Aquatic Toxicology Laboratory Wareham, Massachusetts (USA), - Marine Research Laboratory Pensacola, Florida (USA), - Bio/Dynamics Inc. Dept of Toxicology East Millstone, New Jersey (USA).

孟山都，- Rhone Poulenc (法國), - Luxan BV (荷蘭), - Agrichem BV (荷蘭), - Institute for Technical Scientific Services GmnH (德國), - Cheminova A/S (丹麥), - Institute for Environmental Analysis and Biotechnology (德國), - International Bioresearch Hannover (德國), - Huntingdon Research Centre (英國), - Food & Drug Research Laboratories Waverly, New York (美國), - EVS Consultants Seattle, Washington (美國), - Analytical Biochemistry Laboratories Inc. Columbia, Missouri (美國), - Aquatic Toxicology Laboratory Wareham, Massachusetts (美國), - Marine Research Laboratory Pensacola, Florida (美國), - Bio/Dynamics Inc. Dept of Toxicology East Millstone, New Jersey (美國).

Some questions

某些問題

It doesn't seem that the mentioned companies have much to do with human health issues. Some questions come immediately to mind: why was their research not published in scientific journals and opened up for peer review? Who commissioned this research? The WHO would not have had the money. Was it Monsanto? Who determined the research procedures? Was this left to the scientists of these companies or were they under contract to do the research in a certain way? In other words, was it genuine research or could it have been set up with certain outcomes in mind?

上述這些公司看來與人類健康問題沒有什么關系。這使我們立即想到一些問題：為什么他們的研究沒有發表在科學刊物上，為什么沒有接受同領域學者進行審查？誰出錢委托進行這些研究？世界衛生組織沒有這樣的錢。是否孟山都出的錢？誰確定這些研究的程序？這些程序由這些公司的科學家確定，還是這些科學家依照合同依照規定的程序進行？換句話講，這是真正的研究，還是依照考慮的某些結果事先設定的研究？

It would not be the first time that this happened. Then fake research is used to crowd out genuine research leading to outcomes favouring commercial interests. It is not said that this occurred here, only that it could have happened. The best way to dispel any such suspicion is by publishing this research and open it up to peer review with a short explanation as to why this had not been done earlier.

這不是頭一次發生這樣的事。過去發生過偽裝的研究被是用來排擠真正的研究以便滿足某些商業利益。這里并不是說這里也是如此，只是說這有可能。消除任何這樣的猜疑的最好方式，是發表這些研究的論文并且接受相同領域學者的審查，同時簡短解釋為什么早些時候沒有這樣做。

The WHO should have the common sense to stay clear of unpublished research; why at all endorse unpublished research? And … why was this WHO expert task force extended with an observer from Monsanto? Was this an attempt to influence the direction this publication would take?

世界衛生組織應當有常識避開任何沒有發表論文的研究；為什么認可沒有發表論文的研究？而且……為什么這個世界衛生組織的專家工作組擴展有來自孟山都的一名觀察員？這是否是有意影響發表這篇報告試圖影響的方向？

It is obvious that a WHO publication with so much unpublished research cannot be given much scientific credence. The secrecy of the mentioned research enables the companies involved to tell us anything they like.

顯然，世界衛生組織組織引用如此多沒有發表過論文研究的報告無法給予太多科學信任。上述的這些研究的秘密性任由這些公司想告訴我們就講什么情況。

（12）陳一文譯：WHO與EPA-農藥計劃比人類健康問題更為重要　　

What next WHO?　　

2002年期間面臨一種奇怪哈的情況：世界衛生組織忙于對環境問題發表聲明而美國環保局對人類健康問題發表聲明。這看起來像世界倒置。美國環保局有一個農藥計劃部，下面設“健康影響處”。這樣的安排之下，農藥計劃顯然比人類健康問題更為重要。2010年，2002年八年以后，在轉基因作物、轉基因食品、食品中草甘膦“殘余最高限量”等問題上，世界衛生組織依然沒有采取實質性措施糾正2002年前造成的一系列嚴重錯誤。

12. What next WHO?

-- Genetic Engineering: the Glyphosate threat 2 health issues

12. 世界衛生組織后是什么？

-- 轉基因：草甘膦的威脅2健康問題

By Heimen Julius

作者：黑門·居里斯

Translator: Chen I-wan ([email protected])

譯者：陳一文顧問（[email protected]）

*                                  *                                  *

陳一文顧問按：

Advisor Chen I-wan comments:

在事關全球人類健康的轉基因作物、轉基因食品、食品中草甘膦“殘余最高限量”等重大問題上，世界衛生組織應當聽憑2002年以前由美國環境保護部說了算造成的錯誤狀況繼續，還是應當盡快采取采取實質性措施糾正世界衛生組織2002年前造成的一系列嚴重錯誤！？

On the issues of GM plant, GM food, glyphosate “residue maximum tolerance limit” contained in food and other important issues concerning global mankind health, should the WHO enable the wrong situation caused by the WHO let the American EPA decide on such issues before 2002 to continue, or should as soon as possible adopt fundamental measures to correct the series of serious mistakes made by WHO before 2002!?

*                                  *                                  *

12. What next WHO?

12. 世界衛生組織后是什么？

We have now the situation whereby the WHO is occupied with environmental issues and the US Environmental Protection Agency is making statements about human health. This looks like the world upside down.

我們現在（2002年）面臨這樣的情況，世界衛生組織忙于對環境問題發表聲明而美國環保局對人類健康問題發表聲明。這看起來像世界倒置。

The contributor from the US Environmental Protection Agency to this WHO publication was Dr M.S. Morrow, Health Effects Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, US Environmental Protection Agency. So, here we have them all: the EPA has an Office of Pesticide Programs and this has a Health Effects Division. This arrangement would seem that pesticide programs are more important than human health issues. Is there any evidence for this? The setting of glyphosate tolerance levels for food seems to point in that direction.

美國環保局對上述世界衛生組織發表的報告做出貢獻的人為M·S· 莫樓博士，在美國環保局農藥計劃部健康影響處任職。所有，他們現在全部在一起：美國環保局有一個農藥計劃部，他們又有一個健康影響處。這樣的安排之下，農藥計劃顯然比人類健康問題更為重要。這樣的看法有無任何證據？對食物的草甘膦耐受水平的設定看來是引導我們指向這樣的方向。

References

參考文獻

[4] Atkinson D. 1985. Toxicological properties of glyphosate - a summary. In: The Herbicide Glyphosate 1985, by Butterworth & Co. (eds. E.Grossbard & D. Atkinson) pp. 127-133.

[4] Atkinson D. 1985。草甘膦的毒理學性質 – 概述。收錄：除草劑草甘膦 1985，by Butterworth & Co. (eds. E.Grossbard & D. Atkinson) pp. 127-133。

（13）陳一文：草甘膦最大殘留量標準服從孟山都轉基因商業利益　　

Maximum residue tolerances - A new update from September 2001 – A trend　　

美國環保部1982年規定：“用于直接食用的大部分食品的最高殘留量耐用水平，無論肉類、水果或蔬菜，大約為0.2ppm（=mg/kg – 譯注），盡管通常較大量食用的谷物產品中的殘留量較低（0.1ppm）”（= 0.1 mg/kg – 譯注）。1997年進入了孟山都推出耐草甘膦作物的時代，順應孟山都的商業利益，以犧牲人類健康為代價，美國環保局將大豆草甘膦殘留量耐受水平顯著提高200倍到20 mg/kg。

13. Maximum residue tolerances

-- Genetic Engineering: the Glyphosate threat 2 health issues

13. 最大殘留量耐受水平

-- 轉基因：草甘膦的威脅2健康問題

By Heimen Julius

作者：黑門·居里斯

Translator: Chen I-wan ([email protected])

譯者：陳一文顧問（[email protected]）

*                                  *                                  *

陳一文顧問按：

Advisor Chen I-wan comments:

食品含有的除草劑“殘留最高限量”必須以優先考慮人類健康為指導原則通過嚴格的持續動物喂食試驗決定，還是以優先考慮除草劑公司商業利益為指導依據施用造成的食品含有的這種除草劑“殘留最高量”來決定？

The “residue maximum tolerance limit” of herbicide contained in food, should be determined through rigorous continued animal feed tests according to principles giving priority consideration to mankind health, or determined by the “residue maximum level” of the herbicide in fact contained in food guided by the commercial interest of such herbicide manufacturing companies.

任何思維正常沒有商業利益偏見的人士都會強調，當然必須以優先考慮人類健康為指導原則通過嚴格的持續動物喂食試驗決定食品含有的除草劑“殘留最高限量”。

All person with normal thoughts and without commercial interest bias opinion will emphasize, surely must determine “residue maximum tolerance limits” of herbicide contained in food through rigorous continued animal feed tests according to principles giving priority consideration to mankind health!

但是，孟山都抗草甘膦轉基因大豆推出之后，美國環保部卻是以優先考慮孟山都公司商業利益為指導原則依據施用孟山都草甘膦除草劑造成的食品含有的草甘膦“殘留最高量”來決定順應孟山都的商業利益，以犧牲人類健康為代價，美國環保局將大豆草甘膦殘留量耐受水平顯著提高200倍到20 mg/kg!

However, after Monsanto introduced the glyphosate – resistant GM plants, to conform with Monsanto’s commercial interest, with sacrificing human health as the price, the American EPA increased the glyphosate residue tolerance level 200 times to 20 mg/kg!

*                                  *                                  *

13. Maximum residue tolerances

13. 最大殘留量耐受水平

In 1982 the EPA set maximum glyphosate levels for a number of food items. To quote: "Maximum residue tolerances in most foods for direct consumption, whether meat, fruit or vegetable, are around 0.2 parts per million (ppm), although those in grain products, normally eaten in larger quantities, are lower (0.1ppm). Actual residues in these commodities are usually found to be much lower. Residue studies in animals have shown no detectable levels (<0.05 ppm) of glyphosate or its metabolite to be present in meat tissue, fat, eggs or milk. Low levels were found in liver and kidney and, therefore, a tolerance of 0.5 ppm has been set" [9]. This quote is accompanied by a list of 50 food items. And sure enough most items are in the 0.1 and 0.2 ppm range. But a few stick out.

1982年，美國環保局對一系列食品項目設定了最高草甘膦水平。引用原話：“用于直接食用的大部分食品的最高殘留量耐用水平，無論肉類、水果或蔬菜，大約為0.2ppm（=mg/kg – 譯注），盡管通常較大量食用的谷物產品中的殘留量較低（0.1ppm）”（= 0.1 mg/kg – 譯注）。這些商品中的殘留量通常發現更低。對動物進行的殘留量研究表明，肉類組織、脂肪、雞蛋或者牛奶中沒有可探測到水平（<0.05 ppm）（=<0.05 mg/kg – 譯注）草甘膦或者其代謝物。僅在肝臟與腎臟中發現低水平的殘留量，因此，設定了 0.5 ppm（=0.5 mg/kg – 譯注）的耐受力水平”[9]。引用的上述原話附有50項食品的清單。大部分項目在0.1與0.2 ppm（= 0.1-0.2 mg/kg – 譯注）范圍。但是個別項目顯然突出。

Some tolerance levels

某些耐受水平

In the following table I have combined some of the values I found in the individual tables for 1982, 1997 and 2001. The bold figures show a trend over the years.

下邊的列表中，我將1982年、1997年與2001年相應列表中發現的某些食品的耐受水平值列在一起，其中的黑體字顯示了這些年期間的變化趨勢。

§ 180.364 Glyphosate; tolerances for residues in parts per million (ppm)

§ 180.364 草甘膦；殘留量耐受水平表示為ppm（= mg/kg – 譯注）

Forage and hay with high glyphosate levels fed to animals cause of course high glyphosate levels in their livers and kidneys.

高草甘膦殘留量飼料與麥草喂食動物，當然導致牠們的肝臟與腎臟中的高草甘膦殘留量。

The slightly higher accepted level in fish from 1982 onwards indicates that fish is a glyphosate sink.

1982年以來對魚設定的相對高一些的可接受殘留量水平表明魚成為草甘膦沉積處。

A new table appeared in 1997 [15]. This time there were 133 items and after having entered the era of glyphosate resistant crops some tolerance levels went up remarkably.

美國環保局1997年發布了一個新的表[15]。這一次列出了133項食品，而且，由于進入了耐草甘膦作物的時代，某些草甘膦殘留量耐受水平顯著提高。

Remember what in 1982 was stated? Here it is again: "Maximum residue tolerances in most foods for direct consumption, whether meat, fruit or vegetable, are around 0.2 ppm, although those in grain products, normally eaten in larger quantities, are lower (0.1ppm)."

記得1982年期間怎么聲明的？再次引用一下：“用于直接食用的大部分食品的最高殘留量耐用水平，無論肉類、水果或蔬菜，大約為0.2ppm（=mg/kg – 譯注），盡管通常較大量食用的谷物產品中的殘留量較低（0.1ppm）”（= 0.1 mg/kg – 譯注）。

But in 1997 the wheat tolerance level was raised to 5 ppm. On what grounds? Obviously to remain in step with the new glyphosate practices for glyphosate resistant crops. This tolerated ppm increase shows clearly that human health is less important to the EPA than pesticide use.

但是1997年，麥子的草甘膦殘留量耐受水平提高到了5 ppm（= 5mg/kg – 譯注）。在什么基礎上提高？顯然，為了與耐草甘膦作物新的草甘膦噴灑作業一致。這種耐受水平ppm的提高清楚表明，對美國環保局而言，人類健康的重要性與農藥使用相比沒有那么重要。

Other grain crops (except wheat, oats, grain sorghum and barley) remained at 0.1 ppm.

其他谷物作物（麥子、燕麥、高粱粒與大麥除外）的草甘膦耐受水平維持在0.1 ppm（= 0.1 mg/kg –譯注）。

References

參考文獻

[15] This list appeared in a publication of 1999 by the Environmental Protection Agency and to my eternal shame I did not jot down its complete title. It concerns a large collection of pesticide residue tolerances in ppm and under § 180.364 you find a list of 133 items for glyphosate residues. The list itself is from 1997 and is also on a federal register (FR 17730, Apr.11, 1977). Fortunately an update of this list is now on the Internet.

[15] 美國環保部1999年列出了這個清單，因為深感羞恥我沒有列出它完整的標題。它涉及一大批農藥殘余量耐受水平的ppm，在§ 180.364下邊你們可以找到對于草甘膦殘留量的133個食品項目。該清單本身來自1997年，也進行聯邦注冊（FR 17730， 1977年4月11日）。幸運的是，更新的該清單目前在互聯網上公布。

（14）陳一文譯：WHO對過敏人群耐受草甘膦殘余沒進行任何評估　　

A new update from September 2001 - A trend　　

美國環保部1982年規定：“用于直接食用的大部分食品的（草甘膦 – 譯注）最高殘留量耐用水平，無論肉類、水果或蔬菜，大約為0.2ppm，盡管通常較大量食用的谷物產品中的殘留量較低（0.1ppm）”。1997年進入了孟山都推出耐草甘膦作物的時代，順應孟山都的商業利益，以犧牲人類健康為代價，美國環保局將大豆草甘膦殘留量耐受水平顯著提高200倍到20 mg/kg! 世界衛生組織對于過敏人群沒有進行任何評估。為什么沒有？

14. A new update from September 2001 - A trend

-- Genetic Engineering: the Glyphosate threat 2 health issues

14. 2001年9月新的更新 - 趨勢

-- 轉基因：草甘膦的威脅2健康問題

By Heimen Julius

作者：黑門·居里斯

Translator: Chen I-wan ([email protected])

譯者：陳一文顧問（[email protected]）

*                                  *                                  *

陳一文顧問按：

Advisor Chen I-wan comments:

美國環保部1982年規定：“用于直接食用的大部分食品的（草甘膦 – 譯注）最高殘留量耐用水平，無論肉類、水果或蔬菜，大約為0.2ppm（=mg/kg – 譯注），盡管通常較大量食用的谷物產品中的殘留量較低（0.1ppm）”（= 0.1 mg/kg – 譯注）。

In 1982 the American EPA stipulated: "Maximum residue tolerances (of glyphosate – translator note) in most foods for direct consumption, whether meat, fruit or vegetable, are around 0.2 parts per million (ppm), although those in grain products, normally eaten in larger quantities, are lower (0.1ppm).”

1997年進入了孟山都推出耐草甘膦作物的時代，順應孟山都的商業利益，以犧牲人類健康為代價，美國環保局將大豆草甘膦殘留量耐受水平顯著提高200倍到20 mg/kg!

In 1997 had entered the Monsanto introduced of glyphosate – resistant GM plant era, to conform with Monsanto’s commercial interest, with sacrificing human health as the price, the American EPA increased the glyphosate residue tolerance level 200 times to 20 mg/kg!

本文作者尖銳指出：“然而，到目前（2002年）為止，世界衛生組織對于過敏人群（的草甘膦殘留量耐受水平 – 譯注）沒有進行任何評估。為什么沒有？（因為從來沒有試驗過任何過敏的老鼠！）”

The author of the paper sharply pointed out: “No evaluations (on glyphosate maximum tolerance level – translator note) have been made so far by the WHO it seems concerning people with allergies. Why not? (Because no allergic rats were ever tested!)”

據譯者到目前為止掌握的信息，世界衛生組織（WHO）一直到今天無論對正常人群或者過敏人群對食品中草甘膦殘留量耐受水平依然沒有組織過優先考慮人類健康的任何科學的評估！

Based on information learnt by the translator to date, the WHO until today still has not organized any scientific assessment giving priority to human health on the glyphosate maximum tolerance level to either normal people or people with allergies!

*                                  *                                  *

14. A new update from September 2001

14. 2001年9月新的更新

The list contains this time 178 items and we are informed that approved pesticides and tolerances are constantly changing [16].

食品清單增加到178項，并再次告訴我們已經批準的農藥及耐受水平進一步變化[16]。

A trend

趨勢

A trend is emerging:

顯現出一個趨勢：

First reassuring statements are made based on research results with glyphosate sensitive crops. The 1993 paper on the Internet with a worst case scenario is based on research with glyphosate sensitive crops and glyphosate levels representing irrigation water that might have picked up glyphosate in the field.

首次較為可靠的聲明基于對草甘膦敏感的作物的研究結果。網絡公布的1993年的論文列出了最差的情景，也基于對草甘膦敏感的作物的研究以及代表灌溉用水可能吸收了農田中部分草甘膦的水中含有草甘膦水平。

Then the glyphosate tolerance levels are raised to bring them into line with the new practices for glyphosate resistant crops. And … hopefully nobody will notice the deceit.

然后，將草甘膦殘余量耐受水平提高，使他們與引入的抗草甘膦作物新作業一致。并且……希望沒有人能夠注意到其中的詐騙。

Another trend is that the list of glyphosate tolerances for plants gets longer and longer. This indicates that more and more plants are being considered for genetic engineering.

另外一個趨勢是，列出草甘膦殘余量耐受水平的作物種類變得越來越長。這反映出越來越多的作物被考慮基因工程。

No evaluations have been made so far by the WHO it seems concerning people with allergies. Why not? (Because no allergic rats were ever tested!)

然而，到目前（2002年）為止，世界衛生組織對于過敏人群（的草甘膦殘留量耐受水平 – 譯注）沒有進行任何評估。為什么沒有？（因為從來沒有試驗過任何過敏的老鼠！）

References

參考文獻

1.[16] From http://www.epa.govthere go to OPP Home if you are not there already. This is the Office of Pesticide Programs home page. Under 1 Enter words/phrases in text box, fill in as follows: glyphosate and tolerances and crop and § 180.364. Under 2 Limit your research fill in text box: all of these words and within the entire document. Then click on the link to your database. This is on right side of your page under Database Searches.Click on Pesticide Residue Limits on Food. Now you should get the table on glyphosate tolerances. I found here a new Internet address, perhaps it will get you there directly. It is: http://www.epa.gov/cgi-bin/oppsrch

從http://www.epa.gov，可以訪問OPP主頁，如果你們還沒有訪問他們的話。這是農藥計劃辦公室（Office of Pesticide Programs = OPP）的主頁。在1下邊輸入glyphosate and tolerances and crop and § 180.364（草甘膦與耐受水平與作物與§ 180.364）。在2下邊限制你的搜尋：all of these words（所有這些詞）以及within the entire document（整個文件內）。然后點擊你們的數據庫。這在該頁右側Database Searches（數據庫搜尋 ）。點擊Pesticide Residue Limits on Food（食品的除草劑殘留量限制）。你現在能夠獲得草甘膦的耐受水平清單。在這里我發現了一個新的互聯網地址，也許你們能夠從哪里之間獲取。地址為：http://www.epa.gov/cgi-bin/oppsrch

（15）陳一文譯：WHO應關注人類健康不能成為轉基因企業擋箭牌　　

      Conclusions　　

人類草甘膦攝取可接受水平，由美國環境保護機構確定，很大程度基于對老鼠研究。試驗顯示負面作用被忽略，以盡可能含糊不清方式報告出來。對糧食作物施用農藥的劑量設定標準，從公共衛生角度達到不可接受水平，應用法律禁止。世界衛生組織應當醒悟過來，關注人類健康問題，不能再使自己成為轉基因企業的擋箭牌。

15. Conclusions

-- Genetic Engineering: the Glyphosate threat 2 health issues

15. 結論

-- 轉基因：草甘膦的威脅2健康問題

By Heimen Julius

作者：黑門·居里斯

Translator: Chen I-wan ([email protected])

譯者：陳一文顧問（[email protected]）

*                                  *                                  *

陳一文顧問按：

Advisor Chen I-wan comments:

譯者者翻譯的本文以及其他大量科學論文有效的證明：世界無論任何地方用孟山都轉基因大豆種子種植的必須施用草甘膦除草劑的抗草甘膦轉基因大豆有很高的草甘膦殘留量，對動物與人類的持續健康生存與繁衍造成一系列及其嚴重的危害！

This paper and a large amount of other science papers translated by the translator has effectively proved: Using the Monsanto RR soy seeds growing glyphosate-resistant soy, regardless where they are grown they are all applied with glyphosate herbicides, resulting the grown GM soy all have considerable high glyphosate residue levels, which cause a series of serious harm to animals and continue safety and healthy survival and reproduction!

請衛生部告訴全國人大常委會、全國政協、國務院、新聞界與全國人民：中國目前對于大豆（無論非轉基因大豆或抗草甘膦轉基因大豆）“草甘膦殘留最高限量”的國家標準是多少mg/kg？

The Ministry of Health, please report to the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress, the CPPCC, the State Council, the media and the Chinese people: What is the mg/kg State Standard for the “glyphosate residue maximum limit” for glyphosate-resistant soy?

近年來，中國每年大量進口草甘膦殘留量很高的孟山都轉基因大豆種子種植的抗草甘膦轉基因大豆、抗草甘膦轉基因玉米。

During recent years, China each year imports large amounts of glyphosate-resistant soy with very high glyphosate residue levels grown from Monsato’s GM soy seeds.

請國家質量監督檢驗檢疫總局告訴全國人大常委會、全國政協、國務院、新聞界與全國人民：中國目前對于每年大量進口的抗草甘膦轉基因大豆監測出來的草甘膦殘留量水平是多少mg/kg？

The General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine, please tell the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress, the CPPCC, the State Council, the media and the Chinese people: What is the mg/kg glyphosate residue level inspected and measured from the large amount of glyphosate-resistant soy imported each year during recent years?

衛生部與國家質量監督檢驗檢疫總局報告的結果，必將讓全國人大常委會、全國政協、國務院、新聞界與全國人民大吃一驚！

The reports by Ministry of Health and the General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine will surely shock the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress, the CPPCC, the State Council, the media and the Chinese people!

*                                  *                                  *

15. Conclusions

15. 結論

1.      Acceptable levels of glyphosate intake for humans is determined by the US Environmental Protection Organisation, largely based on rat studies. Adverse affects that showed up were ignored and reported in the vaguest possible way. The fact that glyphosate sinks were found in rats, other mammals and fish makes this approach meaningless.

1、人類的草甘膦攝取的可以接受的水平，是由美國環境保護機構確定的，很大程度基于對老鼠的研究。試驗中顯示的負面作用被忽略，并且以盡可能含糊不清的方式報告出來。在老鼠、其他哺乳動物與魚中發現草甘膦有沉積的事實，使這樣一種途徑變得毫無意義。

2.      The signs are on the wall that glyphosate will build up in bone and internal organs over a life time. Nobody knows how our bodies will stand up to increasing glyphosate sludge in our internal organs. And what will be the effects on ageing bones? What will be people's health prospects be at age 45-50 after a life time of ingesting glyphosate? And what about people with allergies?

2、已經非常清楚的證據表明，草甘膦殘留量能夠一生在骨頭與內部器官中沉積。沒有人知道我們的身體對于我們內部器官中不斷增加的草甘膦垃圾將如何應對。對年齡越來越長骨頭的影響有如何？一生攝取草甘膦殘留量情況下，到45-50歲時人們的健康前景將如何？哪些有過敏癥的人又怎么辦？

3.      All foods will in due time contain substantial amounts of glyphosate and/or other herbicides for which food crops have been made genetically resistant.

3、隨著越來越多食品作物變為抗除草劑作物，到一定階段所有的食物都將含有相當大草甘膦和/或其他農藥殘留量。

4.      With continuously upwards changing glyphosate tolerance levels, the final body load of glyphosate from daily food intake will be anybody's guess. It will increase progressively over time.

4、在（官方確定的 – 譯注）草甘膦殘留量耐受水平標準不斷提高情況下，人體從每天飲食中攝取的草甘膦殘留總量將大豆令人猜測的水平。它將隨著時間的進展不斷增加。

5.      The World Health Organisation should pull up its socks and focus on human health issues. It should stop endorsing unpublished research and so making itself a respectability shield for big business.

5、世界衛生組織應當醒悟過來，關注人類健康問題。他們應當停止贊同沒有公開發表論文的研究，不再使自己成為大企業的擋箭牌。

6.      The dosing of food crops with herbicides is from a public health viewpoint unacceptable and should be prohibited by law.

6、對糧食作物施用農藥的劑量設定的標準，從公共衛生角度達到了不可接受的水平，應當用法律禁止。

譯者推薦補充資料：　　

Supplementary material recommended by the translator:　　

《經濟觀察》：轉基因主糧生產準入門檻抬高至1億元　　

http://www.eeo.com.cn/Politics/beijing_news/2010/12/01/187815.shtml　　

顧秀林：農業部已經擅自允許中國三大糧食作物全部轉基因！　　

http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_6188d2520100n1ba.html　　

陳一文譯：四國九科學家全面揭露轉基因作物危害報告　　

 “GM Soy: Sustainable? Responsible?” Report　　

陳一文譯：開發種植進口抗除草劑轉基因作物都是戰略性錯誤　　

-- 為決策者準備的概述　　

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY -- GM Soy: Sustainable? Responsible?　　

陳一文譯：英國土壤協會揭露轉基因惡果研究報告　　

GM crops -- the health effects, A report by the Soil Association, UK　　

陳一文批判轉基因技術文章：　　

http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/articlelist_1269923485_9_1.html　　

× 烏有之鄉 WYZXWK.COM

您的打賞將用于網站日常運行與維護。
幫助我們辦好網站，宣傳紅色文化！

歡迎掃描下方二維碼，訂閱烏有之鄉網刊微信公眾號