轉基因毒性試驗法國科學家Seralini公開信

　　[編者按]

　　光明網衛生頻道“專家.專欄”作者顧秀林教授給我們提供了一篇譯文，它是由剛剛公開、用二年時間拿小白鼠做了全球第一個轉基因玉米毒性試驗的法國科學家 Gilles-Eric Seralini(塞拉利尼)同全球34位科學家就轉基因毒性問題撰寫的一封公開信，這是Seralini先生不久前接受完法國電視臺采訪、用數據揭露全球轉基因跨國企業壓制科學界按嚴謹的科學研究流程的黑幕之后，又一次借助媒體反擊轉基因跨國企業近幾十年來一直掩蓋轉基因作物存在潛在風險問題事實的行動。本網將顧秀林教授中譯文及英文原文一齊登載，供有興趣的人士參考。

　　[翻譯者顧秀林教授按] 法國科學家塞拉利尼提出一個問題：在一個被大公司主導的世界中，科學所面臨的挑戰，究竟是什么挑戰?

　　我來概括一下他的問題：在金錢的世界里，科學家有沒有去推磨?

　　公開信的結尾說：“所謂安全性檢測、所謂基于科學的管理、甚至科學程序本身，這一切是否能夠實行，完全取決于科學家群體是否真誠地獻身于公眾利益、是否整體忠于科學操守。假如把這一切反過來，讓一個科學產品的評估從起點開始就作弊，僅僅朝研發者的利益傾斜，依賴全面地一貫地壓制獨立科學家為公眾利益所做的研究而推行，那么所謂誠實、理性或者科學的辯論，就是根本不可能的事情。”

　　——可不是嗎，關于轉基因風險的科學辯論在哪里?也許在生物技術公司大總裁的褲兜里?

　　中文譯文翻譯投稿時間：2012年10月4日

　　--------------

　　塞拉利尼給全球科學界的一封公開信

　　吉利斯-埃里克 塞拉利尼

　　（其他起草人的名單附后）

　　塞拉利尼等人發表的報告及其招致的媒體關注，揭示了一個非常深刻的問題：在一個被大公司主導的世界中，科學所面臨的挑戰，究竟是什么挑戰?

　　第一 一項備受攻擊的風險研究

　　塞拉利尼和同事遭受的，不過是最新的一輪有組織的攻擊。最近幾年發生過的同類事件中，包括有：

　　伯克利大學當時的助理教授Ignacio Chapela 所做的關于墨西哥轉基因玉米污染的報告(見Quist和Chapela在2001年報告)，他因此遭到了來自互聯網浪潮般的污名攻擊;據報道，那一次攻擊是由黑客公關公司(Bivings Group)負責策劃實施的，這家公司常受雇于孟山都公司，提供孟山都公司所需服務支持。

　　英國杰出的生物化學家阿帕德.普茲泰(Ewen and Pusztai, 1999a)因發表了轉基因土豆問題的研究報告后，被迫終結了學術生涯。是英國皇家學會下了封口令，強制他退休、并沒收他的數據，目的是不讓他繼續做研究(見Ewen和Pusztai在1999b; Laidlaw在2003年報告)。

　　轉基因公司還采用人身暴力，最近的一次施暴是針對布宜諾斯艾利斯大學的分子胚胎學家安德烈斯.卡拉斯科教授(Andres Carrasco)，因為他的研究報告中告訴公眾，發現農達中的草甘膦成份存在對人畜健康有危害風險(見Amnesty International在2010年報告)。

　　因此,公眾就不用奇怪為什么在2009年，第一次直接致信美國環保署、批評大公司控制對轉基因農作物的研究的那26位昆蟲學家，他們提交的是一封匿名信件( 見Amnesty International在2010年報告)。因為他們若署名可能會丟失工作甚至生命安全受到威脅。

　　第二 科學媒體的責任

　　一個很重要但很少被注意的問題是，轉基因公司給科學界施加壓力時，常見到科學媒體身影 (見Ermakova在 2007年的報告; 見Heinemann和Traavik在2007年的報告; 見Latham和Wilson在,2007年的報告)。

　　最近 Gilles-Eric Seralini(塞拉利尼)等人的有關轉基因玉米飼養小白鼠二年后的毒性科學報告在網絡上公開發表后，來自名望最高的報道科學問題媒體，如《科學》，《紐約時報》，《新科學家》，還有《華盛頓郵報》，全都無一例外地展示媒體在批評與反對聲中評論“中立性”，它們幾乎都不讓支持意見刊發(見Carmen在2012年的報告; Enserink在2012年的報告; MacKenzie在2012年的報告; Pollack在2012年的報告)。而那些影響力可能差一點的媒體，如：《英國每日電訊報》，公眾發現可能聽到對這個研究的支持的科學觀點(見Poulter在2012的報告)。

　　第三 誤導性媒體報道

　　以往針對研究轉基因風險問題的報道，轉基因公司最拿手的媒體公關手段是：聲東擊西、魚目混珠——讓批評意見出現時像一條“青熏魚”，云里霧里講不清、很容易被調轉方向，或直接就是謠言。

　　所以， Gilles-Eric Seralini(塞拉利尼)等人在2012年公布的研究報告，盡管是運用常規研究方法，卻被媒體暗示為不靠譜、是假冒的科學，而那些之前轉基因公司采用同樣的研究方法，卻是正確的(見上面引述的那些科學媒體2012年發布的相關稿件)。

　　這些媒體采用的誤導性媒體報道手法，令非專業讀者感到了疑惑和迷惘。

　　例如，倫敦國王學院(Kings College)的Tom Sanders被引述說：“這種實驗鼠特別容易罹患乳腺腫瘤，尤其是在不限制攝食量的時候” (見Hirschler和Kelland在2012年的報告)。

　　但是,Tom Sanders并沒有指出，也許他確實不知道，幾乎所有的轉基因公司自己做喂養實驗用的也都是這種試驗大鼠,名叫SD鼠(例如： Hammond 等在1996, 2004, 2006的研究以及MacKenzie等在2007年寫的綜述)，并且在那些實驗中，攝食量也不受限(例如Malley等在2007年的報告)。

　　Sanders的評論產生了重要影響，因為他的觀點被廣為引述，而且他的說法成了英國皇家學會下面的科學媒體中心策劃的，針對 Gilles-Eric Seralini(塞拉利尼)等人的研究報告最有組織的回擊論點之一。這個科學媒體中心正是長期以來一直在封殺對轉基因作物安全異議爭論的操盤手，出資人正是生產轉基因作物種子和殺蟲劑的公司。

　　第四 失責的監管者

　　我們認為，在轉基因作物安全性問題爭議中，管理者失責是最嚴重的問題之一。包括，歐洲食品安全局(EFSA)，美國環保署(EPA)和食品藥品監督管理局(FDA)等，它們當年制定的轉基因作物安全規制，在今天由科學界去檢測轉基因是否存在有危害時，確實用處不大。

　　事實上，轉基因產品沒有做過什么嚴格的毒理實驗，已做過了的檢測項目，數量也是非常小，全部檢測都由申請者或者它們的代理機構提交。

　　更嚴重的問題是，目前的規制要求太簡單，所依據的不過是轉基因公司的一些假設(RSC, 2001)，按照轉基因公司那些設計去干，除了目標基因的性狀外，由異源基因插入之后而導發的絕大部分基因表達改變，都可以輕易逃脫檢測(見Heinemann等在2011年的報告;見 Schubert在2002年的報告)。

　　普茲泰等人(Puzstai 2001)根據試驗結果曾經指出：全面的、完善的動物喂養實驗，是檢測轉基因非預期改變的最佳途徑之一。然而轉基因產品獲得監管機構批準時，卻無需這些喂養實驗結果!

　　按照現有的這種規范發表的論文是否具有科學可信度，已經遭到科學界越來越多的質疑(見Domingo 在2007年報告; Pusztai等在2003年報告和Spiroux de Vend mois等在2009年的報告)。

　　例如，施奈爾(Snell)等人在2012年就曾做了一個96天以上的轉基因試驗，試驗共有12個測試項目，在這項多代實驗結束后的研究評估結論認為：“這些實驗很多設計不當，難于進行統計分析……最重大的不足是：缺乏相同基因序列(對比)，統計可信度弱，而且沒有做重復實驗……”

　　批評者質疑Gilles-Eric Seralini(塞拉利尼)等人報告的實驗設計和分析方法，同樣的質疑對于不以風險為目標的研究項目也同樣適用，但是后者卻被堂而皇之地放過。

　　因此，監管機構在審批轉基因農作物申請時，這些完全失實的信息就會讓監管機構得到錯誤信息，令當前的監管規制涉及安全性判斷時，沒有以安全性實驗數據做依據。這對于科學監管和社會公眾生命安全來說，最終將會產生極其嚴重的問題。

　　第五 科學與政策

　　一些國家的政府決策機構在轉基因作物安全性科學問題上己慣于踢皮球。

　　例如，加拿大皇家學會應加拿大政府要求而做的一項研究，暴露了轉基因管理中的無數弱點(見RSC在2001的報告)，加拿大政府卻不能認真回應許多認真的建議(加以改進)，如安德利在2006年報告所描述。

　　由國際農業知識與科技促進發展評估(IAASTD)400名專家，花了6年時間提出的專家建議指出：轉基因作物不適用于全球的農業發展，加拿大政府的決策機構也斷然拒絕這份報告的觀點。聲稱是依據科學實驗而做出決策的政府，其實只是選擇性地采用對轉基因公司利益有好處的研究結果。

　　第六 結朿語

　　當轉基因作物的既得利益者面對不利于自己的科學研究結果公布時，都會竭盡全力傳播不講道理的質疑。

　　當政府監管機構僅僅從科學發現中挑選和利用某些對自己有利說法以獲得政治利益時，他們就是在傷害公眾對科學研究方法的信任、就是在傷害對科研機構的信任，同時把公眾健康置于風險之中而不顧。

　　轉基因作物安全性檢測是基于科學的監管規制、以及科學研究程序設計，這一切是否能夠實行，完全取決于科學家群體是否真誠地獻身于公眾利益、是否整體忠于科學操守。

　　假如把這一切反過來，讓轉基因作物這個科學產品的安全性評估從一開始就作弊，僅僅是朝向投資方、研發者的利益傾斜，而且轉基因作物公司還依靠慎密有計劃地壓制獨立第三方科學家、從公眾利益出發所做的研究結果公開?？梢灶A期：轉基因作物安全性檢測根本不可能會有誠實、理性或者科學的結論。 (Authors listed below)

　　起草者（The Authors）:

　　1. Susan Bardocz (4, Arato Street, Budapest, 1121 Hungary)(布達佩斯，匈牙利);

　　2 Ann Clark (University of Guelph, ret.);Stanley Ewen (Consultant Histopathologist, Grampian University Hospital);Michael Hansen Consumers Union);Jack Heinemann (University of Canterbury);Jonathan Latham (The Bioscience Resource Project);Arpad Pusztai (4, Arato Street, Budapest, 1121 Hungary);David Schubert (The Salk Institute);Allison Wilson (The Bioscience Resource Project)

　　簽名人（Signatories）：

　　1. Brian Wynne (Professor of Science Studies, UK Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) Centre for Economic and Social Aspects of Genomics, Cesagen, Lancaster University) 英國蘭卡斯特大學

　　2.Irina Ermakova, Dr of Biology, Russian Academy of Sciences 俄國科學院

　　3.Jo Cummins (Professor Emeritus University of Western Ontario) 美國加拿大大略大學

　　4. Michael Antoniou, (Reader in Molecular Genetics his university (King’s College, London) has a policy not to allow Dr Antoniou to use his affiliation here) 倫敦大學國王學院

　　5.Philip L. Bereano (Professor Emeritus University of Washington & Washington Biotechnology Action Council) 華盛頓大學

　　6. Dr P M Bhargava (Former and Founder director, Centre for Cellular & Molecular Biology, Government of India) 印度國家細胞與分子生物學中心

　　7.Carlo Leifert (Professor for Ecological Agriculture Newcastle University) 英國紐卡斯爾大學

　　8.Peter Romilly (formerly University of Abertay, Dundee) 阿伯泰大學

　　9.Robert Vint (FRSA)

　　10. Dr Brian John (Durham University, UK, retired) 英國杜倫大學

　　11. Professor C. Vyvyan Howard, University of Ulster) Diederick Sprangers Genethics Foundation)美國華盛頓阿爾斯特大學 哈沃德

　　12. Mariam Mayet (African Centre for Biosafety, South Africa) 南非非洲生物安全中心

　　13. Eva Novotny (ret. University of Cambridge) 劍橋大學

　　14. Ineke Buskens (Research for the Future)未來研究(所)

　　15. Hector Valenzuela (Professor, University of Hawaii) 美國夏威夷大學教授

　　16. Ronald Nigh, (Centro de Investigaciones y Estudio Superiores en Antropología Social, Chiapas, Mexico) 墨西哥

　　17. Marcia Ishii-Eiteman (PhD, Senior Scientist, Pesticide Action Network North America) 北美農藥行動網絡

　　18. Naomi Salmon (Dept. of Law, Aberystwyth University, Wales) 威爾士大學

　　19. Michael W, Fox (Minnesota, Veterinarian & Bioethicist, PhD, MRCVS) 美國明尼蘇達州

　　20. Neil J. Carman (PhD Sierra Club) 美國塞拉俱樂部

　　21. Vandana Shiva (India) 印度

　　22. Hans Herren (President, Millennium Institute, Washington DC, USA) 美國華盛頓

　　23. John Fagan (PhD Earth Open Source, UK and USA) 英國和美國

　　24. Sheila Berry and the Global Environmental Trust

　　25. Av Singh (PhD, Perennia)

　　26. Laurel Hopwood (for the Sierra Club, USA) 美國塞拉俱樂部

　　27. Philip H. Howard (Associate Professor of Community, Food and Agriculture, Michigan State University ) 美國密西根州大學

　　28. Donald B. Clark (on behalf of Cumberland Countians for Peace & Justice and Network for Environmental & Economic Responsibility, United Church of Christ, Pleasant Hill, TN) 美國田納西州基督聯合教會

　　29. Robert Mann (Senior Lecturer in Biochemistry & in Environmental Studies (rtd) University of Auckland, NZ) 新西蘭奧克蘭大學

　　30. Chris Williams (PhD, FRSA, University of London) 英國倫敦大學

　　31. Mae-Wan Ho (PhD Director Institute of Science in Society) 英國社會科學研究所

　　32. Peter Saunders (Prof. Emeritus of Applied Mathematics, King’s College London) 英國倫敦大學國王學院

　　33. Dr. Terje Traavik (Prof. Gene Ecology, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Troms?) 挪威特羅姆瑟大學

　　34. Oscar B. Zamora (Prof. Crop Science University of the Philippines Los Banos College, Philippines). 菲律賓洛斯巴諾斯學院

　　and if you are a scientist or academic and would like your name added to this list, please email: [email protected] and write ‘Seralini letter’ in the headline, providing an affiliation if you wish.

　　可以連署，發電郵至上述郵箱 本人已經要求連署了。

　　A new paper by the French group of Gilles-Eric Seralini describes harmful effects on rats fed diets containing genetically modified maize (variety NK603), with and without the herbicide Roundup, as wellas Roundup alone. This peer-reviewed study (Seralini et al., 2012), has been criticized by some scientists whose views have been widely reported in the popular press (Carmen, 2012; Mestel, 2012; Revkin,2012; Worstall, 2012). Seralini et al. (2012) extends the work of other studies demonstrating toxicity and/or endocrine-based impacts of Roundup (Gaiv?o et al., 2012; Kelly et al., 2010; Paganelli et al.,2010; Romano et al., 2012), as reviewed by Antoniou et al. (2010). The Seralini publication, and resultant media attention, raise the profile of fundamental challenges faced by science in a world increasingly dominated by corporate influence. These challenges are important for all of science but are rarely discussed in scientific venues.

　　Gilles-Eric Seralini

　　1) History of Attacks on Risk-finding Studies. Seralini and colleagues are just the latest in a series of researchers whose findings have triggered orchestrated campaigns of harassment. Examples from just the last few years include Ignacio Chapela, a then untenured Assistant Professor at Berkeley, whose paper on GM contamination of maize in Mexico (Quist and Chapela, 2001) sparked an intensive internet-based campaign to discredit him. This campaign was reportedly masterminded by the Bivings Group, a public relations firm specializing in viral marketing – and frequently hired by Monsanto (Delborne, 2008). The distinguished career of biochemist Arpad Pusztai, came to an effective end when he attempted to report his contradictory findings on GM potatoes (Ewen and Pusztai, 1999a). Everything from a gag order, forced retirement, seizure of data, and harassment by the British Royal Society were used to forestall his continued research (Ewen and Pusztai, 1999b; Laidlaw, 2003). Even threats of physical violence have been used, most recently against Andres Carrasco, Professor of Molecular Embryology at the University of Buenos Aires, whose research (Paganelli et al. 2010) identified health risks from glyphosate, theactive ingredient in Roundup (Amnesty International, 2010). It was no surprise therefore, that when in 2009, 26 corn entomologists took the unprecedented step of writing directly to the US EPA to complain about industry control of access to GM crops for research, the letter was sent anonymously (Pollack, 2009).

　　2) The Role of the Science Media. An important but often unnoticed aspect of this intimidation is that it frequently occurs in concert with the science media (Ermakova, 2007; Heinemann and Traavik, 2007; Latham and Wilson, 2007). Reporting of the Seralini paper in arguably the most prestigious segments of the science media: Science, the New York Times, New Scientist, and the Washington Post uniformly failed to “balance” criticism of the research, with even minimal coverage of support for the Seralini paper (Carmen, 2012; Enserink, 2012; MacKenzie, 2012; Pollack, 2012). Nevertheless, less well-resourced media outlets, such as the UK Daily Mail appeared to have no trouble finding a positive scientific opinion on the same study (Poulter, 2012).

　　3) Misleading Media Reporting. A key pattern with risk-finding studies is that the criticisms voiced in the media are often red herrings, misleading, or untruthful. Thus, the use of common methodologies was portrayed as indicative of shoddy science when used by Seralini et al. (2012) but not when used by industry (see refs above and Science Media Centre, 2012). The use of red herring arguments appears intended to sow doubt and confusion among non-experts. For example, Tom Sanders of Kings College, London was quoted as saying: “This strain of rat is very prone to mammary tumors particularly when food intake is not restricted” (Hirschler and Kelland, 2012 ). He failed to point out, or was unaware, that most industry feeding studies have used Sprague-Dawley rats (e.g. Hammond et al., 1996, 2004, 2006; MacKenzie et al., 2007). In these and other industry studies (e.g. Malley et al. 2007), feed intake was unrestricted. Sanders’ comments are important because they were widely quoted and because they were part of an orchestrated response to the Seralini study by the Science Media Centre of the British Royal Institution. The Science Media Centre has a long history of quelling GMO controversies and its funders include numerous companies that produce GMOs and pesticides.

　　4) Regulator Culpability. In our view a large part of the ultimate fault for this controversy lies with regulators. Regulators, such as EFSA (the European Food Safety Authority) in Europe and the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) and FDA (Food and Drug Administration) in the US, have enshrined protocols with little or no potential to detect adverse consequences of GMOs (Schubert, 2002;Freese and Schubert, 2004; Pelletier, 2005). GMOs are required to undergo few experiments, few endpoints are examined, and tests are solely conducted by the applicant or their agents. Moreover, current regulatory protocols are simplistic and assumptions-based (RSC, 2001), which by design, will miss most gene expression changes – apart from the target trait - induced by the process of transgene insertion (Heinemann et al., 2011; Schubert, 2002). Puzstai (2001) and others have consequently argued that well-conducted feeding trials are one of the best ways of detecting such unpredictable changes. Yet feeding trials are not mandatory for regulatory approval, and the scientific credibility of those which have been published to date has been challenged (Domingo, 2007; Pusztai et al., 2003; Spiroux de Vend?mois et al., 2009). For example, Snell et al. (2012), who assessed the quality of 12 long term (>96 days) and 12 multigenerational studies, concluded: “The studies reviewed here are often linked to an inadequate experimental design that has detrimental effects on statistical analysis…the major insufficiencies not only include lack of use of near isogenic lines but also statistical power underestimation [and], absence of repetitions…”. Apparently, the same issues of experimental design and analysis raised about this (Seralini) risk-finding study were not of concern to critics when the studies did not identify risk, resulting in ill-informed decision-makers. In the end, it is a major problem for science and society when current regulatory protocols approve GMO crops based on little to no useful data upon which to assess safety.

　　5) Science and Politics. Governments have become habituated to using science as a political football. For example, in a study conducted by the Royal Society of Canada at the request of the Canadian government, numerous weaknesses of GM regulation in Canada were identified (RSC, 2001). The failure of the Canadian government to meaningfully respond to the many recommended changes was detailed by Andree (2006). Similarly, the expert recommendations of the international IAASTD report, produced by 400 researchers over 6 years, that GMOs are unsuited to the task of advancing global agriculture have been resolutely ignored by policymakers. Thus, while proclaiming evidence-based decision-making, governments frequently use science solely when it suits them.

　　6) Conclusion: When those with a vested interest attempt to sow unreasonable doubt around inconvenient results, or when governments exploit political opportunities by picking and choosing from scientific evidence, they jeopardize public confidence in scientific methods and institutions, and also put their own citizenry at risk. Safety testing, science-based regulation, and the scientific process itself, depend crucially on widespread trust in a body of scientists devoted to the public interest and professional integrity. If instead, the starting point of a scientific product assessment is an approval process rigged in favour of the applicant, backed up by systematic suppression of independent scientists working in the public interest, then there can never be an honest, rational or scientific debate.

　　Footnotes

　　(1)In addition, US scientists who publish studies finding adverse environmental effects are frequently vehemently attacked by other pro-GM scientists. As a report in Nature, which discusses numerous examples, points out, “Papers suggesting that biotech crops might harm the environment attract a hail of abuse from other scientists. Behind the attacks are scientists who are determined to prevent papers they deem to have scientific flaws from influencing policy-makers. When a paper comes out in which they see problems, they react quickly, criticize the work in public forums, write rebuttal letters, and send them to policy-makers, funding agencies and journal editors” (pg. 27 in Waltz. 2009a). Indeed, when one of us wrote a Commentary in Nature Biotechnology ten years ago suggesting that more attention needs to be paid to the potential unintended effects associated with insertional mutagenesis, we received a flood of responses, and an administrator at the Salk Institute even said that the publication “was jeopardizing funding for his institution” (see Waltz, 2009a). Similar attacks have greeted studies on adverse effects of Bt toxins on ladybird beetles and green lacewing larvae, which were used by German authorities to ban cultivation of Mon810, a Bt corn variety (see: Hilbeck et al.2012a,b, respectively). In 2009, a group of 26 public sector corn entomologists sent a letter to the US Environmental Protection Agency which stated “No truly independent research can be legally conducted on many critical questions involving these crops [because of company-imposed restrictions]” (pg. 880 in Waltz, 2009b it was no surprise that the letter was sent anonymously as the scientists feared retribution from the companies that funded their work (Pollack, 2009).?Furthermore, industry control over what research can be conducted in the US means that adverse findings can effectively be suppressed. In one example cited in the article, Pioneer was developing a binary Bt toxin, Cry34Ab1/Cry35Ab1, against the corn rootworm. In 2001, Pioneer contracted with some university laboratories to test for unintended effects on a lady beetle. The laboratories found that 100% of the lady beetles died after eight days of feeding. Pioneer forbade the researchers from publicizing the data. Two years later Pioneer received approval for a Bt corn variety with Cry34Ab1/Cry35Ab1 and submitted studies showing that lady beetles fed the toxin for only 7 days were not harmed. The scientists were not allowed to redo the study after the crop was commercialized (Waltz, 2009b). In another example, Dow AgroSciences threatened a researcher with legal action if he published information he had received from US EPA. As the article notes, “The information concerned an insect-resistant variety of maize known as TC1507, made by Dow and Pioneer. The companies suspended sales of TC1507 in Puerto Rico after discovering in 2006 that an armyworm had developed resistance to it. Tabashnik was able to review the report the companies filed with the EPA by submitting a Freedom of Information Act request. “I encouraged an employee of the company [Dow] to publish the data and mentioned that, alternatively, I could cite the data,” says Tabashnik. “He told me that if I cited the information…I would be subject to legal action by the company,” he says. “These kinds of statements are chilling” (pg. 882 in Waltz, 2009b).

　　參考文獻（References）:

　　Amnesty International. 2010. Argentina: Threats deny community access to research UA: 173/10 Index: AMR 13/005/2010 Argentina Date: 12 August 2010

　　Andree, Peter. 2006. An analysis of efforts to improve genetically modified food regulation in Canada. Science and Public Policy 33(5):399-389.

　　Antoniou, Michael., Paolo Brack, Andres Carrasco, John Fagan, Mohamed Habib, Paolo Kageyama, Carlo Leifert, Rubens Nodari, Walter Pengue. 2010. GM Soy:Sustainable? Responsible? GLS Gemeinschaftsbank and ARGE Gentechnik-frei.Carmen, Tim. 2012. French scientists question safety of GM corn. Washington Post 19 Sept 2012.

　　Delborne, Jason. 2008. Transgenes and transgressions: scientific dissent as heterogeneous practice. Social Studies of Science 38(4):509-541

　　Domingo, Jose L. 2007. Toxicity studies of genetically modified plants: a review of the published literature. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 47:721–733

　　Enserink, Martin. 2012. France and European Commission order review of controversial GM study in rats. ScienceInsider 21 Sept 2012

　　Ermakova, Irina. 2007. GM soybeans: revisiting a controversial format. Nature Biotech 25:1351-1354

　　Ewen, Stanley W.B. and Arpad Pusztai. 1999a Effect of diets containing genetically modified potatoes expressing Galanthus nivalis lectin on rat small intestine. The Lancet 354 (9187):1353-1354

　　Ewen, Stanley W.B. and Arpad Pusztai. 1999b. Health risks of genetically modified foods. The Lancet 354(Issue 9179):684. HYPERLINK”

　　Freese, W. and D. Schubert. 2004. Safety Testing and Regulation of Genetically Engineered Foods. Biotechnol Genet Eng Rev 21:299-324

　　Gaiv?o I, Guilherme S, M.A. Santos MA, M. Pacheco. 2012. DNA damage in fish (Anguilla anguilla) exposed to a glyphosate-based herbicide —elucidation of organ-specificity and the role of oxidative stress. Mutat Res 18 743(1-2):1-9.

　　Hammond, Bruce, John L Vicini, Cary F. Hartnell, Mark W. Naylor, Christopher D. Knight, Edwin H. Robinson, Roy L. Fuchs and Stephen R. Padgette. 1996. The feeding value of soybeans fed to rats, chickens, catfish and dairy cattle is not altered by genetic incorporation of glyphosate tolerance. J. Nutr. 126:717-272

　　Hammond, B., R. Dudek, J. Lemen, M. Nemeth. 2004. Results of a 13 week safety assurance study with rats fed grain from glyphosate tolerant corn. Food Chem Toxicol 42:1003–1014

　　Hammond, B., R. Dudek, J. Lemen, M. Nemeth. 2006. Results of a 90-day safety assurance study with rats fed grain from corn borer-protected corn. Food Chem Toxicol 44:1092–1099

　　Heinemann, J.A. and Traavik, T. 2007. GM soybeans—revisiting a controversial format. Nature Biotech 25: 1355-1356

　　Heinemann, J. A., B. Kurenbach, B. and D. Quist. 2011. Molecular profiling — a tool for addressing emerging gaps in the comparative risk assessment of GMOs. Env. Int. 37: 1285-1293.

　　Hilbeck, A., J.M. McMillan, M. Meier, A. Humbel, J. Schl?pfer-Miller and M. Trtikova. 2012. A controversy revisited: Is the coccinellid Adalia bipunctata adversely affected by Bt toxins? Environmental Sciences Europe, 24:10

　　Hilbeck, A., M. Meier and M. Trtikova. 2012. Underlying reasons of the controversy over adverse effects of Bt toxins on lady beetle and lacewing larvae. Environmental Sciences Europe, 24:9.

　　Hirschler, Ben and Kate Kelland. 2012. Study on Monsanto GM corn concerns draws skepticism. Reuters: Ed UK 20 Sept 2012

　　Kelly, David, Robert Poulin, Daniel M. Tompkins and Colin R. Townsend. 2010. Synergistic effects of glyphosate formulation and parasite infection on fish malformations and survival. J. Appl. Ecol. 47(2): 498-504

　　Laidlaw, Stuart. 2003. Ch. 4 What’s Good for GM. In: Secret Ingredients. McClelland and Stewart Ltd., Toronto.

　　Latham, Jonathan and Allison Wilson. 2007. What is Nature Biotechnology good for? Independent Science News 4 Dec 2007.

　　MacKenzie, Debora. 2012. Study linking GM crops and cancer questioned. New Scientist 19 Sept 2012.

　　MacKenzie and 12 others. 2007. Thirteen week feeding study with transgenic maize grain containing event DAS-?15?7-1 in Sprague–Dawley rats. Food Chem. Toxicol. 45:551–562

　　Malley and 14 others. 2007. Subchronic feeding study of DAS-59122-7 maize grain in Sprague-Dawley rats. Food Chem. Toxicol. 45:1277–1292 Mestel, Rosie. 2012. Study points to health problems with genetically modified foods. LA Times 20 Sept 2012

　　Paganelli, Alejandra, Victoria Gnazzo, Helena Acosta, Silvia L. Lopez, and Andres E. Carrasco. 2010. Glyphosate-based herbicides produce teratogenic effects on vertebrates by impairing retinoic acid signaling. Chem. Res. Toxicol. 23(10):1586–1595

　　Pelletier, D. 2005. Science, Law, and Politics in the Food and Drug Administration’s Genetically Engineered Foods Policy: FDA’s 1992 Policy Statement. Nutr. Rev. 63:171-181

　　Pollack, Andrew. 2009. Crop scientists say biotechnology seed companies are thwarting research. New York Times 19 Feb 2009.

　　Pollack, Andrew. 2012. Foes of modified corn find support in a study. New York Times 19 Sept 2012.

　　Poulter, Sean. 2012. Cancer row over GM foods as study says it did THIS to rats… and can cause organ damage and early death in humans.Mail OnLine 19 Sept 2012.

　　Pusztai, Arpad. 2001. Genetically Modified Foods: Are They a Risk to Human/Animal Health? American Institute of Biological Sciences

　　Pusztai, A,, S. Bardocz, and S.W.B. Ewen. 2003. Ch. 16. Genetically Modified Foods: Potential Human Health Effects. pp. 347-372. In: J.P.F. D’Mello (ed) Food Safety: Contaminants and Toxins. CAB International 472 pp.

　　Quist, David and Ignacio Chapela. 2001. Transgenic DNA introgressed into traditional maize landraces in Oaxaca, Mexico. Nature 414 (6863): 541–543

　　Revkin, Andrew. 2012. Single-Study Syndrome and the G.M.O. Fight. New York Times 20 Sept 2012 HYPERLINK “” http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/20/the-gmo-food-fight-rats-cancer-and-single-study-syndrome/

　　Romano M.A., R.M. Romano, L.D. Santos, P. Wisniewski, D.A. Campos, P.B. de Souza, P. Viau, M.M. Bernardi, M.T. Nunes, C.A. de Oliveira. 2012. Glyphosate impairs male offspring reproductive development by disrupting gonadotropin expression. Arch. Toxicol. 86(4):663-73.

　　RSC (Royal Society of Canada). 2001. Elements of Precaution: Recommendations for the Regulation of Food Biotechnology In Canada Science Media Centre. 2012. Study on cancer and GM maize – experts respond. Posted 20 Sept 2012.

　　Schubert, David. 2002. A different perspective on GM food. Nature Biotech. 20: 969

　　Séralini, G-E., E. Clair, R. Mesnage, S. Gress, N. Defarge, M. Malatesta, D. Hennequin, J. Spiroux de Vend?mois. 2012. Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize. Food Chem. Toxicol.

　　Snell, C., A. Bernheim, J-B. Berge, M. Kuntz, G. Pascal, A. Paris, and A.E. Ricroch. 2012. Assessment of the health impact of GM plant diets in long-term and multigenerational animal feeding trials: A literature review. Food Chem. Toxicol. 50:1134-1148

　　Spiroux de Vend?mois, J., F. Roullier, D. Cellier, and G.-E. Séralini. 2009. A Comparison of the Effects of Three GM Corn Varieties on Mammalian Health. Int. J. Biol. Sci. 5(7):706–726

　　Waltz, E. 2009a. Battlefield. Nature 461: 27-32.

　　Waltz, E. 2009b. Under Wraps. Nature Biotechnology 27(10): 880-882.

　　Worstall, Tim. 2012. Proof Perfect That The Seralini Paper On GM Corn And Cancer In Rats Is Rubbish. Forbes 21 Sept 2012.

× 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