{首页主词},&

[**譯自Diana Lee: Trust the animal instinct on GM food，Amalgamator譯于2010年10月。譯者注意到了原文發(fā)表于5年前的2005年7月。譯者支持對(duì)轉(zhuǎn)基因食物的研究，但主張大規(guī)模推廣種植或養(yǎng)殖時(shí)應(yīng)慎重。------- 譯者：Amalgamator]

[譯文] 相信動(dòng)物對(duì)轉(zhuǎn)基因食物的本能

在全世界科學(xué)家和普通人的多數(shù)中，對(duì)轉(zhuǎn)基因食品的懷疑論占?jí)旱剐缘纳巷L(fēng)。然而，以美國(guó)為首的少數(shù)國(guó)家卻允許生物公司將轉(zhuǎn)基因食品推向世界食品市場(chǎng)。就在最近的2005年6月24日，在審查了巨型生物技術(shù)公司孟山都的報(bào)告后，歐盟環(huán)境部長(zhǎng)們拒絕了歐盟委員會(huì)的請(qǐng)求，投票為了安全支持禁止轉(zhuǎn)基因玉米。孟山都的報(bào)告顯示，以轉(zhuǎn)基因玉米喂食的大鼠顯現(xiàn)出異常----腎臟受損，血液發(fā)生變化。毫無(wú)疑問(wèn)，對(duì)轉(zhuǎn)基因食品的動(dòng)物安全測(cè)試是不充分的，這既是由于監(jiān)測(cè)和觀察的時(shí)間跨度過(guò)短，也由于在這一全新的未知科學(xué)領(lǐng)域使用傳統(tǒng)的方法檢測(cè)所帶來(lái)的缺陷。轉(zhuǎn)基因食品不安全的強(qiáng)有力證據(jù)來(lái)自動(dòng)物本身----它們更喜歡吃自然食品而不是轉(zhuǎn)基因食品，而吃了轉(zhuǎn)基因食品后會(huì)受內(nèi)傷甚至死亡。

具有諷刺意味的是，在過(guò)去10年間相對(duì)于那些生物技術(shù)公司對(duì)轉(zhuǎn)基因食物和產(chǎn)品的強(qiáng)力宣傳運(yùn)動(dòng)，同行評(píng)議的關(guān)于轉(zhuǎn)基因食品動(dòng)物測(cè)試的論文卻寥寥無(wú)幾。美國(guó)政府機(jī)關(guān)和英國(guó)政府的咨詢委員會(huì)對(duì)新食物產(chǎn)品安全性的結(jié)論，主要基于生物技術(shù)公司提交的動(dòng)物實(shí)驗(yàn)的數(shù)據(jù)和結(jié)果。顯而易見(jiàn)，生物技術(shù)公司提交的動(dòng)物實(shí)驗(yàn)結(jié)果的版本會(huì)符合他們自己的利益。而看起來(lái)生物技術(shù)公司的多數(shù)研究論文并不符合科學(xué)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)----實(shí)驗(yàn)可重復(fù)，并發(fā)表在同行評(píng)議的期刊上。

動(dòng)物們有著天生的內(nèi)在本能，知道什么樣的食物對(duì)它們好。遍及全美國(guó)的農(nóng)民報(bào)告動(dòng)物們拒食轉(zhuǎn)基因作物：當(dāng)轉(zhuǎn)基因作物混到飼料中時(shí)，牛和豬拒吃；牛寧可跑遠(yuǎn)路去吃非轉(zhuǎn)基因玉米，也不吃近處的抗除草劑轉(zhuǎn)基因玉米；一群鹿吃掉了一片天然大豆，卻對(duì)路對(duì)側(cè)的抗除草劑轉(zhuǎn)基因大豆視而不見(jiàn)；渙熊們突襲有機(jī)玉米田，但是對(duì)路前方引入殺蟲(chóng)成分的轉(zhuǎn)基因玉米秋卻毫無(wú)犯。如果野生動(dòng)物和家畜只吃自然食物、回避各種轉(zhuǎn)基因食物的話，它們肯定敏感地覺(jué)察到了自然和非自然之間的區(qū)別，但是某些科學(xué)家卻聲稱轉(zhuǎn)基因食物和自然食物沒(méi)有差異。

最廣為人知的挑戰(zhàn)轉(zhuǎn)基因食品安全性的案例是喂食大鼠轉(zhuǎn)基因土豆的實(shí)驗(yàn)。在1995年，備受尊敬的英國(guó)科學(xué)家阿爾帕德•普斯茲臺(tái)博士著手進(jìn)行第一個(gè)由政府資助的轉(zhuǎn)基因作物對(duì)動(dòng)物健康影響的實(shí)驗(yàn)。大鼠在食用轉(zhuǎn)基因土豆（生食或熟食）10天后顯示受到了明顯的損害----免疫系統(tǒng)受損，腦、肝臟、睪丸縮小，另外前癌細(xì)胞在腸胃生長(zhǎng)。此后，普斯茲臺(tái)的同事，阿伯丁大學(xué)醫(yī)學(xué)院的斯坦利•伊文博士證實(shí)了這一發(fā)現(xiàn)，最終結(jié)果于1999年發(fā)表在聲望卓著的期刊《柳葉刀》上。

在“環(huán)球責(zé)任科學(xué)家”組織于2002年公布的“查頓LL聽(tīng)證會(huì)報(bào)告：轉(zhuǎn)基因飼料不適用于動(dòng)物”中，伊娃•諾沃特尼反駁了政府關(guān)于雞和大鼠的實(shí)驗(yàn)結(jié)論。她指出了查頓LL測(cè)試中的三點(diǎn)異常：1）一些以轉(zhuǎn)基因飼料喂養(yǎng)的動(dòng)物體重增加不夠快；2）有些以轉(zhuǎn)基因飼料喂養(yǎng)的動(dòng)物表現(xiàn)出古怪的進(jìn)食習(xí)慣；3）以轉(zhuǎn)基因玉米喂養(yǎng)的雞的死亡率是非轉(zhuǎn)基因玉米喂養(yǎng)時(shí)的兩倍。

未發(fā)表的關(guān)于卡爾基因公司的FLAVR SAVR西紅柿（美國(guó)市場(chǎng)上的第一種轉(zhuǎn)基因食品）的研究表明，一些喂食轉(zhuǎn)基因作物的實(shí)驗(yàn)室大鼠生出胃受損病灶；而且這些40只大鼠中的7只在兩周內(nèi)死亡。在德國(guó)，12頭奶牛在食用辛間塔公司的轉(zhuǎn)基因玉米后死亡，導(dǎo)致了這家瑞士生物技術(shù)公司向該農(nóng)民賠償。曾經(jīng)在北美為數(shù)眾多的黑脈金斑王蝶近來(lái)從人們視線消失可能和轉(zhuǎn)基因作物有關(guān)。王蝶幼蟲(chóng)因食用被含殺蟲(chóng)成分的轉(zhuǎn)基因玉米的花粉污染的馬利筋草而死亡。

還有其它幾篇關(guān)于用轉(zhuǎn)基因食品喂養(yǎng)動(dòng)物的論文發(fā)表過(guò)，但是它們中的絕大多數(shù)不是為檢驗(yàn)對(duì)健康的影響而設(shè)計(jì)，實(shí)驗(yàn)是由生物技術(shù)公司的科學(xué)家們做的。

為確保轉(zhuǎn)基因食品全面徹底的安全，在動(dòng)物實(shí)驗(yàn)中應(yīng)評(píng)估4個(gè)重點(diǎn)領(lǐng)域----毒效應(yīng)，過(guò)敏反應(yīng)，對(duì)營(yíng)養(yǎng)的影響，以及在轉(zhuǎn)基因過(guò)程中發(fā)揮作用的耐抗生素基因。除轉(zhuǎn)基因食物對(duì)健康和環(huán)境長(zhǎng)期的未知影響外，基因重組的DNA本身可能變得不穩(wěn)定進(jìn)而增大基因水平移動(dòng)和重組的機(jī)會(huì)----這一過(guò)程可能穿越物種壁壘釀成新的疾病和散布抗藥性。

2002年食品標(biāo)準(zhǔn)局資助了迄今唯一的一次轉(zhuǎn)基因食品的人體實(shí)驗(yàn)，志愿者在紐凱索大學(xué)的一項(xiàng)研究中進(jìn)了一餐轉(zhuǎn)基因大豆制品。被修飾過(guò)的DNA并沒(méi)有如同科學(xué)家聲稱的那樣被分解掉，相反它們轉(zhuǎn)移到腸細(xì)菌體內(nèi)，證實(shí)了基因水平轉(zhuǎn)移的過(guò)程。巧合的是，據(jù)美國(guó)疾病控制中心的報(bào)告，自轉(zhuǎn)基因食物初次上市的1994年以來(lái)，在美國(guó)食源性疾病的發(fā)病率劇烈增長(zhǎng)。雖然那些疾病中的大部分原因不明，和轉(zhuǎn)基因食品的相關(guān)性不能排除。

這個(gè)世界的人們對(duì)于消費(fèi)轉(zhuǎn)基因食品的不安基于一個(gè)非常合理的理由，轉(zhuǎn)基因食品尚未證明其安全性。作為科學(xué)上的新進(jìn)展，轉(zhuǎn)基因食品技術(shù)不同于其他科學(xué)技術(shù)，它直接影響環(huán)境、人類的健康和我們?nèi)祟惖奈磥?lái)。肇因于轉(zhuǎn)基因食物的未知致命病毒可能引發(fā)殺死大量人類的災(zāi)禍。也許，我們對(duì)于轉(zhuǎn)基因食物的非自然和不安全的感覺(jué)，終究也是來(lái)自我們的動(dòng)物本能。

===================================
原文（網(wǎng)址見(jiàn)http://uniorb.com/RCHECK/animalgm.htm)

Trust the Animal Instinct on GM Food

Diana Lee

The skepticisms on the safety of genetically modified (GM) food have been overwhelming, voiced by a majority of scientists and humanity throughout the world. Nevertheless, a handful of governments led by the United States have allowed biotech corporations to push GM food onto the world’s food market. As recent as June 24, 2005, EU Environment Ministers, against the wishes of the European Commission, voted to uphold the safety ban on genetically modified organism (GMO) maize after scrutinizing a report by the biotech giant, Monsanto, that demonstrated rats fed on GMO corn developed abnormalities — damage to the kidneys and changes to their blood. Undoubtedly, animal testing on the safety of GM food is inadequate due to the short period of monitoring and observation and flawed by applying the traditional testing methods to a novel science, which opens up a whole new field of unknowns. The compelling evidence of GM food being unsafe comes from the animals themselves — preferring natural food to GM food and suffering internal injuries or succumbing to death after eating GM food.

Ironically, peer-reviewed papers on animal testing on the safety of GM food are far and few between, considering the aggressive campaigning for GM foods and products by the biotech companies in the last ten years. Both the U. S. government’s agency and U. K. government's advisory committee on novel foods and products based their decisions on safety mainly on animal data results provided by biotechnology companies. Obviously, biotech corporations with self-serving interests provided their versions of the animal test results. It appears that most research papers by biotech corporations couldn’t meet the scientific standards — to have the experiments replicated and published in peer-reviewed journals.

Animals have a natural instinct to know what’s good for them. Throughout the United States, farmers have been reporting animals rejecting GMO crops: cattle and hogs that wouldn’t eat when the GMO crops were mixed in with the ration; cattle would rather trot a longer distance to munch on the non-GMO corn than consume the nearby Round-up Ready (herbicide resistant) corn; a herd of deer mowed down natural tofu beans, ignoring the Round-up Ready variety across the road; and the raccoons raided an organic corn field, leaving Bt (induced insecticide) corn untouched down the road. If wild and domestic animals would only eat natural food and avoid various GM foods, they’re certainly sensitive enough to know the distinction between natural and unnatural — as some scientists had claimed that GM food is no different from natural food.
The most highly publicized case against the safety of GM food was the experiment on rats fed on GM potatoes. In 1995, Dr. Arpad Pusztai, a highly respected British scientist, embarked on the first government-funded research project to study the health effects of genetically modified crops on animals. The rats given GM potatoes (raw and cooked) after 10 days showed significant damages — impairment of the immune system, shrinkages of brain, liver and testicle, as well as pre-cancerous cell growth in the intestines and stomach. Later, Pusztai’s colleague, Dr. Stanley Ewen of Aberdeen University Medical School reconfirmed Pusztai’s findings that were finally published in the prestigious journal, The Lancet, in 1999.
In the ‘Report for the Chardon LL Hearing: Non-suitability of genetically engineered feed for animals’ published by The Scientists for Global Responsibility in May 2002, Eva Novotny contradicted the official conclusions on the chicken and rat experiments. She pointed out three abnormalities as a result from testing Chardon LL: 1) some animals consumed GM feed did not gain weight rapidly enough; 2) some animals given GM feed displayed erratic feeding habits; and 3) mortality rate of chickens fed on GM maize doubled of those fed on non-GM maize.
The unpublished research of Calgene’s FLAVR SAVR tomato (first GM food on the U.S. market) noted some laboratory rats that were given the GM crop developed stomach lesions; and seven of the forty rats died within two weeks. In Germany, twelve cows died after digesting Syngenta's GM maize, prompting the Swiss biotech company to compensate the farmer. The recent disappearance of the once populous Monarch butterflies in North America might be related to GM crops. The Monarch butterfly larvae died from eating milkweed that had been contaminated with Bt corn pollen.
A few more papers on animal feeding studies on GM food were published, but most of them are experiments not designed to identify health effects conducted by biotech industry scientists.

In animal experiments to ensure thorough safety of GM food, four main areas of concern should be addressed for evaluation — toxic effects, allergic reactions, nutritional impacts, and antibiotic-resistant genes that play a role in the GM process. Besides the unknown long-term effects of GM food on health and environment, the restructured genetically modified DNA itself becomes unstable which enhances horizontal gene transfer and recombination — the very process for spawning new diseases and spreading antibiotic resistance that can cross species barriers.

As the only human experiment on GM food, a study at Newcastle University in 2002 sponsored by Food Standard Agency, had volunteers consume a single meal of GM soya. The genetically modified DNA was not dissolved, as scientists had claimed it would be, instead it was transferred into the intestinal bacteria, confirming the process of horizontal gene transfer. Coincidentally, since 1994 when GM food was first introduced, food borne illnesses have been dramatically on the rise in the United States, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control. Although the causes of those diseases remain largely unknown, the possibility that they may be linked to GM food cannot be dismissed.

The world’s unease about GM food for human consumption exists for a very good reason — GM food hasn’t been proven safe. As a novel science, GM food technology is unlike other modern technologies — it directly affects the environment, human health, and the future of our humanity. Any mishap could decimate the human race with an unknown deadly virus created from GM food. Perhaps, our sense of GM food — being unnatural and unsafe — comes from our animal instinct after all.

相信動(dòng)物對(duì)轉(zhuǎn)基因食物的本能

相關(guān)文章

歡迎掃描下方二維碼，訂閱烏有之鄉(xiāng)網(wǎng)刊微信公眾號(hào)

心情表態(tài)

相關(guān)專題

轉(zhuǎn)基因主糧

今日頭條

最新專題

毛主席誕辰130周年

點(diǎn)擊排行