陈一文译：英国土壤协会揭露转基因恶果研究报告
（英国）土壤协会2008年对转基因农作物、转基因食品问题公布了一个全面深入详尽的的研究报告：转基因农作物对健康的影响。
英国土壤协会揭露转基因恶果研究报告(目录)
GM crops -- the health effects, A report by the Soil Association, UK
陈一文译（cheniwan@mx.cei.gov.cn）
原文pdf文件网址：
http://www.soilassociation.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=SqDvBO1pyEU=&tabid=390
目录
The Soil Association
（英国）土壤协会介绍
Introduction
引言
Do milk, eggs and meat from GM-fed animals contain GM material?
来自转基因农作物喂养动物的牛奶、鸡蛋和肉类含有转基因物质？
Study by a Canadian team: Pigs and Sheep
加拿大研究组进行的研究：猪和羊
Study by an Italian team: Piglets
意大利研究组进行的研究：猪仔
Study by another Italian team: Milk
另一个意大利研究组进行的研究：牛奶
Study by an German team: Milk
德国研究组进行的研究：牛奶
Study by the Soil Association: Milk
（英国）土壤协会进行的研究：牛奶
Do GM foods have health impacts?
转基因食品对健康是否有影响？
Official safety assessments are far too narrow
官方安全评估过于狭窄
Poor safety assessment of Roundup Ready soya
对孟山都抗除草剂转基因大豆安全性的评价程序低劣
Animal feeding tests show negative effects of GM crops
动物喂养试验表明了转基因作物的负面影响
(i) GM soya
（一）转基因大豆
Russian rat trial –
俄罗斯的老鼠试验 -
Italian mouse trial –
意大利的老鼠试验 –
FSA human feeding trial –
食品安全局组织的人喂食转基因食品试验 -
(ii) GM maize Monsanto rat trial –
（二）对孟山都转基因玉米进行的老鼠试验 -
Aventis’s chicken and rat trials –
安万特公司的鸡和老鼠试验 -
UK study of gene transfer in sheep –
英国对羊中转基因迁移的研究 -
(iii) GM oilseed rape
（三）转基因油菜
Monsanto rat trials –
孟山都公司进行的老鼠试验 -
(iv) GM peas
（四）转基因豌豆
Australian mice trial –
澳大利亚老鼠试验
(v) GM tomatoes
（五）转基因番茄
Calgene mice trials
（美国）Calgene公司进行的小鼠试验 -
(vi) GM potatoes
（六）转基因土豆
UK rat trials –
英国进行的老鼠试验 -
英国“土壤协会”1946年由有远见的农民、医生和有关人士创立。该组织致力于越来越多人士对于耕作方法和植物、动物、人类和环境健康之间直接关系的取得共同理解的舆论推进改变。土壤协会2008年公布的研究报告：转基因农作物对健康的影响。
（英国）土壤协会简介
GM crops -- the health effects, A report by the Soil Association, UK
陈一文译（cheniwan@mx.cei.gov.cn）
原文pdf文件网址：
http://www.soilassociation.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=SqDvBO1pyEU=&tabid=390
Note by Advisor Chen I-wan: Due to limitation of my translation, to enable readers check with the original text, herewith with corresponding English/Chinese text provide the Chinese translation of this report. If any reader identifies errors in the Chinese translation, or has suggestions for better translation, welcome send emails to me, enabling me to make timely corrections and improvements. During my translation, I acknowledge and appreciate assistance by Google translation.
陈一文顾问注：由于本人翻译水平有限，为便于读者核对原文，特此以英文/中文对照方式提供该研究报告的中译文。任何读者如果发现译者中译文有误或者有更好翻译建议的话，欢迎发邮件给本人，便于及时修正与改进。翻译过程中借助谷歌翻译功能，予以确认与致谢！
Researched by Cóilín Nunan, with assistance from Kathleen Hewlett.
研究者：柯林·努南（Cóilín Nunan）；协助研究者：卡瑟琳·惠勒特（Kathleen Hewlett）。
Written by Gundula Azeez and Cóilín Nunan.
撰写者：宫杜拉·阿紫资（Gundula Azeez）与柯林·努南（Cóilín Nunan）。
With many thanks to all the farmers who supplied samples and answered our questions, and Genetic ID for testing the samples.
致谢：对于向我们提供样品、回复我们的询问的所有农民们，以及协助检测样品的“基因鉴别”（Genetic ID）致谢！
Produced by the Soil Association (layout by Yael Hodder, proofing by Anna Groves).
制作方：土壤协会（Soil Association）（排版者：亚伊尔·霍德；校对者：安娜·格鲁维斯）
Soil Association
（英国）土壤协会介绍
The Soil Association is the UK’s leading environmental charity campaigning for a global shift to sustainable, organic food and farming practices.
“土壤协会”是英国领先的环保慈善组织，为全球转向可持续有机食品和耕作方式而斗争。
Founded in 1946 by a far-sighted group of farmers, doctors and concerned citizens, the organization is dedicated to bringing about change by creating a growing body of public opinion that understands the direct link between farming practice and plant, animal, human and environmental health.
（英国）“土壤协会”1946年由有远见的农民、医生和有关人士创立。该组织致力于越来越多人士对于耕作方法和植物、动物、人类和环境健康之间直接关系的取得共同理解的舆论推进改变。
Today the Soil Association is an internationally respected authority on sustainable agriculture and recognized champion of healthy food, which uniquely represents and offers practical solutions to everyone involved in the food chain – farmers, food processors, retailers and consumers.
今天，“土壤协会”在可持续农业方面在国际上享有权威性，同时是健康食品方面公认的冠军，使其独特地代表并向食物链中的所有人--农民、食品加工商、零售商和消费者—提供切实可行的解决方案。
The Soil Association is reliant on the support of its members, donors and the public to carry out its work. You can help grow the organic movement, by joining the Soil Association you will be part of a dynamic organisation pressing to change the predominant food culture in this country.
土壤协会依赖于其成员、捐助者和公众的支持开展工作。通过加入土壤协会，成为充满活力迫切要改变这个国家主要的饮食文化组织的一部分，你可以帮助有机运动的发展。
Single UK membership costs just £24 a year.
个人英国会员费用每年仅24英镑。
Soil Association
土壤协会通讯地址：
Soil Association
South Plaza
Marlborough Street
Bristol BS1 3NX, UK
T 0117 314 5000
F 0117 314 5001
（英国）土壤协会2008年公布的该研究报告证明：基因工程确实对健康造成了真实的风险，转基因农作物是不安全的，不应该作为动物与人类的食品，而且，用转基因农作物饲料喂养的鸡生的蛋、用转基因农作物饲料喂养的牛的牛奶与肉类检测出含有转基因物质，也不应该作为人类的食品！
（英国）土壤协会公布的研究报告：转基因农作物对健康的影响—引言
GM crops -- the health effects, A report by the Soil Association, UK
陈一文译（cheniwan@mx.cei.gov.cn）
*
陈一文顾问按：
“一些证据开始显现，表明转基因农作物喂养动物造成肉类和奶制品中出现少量的转基因物质，以前没有发现过这样的问题。……引起对于转基因农作物喂养动物生产的食品依然不贴标签的重大伦理问题的担心。”
请注意，由于这篇研究报告2008年发表，因而不包括2009 – 2010年世界更多地方揭露出来的转基因农作物、转基因食品更加广泛更加严重的危害！
*
Introduction
引言
One of the main concerns about GM crops is whether they will have negative effects on health. This was initially a theoretical concern. However, considerable scientific evidence has emerged over the last few years that has substantially developed our understanding and shows that there are indeed real health risks from genetic engineering.
对转基因农作物忧虑的主要问题是，转基因农作物是否会对健康造成负面影响。这最初是一个理论问题。然而，过去几年暴露出来的大量的科学证据，使我们的理解有了大幅发展，表明基因工程确实对健康造成了真实的风险。
There is now a worrying body of published, peer-reviewed scientific evidence from controlled animal studies carried out in many countries and by different parties (government, independent and company studies) that demonstrates that GMOs cause a wide range of serious unexpected health impacts.
不同国家、不同机构（政府，独立的和公司的研究）通过对照动物进行的许多研究经审查的科学证据令人担心的表明，转基因生物体（GMOs）对健康确实造成了一系列没有料想到的严重的影响。
Evidence is also beginning to emerge that if GM crops are fed to animals, small amounts of GM material appear in the resulting meat and dairy products, and this had not been previously identified.
除此之外，一些证据开始显现，表明转基因农作物（GM crops）喂养动物造成肉类和奶制品中出现少量的转基因物质（GM material），以前没有发现过这样的问题。
Both of these issues raise serious human and animal health concerns about the use of GMOs in food, and also major ethical concerns about the fact that foods from GM-fed animals remain unlabelled. The findings also raise serious questions about the reliability of the European safety assessment and advisory procedures.
这两个问题引起对在食品中使用转基因生物体（GMOs）对于人类和动物严重健康问题的担心，同时也引起对于转基因农作物喂养动物生产的食品依然不贴标签的重大伦理问题的担心。这些研究发现也使人们对于欧洲安全评估和咨询程序的可靠性提出的严重的质疑。
With this evidence, the Soil Association believes that GM crops are unsafe and should not be used for food.
依据这些证据，土壤协会认为，转基因农作物是不安全的，不应该用于食品。
来自转基因农作物喂养动物的牛奶、鸡蛋和肉类含有转基因物质？
（英国）土壤协会公布的研究报告：转基因农作物对健康的影响（1）
GM crops -- the health effects, A report by the Soil Association, UK（1）
陈一文译（cheniwan@mx.cei.gov.cn）
*
陈一文顾问按：
*
Do milk, eggs and meat from GM-fed animals contain GM material?
来自转基因农作物喂养动物的牛奶、鸡蛋和肉类含有转基因物质？
It was often suggested by the advocates of GM crops that there should be no concerns about this issue because GM crop material is degraded during processing into feed and during digestion. (There are, for instance, significant secretions of nucleases, enzymes which break down DNA, along the gut.)1
转基因农作物的拥护者们经常建议，这个问题不应令人担心，因为转基因农作物材料在加工为饲料和消化过程中被降解。（例如，大量分泌物核酸、酶沿肠道分解DNA）[1]
Until a couple of years ago, none of the published studies had detected transgenic (GM) DNA in the milk, eggs or meat of GM-fed animals. [2, 3, 4, 5]
直到几年前，已发表的研究论文都没有发现转基因农作物饲料喂养的牛奶、鸡蛋或肉类含有转基因（GM）的基因。[2, 3, 4, 5]
Nevertheless, several of these studies found that plant chloroplast DNA from animal feed is present in milk, eggs and meat.[2, 3, 4] This plant DNA was not nuclear DNA, the DNA contained in the nuclei of cells which is where the novel genes (‘trangenes’) are usually inserted for making GM crops. It was instead the DNA that is found in the chloroplasts, the plant ‘organelles’ that photosynthesise and which are present in large numbers in plant cells.
然而，其中一些研究发现，牛奶，鸡蛋和肉类中存在着来自动物饲料的植物叶绿体基因（plant chloroplast DNA）。[2, 3, 4]这种植物基因（plant DNA）不是核基因（nuclear DNA）；细胞的细胞核中含有的基因通常用来插入外来新奇基因（novel genes -- "trangenes"）使其成为转基因农作物。与此相反，（牛奶，鸡蛋和肉类中）发现的基因是叶绿体中发现的基因（DNA），是光合作用的植物细胞器（the plant ‘organelles’ that photosynthesise），它们在植物细胞中大量存在。
Chloroplast DNA is vastly more abundant than nuclear DNA, since each plant cell can have thousands of copies of chloroplast genes but just two to four copies of each nuclear gene. Plant chloroplast DNA is therefore thought to be more detectable in animal products than nuclear DNA simply because of its greater abundance, not because it is less susceptible to breakdown during processing or digestion.
叶绿体基因（Chloroplast DNA）远比核基因（nuclear DNA）丰富，因为每个植物细胞可以有数千个叶绿体基因，但是每个核基因只有两个到四个核基因副本。动物产品中的植物叶绿体基因因此被认为更容易被检测到，简单是因为它比细胞核基因数量更大，而不是因为饲料加工或消化过程中更加不易被分解。
It is therefore in fact likely that many studies were failing to detect GM crop (‘transgenic’) DNA in animal products and tissues because of its comparatively low level of presence and limitations in the sensitivity of the analytic methods being used, rather than because transgenic DNA does not actually make its way into animal products and tissues.
事实上，过去许多研究在动物产品中没有发现转基因农作物（“转基因”—‘transgenic’），是由于它的存在的水平相对低，以及所应用的分析方法的灵敏度的局限性，而不是转基因并非真正进入动物产品和动物组织。
Since late 2005, however, three published studies by three different scientific teams and one unpublished study have actually detected transgenic plant DNA in animal tissues and milk.
2005年底以来，三个不同的科学研究小组发表的三篇研究报告以及一篇发表的研究报告事实上在动物组织和牛奶中检测到转基因植物的基因。
Reference:
参考文献：
[1] “GMOs: should they be fed to farm livestock?”, in The Chemical Engineer, Issue 746, by David Beever and Richard Phipps, Centre for Dairy Research, University of Reading
[1]“转基因生物：是否应该用来喂养农场牲畜？”，化学工程师，第746期，作者：大卫•比弗和理查德•菲普斯，乳品研究中心，雷丁大学
[2] “Detection of transgenic and endogenous plant DNA in rumen fluid, duodenal digesta, milk, blood, and feces of lactating dairy cows”, J Dairy Sci., vol. 86, pp. 4070–4078, Phipps R.H., Deaville E.R. and Maddison B.C., 2003
[2]“检测到奶牛瘤胃液，十二指肠食糜，牛奶，血液和粪便中有转基因（transgenic）和内源植物基因”，乳业科学杂志，第86，4070-4078页，作者：Phipps R.H., Deaville E.R. and Maddison B.C.，2003年
[3] “Fate of maize intrinsic and recombinant genes in calves fed genetically modified maize Bt11”, J Food Prot, vol. 67, pp. 365–370, Chowdhury E.H., Mikami O., Murata H., Sultana P., Shimada
N., Yoshioka M., Guruge K.S., Yamamoto S., Miyazaki S., Yamanaka N. and Nakajima Y., 2004
[3] “牛犊喂养的转基因玉米Bt11的玉米内在和重组基因的命运”，食品保护杂志，第67卷，第365-370页，作者：Chowdhury E.H., Mikami O., Murata H., Sultana P., Shimada
N., Yoshioka M., Guruge K.S., Yamamoto S., Miyazaki S., Yamanaka N. and Nakajima Y.，2004
[4] “The fate of forage plant DNA in farm animals :a collaborative case-study investigating cattle and
chicken fed recombinant plant material”, European food research and technology, vol. 212, pp. 129–134, Einspanier R., Klotz A., Kraft J., Aulrich K., Poser R., Schwagele F., Jahreis G. and Flachowsky G., 2001
[4]“农场动物饲料植物基因的命运：对喂养牛鸡的重组植物材料的合作案例研究和调查”，欧洲食品研究与技术杂志，第212卷，第129-134页，作者：Einspanier R., Klotz A., Kraft J., Aulrich K., Poser R., Schwagele F., Jahreis G. and Flachowsky G.，2001
[5] “Detection of transgenic DNA in milk from cows receiving herbicide tolerant (CP4EPSPS) soyabean meal”, Livestock Production Science, Phipps R.H., Beever D.E. and Humphries D.J., 2002. vol. 74, pp. 269–273
[5]“检测到喂养耐除草剂转基因（CP4EPSPS）大豆饲料牛的牛奶中有转基因”，畜牧生产科学杂志，第74卷，第269-273页，作者：Phipps R.H., Beever D.E. and Humphries D.J.，
加拿大、意大利、德国、英国对转基因饲料喂养动物的牛奶、蛋和肉检测的结果
（英国）土壤协会公布的研究报告：转基因农作物对健康的影响（2）
GM crops -- the health effects, A report by the Soil Association, UK（2）
陈一文译（cheniwan@mx.cei.gov.cn）
*
陈一文顾问按：
德国科学家“在喂食了大量转基因植物的牛的牛奶中也发现了转基因材料（来自转基因大豆与转基因玉米）。”
*
Study by a Canadian team: Pigs and Sheep
加拿大研究组进行的研究：猪和羊
A Canadian team fed pigs and sheep Roundup Ready oilseed rape and then examined various tissues from the animals. They found that a liver, a kidney and intestinal tissues from the pigs, and intestinal tissues from the sheep contained fractions of the transgenes.[6]
一个加拿大研究组用（蒙山都公司）抗“终结者”除草剂油菜（Roundup Ready oilseed rape）喂养猪和羊，然后对动物的各种组织进行检查。他们在猪的一个肝脏、一个肾脏和猪的肠组织中，
以及羊的肠组织中，检测到发现转基因的片段。[6]
Study by an Italian team: Piglets
意大利研究组进行的研究：猪仔
In another study, Italian scientists fed piglets for 35 days on Monsanto’s GM maize (Mon 810). They subsequently found fragments of a transgene in the blood, liver, spleen and kidney of the animals.7
在另一项研究中，意大利科学家用孟山都公司的转基因玉米（Mon 810）喂养仔猪35天。他们后来发现，仔猪的血、肝脏、脾与肾脏中检测到转基因片段。[7]
Study by another Italian team: Milk
另一个意大利研究组进行的研究：牛奶
Another Italian research team, from the University of Catania, detected GM soya and GM sequences in shop-bought milk in Italy.8
意大利卡塔尼亚大学（University of Catania）的另一个研究小组在商店购买的牛奶中发现转基因大豆和转基因序列.[8]
Study by an German team: Milk
德国研究组进行的研究：牛奶
An unpublished study, carried out in the year 2000 at the University of Weihenstephan in Germany, also detected GM material (from GM soya and GM maize) in the milk of cows which had been fed large amounts of GM plants.
德国魏恩斯梯芬大学（University of Weihenstephan）2000年进行的尚未发表论文的研究，在喂食了大量转基因植物的牛的牛奶中也发现了转基因材料（来自转基因大豆与转基因玉米）。
The results of the study were published by Greenpeace in 2004.9,10 The researcher has suggested that the DNA may have been a result of contamination of the milk by dust from the GM feed in the dairy.
绿色和平组织2004年9月10日发表了该项研究的结果。[9、10] 研究者提出，（牛奶中检测的转基因）也可能奶牛场的转基因饲料灰尘对牛奶造成污染的结果。
Whilst this is unproven, this points to a potential common source of contamination with the use of GM feed and does not change or undermine the fact that the researcher found GM DNA in the milk.
虽然这一点未经证实，但是依然指出使用转基因饲料成为造成（牛奶）污染的一个潜在的共同污染源，并且并非改变研究者在牛奶中发现了转基因基因的事实。
Study by the Soil Association: Milk
（英国）土壤协会进行的研究：牛奶
The Soil Association decided to also investigate this issue. We asked those farmers whose feeds we had found contained high levels of GM soya, if they would also provide samples of their milk or eggs for testing for the presence of GM DNA or GM protein. Two dairy farmers and one egg producer agreed to provide samples. Each farmer provided two samples of milk (from two different cows) or two samples of eggs, as well as another sample of feed to re-check the GM soya level.
土壤协会决定对这个问题也开展调查。我们向应用我们发现含有高水平转基因大豆饲料的那些农民提出，他们能否向我们提供他们的牛奶或鸡蛋样品供我们检测是否存在转基因基因或转基因蛋白质。两位农民与一个鸡蛋生产商同意提供样品。每个农民提供了两个样品的牛奶（从两个不同的奶牛）或两个鸡蛋样本，以及饲料样品，以重新检查转基因大豆的转基因水平。
All samples were tested by Genetic ID in Germany. The soya in all three feed samples was found to be 100% GM. However, our tests did not detect any GM DNA or protein in any of the milk or egg samples. In several of the milk samples, plant DNA, including soya DNA, was detected, indicating
the possibility that a very low level of undetected GM DNA may have been present. Subsequently, when we became aware of the Italian research which had detected GM DNA in shop-bought milk,
we also carried out a similar, but smaller scale survey. Milk samples were collected from 10 different leading supermarket or corner shop chains.
所有的样品提交各在德国的“基因鉴定”机构进行检测。所有三个大豆饲料样品发现为100％转基因大豆。然而，在我们的测试中，在牛奶或鸡蛋样品中没有发现任何转基因基因或转基因蛋白质。但是，在数个牛奶样品中，检测到植物基因（plant DNA），包括大豆基因（soya DNA），表明可能存在着没有检测出来的非常低水平的转基因基因。后来，当我们了解到意大利的研究在商店中买的牛奶中检测到转基因基因，我们也进行了一个类似的，但是较小规模的调查。从10个不同的领先的超市或路口联网商店收集了牛奶样品。
All of the samples were analysed using the same analytic technique used by the scientists from Catania, as well as by an in-house method. Again, no GM DNA or protein was detected, but several samples contained traces of plant DNA, including soya DNA.
采用了意大利卡塔尼亚大学（University of Catania）采用的相同分析技术对所有样品进行了分析，同时用一种内部方法进行了分析。再次没有检测出转基因基因或转基因蛋白质，但是有几个样本检测出微量的植物基因，其中包括大豆的基因。
Conclusion:
结论：
In conclusion, based on the fact that crop chloroplast DNA is commonly found in milk, eggs and animal tissues, and that four research teams now have, between them, detected GM crop DNA in the milk, blood, liver, kidneys and intestinal tissues of GM-fed animals, we conclude that it is likely that
people are being frequently exposed to GM DNA by eating milk and meat from GM-fed animals, albeit at very low levels. Further research into this subject is needed.
结论：基于农作物叶绿体基因常见于牛奶、鸡蛋和动物组织，以及目前有四个研究小组之中在牛奶、血液、肝脏、肾脏与肠组织中检测到转基因农作物基因，我们得出的结论是，通过食用转基因农作物饲料的动物的奶与肉类，人们经常暴露于转基因基因，尽管其水平很低。因此对这个课题有必要进一步研究。
References
参考文献：
[6] “Detection of Transgenic and Endogenous Plant DNA in Digesta and Tissues of Sheep and Pigs Fed Roundup Ready Canola Meal”, J. Agric. Food Chem.,vol. 54, pp. 1699–1709, Sharma R., Damgaard D., Alexander T.W., Dugan M.E.R., Aalhus J.L., Stanford K. and McAllister T.A., 2006
[6]“在喂养（孟山都公司）抗“终结者”除草剂油菜饲料（Roundup Ready Canola Meal）的羊与猪消化物与组织中检测到转基因和内源食糜植物基因”，农业食品化学杂志，第54卷，第1699至1709页，作者：Sharma R., Damgaard D., Alexander T.W., Dugan M.E.R., Aalhus J.L., Stanford K. and McAllister T.A.，2006年
[7] “Assessing the transfer of genetically modified DNA from feed to animal tissues”, Transgenic Res., vol. 14, pp. 775–784, Mazza R., Soave M., Morlacchini M., Piva G. and Marocco A., 2005
[7]“评估转基因基因从饲料到物组织的转移”，转基因研究杂志，第14卷，第775-784页，作者：Mazza R., Soave M., Morlacchini M., Piva G. and Marocco A.，2005年
[8] “Detection of genetically modified DNA sequences in milk from the Italian market”, Int J Hyg Environ Health, vol. 209, pp. 81–88, Agodi A., Barchitta M., Grillo A. and Sciacca S., 2006
[8]“意大利市场中的牛奶中检测转基因基因序列”，卫生环境健康杂志，第209卷，第81-88页，作者：Agodi A., Barchitta M., Grillo A. and Sciacca S.，2006年
[9] “How do genes get into milk?”, Greenpeace, 2004
[9]“基因如何进入牛奶？”，绿色和平组织，2004年
[10] “Report on examination to determine plant and Bt-maize residues in cow milk”, conducted at the
Weihenstephan research centre for milk and foodstuffs of the Technical University of Munich- Freising, Ralf Einspanier, 20 October 2000 and 20 December 2000
[10]“确定牛奶中植物与（抗除草剂）Bt玉米残余物的检查报告”，慕尼黑—佛雷星技术大学Weihenstephan牛奶与食品研究中心的研究，Ralf Einspanier，2000年10月20日与2000年12月20日
原先无害的豆科蛋白质插入到一个豌豆中，导致这种豌豆对老鼠造成了过敏反应。插入的基因往往是不稳定的，随着时间的推移，发现它们在植物基因组中重新排列。转基因生物体被吃下进入口腔和肠道中的细菌群体后，插入转基因生物体中的外源基因能够脱离转基因生物体。这种遗传不稳定意味着，插入基因的方式所表达的植物形状以及其对健康的影响，可能随时间而改变。
转基因食品对健康是否有影响？
（英国）土壤协会公布的研究报告：转基因农作物对健康的影响（3）
GM crops -- the health effects, A report by the Soil Association, UK（3）
陈一文译（cheniwan@mx.cei.gov.cn）
*
陈一文顾问按：面对全球人类持续安全健康生存与繁衍的问题，转基因农作物、转基因食品的“专家们”没有资格沉默不语，针对本节内容必须向人民说明为自己为转基因农作物危害申辩的理由！
*
Do GM foods have health impacts?
转基因食品对健康是否有影响？
Biotechnology companies have claimed that genetic engineering is no more unpredictable and dangerous than traditional cross-breeding, and as a result GM crops should not be subjected to special or extensive safety assessments.
生物技术公司声称，基因工程并不比传统的杂交育种更加不可预测与危险，并因此提出对转基因农作物不应该实施特殊的或更严谨的安全评估。
In reality, genetic modification differs fundamentally from traditional crossbreeding, and there are very good scientific reasons for being concerned about the safety of GM crops.
在现实中，基因改造与传统杂交育种根本性不同，有非常良好的科学理由使人们要关心转基因农作物的安全问题。
Genetic engineering usually involves introducing a package of genetic material derived from one organism (or several) into the DNA of another, often a completely different species. It is never based on the plant’s normal reproductive processes, which are used in traditional cross-breeding.
基因工程通常涉及将另外的一个生物体（或几个生物体）遗传物质引入（进行改造的农作物的）基因，往往是一个完全不同的物种。基因工程从来没有根据传统杂交育种中应用的植物正常繁殖过程。
Instead, the foreign DNA is inserted into the plants own DNA either by using the infective process of a disease bacteria or by bombarding the cells with fine metal particles coated with the foreign DNA.
与传统杂交育种中应用的植物正常繁殖过程不同，外源基因被插入到植物自身的基因中，采用的方法或者使用细菌感染疾病过程的方式，或者采用外源基因涂层的细金属颗粒轰击细胞的方式。
This artificial DNA insertion breaks down the natural biological mechanisms that normally maintain the genetic integrity of species. At various stages in the process, the number of cells are increased by a laboratory method called a "tissue culture".
这种人造基因的插入，打破了维护生物物种遗传完整性的自然的正常生物机制。在这个过程的不同阶段，称之为“组织培养”的实验室方法导致细胞数量增加。
The technique has several serious flaws. This means there is a large number of risks inherent in GM crops, which do not apply to plants produced by traditional cross-breeding:
这种技术有几项严重的缺陷。这意味着转基因农作物固有多种风险，传统杂交育种产生的植物不具有转基因农作物固有的这些风险。
l
l
l
l
Additionally, the tissue culture stages cause numerous changes to the rest of the plant"s DNA. There is well-documented evidence by the FSA and others that genetic engineering causes extensive ‘genome-wide’ mutations and changes in the activity of very many of the plant’s own genes as a result of genetic engineering.[12]
此外，组织培养阶段对植物其他的基因也造成许多变化。FSA（食物安全局）与其他单位保存有关这些证据的完好档案，表明基因工程造成广泛的“基因组”突变以及对植物自己基因许多活动变化。[12]
These widespread genetic effects are not predictable or controllable.
这些广泛发生的遗传效应无法预测或无法控制。
References
参考文献：
[11] “Tools you can trust”, New Scientist, Michel Le Page, 10 June 2006
[11]“你可以信任的工具，”新科学家，作者：Michel Le Page， 2006年6月10日
[12] “Food Standards Agency news”, No. 48, June 2005. ‘The mutational consequences of plant transformation”, J Biomed Biotechnol., 2006(2):25376, Latham J.R., Wilson A.K., Steinbrecher R.A., 2006
[12]“食品标准局新闻”，第48号，2005年6月。“植物转化的突变性后果”，生物医学生物技术杂志，2006（2）：25376，作者：Latham J.R., Wilson A.K., Steinbrecher R.A.，2006年
对植物转基因与细胞相互作用调制机制学界目前远未充分理解
（英国）土壤协会公布的研究报告：转基因农作物对健康的影响（4）
GM crops -- the health effects, A report by the Soil Association, UK（4）
陈一文译（cheniwan@mx.cei.gov.cn）
*
陈一文顾问按：
*
The result is that the same gene can behave in 10 different ways in 10 different locations, depending on the regulatory elements it ends up next to.11 As genetic engineers cannot control where the genes end up in the plant DNA and do not know the effects of the different locations, unpredicted side effects easily occur.
其结果是，同一个基因能在10个不同的位置有10种不同的行为，取决它最终邻近的调控元件。[11] 由于遗传工程师无法控制其中的基因最终位于植物基因中的何处，也不知道这样的基因处于不同位置的影响，不可预知的副作用很容易出现。
This was recently highlighted by Australian scientists who inserted a previously harmless bean protein into a pea, which then caused allergic reactions in mice.[13,14,15] Genetic engineers are unable to accurately predict and control this effect.
澳大利亚的科学家们最近强调了了这种情况，他们将一个原先无害的豆科蛋白质插入到一个豌豆中，导致这种豌豆对老鼠造成了过敏反应。[13,14,15] 遗传工程师们未能准确预测和控制这种影响。
References
参考文献：
[13] “Transgenic expression of bean alpha-amylase inhibitor in peas results in altered structure and
immunogenicity”, J Agric Food Chem., vol 53, pp. 9023–9030, Prescott V.E., Campbell P.M., Moore
A., Mattes J., Rothenberg M.E., Foster P.S., Higgins T.J. and Hogan S.P., 2005
[13]“大豆转基因的表达α-淀粉酶抑制剂在改变结构和豌豆结果
免疫原性“，强Agric食品化学。，第53，第9023-9030，普雷斯科特维生素E，坎贝尔下午，摩尔答：，马茨j的，罗森伯格ME的，福斯特聚苯乙烯，希金斯TJ和霍根S.P.，2005
[14] “GM pea causes allergic damage in mice”, NewScientists.com, Emma Young, 21 November 2005
[14] “转基因豆导致小鼠过敏性损害”，新科学家网站（NewScientists.com），作者：Emma Young，2005年11月21日
[15] “Frankenstein peas”, Ecologist, Jeffrey Smith, March 2006
[15]“佛兰克斯坦豆”（“Frankenstein peas”），生态学家杂志，作者：Jeffrey Smith，2006年3月
[16] “Assessing the survival of transgenic plant DNA in the human gastrointestinal tract”, Nature Biotechnology, vol. 22, pp. 204–209, Netherwood T., Martin-Orúe S.M., O’Donnell A.G.O., Gockling S., Graham J., Mathers J.C. and Gilbert H.J., 2004
[16]“评估人体胃肠道中的转基因植物基因的生存”，自然生物技术杂志，第22卷，第204-209页，作者：Netherwood T., Martin-Orúe S.M., O’Donnell A.G.O., Gockling S., Graham J., Mathers J.C. and Gilbert H.J.，2004
[17] “Fate of genetically modified maize DNA in the oral cavity and rumen of sheep”, British Journal of Nutrition, 89(2): 159-166, Duggan et al, 2003
[17]“转基因玉米基因在绵羊口腔和瘤胃中的命运”，英国营养学杂志，89（2）：159-166，作者：Duggan等，2003
[18] “Characterization of commercial GMO inserts: a source of useful material to study genome fluidity”, Poster presented at ICPMB: International Congress for Plant Molecular Biology (n°VII), Barcelona, Collonier C., Berthier G., Boyer F., Duplan M.-N., Fernandez S., Kebdani N., Kobilinsky A., Romanuk M. and Bertheau Y., 23–28 June 2003
[18]“商业性转基因插入的特征：研究基因组的流动性的一个有用的物质来源”，在ICPMB展示的论文展板：国际植物分子生物学大会（第七届），巴塞罗那，作者：Collonier C., Berthier G., Boyer F., Duplan M.-N., Fernandez S., Kebdani N., Kobilinsky A., Romanuk M. and Bertheau Y.，2003年6月23日至28日。
[19] “Dead babies”, Ecologist, Jeffrey Smith, December/January 2006
[19]“死婴”，生态学家杂志，Jeffrey Smith,，2005年12月/ 2006年1月
[20] “Unstable transgenic lines illegal”, Institute of Science in Society, Mae-Wan Ho, 3 December, 2003
[20]“不稳定转基因株系的非法性”，社会科学研究所，作者：（英籍华人）侯美婉（Mae-Wan Ho），2003年12月3日
自从“实质等同”最初由美国政府提出作为批准转基因作物的程序以来，对这样的程序出现了强烈的批评，认为这样的过程根本不科学，对安全性评价来讲根本不足。尽管如此，这项政策获得通过，然后接着由欧洲和其他国家采纳。
美国、欧盟对转基因农作物官方安全评估过于狭窄
（英国）土壤协会公布的研究报告：转基因农作物对健康的影响（5）
GM crops -- the health effects, A report by the Soil Association, UK（5）
陈一文译（cheniwan@mx.cei.gov.cn）
*
陈一文顾问按：
面对全球人类持续安全健康生存与繁衍的问题，转基因农作物、转基因食品的“专家们”没有资格沉默不语，你们必须向人民说明你们推荐实施的中国转基因农作物、转基因食品安全性评估程序哪些方面“与国际接轨”同样“过于狭窄”、过于宽松？又在哪些方面比美国、欧洲“过于狭窄”、过于宽松的安全性评估程序更加严密，更加有效？
你们推荐实施的中国转基因农作物、转基因食品安全性评估程序，是否要求并进行长期、连续多代动物喂食试验？
如果中国的安全性评估程序不包括进行长期、连续多代动物喂食试验的话，你们必须向中国人民详细说明不要求这样做的详细理由？
*
Official safety assessments are far too narrow
官方安全评估过于狭窄
One of the most remarkable facts about the development of GM crops is that, despite years of immense public concern, political controversy and the developing scientific understanding of the risks of GMOs, very few of these risks are actually checked in the official regulatory approval process.
关于转基因作物发展最引人注目的事实之一是，尽管有巨大的公众关注、政治的争议以及对于转基因生物的风险的科学认识有发展，但是，官方监管机构的批准程序中对极少这些风险进行了核查。
There is a long regulatory process that requires the companies to submit considerable amounts of information, but almost none except a small sub-set of the above concerns are routinely investigated
in the process.
还有很长的监管过程，它需要公司提交的资料相当多，但几乎没有，除了一个小的子集的上述问题，例行调查在这个过程中。
Those opposed to GM crops generally believe that any overall assessment of the list of risks indicates that GM crops are currently far too risky to be used for food or animal feed.
反对转基因作物的人士一般相信任何风险清单的总体评估表明，将转基因农作物用于食品或动物饲料使用，目前风险太大。
Governments, however, have been persuaded to allow GM crops to be grown and used for food or animal feed as long as there is a ‘case-by-case’ risk assessment.
不过，政府已被说服允许转基因农作物种植和作为食品或动物饲料，只要实施“逐案”的风险评估即可。
The problem is that the impacts of the genetic engineering process on the biology of organisms is so complex, and scientific knowledge of plant biochemistry so limited, that it is completely impossible for scientists to model and predict the actual health effects of each genetic engineering attempt.
问题是，基因工程对生物的生物学过程的影响是如此复杂，对于植物生物化学的知识是那么有限，以至科学家完全不可能对基因工程的每一个尝试对于健康的实际影响建立模型进行预测。
动物喂食试验是评估转基因农作物、转基因食品安全风险的唯一可靠方法
（英国）土壤协会公布的研究报告：转基因农作物对健康的影响（6）
GM crops -- the health effects, A report by the Soil Association, UK（6）
陈一文译（cheniwan@mx.cei.gov.cn）
*
陈一文顾问按：
*
The only way that the risks listed above could be assessed on a case-by-case basis, with some level of accuracy, would be to use animal feeding trials. This is how the safety of medical drugs and pesticides are assessed.
在逐案基础上有一定准确度水平的对上边列出的风险进行评估的唯一方法，是采用动物喂食试验的方法。这也是医学药物与杀虫剂安全性如何评估。
However, the biotechnology companies are not normally required to undertake such animal feeding trials in Europe, the US, or indeed anywhere.
然而，在欧洲、美国或任何地方一般不要求生物技术公司进行这种动物喂食试验。
Although this was the initial intention of the UK and US Governments, the use of animal feeding trials for risk assessment was quickly abandoned after the first of such trials, on GM tomatoes and potatoes, found unexpected adverse effects on the animals (see later).
虽然英国和美国政府当初有这样的意向，在对转基因西红柿和土豆进行这样的动物喂食试验发现对动物造成了意外的不良影响后，很快就放弃了进行动物喂食试验（参看后边的内容）。
Instead, regulators mainly rely on an assessment process that is much more limited.
相反，监管机构主要依靠一种更加有限的评估过程。
Under this approach (commonly referred to as ‘substantial equivalence’), a limited number of comparisons are made with the non-GM equivalent plant. Several of the physical characteristics of the new GM plant are compared with the non-GM variety.
在这种处理问题的途径下（通常被称为“实质等同”），只进行有限数量与非转基因植物的比较。新的转基因植物的某几种物理特性与非转基因品种进行比较。
Then, a chemical comparison is made. But, although plants have up to 10,000 different biochemicals, the levels of only a small number of the GM plant’s biochemicals are checked with the non-GM plant, such as key nutrients and known toxins. If the levels of these are considered ‘similar’, it is then assumed that the whole chemistry of the GM plant is similar as regards safety in almost every other way.
接着，进行化学方面比较。但是，尽管植物具有多达10,000种不同生化物质，只对转基因植物极少数量生化物质与非转基因植物进行比较，如主要营养物质和某些已知的毒素。如果比较中它们的水平被认为“类似”，就据此假设与安全性相关的转基因植物化学在几乎所有方面也全面类似。
The GM crop is considered ‘substantially equivalent’ to the non-GM plant, and no further special safety tests have to be carried out. The OECD, for example, suggested that, “If a new food or food component is found to be substantially equivalent to an existing food or food component, it can be treated in the same manner with respect to safety”. [21]
转基因作物一旦被认为与非转基因植物“实质上等同”，就不再必须进行任何进一步的专项安全检查。例如，OECD（欧洲经合组织）建议说，“如果一个新的食物或食物成分被发现实质上等同于现有的食物或食物成分，它可以在安全方面以同样的方式对待”.[21]
Under the EU assessment procedure, some other checks are required beyond this basic comparison, but the ‘substantial equivalence’ approach still rules. So, the EU usually requires testing to show whether the protein produced by the gene is toxic or allergenic. However, the safety of all the other novel proteins and biochemical by-products produced by the GMO are not usually checked. The stability of the inserted gene has to be checked, but not the stability of the whole genome and thus not the GMO as a whole. These other aspects are essentially just assumed, without any basis, to be safe. No GMO has ever been rejected under this assessment process.
根据欧盟的评估程序，还需要一些超越这种基本的比较的其他检查，但是依然遵循这种“实质等同”做法。因此，欧盟通常要求检测，证明基因的蛋白质是否产生毒性或过敏反应。然而，转基因生物产生的所有其他新蛋白和生化副产品的安全性通常不再检查。插入的基因的稳定性需要检查，而整个基因组的稳定性，因而整体转基因成分的稳定性，不需要进行检查。对其他这些方面，本质上只是假设，而且是没有任何根据基础上的假设，认为安全。没有任何转基因生物体根据这样的评估过程予以否决。
Ever since ‘substantial equivalence’ was first proposed by the US Government for approving GM crops, there has been strong criticism of this process as fundamentally unscientific and inadequate for safety assessment. In 1992, when the US Government proposed using the concept instead of animal trials, the scientific advisers of the US Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) did not support the Government’s policy, arguing that animal feeding trials were needed to identify undesirable effects.22
自从“实质等同”最初由美国政府提出作为批准转基因作物的程序以来，对这样的程序出现了强烈的批评，认为这样的过程根本不科学，对安全性评价来讲根本不足。1992年，当美国政府提出用这种“实质等同”的概念来代替进行动物试验，美国食品和药物管理局（FDA）的科学顾问不支持政府的这种政策，认为需要进行动物饲养试验以确定不良影响.[22]
The policy was adopted anyway and then taken up by Europe and other countries.
尽管如此，这项政策获得通过，然后接着由欧洲和其他国家采纳。
In 2001, a review for the Canadian Government by the Royal Society of Canada concluded that, “The Panel finds the use of ‘substantial equivalence’ as a decision threshold tool to exempt GM agricultural products from rigorous scientific assessment to be scientifically unjustifiable.”23 Other scientists, writing in the eminent scientific journal Nature have described substantial equivalence as “a pseudo-scientific concept” which is inherently “anti-scientific because it was created primarily to provide an excuse for not requiring biochemical or toxicological tests”.
2001年，由加拿大皇家学会为加拿大政府进行的审查结论为：“该小组认为，将‘实质等同’作为一种决策工具门槛，用来豁免转基因农产品通过严格的科学评估，在科学上毫无道理。”[23] 其他科学家，在著名科学杂志《自然》上将这种“实质等同”的概念描述为“伪科学的概念”，认为是固有“反科学的，因为它的建立主要是为了不需要进行生化或毒性测试的借口”。
They point out that scientists are not able to reliably predict the effects of a GM food from knowledge of its chemical composition, and so active investigation of the safety and toxicity of GM crops is required.[24]
他们指出，依据目前对于转基因化学成分的知识，科学家无法可靠地预测转基因的影响，因而对转基因农作物的安全性与毒性主动进行调查实属必要。[24]
Even the former Chair of the FSA’s advisory committee, the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes (ACNFP), which until 2004 was responsible for carrying out safety assessments of GM foods, has said, “The presumption of safety of novel GM plants on the basis of substantial equivalence lacks scientific credibility.”[25]
即便FSA（食品安全局）以及ACNFP（新型食品和过程）咨询委员会（该委员会在2004年之前负责开展转基因食品的安全评估工作）的前主席也说，“在实质等同的基础上，推定新型转基因植物安全，缺乏科学可信性。”[25]
References
参考文献：
[21] “Safety evaluation of foods derived by modern biotechnology”, OECD, 1993
[21]“安全性评价的现代生物技术食品”，经合组织，1993年
[22] Alliance for Bio-Integrity, www.biointegrity.org
[22] “生物完整性联盟”www.biointegrity.org，
[23] “Elements of precaution: recommendations for the regulation of food biotechnology in Canada”,
An Expert Panel Report on the Future of Biotechnology prepared by the Royal Society of Canada at the request of Health Canada, Canadian Food Inspection Agency and Environment Canada, The Royal Society of Canada, January 2001
[23]“预防措施的要素：对加拿大食品生物技术的监管建议”，一个专家小组根据加拿大卫生部、加拿大食品检验局与加拿大环境部的要求对生物技术的未来的报告，由加拿大皇家学会编写，英国皇家学会，2001年1月
[24] “Beyond substantial equivalence”, Nature, vol. 401, pp. 525–526, Millstone E., Brunner E. and Mayer S., 1999
[24]“‘实质等同’之后”，自然杂志，第401卷，第525-526页，作者：Millstone E., Brunner E. and Mayer S.，1999
[25] “The use of substantial equivalence in the risk assessment of GM food”, www.royalsoc.ac.uk, Janet Bainbridge, May 2001
[25] “在转基因食品风险评估中使用‘实质等同’”，www.royalsoc.ac.uk，作者：Janet Bainbridge，2001年5月
对孟山都抗除草剂转基因大豆安全性的评价程序低劣，没有进行任何毒理测试。也没有进行任何长期喂食的研究。安全性的科学证据非常脆弱。对孟山都公司的证据没有进行能够确定孟山都公司抗除草剂转基因大豆安全性的任何客观评估。
对孟山都抗除草剂“终结者”转基因大豆安全性的评价程序低劣
（英国）土壤协会公布的研究报告：转基因农作物对健康的影响（7）
GM crops -- the health effects, A report by the Soil Association, UK（7）
陈一文译（cheniwan@mx.cei.gov.cn）
*
陈一文顾问按：
面对全球人类持续安全健康生存与繁衍的问题，转基因农作物、转基因食品的“专家们”没有资格沉默不语，你们必须向人民说明你们推荐的中国转基因农作物、转基因食品的安全性评估程序对于从孟山都等公司巨量进口的转基因大豆、转基因玉米哪些方面“与国际接轨”同样“低劣”、过于宽松？又在哪些方面比美国、欧洲“低劣”、过于宽松的安全性评估程序更加严密，更加有效？
你们推荐实施的中国转基因农作物、转基因食品安全性评估程序，是否要求并进行长期、连续多代动物喂食试验？
如果中国的安全性评估程序不包括进行长期、连续多代动物喂食试验的话，你们必须向中国人民详细说明不要求这样做的详细理由？
*
Poor safety assessment of Roundup Ready soya
对孟山都抗除草剂转基因大豆安全性的评价程序低劣
Monsanto’s Roundup Ready soya (RR soya) is the most widely grown GM crop variety in the world and the most widely used GM crop in commercial animal feed. Its safety assessment is therefore of particular interest. ‘Roundup Ready’ soya varieties tolerate applications of Monsanto’s ‘broad spectrum’ glyphosate herbicide, Roundup, which destroys all other plants. The summary of the safety data used in the regulatory approval process is available from Monsanto’s website.[26] It does not, however, make for reassuring reading for it shows that Monsanto’s scientific case is very flimsy.
孟山都公司的“终结者”（Roundup Ready）抗除草剂转基因大豆（RR为大豆）是最广泛种植转基因农作物品种，也是世界商业饲料中使用最广泛的转基因农作物。它的安全性评估，因此特别令人有兴趣。孟山都公司的耐“终结者”抗除草剂转基因大豆大豆品种，能够忍受孟山都公司能够杀灭所有其他植物的“光谱”草甘膦除草剂农达（Roundup）的应用。监管审批程序使用的安全性数据汇总可以从孟山都公司的网站获得。[26]然而，阅读这些数据不能坚定对于安全性的信心，反而表明孟山都公司这一案例的科学证据非常脆弱。
The new protein which the genetic modification had introduced to the soya was compared with other proteins already in the food chain, and deemed to be ‘functionally similar’. Its amino acid sequence was compared with known protein toxins and allergens, and found to be different. Monsanto then claimed that ‘compositional analyses’ established that the GM soya (as a whole) was substantially equivalent to the non-GM parent variety and other soya varieties.
经基因改造引入转基因大豆的新的蛋白质，与食物链已经存在的其他蛋白质相比，被认为是“功能类似”。它的氨基酸序列与已知的蛋白质毒素和过敏原进行比较，发现它们不同。孟山度公司然而声称，“成分分析”确定该基因大豆（作为整体）与非转基因大豆的父母和其他多种品种相比大体上等同。
The safety of the novel protein was assessed only in one short-term (acute) feeding trial with mice. The safety of the protein was not tested on any of the species that are now actually eating the novel protein in animal feed. The only feeding tests carried out with the soya were ‘nutritional’ feeding studies, which assessed growth rate in a variety of animals and milk production in dairy cows. No animal feeding studies were carried out which were specifically designed to determine the safety of the whole GM soya; in particular no toxicological tests were done. No long-term feeding studies were carried out.
对新的蛋白质的安全评估仅通过短期的（急速的）小鼠饲养试验进行。在喂食试验中，没有通过小鼠目前实际喂食的任何大豆品种食用这种新蛋白质的方法对这种蛋白质的安全性进行试验。采用这种转基因大豆所进行的唯一喂食试验 ，是“营养”喂食研究，它评估不同种类动物与奶牛产奶量的增长速度。没有进行特别设计来确定整个转基因大豆的安全性的任何试验，而且，特别是没有进行任何毒理测试。也没有进行任何长期喂食的研究。
In the absence of such basic scientific investigations, it is clear that no objective assessment of Monsanto’s evidence could conclude that the safety of RR soya has been determined.
在缺乏这种基本的科学调查研究的情况下，显然对孟山都公司的证据没有进行能够确定孟山都公司抗除草剂转基因大豆安全性的任何客观评估。
References
参考文献：
[26] “Safety assessment of Roundup Ready soybean event 40–3– 2”, Monsanto, www.monsanto.com
[26] “抗‘终结者’除草剂大豆40-3-2的安全评估”，孟山都，www.monsanto.com
俄罗斯科学家用转基因大豆喂食小鼠试验的令人震惊结果
（英国）土壤协会公布的研究报告：转基因农作物对健康的影响（8）
GM crops -- the health effects, A report by the Soil Association, UK（8）
陈一文译（cheniwan@mx.cei.gov.cn）
*
陈一文顾问按：
*
Animal feeding tests show negative effects of GM crops
动物喂养试验表明了转基因作物的负面影响
The biotechnology companies frequently refer to the large number of published animal feeding studies as evidence of the safety of GM feed. However, it is important to stress that the vast majority of these are not safety studies. They are not toxicological studies, which would involve analysing the animal tissue for toxic effects, or studies of other safety aspects such as the rate of horizontal gene transfer. Instead, these studies are mostly of commercial interest, designed to evaluate the effect of the GM crops on commercial feed performance indicators, such as livestock growth rates or milk production.
生物技术公司经常提到许多动物饲养研究发表的大量论文作为转基因饲料安全性的证据。然而，重要的是要强调，绝大部分这些研究并不是安全性研究。它们不是毒理学研究。毒理学研究涉及分析动物组织研究毒性作用，或其他安全方面的研究，如横向基因转移率。与此不同，这些研究绝大部分是商业利益性质的研究，这样的研究的设计旨在评估转基因农作物对商业饲料性能指标的影响，如牲畜的生长速度或牛奶的生产率。
In contrast, if we look at the much smaller number of genuine animal safety studies, some of which were conducted by the companies themselves, a very different and very worrying picture emerges. We summarise below the alarming findings that have now accumulated for the GM crops being used as food and animal feed.
与此相反，如果我们看看数量较小的真正的动物安全性研究，其中一些还是由（转基因种子）公司自己进行的，那么，呈现出来的讲授另外一幅非常不同与非常令人担忧的图景。我们在下面总结了正在积累的一些关于转基因农作物作为食品和动物饲料的令人震惊的后果。
(i) GM soya
（一）转基因大豆
Russian rat trial –
俄罗斯的老鼠试验 -
A Russian scientist, Dr. Irina Ermakova, investigated the effects of feeding Roundup Ready soya to rats, with dramatic findings of apparent generational effects. A group of female rats were fed RR soya before mating, during pregnancy and during lactation. Very high mortality rates occurred in the rat pups: 56% died within three weeks of birth, compared with only 9% in the control rats fed non-GM soya.
一位俄罗斯科学家，伊莉娜•叶尔马科娃博士（Dr. Irina Ermakova），研究了蒙山都公司抗草甘膦除草剂转基因大豆喂养老鼠的影响，发现有明显的代际影响结果。一组雌性鼠交配前、孕期和哺乳期喂食蒙山都公司的转基因大豆。出生的幼鼠出现非常高的死亡率：56％死于出生后三周内，而喂食非转基因大豆的对照组鼠的幼鼠死亡率只有9％。
Additionally, stunted growth was observed in the surviving progeny, with some of the organs in the smaller GM-fed pups being tiny in comparison with those from control groups.[27] This study has now been published.[28] Dr Ermakova was shocked by her own results and has called for further detailed investigations to be undertaken.[29]
此外，后代生存观察到发育不良，与对照组相比，还观察到转基因喂养的幼鼠某些器官非常微小。[27] 该项研究已经出版。[28] 叶尔马科娃博士被她自己的试验结果感到震惊，呼吁进一步详细调查研究。[29]
(The ACNFP reviewed an early draft of Ermakova’s work and said it lacked detail, in particular about the geographical origins of the GM and non-GM soya used and whether they contained mycotoxins, and said no conclusions could be drawn.30 They also claimed that her results were inconsistent with another feeding trial of RR soya which had not found any adverse effects.31 The ACNFP’s comments are seen as biased, however, as the latter study was not a valid comparison since it used male mice, not pregnant rats, and, while the ACNFP called this study “well controlled”, it had less nutritional detail than Ermakova’s study.32)
（新型食品及其加工咨询委员会（ACNFP）对叶尔马科娃的工作初稿进行了审查，提出该项研究报告缺乏细节，特别是关于使用的转基因和非转基因大豆的地理来源，以及是否包含霉菌毒素（mycotoxins），并说该项研究得不出结论。[30]他们还声称，她的研究结果与没有找到任何负面影响的另外一项孟山都公司抗草甘膦除草剂转基因大豆（RR soya）的试验不一致。[31] 新型食品及其加工咨询委员会（ACNFP）的这些评论被看作有偏见的，因为后者的研究不是一个有效的比较，它使用雄性小鼠，不是怀孕的雌鼠，而ACNFP将这样一项研究称之为“良好控制”的研究，它在营养学方面的细节反而比叶尔马科娃的研究更少。[32]）
References
参考文献：
[27] “Genetically modified organisms and biological risks”, Proceedings of the International Disaster
Reduction Conference, Davos, Switzerland, Ermakova I.V., August–September 2006, pp.168–171
[27]“转基因生物体和生物风险”，国际减灾会议，达沃斯，瑞士，作者：Ermakova I.V.，2006年8月至9月，第168-171页
[28] “Genetically modified soy leads to the decrease of weight and high mortality of rat pups of the first generation”, preliminary studies. EcosInform 2006, 1, 4–9 (in Russian), Ermakova IV. A fuller paper is in press: “Genetics and ecology”, in: “Actual problems of science”, Moscow, 2005, pp.53–59 (in Russian), Ermakova IV
[28]“转基因大豆导致第一代仔鼠体重下降和的高死亡率”，初步研究报告,，EcosInform 2006年，1，4-9（俄文），作者：Ermakova IV.，。更全面待出版文件：“遗传与生态”杂志，收录：“科学的实际问题”，莫斯科，2005年，pp.53 - 59（俄文），作者：Ermakova IV.
[29] “Reply to ACNFP from Dr Irina Ermakova”, Irina Ermakova, www.gmwatch.org, 28 September
2006
[29]“Irina Ermakova博士对ACNFP（新型食品及其加工咨询委员会）的回复”，Ermakova IV.，www.gmwatch.org，2006年9月28日
[30] “Statement on the effect of GM soya on new-born rats”, The Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes (ACNFP), 2005
[30]“对于转基因大豆对新出生鼠仔影响的声明”，新型食品及其加工咨询委员会（ACNFP），2005
[31] “A generational study of glyphosate-tolerant soybeans on mouse fetal, postnatal, pubertal and adult testicular development”, Food Chem. Toxicol., vol. 42, pp. 29–36, Brake D.G. and Evenson D.P., 2004
[31] “抗草甘膦除草剂大豆对小鼠胎儿、出生后、青春期到成年鼠睾丸发育影响的一代鼠研究”食品化学杂志，毒理学，第42卷，第29-36页，作者：Brake D.G. and Evenson D.P.，2004
[32] “Pusztai responds to ACNFP over Ermakova”, Arpad Pusztai, www.gmwatch.org, 19 January 2006
[32]“Arpad Pusztai就Ermakova博士对ACNFP（新型食品及其加工咨询委员会）的回复””，作者：Arpad Pusztai，www.gmwatch.org，2006年1月19日
用孟山都公司转基因大豆喂食小鼠24个月后，科学家发现小鼠的肝脏、胰腺与睾丸细胞出现了显着的的变化，涉及到结构变化和/或功能变化。
意大利科学家用转基因大豆喂食小鼠试验的令人震惊结果
（英国）土壤协会公布的研究报告：转基因农作物对健康的影响（9）
GM crops -- the health effects, A report by the Soil Association, UK（9）
陈一文译（cheniwan@mx.cei.gov.cn）
*
陈一文顾问按：
面对全球人类持续安全健康生存与繁衍的问题，转基因农作物、转基因食品的“专家们”没有资格沉默不语，你们必须向人民说明你们推荐的中国转基因农作物、转基因食品的安全性评估程序对于从孟山都等公司巨量进口的转基因大豆、转基因玉米哪些方面“与国际接轨”同样“低劣”、过于宽松？又在哪些方面比美国、欧洲“低劣”、过于宽松的安全性评估程序更加严密，更加有效？
你们推荐实施的中国转基因农作物、转基因食品安全性评估程序，是否要求并进行长期、连续多代动物喂食试验？
如果中国的安全性评估程序不包括进行长期、连续多代动物喂食试验的话，你们必须向中国人民详细说明不要求这样做的详细理由？
*
Italian mouse trial –
意大利的老鼠试验 -
One of the only long-term feeding studies carried out on GM crops was undertaken by scientists from Urbino, in Italy, and found that Roundup Ready soya affects key body organs. Mice were fed RR soya for up to 24 months. A variety of organs and body fluids were then examined. The scientists found significant cellular changes in the liver, pancreas and testes of mice, which involved structural changes and/or functional changes.[33, 34, 35, 36, 37]
唯一的一项转基因农作物长期饲养研究由意大利Urbino地方的一些科学家进行，他们发现孟山都公司抗草甘膦除草剂转基因大豆（RR soya）对老鼠的关键器官造成了影响。给小鼠喂养了24个月的孟山都公司除草剂转基因大豆（RR soya）。然后对小鼠不同种类的器官与体液进行了检查。这些科学家发现小鼠的肝脏、胰腺与睾丸细胞出现了显着的的变化，涉及到结构变化和/或功能变化。[33, 34, 35, 36, 37]
The cellular changes in the liver, which metabolises toxic compounds, suggested that RR soya causes an increased metabolic rate.
对有毒化合物发挥新陈代谢作用的肝脏细胞变化表明，转基因大豆是代谢率增加的原因。
References
参考文献：
[33] “Fine structural analyses of pancreatic acinar cell nuclei from mice fed on GM soybean”, Eur. J.
Histochem., vol. 47 pp. 385–388, Malatesta M., Biggiogera M., Manuali E., Rocchi M.B.L., Baldelli B. and Gazzanelli G, 2003
[33]“转基因大豆喂养老鼠胰腺腺泡细胞细胞核的精细结构分析”，欧洲组织化学杂志，第47卷，第385-388页，作者：Malatesta M., Biggiogera M., Manuali E., Rocchi M.B.L., Baldelli B. and Gazzanelli G，2003
[34] “Ultrastructural morphometrical and immunocytochemical analyses of hepatocyte nuclei
from mice fed on genetically modified soybean”, Cell Struct. Funct., vol. 27, pp. 73–180, Malatesta M., Caporaloni C., Gavaudan S., Rocchi M.B.L., Tiberi C. and Gazzanelli G., 2002
[34] “转基因大豆喂食老鼠肝细胞核的超微结构形态计量学和免疫细胞化学分析”，细胞结构功能杂志，第27卷，第73-180页，作者：Malatesta M., Caporaloni C., Gavaudan S., Rocchi M.B.L., Tiberi C. and Gazzanelli G.，2002
[35] “Ultrastructural analysis of pancreatic acinar cells from mice fed on genetically modifed soybean”, J. Anat., vol. 201, pp. 409–416, Malatesta M., Caporaloni C., Rossi L., Battistelli S., Rocchi M.B.L., Tonucci F. and Gazzanelli G, 2002
[35]“转基因大豆喂食老鼠胰腺腺泡细胞超微结构分析”，解剖学杂志，第201卷，第409-416页，作者：Malatesta M., Caporaloni C., Rossi L., Battistelli S., Rocchi M.B.L., Tonucci F. and Gazzanelli G，2002
[36] “Reversibility of hepatocyte nuclear modifications in mice fed on genetically modified soybean”, Eur. J. Histochem., vol. 49, pp. 237–242, Malatesta M., Tiberi C., Baldelli B., Battistelli S., Manuali E and Biggiogera B., 2005
[36]“转基因大豆喂食老鼠肝细胞核修改的可逆性”，欧洲组织化学杂志，第49卷，第237-242页，作者：Malatesta M., Tiberi C., Baldelli B., Battistelli S., Manuali E and Biggiogera B.，2005
[37] “Ultrastructural analysis of testes from mice fed on genetically modified soybean’”, Eur. J. Histochem., vol. 48, pp. 449–45, Vecchio L., Cisterna B., Malatesta M., Martin T.E. and Biggiogera B., 2004
[37]“转基因大豆饲喂小鼠睾丸的超微结构分析”，欧洲组织化学杂志，第48卷，第449-45页，作者：Vecchio L., Cisterna B., Malatesta M., Martin T.E. and Biggiogera B.，2004
志愿者进行了食用转基因大豆食品的试验，科学家发现转基因大豆中含有的整个被改造过基因的基因通过胃和小肠的过程中继续生存，而且，一部分从转基因食品“横向”迁移移进入某些志愿者肠道细菌。同样令人震惊的事实是，政府的食品安全局决定对外不披露“横向”迁移这项关键性的重要事实！
英国志愿者进行食用转基因大豆食品试验的令人震惊结果
（英国）土壤协会公布的研究报告：转基因农作物对健康的影响（10）
GM crops -- the health effects, A report by the Soil Association, UK（10）
陈一文译（cheniwan@mx.cei.gov.cn）
*
陈一文顾问按：
面对全球人类持续安全健康生存与繁衍的问题，转基因农作物、转基因食品的“专家们”没有资格沉默不语，你们必须向人民说明你们推荐的中国转基因农作物、转基因食品的安全性评估程序对于从孟山都等公司巨量进口的转基因大豆、转基因玉米哪些方面“与国际接轨”同样“低劣”、过于宽松？又在哪些方面比美国、欧洲“低劣”、过于宽松的安全性评估程序更加严密，更加有效？
你们推荐实施的中国转基因农作物、转基因食品安全性评估程序，是否要求并进行长期、连续多代动物喂食试验？
如果中国的安全性评估程序不包括进行长期、连续多代动物喂食试验的话，你们必须向中国人民详细说明不要求这样做的详细理由？
你们还应当向中国人民详细说明，中国转基因农作物、转基因食品的“专家们”，是否组织过中国转基因农作物、转基因食品的“专家们”中的志愿者进行过人喂食转基因食品试验？如果没有组织过这样的试验的话，你们必须向中国人民详细说明为什么拒绝求这样做的详细理由？
英国的志愿者能够自愿进行人喂食转基因食品试验，中国转基因农作物、转基因食品的拥护者们为什么不敢这样做？
方舟子，你敢不敢进行这样的试验？方舟子的支持者们，你们敢不敢进行这样的试验？
*
FSA human feeding trial –
食品安全局组织的人喂食转基因食品试验 -
The only published trial of GM foods on humans was carried out by Newcastle University for the Food Standards Agency, and published in 2004. It was designed to study what happens to transgenic DNA in the human gut and whether it could pass out and enter bacteria in the body, a long-standing concern. It found that the entire transgenic gene in GM soya survives the passage through the stomach and small intestine, though not through the colon.
对转基因食品对人体影响试验发表的论文的试验是纽卡斯尔大学（Newcastle University）为食物标准局完成的试验报告，它于2004年出版。该项试验的目的是研究被基因改造过的基因（transgenic DNA）在人体肠道中发生了什么，以及它是否可以转移出来进入人体内的细菌，这是受到长期担心的问题。该项研究发现，转基因大豆中含有的整个被改造过基因的基因（entire transgenic gene）通过胃和小肠的过程中继续生存，虽然没有通过结肠。
The study also discovered that portions of transgenic DNA had ‘horizontally’ transferred from GM food into the intestinal bacteria of some of the volunteers, which was a shocking discovery with implications for the long-term impacts of GM consumption.[16, 38] Just as shocking, however, was the fact that at the time the FSA chose not to mention this key finding in its communications on the study, thus widely giving the impression that horizontal gene transfer had not been identified in the study.
该项研究还发现，被基因改造过的基因（transgenic DNA）的一部分从转基因食品“横向”转移进入某些志愿者肠道细菌，这是一项令人震惊的发现，牵连到转基因消费的长期影响。[16,38]然而，同样令人震惊的事实是，当时的食品安全局（FSA）决定在其关于该项试验的通讯中不提及这向关键性的重要发现，因而给人该项研究中没有发现横向基因转移的印象。
References
参考文献：
[16] “Assessing the survival of transgenic plant DNA in the human gastrointestinal tract”, Nature Biotechnology, vol. 22, pp. 204–209, Netherwood T., Martin-Orúe S.M., O’Donnell A.G.O., Gockling S., Graham J., Mathers J.C. and Gilbert H.J., 2004
[16]“评估人体胃肠道中的转基因植物基因的生存”，自然生物技术杂志，第22卷，第204-209页，作者：Netherwood T., Martin-Orúe S.M., O’Donnell A.G.O., Gockling S., Graham J., Mathers J.C. and Gilbert H.J.，2004
[38] “The fate of transgenes in the human gut”, Nature Biotechnology, vol. 22, pp.170–172, Heritage J., 2004
[38]“人类肠道中转基因的命运”，自然生物技术杂志，第22卷，第170 – 172页，作者：Heritage J.，2004
法国科学家用转基因玉米喂食小鼠试验的令人震惊结果
（英国）土壤协会公布的研究报告：转基因农作物对健康的影响（11）
GM crops -- the health effects, A report by the Soil Association, UK（11）
陈一文译（cheniwan@mx.cei.gov.cn）
*
陈一文顾问按：
(ii) GM maize Monsanto rat trial –
（二）对孟山都转基因玉米进行的老鼠试验 -
In June 2005, after a German court ruling in favour of Greenpeace, Monsanto was forced to release the full details of its safety data for the GM maize, MON 863, which was being evaluated by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). The maize had been genetically modified to produce a Bt-toxin which kills the corn rootworm, a maize pest. Monsanto’s studies showed that the Bt maize had several statistically significant effects on the rats: increased white blood cells, a drop in immature red blood cells, decreased kidney weight and increased blood sugar levels.[39, 40]
2005年6月后，在德国法院做出的判决有利于绿色和平组织后，孟山都公司被迫公布欧洲食品安全局（EFSA）正在评价自己转基因玉米MON863有关安全性数据的全部细节。这种玉米经过基因修改以产生一种能够杀死玉米害虫根虫的Bt毒素。孟山度公司的研究表明，Bt玉米对老鼠有数项显著的影响：增加白血细胞，不成熟的红血细胞的减少，肾脏重量降低，血糖水平增高。[39，40]
The chemical data also showed signs of toxic effects to the liver and kidney systems. Professor Gilles-Eric Séralini, a molecular endocrinologist and member of two French government commissions that evaluate GM food, said that the rats likely suffered a toxic reaction.
有关化学数据还显示对肝脏和肾脏系统造成毒性反应的迹象。Gilles-Eric Séralini教授，一位分子内分泌学家，担任两个法国政府委员会评估转基因食品的成员，他说，老鼠看来遭受了毒性反应。
A full analysis of the chemical data by Professor Séralini and his team was published in May 2007.
It states, “with the present data it cannot be concluded that GM corn MON 863 is a safe product”.41
Seralini教授和他的团队进行全面分析的化学数据于2007年5月出版。该报告指出，“依据现在的这些数据，不能被认为转基因玉米MON863是一个安全的产品”。[41]
The EFSA GMO Panel, nonetheless, recommended the GM maize should be approved, accepting Monsanto arguments as to why the statistically significant differences should be ignored. (The Panel has been accused of being pro-GM and having financial links to the industry. For example, according to Friends of the Earth, two of its members have appeared in industry videos promoting biotechnology). [40, 42]
尽管如此，欧洲食品安全局转基因小组依然建议这种转基因玉米应当获得批准，接受了孟山都公司强调有显着差异的这些数据应该被忽略的争辩。（该欧洲食品安全局转基因小组被指责为赞同转基因并与该行业有金融联系。例如，根据“地球之友”披露，欧洲食品安全局转基因小组的两名成员在该产业推动生物技术的行业视频中曾经出现）[40,42]
Despite the EFSA’s endorsement, the EU"s Council of Ministers voted to not approve the GM maize. However, the vote required a ‘qualified majority’. This was not achieved, so the Commission had the final say. It approved MON 863 on the basis of the ‘scientific advice’ of the GMO Panel, in January 2006. [40, 43]
尽管有EFSA（欧洲食品安全局）的认可，欧盟部长理事会对不批准转基因玉米进行了投票。然而，这种投票需要达到某种“有效多数”。由于未能达到这样的“有效多数”，因此委员会有权做出最终决定。该委员会在欧洲食品安全局转基因小组提交的“科学建议”基础上于2006年1月对孟山都公司的MON863转基因玉米予以批准。[40, 43]
References
参考文献：
[39] “13–Week Dietary Subchronic Comparison Study with MON 863 Corn in Rats Preceded by a 1-Week Baseline Food Consumption Determination with PMI Certified Rodent Diet #5002”, Monsanto’s report on its 90-day rat feeding trial of MON 863 submitted to EFSA, the European body which approves GMOs, as part of its application for approval of the maize (1139 pages), 17 December 2002,www.monsanto.com. Reviewed by Dr Arpad Pusztai for the German environment agency BfN, in September and November 2004, available on: www.gmwatch.org
[39]“喂食转基因863玉米老鼠13周饮食亚慢性比较研究，在此之前1周喂食基础食物，消费量由PMI认证的鼠类饮食＃5002进行确定”，孟山都公司提交欧洲食品安全局（EFSA）对其采用转基因MON863玉米喂养90天的鼠报告。欧洲食品安全局（EFSA）是欧盟批准转基因生物体的机构，该报告为孟山都公司对其转基因MON863玉米的申请报告（1139页）批准应用程序的一部分。2002年12月17日，www.monsanto.com，。受德国环境局BfN委托的审评者：Arpad Pusztai博士，2004年9月与11月，可查阅：www.gmwatch.org
[40] “Cause for concern”, Ecologist, Jeffrey Smith, October 2005
[40]“令人担忧的原因”，生态学家杂志，作者：Jeffrey Smith，2005年10月
[41] “New analysis of a rat feeding study with a genetically modified maize reveals signs of hepatorenal toxicity”, Arch Environ Contam Toxicol. 52(4): 596–602, Séralini GE, Cellier D, de Vendomois JS, May 2007
[41]“转基因玉米喂养老鼠新的研究分析显示大鼠肝肾毒性迹象”，环境污染毒理学杂志，52（4）：596-602，作者：Séralini GE, Cellier D, de Vendomois JS，2007年5月
[42] “Throwing caution to the wind”, Friends of the Earth Europe, November 2004
[42]“潮流中要谨慎”，欧洲地球之友，2004年11月
[43] “Commission decision of 13 January 2006 authorizing the placing on the market of foods and food ingredients derived from genetically modified maize line MON 863 as novel foods or novel food ingredients under Regulation (EC) No. 258/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council
[43]“欧盟议会及其委员会2006年1月13日决定授权允许将来自转基因MON 863玉米的食品成分依据（欧共体）欧洲议会及其委员会第258/97号规定上市作为新型食品或新型食品成分。
科学家用转基因玉米喂食鸡与小鼠试验的令人震惊结果
（英国）土壤协会公布的研究报告：转基因农作物对健康的影响（12）
GM crops -- the health effects, A report by the Soil Association, UK（12）
陈一文译（cheniwan@mx.cei.gov.cn）
*
陈一文顾问按：
*
Aventis’s chicken and rat trials –
安万特公司的鸡和老鼠试验 -
Aventis (since purchased by Bayer) carried out two controversial feeding trials of its herbicide- tolerant Chardon ‘Liberty Link’ (T25) maize, which it submitted for approval at the end of 1995. In a 42-day feeding trial with chickens, there was a 7% mortality rate for chickens fed the T25 maize, twice the rate of the non-GM fed chickens (10 of 140 died versus five of 140 of those fed non-GM maize).
安万特公司（由德国拜耳公司收购之后）对其耐除草剂Chardon“自由链接”（T25）转基因玉米进行了两次有争议的鸡饲养试验，于1995年底提交报告申请审批。在一次持续42天的鸡饲养试验中，喂食T25转基因玉米的鸡的死亡率为7％，两倍于食用非转基因饲料鸡的死亡率（喂食转基因玉米的140只中死亡了10只，喂食非转基因玉米的140只中死亡了5只）。
Compositional tests revealed a significant difference in the level of fats and carbohydrate between the GM and non-GM maize, suggesting alterations in some biochemical pathways. [44]
成分测试显示，转基因玉米和非转基因玉米在脂肪和碳水化合物水平有者显着的差异，建议对某些生物化学路径进行修改。[44]
Separately, Aventis also tested just the transgenic PAT protein which is produced by the modified maize and which gives resistance to the company’s herbicide, glufosinate. In a short-term, 14-day rat
feeding study, the effects of the isolated protein were tested on four groups of rats, two of which were fed the PAT protein, one at a low level and one at a high level.
此外，安万特公司仅对于转基因玉米产生的转基因PAT蛋白进行测试，这种蛋白对这种转基因玉米赋予了对该公司除草剂性与抗草丁膦（glufosinate）的容忍性。在较短期的14天老鼠喂食研究中，对分离蛋白的影响在四组老鼠身上进行测试，两组喂食PAT蛋白，一组进行低水平的测试，另外一组进行高水平的测试。
The design of the studies meant that any negative effects that occurred would be obscured, unless they were very dramatic: only five male and five female rats were tested in each group (restricting the chance of establishing statistical significance for any effects), the starting weights varied by +/-20%
(rather than the usual +/-2%), and the group receiving the high level of the transgenic PAT protein had the highest starting body weights. Despite this, and the fact that the high PAT protein group showed the highest feed intake, this group ended up with the lowest body weights, significantly less than the group receiving the equivalent non-GM diet and the group receiving the low level of PAT protein. Biochemical differences and measurements of the urine volume indicated an increased metabolic load on the rats fed the PAT protein. [44]
如此设计的试验意味着，任何负面的影响是模糊的，除非这种负面影响非常引人注目：每组老师只有五雄五雌共十只成年鼠（限制建立任何有影响统计意义的机会）进行测试，所有老鼠的起始重量不同，有多达+ / -20％的偏差（而不是通常应当控制的+ / -2％的偏差），而且，喂食高水平转基因PAT蛋白的试验鼠的起始体重最高。事实上，尽管喂食高水平转基因PAT蛋白的试验鼠的喂食量最高，该组老鼠试验结果时的体重反而最低，比喂食同量非转基因日食量的组与喂食低水平转基因PAT蛋白的试验鼠试验结果时的体重低很多。生化差异和尿量测量表明，喂食转基因PAT蛋白的试验鼠的代谢负荷增加。[44]
Despite this opposing scientific evidence, T25 maize was approved for consumption by the EU in April 1998.
尽管如此负面的科学证据，欧盟1998年4月依然批准转基因T25玉米的消费。
Liberty Link GM maize has been widely marketed in North America by Bayer Crop-Science.
“自由链接”（Liberty Link）转基因玉米目前由拜耳作物科学公司（Bayer Crop-Science）在北美广泛销售。
References
参考文献：
[44] “Non-suitability of genetically engineered feed for animals”, Report for the Chardon LL Hearing by Eva Novotny, Scientists for Global Responsibility, May 2002. Chardon LL Hearing: Analysis of
“The Chicken Study”, The effect of glufosinate resistant corn on growth of male broiler chickens, Department of Animal and Poultry Sciences, University of Guelph, November 2000.
Also, review in “Food safety – contaminants and toxins”, CABI Publishing, 2003
[44]“非转基因饲料对动物的不适宜性”，为Chardon LL听证会提交的科学家报告，作者：Eva Novotny，“全球责任”受委托的科学家，2002年5月。Chardon LL Hearing听证会：对“鸡研究”的分析，抗草铵膦除草剂玉米对雄性肉鸡生长的影响，加拿大Guelph大学动物和家禽科学部，2000年11月。
英国2003年出版的对羊进行的一项研究发现，转基因玉米被羊吃了之后，仅仅八分钟后，插入转基因玉米的外源基因中有些从转基因玉米“横向”迁移转入羊在口腔中的细菌，导致大肠杆菌的细菌对抗生素产生抗药性。证明插入转基因的基因容易发生“横向基因转移”.
英国对转基因玉米饲料中转基因迁移转入羊口腔中细菌对抗生素产生抗药性的研究
（英国）土壤协会公布的研究报告：转基因农作物对健康的影响（13）
GM crops -- the health effects, A report by the Soil Association, UK（13）
陈一文译（cheniwan@mx.cei.gov.cn）
*
陈一文顾问按：
面对全球人类持续安全健康生存与繁衍的问题，转基因农作物、转基因食品的“专家们”没有资格沉默不语，你们必须向人民说明你们推荐的中国转基因农作物、转基因食品的安全性评估程序对于从孟山都等公司巨量进口的转基因大豆、转基因玉米哪些方面“与国际接轨”同样“低劣”、过于宽松？又在哪些方面比美国、欧洲“低劣”、过于宽松的安全性评估程序更加严密，更加有效？
你们推荐实施的中国转基因农作物、转基因食品安全性评估程序，是否要求并进行长期、连续多代动物喂食试验？
如果中国的安全性评估程序不包括进行长期、连续多代动物喂食试验的话，你们必须向中国人民详细说明不要求这样做的详细理由？
*
UK study of gene transfer in sheep –
英国对羊中转基因迁移的研究 -
A UK study with sheep, published in 2003, found that when GM maize was eaten, after only eight minutes, some of the inserted transgenes moved out from the maize and ‘horizontally’ transferred into
the bacteria in the mouth. One of the inserted genes coded for resistance to the antibiotic kanamycin.
英国2003年出版的对羊进行的一项研究发现，转基因玉米被羊吃了之后，仅仅八分钟后，插入转基因玉米的外源基因中有些从转基因玉米“横向”迁移转入羊在口腔中的细菌。这种转基因玉米中插入的基因的编码为“抵抗抗生素卡那霉素”。
After the transgenes transferred, the E.coli bacteria were found to be resistant to the antibiotic, showing that the transgenes had integrated into the bacteria"s own DNA.
转基因“横向”迁移转让后，大肠杆菌的细菌被发现对抗生素产生抗药性，显示出转基因转入了细菌的基因。
This proved that ‘horizontal gene transfer’ of inserted genes can happen relatively easily.[17]
这证明，插入转基因的基因容易发生“横向基因转移”。[17]
References
参考文献：
[17] “Fate of genetically modified maize DNA in the oral cavity and rumen of sheep”, British Journal of Nutrition, 89(2): 159-166, Duggan et al, 2003
[17]“转基因玉米基因在绵羊口腔和瘤胃中的命运”，英国营养学杂志，89（2）：159-166，作者：Duggan等，2003
孟山都公司自己进行的转基因油菜喂食老鼠试验令人震惊的结果
（英国）土壤协会公布的研究报告：转基因农作物对健康的影响（14）
GM crops -- the health effects, A report by the Soil Association, UK（14）
陈一文译（cheniwan@mx.cei.gov.cn）
*
陈一文顾问按：
*
(iii) GM oilseed rape
（三）转基因油菜
Monsanto rat trials –
孟山都公司进行的老鼠试验 -
The GM oilseed rape, GT73, has been approved in Europe since 2004, although documentation published by the US FDA shows that two of Monsanto’s rat feeding studies found statistically significant adverse effects. [45]
2004年在欧洲批准了孟山都公司GT73转基因油菜，尽管美国FDA（美国药物与食品管理署）公布的文件显示，孟山都公司自己进行的两项老鼠饲养研究都发现了显著负面的影响。[45]
GT73 is a glyphosate-tolerant ‘Roundup Ready’ (RR)variety.
GT73是一种抗草甘膦“终结者”（RR）除草剂的品种。
The first study, carried out with a mixture of two of Monsanto’s glyphosatetolerant oilseed rape varieties, including GT73, found statistically significant decreases in terminal body weight and cumulative body weight gains in male rats (but not female rats) fed GM rape, compared to rats fed non-GM rape.
第一项研究，使用了混合有孟山都公司两种抗草甘膦“终结者”（RR）除草剂的油菜品种，包括转基因GT73油菜。通过试验发现，与喂食非转基因油菜的大鼠对照组相比，喂食转基因油菜老鼠在试验结束时的体重，以及雄性大鼠累积增加体重（但不是雌性），都显着下降。
Monsanto, however, argued that there were ‘technical’ problems with the study, and repeated it.
然而，孟山都公司争辩该项研究存在着“技术”问题，并重复进行了一遍试验。
Interestingly, while the US FDA clearly states that statistically significant differences in the body weights of the male rats were found, the EFSA claimed that the study found no differences in body weights (though they admitted that the GM-fed rats had higher liver to body weight ratios). [46]
有趣的是，虽然美国FDA（药物与食品管理署）清楚确认，确实发现了雄性鼠体重显著差异，EFSA（欧洲食品安全局）依然声称该项研究中没有发现体重明显的差异（尽管他们承认，喂养转基因饲料的大鼠的肝重量/体重的重量比较高）。[46]
The second study, conducted solely with the GT73 variety, found that rats fed this GM rape had relative liver weights that were increased up to 16% compared to those fed the non-GM parental line.
第二项研究中，单独对转基因GT73油菜品种进行试验，发现喂食这种转基因油菜老鼠的肝脏重量相对增加，与喂食非转基因亲本油菜老鼠的肝脏重量相比提高了16％。
Apparently forgetting that there had been ‘technical’ problems with the first study and that the rats had not been fed exactly the same GM rape in both studies, Monsanto argued that the results of the second study should also be ignored since the results of the two trials were ‘inconsistent’.
显然忘记了第一项研究出现的“技术”问题，以及这两项研究中没有给老鼠喂食完全相同的转基因油菜，孟山都公司再次争辩第二项研究的结果应当忽视因为两次试验的结果“不一致”。
They carried out a third study which did not find any problems. [45]
他们再次进行了第三次研究，没有发现任何问题。[45]
In August 2004, GT73 was approved for food and feed use in the EU.
2004年8月，转基因GT73油菜被批准在欧盟用于食品和饲料使用。
References
参考文献：
[45] Office of Food Additive Safety, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, U.S. Food and
Drug Administration, “Biotechnology Consultation Note to the File BNF No. 000077”, September 4,
2002
[45] 美国食品与药品监督管理局食品安全和应用营养中心食品添加剂安全办公室，“对BNF号000077档案的生物技术咨询意见”，2002年9月4日
[46] Opinion of the Scientific Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms on a request from the Commission related to the Notification (Reference C/NL/98/11) for the placing on the market of herbicide-tolerant oilseed rape GT73, for import and processing, under Part C of Directive 2001/18/EC from Monsanto1
(Question N° EFSA-Q-2003-078) Opinion adopted on 11 February 2004
[46]科学委员会根据委员会要求就抗除草剂转基因油菜GT73进入市场、进口与加工的通知（参考C/NL/98/11）对转基因生物体的意见，依据孟山都公司2001/18/EC号指令部分C。
（问题第EFSA-Q-2003-078号）的意见2004年2月11日获得采纳
小白鼠喂食转基因豌豆四周后，豌豆引发了老鼠身发生过敏性反应：肺组织变得红肿。这些老鼠也对某些其他物质出现敏感，鸡蛋白过敏，而那些喂食非转基因豌豆没有这种情况。即使喂食煮熟后的豌豆，这些老鼠仍然有过敏反应。
澳大利亚科学家用生转基因豌豆喂食老鼠与煮熟转基因豌豆喂食的恶果相同
（英国）土壤协会公布的研究报告：转基因农作物对健康的影响（15）
GM crops -- the health effects, A report by the Soil Association, UK（15）
陈一文译（cheniwan@mx.cei.gov.cn）
*
陈一文顾问按：
澳大利亚科学家发现：“被引入豌豆中的基因所表达的这种新的蛋白质，与芸豆中的蛋白质在化学上相同。然而，进一步的审查揭示，虽然转基因豌豆中的蛋白质具有与芸豆中的蛋白质相同的氨基酸序列，现在附在这种蛋白质上边的糖有所不同（由于糖基化）。科学家们得出结论：“植物中的非天然蛋白质的转基因因表达，可能导致具有免疫原性改变的结构变异合成”。换句话说，原生植物中无毒的一种蛋白质，转入转基因植物后的表达，并不能假设保持无毒”。
澳大利亚科学家的这种发现，不仅对全球人类更深刻转基因农作物无法克服的越来越多危害具有世界科学意义，对于更深刻认识生物体相同物质处于生物体微观结构不同位置可能具有不同生物化学作用，而且对于中国中药现代化必须反思的“中药现代化=中药西药化”误区有重大科学意义。
许多中药的现代化主要采取筛选提纯“有效物质”的途径，将中药药方不同种类配伍药弃置不用，同时将许多植物性中药原生态的必要性弃置不用。
殊不知许多中药药方中经过筛选提纯的“有效物质”之所以“有效”，不仅与配伍药中许多看起来没有什么作用的“无用物质”有关，而且与这种“有效物质”与植物性中药原生态中许多相互依存的看起来没有什么作用的“无用物质”有关。
本顾问为此建议，中药界应当对所有采取“中药西药化”的所有“中药现代化”成果重新审查！
澳大利亚科学家还发现“即使喂食煮熟后的转基因豌豆，这些老鼠仍然有过敏反应。”
希望这项发现对于人们更深刻认清转基因农作物与转基因食品不可克服的危害至少具有敲响警钟的作用！
*
(iv) GM peas
（四）转基因豌豆
Australian mice trial –
澳大利亚进行的小鼠试验 -
The results of recently published research by Australian scientists on the safety of GM peas raises serious questions about the safety of GM crops in general. The researchers inserted a gene, normally found in kidney beans, to peas to make them resistant to the pea weavil, and then fed the GM peas to mice for four weeks. The peas triggered allergic reactions in the mice: the lung tissue became inflamed. The mice also became sensitive to other substances, reacting to egg white, whereas those fed non-GM peas did not. Even after cooking the peas, the mice still had an allergic reaction.[13, 14, 15]
澳大利亚科学家对转基因豌豆的安全最近公布的研究结果，引起人们对转基因作物一般性的安全提出许多严重的问题。研究人员对豌豆插入一个基因，通常是在芸豆中发现的一种基因，使他们以抗豌豆豌豆象甲虫（peaweavil），然后用这种转基因豌豆对小白鼠喂食四周。豌豆引发了老鼠身发生过敏性反应：肺组织变得红肿。这些老鼠也对某些其他物质出现敏感，鸡蛋白过敏，而那些喂食非转基因豌豆没有这种情况。即使喂食煮熟后的转基因豌豆，这些老鼠仍然有过敏反应。[13, 14, 15]
This was considered a surprising result as the mice did not have an allergic reaction to non-GM peas or to the kidney beans, and because the new protein being expressed by the introduced gene in the peas was chemically identical to the protein in the kidney beans. Closer examination, however, revealed that although the protein in the GM peas had an identical amino acid sequence to the protein in beans, there were now differences in the sugars attached to it (due to glycosylation).
这被认为是一个令人惊讶的结果，因为老鼠对非转基因豌豆或芸豆没有这种过敏反应，而且由于，被引入豌豆中的基因所表达的这种新的蛋白质，与芸豆中的蛋白质在化学上相同。然而，进一步的审查揭示，虽然转基因豌豆中的蛋白质具有与芸豆中的蛋白质相同的氨基酸序列，现在附在这种蛋白质上边的糖有所不同（由于糖基化）。
The scientists concluded that “transgenic expression of non-native proteins in plants may lead to the synthesis of structural variants possessing altered immunogenicity”. [13] In other words, a protein which is non-toxic in its native plant cannot be assumed to remain nontoxic when transferred and expressed in a GM plant– yet this is precisely what has been assumed by regulators so far.
科学家们得出结论：“植物中的非天然蛋白质的转基因因表达，可能导致具有免疫原性改变的结构变异合成”。[13] 换句话说，原生植物中无毒的一种蛋白质，转入转基因植物后的表达，并不能假设保持无毒 --
The ‘substantial equivalence’ approach does not assess the possibility of such harmful glycosylation occurring.
在“实质等同”的做法并没有评估这种有害的糖基化发生的可能性。
References
参考文献：
[13] “Transgenic expression of bean alpha-amylase inhibitor in peas results in altered structure and
immunogenicity”, J Agric Food Chem., vol 53, pp. 9023–9030, Prescott V.E., Campbell P.M., Moore
A., Mattes J., Rothenberg M.E., Foster P.S., Higgins T.J. and Hogan S.P., 2005
[13]“大豆转基因的表达α-淀粉酶抑制剂在改变结构和豌豆结果
免疫原性“，强Agric食品化学。，第53，第9023-9030，普雷斯科特维生素E，坎贝尔下午，摩尔答：，马茨j的，罗森伯格ME的，福斯特聚苯乙烯，希金斯TJ和霍根S.P.，2005
[14] “GM pea causes allergic damage in mice”, NewScientists.com, Emma Young, 21 November 2005
[14] “转基因豆导致小鼠过敏性损害”，新科学家网站（NewScientists.com），作者：Emma Young，2005年11月21日
[15] “Frankenstein peas”, Ecologist, Jeffrey Smith, March 2006
[15]“佛兰克斯坦豆”（“Frankenstein peas”），生态学家杂志，作者：Jeffrey Smith，2006年3月
美国Calgene公司喂食转基因西红柿老鼠试验中，两位专家分别对每组20只老鼠的两组老鼠中，在一组中确定了4只鼠肠壁病变，另一组中确定了7只鼠有病变。另外一次试验中，除了再次发现老鼠肠壁病变外，40只喂食转基因西红柿老鼠中有7只鼠在两周内死亡。孟山都公司后来在1997年购得这个Calgene公司的全部股权。
美国科学家用转基因番茄喂食老鼠的令人震惊恶果
（英国）土壤协会公布的研究报告：转基因农作物对健康的影响（16）
GM crops -- the health effects, A report by the Soil Association, UK（16）
陈一文译（cheniwan@mx.cei.gov.cn）
*
陈一文顾问按：
面对全球人类持续安全健康生存与繁衍的问题，转基因农作物、转基因食品的“专家们”没有资格沉默不语，你们必须向人民说明你们推荐的中国转基因农作物、转基因食品的安全性评估程序对于从孟山都等公司巨量进口的转基因大豆、转基因玉米哪些方面“与国际接轨”同样“低劣”、过于宽松？又在哪些方面比美国、欧洲“低劣”、过于宽松的安全性评估程序更加严密，更加有效？
你们推荐实施的中国转基因农作物、转基因食品安全性评估程序，是否要求并进行长期、连续多代动物喂食试验？
如果中国的安全性评估程序不包括进行长期、连续多代动物喂食试验的话，你们必须向中国人民详细说明不要求这样做的详细理由？
*
(v) GM tomatoes
（五）转基因西红柿
Calgene mice trials –
（美国）Calgene公司进行的小鼠试验 -
Unpublished trials with GM Flavr Savr tomatoes commissioned by the company Calgene and submitted to the US FDA in order to gain approval for the first GM food, found that mice fed the tomatoes developed lesions in the gut wall. In a 28-day trial, groups of 40 rats were fed GM tomato or a control diet.
尚未发表的受Calgene公司委托为申请作为第一项转基因食品提交给美国FDA（药物与食品管理署）的对转基因Flavr Savr西红柿进行的试验，发现食用这种转基因西红柿的老鼠发生了肠壁病变。在为期28天的试验中，对40个老鼠的动物组喂食了转基因西红柿或受控喂食。
（译者注：孟山都公司后来在1997年购得Calgene公司全部股权，使其成为孟山都公司的全资子公司）
Out of 20 female rats fed the GM tomato, lesions were identified in four and seven rats, by two expert groups respectively.
在喂食转基因西红柿的每组20只雌性大鼠的试验组中，两位专家分别对两组老鼠中，在一组中确定了四只鼠有病变，另一组中确定了七只鼠有病变。
No such effects were found in the control rats. The FDA requested another study to be carried out. Lesions occurred again (2 of 15 rats) and, additionally, seven out of 40 (17.5%) of the rats fed the GM tomatoes died within two weeks. [47]
没有这样的影响，发现在控制组。美国FDA（药物与食品管理署）要求再进行另一次研究。再次进行的试验中再次发生病变（试验了15只鼠，发现2只鼠有病变），而且除此之外，40只喂食转基因西红柿的老鼠中七只鼠在两周内死亡。[47]
Following this, the biotechnology industry and US Government agreed to instead use the ‘substantial equivalence’ concept for approving GM crops, rather than animal feeding trials.
在此之后，生物技术产业与美国政府同意对转基因农作物采纳“实质等同”的概念，而不再采用动物喂食试验的方式。
Calgene"s Flavr Savr tomato and Zeneca"s similar GM tomato variety were approved by the FDA in mid-1994.
结果，Calgene公司的转基因Flavr Savr番茄以及Zeneca公司类似的转基因番茄品种在1994年获得了美国FDA（药物与食品管理署）的批准。
Both varieties were also cleared for sale in the UK, although only Zeneca"s (then AstraZeneca) product was sold, as tomato paste until June 1999.
后来，这两个品种在英国排除障碍上市销售，尽管只有Zeneca公司（当时称为AstraZeneca）的产品以番茄酱的方式销售，一直到1999年6月。
References
参考文献：
[47] Unpublished studies carried out for Calgene and at the request of the FDA respectively, in early
1990s, in reviewed “Food safety – contaminants and toxins”, CABI Publishing, 2003
[47]为Calgene并根据FDA（美国食品与药物管理署）90年代初期的要求完成的待发表的研究报告，在审查“食品安全 - 污染物和毒素”，CABI出版社，2003
在英国的第一个喂食转基因饲料动物试验中发现了与前边介绍的转基因西红柿类似的大鼠肠壁病变。主持该项试验的有社会责任感的英国科学家Arpad Pusztai博士1999年发表了研究报告，坚持要求必须对转基因农作物进行动物喂食试验，为此最终失去了他的工作。
英国科学家发现转基因土豆造成试验老鼠肠壁病变，坚持必须进行动物喂食试验
（英国）土壤协会公布的研究报告：转基因农作物对健康的影响（17）
GM crops -- the health effects, A report by the Soil Association, UK（17）
陈一文译（cheniwan@mx.cei.gov.cn）
*
陈一文顾问按：
面对全球人类持续安全健康生存与繁衍的问题，转基因农作物、转基因食品的“专家们”没有资格沉默不语，你们必须向人民说明你们推荐的中国转基因农作物、转基因食品的安全性评估程序对于从孟山都等公司巨量进口的转基因大豆、转基因玉米哪些方面“与国际接轨”同样“低劣”、过于宽松？又在哪些方面比美国、欧洲“低劣”、过于宽松的安全性评估程序更加严密，更加有效？
你们推荐实施的中国转基因农作物、转基因食品安全性评估程序，是否要求并进行长期、连续多代动物喂食试验？
如果中国的安全性评估程序不包括进行长期、连续多代动物喂食试验的话，你们必须向中国人民详细说明不要求这样做的详细理由？
*
(vi) GM potatoes
（六）转基因土豆
UK rat trials –
英国进行的老鼠试验 -
Similar results to GM tomatoes were found by the first animal feeding trial in the UK, and with the same consequence. GM potatoes were famously found to cause lesions in the gut wall of rats in a controlled trial by Dr Arpad Pusztai, working at the Rowett Research Institute in Scotland.
在英国的第一个喂食转基因饲料动物试验中发现了与前边介绍的转基因西红柿类似的结果与同样的后果。在苏格兰Rowett研究所工作的Arpad Pusztai博士从事的对照试验中，转基因马铃薯导致在大鼠肠壁病变非常知名。
The findings, which were publicized in 1998, caused major controversy and misinformation was widely spread by proponents of GM crops that the trials had not been controlled.
1998年公布的调查结果，造成了重大的争议，转基因农作物的支持者广泛传播误解性的信息，称这次试验并非很好对照控制。
Pusztai’s studies had been commissioned by the UK Government in order to develop a protocol for
using animal feeding trials for the risk assessment of GM crops, so the findings should have been taken very seriously.
Pusztai博士的研究是英国政府委托的研究，以制定通过动物喂食试验对转基因农作物的风险评估的条例，所以该项试验的结果应该予以非常认真对待。
Instead, Pusztai was suspended, gagged, and eventually lost his job.
相反，Pusztai被“挂起来”，“封口”，并最终失去了他的工作。
The UK Government abandoned its plan to require animal feeding trials and instead followed the US Government’s policy of relying primarily on ‘substantial equivalence’.
英国政府放弃了他们原先计划规定要求进行的动物喂食试验，并与此相反尾随美国政府依赖“实质等同”为主的政策。
Pusztai’s study was published in the Lancet medical journal, [48] which recommended that it be repeated. To this day, this has not been done.
Pusztai博士的研究结果发表在医学杂志“柳叶刀”，[48]建议必须继续进行动物喂食试验。到今天为止，依然没有这样做。
References
参考文献
[48] “Effect of diets containing genetically modified potatoes expressing Galanthus nivalis lectin on rat small intestine’”, vol. 354, pp. 1353–1354, Ewen S.W. and Pusztai A., 1999
[48]“对含有转基因马铃薯日常饮食反映的雪花莲凝血剂对大鼠小肠的影响”，第354卷，第1353至1354页，作者：Ewen S.W. and Pusztai A.，1999.
微信扫一扫，进入读者交流群
本文内容仅为作者个人观点，不代表网站立场。
请支持独立网站红色文化网，转载请注明文章链接----- https://www.hswh.org.cn/wzzx/xxhq/oz/2013-05-01/1081.html-红色文化网
相关文章
-
无相关信息