今年初，美国科学促进会（AAAS）和皮尤研究中心（Pew Research Center）联合公布的一项调查显示，88％的科学家认为转基因食品可安全食用，持这一看法的公众只有37％。报告认为差距如此之大的一个可能原因是，三分之二的公众认为科学家对转基因食品的健康后果没有清晰认识。这就是真正的原因吗？
根据报告全文，皮尤中心给19，984名科学家发出了调查问卷，3748人（18.8%）完成了问卷调查。其中生物医学学科背景的科学家占50%。报告没有说明50%的生物医学背景是否能够代表科学家总体的学科构成。更大问题是在这50%的科学家人群中，有多少人的工作是与转基因作物的研究有关，以什么样的方式相关。报告没有提供任何信息。
由于这些关键信息缺失，88%的科学家相信转基因安全的说法毫无意义。在一个没有代表性并且无法排除偏向性的样本中调查，科学家相信转基因安全从1%到99%与88%没有任何不同。好消息是超过半数的美国民众认为转基因不安全。
2012年10月，美国科学发展协会以官方名义（Board of Directors ）抛出了一个反对转基因标识声明（附录1）。目的就是诱导民众反对加利福尼亚转基因标识立法。由于声明中多处行文与孟山都的宣传口径一致，而且最高领导者 Nina Federoff本人就是转基因公司的代言人，这份声明的科学信誉受到广泛质疑。很多科学家联名发表反对声明。其实无需在文章后面分辨是非，声明本身就是白纸黑字的谎言铁证。
谎言一：Indeed, the science is quite clear: crop improvement by the modern molecular techniques of biotechnology is safe.
事实：与抗除草剂转基因作物如影随形的草胺膦被确认世界卫生组织确认为2A类致癌物。草胺膦导致DNA和染色体损害。在人类与非何杰金淋巴瘤的发生有关，动物实验证明可导致毛细血管瘤，肾小管癌，皮肤癌，胰岛细胞瘤（附录2）。
谎言二：The World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the British Royal Society, and every other respected organization that has examined the evidence has come to the same conclusion: consuming foods containing ingredients derived from GM crops is no riskier than consuming the same foods containing ingredients from crop plants modified by conventional plant improvement techniques.
事实：WHO宣称不存在也不可能存在所谓“转基因安全科学共识”。因为转基因作物的安全性必须逐一验证（case-by-case basis）。美国医学协会（American Medical Association）认为转基因有可能导致基因的水平转移和毒性损害，转基因作物的安全性需要进一步的检验。
谎言三：In order to receive regulatory approval in the United States, each new GM crop must be subjected to rigorous analysis and testing.
事实：FDA与转基因公司之间的共识是，转基因农作物本来就与传统农作物实质相同。于是，转基因农作物的安全性和营养评价由转基因公司自己操作，也就是所谓的一般安全认证（generally recognized as safe ，GRAS）。FDA只要求公司提供鉴定结论，而无需提供具体实验数据。所谓转基因食品经过严格的安全检测完全是假的。
著名Salk研究所细胞神经生物专家David Schubert说：“Any statement suggesting extensive safety testing of all genetically modified crops is absolutely false”.
谎言四：There are occasional claims that feeding GM foods to animals causes aberrations ranging from digestive disorders, to sterility, tumors and premature death. Although such claims are often sensationalized and receive a great deal of media attention, none have stood up to rigorous scientific scrutiny. Indeed, a recent review of a dozen well-designed long-term animal feeding studies comparing GM and non-GM potatoes, soy, rice, corn and triticale found that the GM and their non-GM counterparts are nutritionally equivalent2 .
上面这段文字是这篇声明的科学实证依据所在。一开始说，转基因食品偶尔有导致各种病状的报道。然后拿出一篇强有力的科学证明：『the GM and their non-GM counterparts are nutritionally equivalent』。注意，科学大牛们在这里玩了一个小小的文字游戏。不是证明转基因食品安全无害而是与传统作物有同等营养价值。
历经多年的转基因论战。尼罗河发现一个规律。转基因利益集团的一个营销策略就是极力把转基因的危害轻描淡写，然后拿出一篇权威论著证明转基因无害。但是认真看进去就发现事实完全相反。转基因食品的问题大概格局已经很清楚了。人工基因的转移会对健康对环境带来某种影响。但是其性质和程度不是当下就能得出一个明确的结论。但是，有一个问题很清楚，如前文所论，转基因作物的次生危害草胺膦才是迫在眉睫的危害。打开声明提供的参考文献二（附录3）。跳过所有的长篇大论，把目光直接锁定在抗草胺膦转黄豆的长期作用（附录4）。
表2，动物长期饲养实验结果。草胺膦抗性黄豆。前面同一作者的四篇文章观察的都是大体指标，如体重，摄食量，器官重量和血生化检测，没有发现转基因与传统作物的毒性差异。但是在亚细胞水平上转基因饲养动物的异常就出来了。包括滑面内质网，细胞核膜，核仁，核染色丝，核浆内拼接因子数量的改变。这些与WHO研判认定草胺膦可以造成DNA和染色体损害是一致的。
表3的结果中一个重要的发现就是在山羊的奶和血液中发现了转基因的DNA成分。这个发现与在孕妇和婴儿血液中发现Bt蛋白相吻合。也再次证实了最早用结肠造瘘人作的转基因黄豆服用实验得出的推断，人工基因片段在胃肠道不会完全分解，而是整合进入肠道细菌并且可能以大分子片段方式进入人体。其他异常结果还有肝细胞蛋白表达异常。应急反应异常和钙信号转导异常。免疫系统异常（淋巴结肿大和淋巴细胞数量改变）。
事实很清楚。转基因安全共识是不存在的。转基因的安全性是没有得到公正客观的检验的。转基因作物潜在危险是存在的，直接危害健康是有科学证据的。科学只承认事实，不承认民主。科学真理往往掌握那些探索事实的少数人手中。不论是谁，不管有多少人头多少票数，不论打着什么样的大旗，伪造事实、屏蔽事实、歪曲事实是一定会被揭露的。
但是美国人民面临的局面是严峻的。转基因利益集团正在企图借司法之手剥夺人民转基因知情权。加利福尼亚州转基因标识立法失败了。美国国会农业委员会今年7月通过议案禁止各州强制转基因标识，离正式立法只有一步之遥。转基因在科学战场上的失败被商人和政客们转化成了在法律上的胜利。如果禁止转基因标识的法律获得通过，与强迫人民吃转基因食品没有任何不同。这就是赤裸裸的法西斯统治，完全背离了科学民主的理想
越战落叶剂的继承者Roundup（一扫光，草胺膦的商品名）准备重新出发占领世界。十年前美国就强迫贸易伙伴国把进口大豆的草胺膦标准从2ppm提高到20ppm，现在又推销40ppm的草胺膦黄豆。这个剂量与在小型动物中没有生殖损害的剂量水平73ppm相差还不到一倍（要知道小型动物的耐受剂量往往是人的十几倍甚至几十倍）。已经把人类的健康推向了极为危险的边缘。面对转基因法西斯帝国的崛起。是沉默还是抗争，到了必须作出选择的时候。
附录1，AAAS反对转基因食品标识声明
Statement by the AAAS Board of Directors On Labeling of Genetically Modified Foods AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF SCIENCE 20 October 2012
http://www.aaas.org/news/statement-aaas-board-directors-labeling-genetically-modified-foods
附录2，世界卫生组织对草胺膦致癌性的说明。
Glyphosate is a broad-spectrum herbicide, currently with the highest production volumes of all herbicides. It is used in more than 750 different products for agriculture, forestry, urban, and home applications. Its use has increased sharply with the development of genetically modifi ed glyphosate-resistant crop varieties. Glyphosate has been detected in air during spraying, in water, and in food. There was limited evidence in humans for the carcinogenicity of glyphosate. Case-control studies of occupational exposure in the USA,14 Canada,6 and Sweden7 reported increased risks for non-Hodgkin lymphoma that persisted after adjustment for other pesticides. The AHS cohort did not show a significantly increased risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma. In male CD-1 mice, glyphosate induced a positive trend in the incidence of a rare tumour, renal tubule carcinoma. A second study reported a positive trend for haemangiosarcoma in male mice.15 Glyphosate increased pancreatic islet-cell adenoma in male rats in two studies. A glyphosate formulation promoted skin tumours in an initiation-promotion study in mice. Glyphosate has been detected in the blood and urine of agricultural workers, indicating absorption. Soil microbes degrade glyphosate to aminomethylphosphoric acid (AMPA). Blood AMPA detection after poisonings suggests intestinal micro bial metabolism in humans. Glyphosate and glyphosate formulations induced DNA and chromosomal damage in mammals, and in human and animal cells in vitro. One study reported increases in blood markers of chromosomal damage (micronuclei) in residents of several communities after spraying of glyphosate formulations.16 Bacterial mutagenesis tests were negative. Glyphosate, glyphosate formulations, and AMPA induced oxidative stress in rodents and in vitro. The Working Group classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans” (Group 2A).
http://www.gmofreeusa.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/2015_03_TheLancetOncology_CarcinogenicityOfTetrachlorvinphosParathionMalathionDiazinonGlyphosate.pdf
附录3，AAAS声明参考文献2.
Snell C, Bernheim A, Berge J-B, Kuntz M, Pascal G, Paris A and Ricroch A E (2012). Assessment of the health impact of GM plant diets in long-term and multigenerational animal feeding trials: a literature review. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 50: 1134-48.
http://www.foodpolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/Snell_2012.pdf
附录4，AAAS声明参考文献2中的转基因黄豆毒性结果。
Soybean Glyphosate-tolerant soybean (CP4 EPSPS)
Enlarged vesicles of the smooth endoplasmic reticulum, Decrease in the number of nuclear pores. Reduced labelling during the 2– 8 month interval. Increase in perichromatin granules in Sertoli cells and in spermatocytes of GM fed mice 。Vecchio et al. (2004).
No differences in body weight and no macroscopic changes in the pancreas. No structural modifications but quantitative changes in some cellular constituents. Reduction of a-amylase synthesis。Malatesta et al. (2002b)
Irregularly shaped nuclei, higher number of nuclear pores, numerous small fibrilla centres and abundant dense fibrillar component, nucleoplasmic and nuclear splicing factor more abundant in GM fed mice。Malatesta et al. (2002a)
Decrease of the shape index and the fibrillar centres density and increase of the pored density, the perichromatin granule density, the percentage of fiibrillar centres in GM-fed mice. Lower labellings for the nucleoplasmic splicing factors。Malatesta et al. (2003).
Different expression of proteins related to hepatocyte metabolism, stress response, calcium signalling and mitochondria in GM fed mice. Indications of reduced metabolic rate in GM-fed mice。Malatesta et al. (2008)
Presence of transgenic DNA in milk (parents) and blood (parents and offsprings). A significant difference for the level of LDH enzyme, and substitutions between the isoenzymes。Tudisco et al., 2010
In F5 enlarged inguinal and axillary lymph nodes detected. Decrease in T cells in spleen and lymph nodes and decrease in B cells in lymph nodes and blood。Krzyowska et al., 2010
延伸阅读尼罗河相关文章
更多我的博客文章>>>
