还我自然 - 2016/7/26 18:05:02
2016-07-26 14:26:09 来源：
红歌会网 作者：蒋高明
【明辨是非】100多名诺贝尔奖获得者力挺黄金大米转基因，气势汹汹，大有泰山压顶之势，国内媒体一片欢呼。然而，笔者第一时间就感觉到，这与国内61院士签名支持转基因一样是人为操控的，是闹剧（后来果然爆出其中有一位诺奖获得者已经离开人世）。如今潮水已经褪去，裸泳者已显身。到底是何方神圣？请看美国分子生物科学家的揭露。向三分之二坚持做人底线拒绝签名的诺奖得主表示尊敬，同时呼吁被误导签名者揭露转基因“冥签门”真相，挽回该事件对诺奖得主名誉上带来的损害。 107名诺贝尔奖获得者是如何被误导而推销转基因食品的？ 本文链接：http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_4b7683ce0102wpxt.html 作者：大卫·舒伯特;翻译：jrry86;时间：2016年7月22日 (译者按：大卫·舒伯特是位于美国加州圣地亚哥的索尔克生物研究学院的教授、分子生物学家，崔永元老师在他的美国转基因纪录片中专门采访过舒伯特教授。索尔克生物研究学院是独立的、非赢利的科学研究学院，在美国生命科学研究领域一直名列前茅。笔者在伯特教授撰写的这篇文章得以发表之前，有幸先得到全文，故完整翻译以让读者先睹为快。另注：到目前为止，已经有110名诺奖得主签名联署信。当然组织者罗伯兹说他一共联系了285位诺奖得主，有175位拒绝签名，见笔者文章：《盘点那些转基因作物之黄金大米篇》http://weibo.com/1886394372/DFHW5jT6c?type=comment ) 最近一个叫做“支持精准农业”的组织在华盛顿特区举行了一个新闻发布会，推出一封由107名诺奖得主联署的公开信，宣称那些反对不受限制地引进转基因(GM)作物的组织和个人犯下了“反人类罪”。 这个事件是由“新英格兰生物实验室”的首席科学官理查德·罗伯兹组织的，并由孟山都公司公关部门前领导Jay Ryrne协助。但是，这封信对转基因食品所作的有利声明有很多显然是错误的。 其中之一就是科学组织和管理机构“一再地”发现转基因作物与常规作物“一样安全甚至更安全”。很明显这不是真实的，好些科学机构得出了不同的结论。例如，“加拿大皇家学会”的一个专家小组声称将所有转基因食品看成一样安全，这在“科学上是站不住脚”的，因为有存在不可预知有害副作用的风险。其它一些受人敬仰的学院，例如“英国医学协会”、“澳大利亚公共健康协会”也表达了顾虑，后者甚至呼吁“无限期冻结”转基因作物。最近，弗拉基米尔·普京则在俄国科学家的建议下，签署了禁止转基因作物的法律。 同样错误的还有公开信所声称的“从来没有一个确定的因食用转基因产品而给人类和动物的健康带来负面结果的案例”。事实上，曾发生过因为食用由转基因细菌生产的色氨酸食品补剂而导致很多人死亡、数千人得病的事情(译注：应该是指1989年日本昭和电工L-色氨酸事件)。而且大量科学文献证明转基因食物以及其生产过程中所需要的化学试剂给实验室和农场动物带来了不利的健康影响。 这份信对特地提到的唯一的转基因产品黄金大米的断言也是错误的。该产品是设计来过量产生维生素A的前体beta-胡萝卜素，以期解决亚洲部分地区广泛存在的维生素A缺失症，后者会导致失明甚至死亡。让人吃惊的是，这封信不仅暗示黄金大米可以解决这个问题，还暗示那些质疑其安全性的人因为阻碍了其应用已经昧着良心导致了数百万人死亡。可现实是，它还没有能流通是因为它表现太差，离适用还很远；国际稻米研究院也声明它还不清楚这种大米是否能治疗维生素A缺失。 更进一步的，即使这转基因大米完全有效已经成熟，以一个专门研究大脑发育过程中beta-胡萝卜素作用的科学家的视角看来(译注：舒伯特教授是一个研究老年痴呆病的专家)，它也应该被推迟应用，因为它有着很大的健康风险。 首先，最近的美国科学院关于转基因作物的报告中认识到，为制造黄金大米所作的修饰易于产生不需要的副产物。其次，此大米的一些大量的副产品很可能与维生素A酸有关，后者在极低浓度下都会导致出生缺陷。也许更让人担忧的是，这种大米的推崇者明显是想在没有先做好严格检验以确保它不会伤害老鼠的情况下，就用这实验性质的大米来喂养众多的孩子。 这封信的其它主要的断言也与事实相反。例如，它扬言转基因作物“对环境伤害较小”，“是喂养世界所必需的”。但现实是，转基因作物单一化种植和它所需要的高剂量除草剂已经大大减少了我们的蝴蝶数量，诱发了抗除草剂超级杂草的扩张，并用草甘膦污染了发达国家的人类的身体：草甘膦是一个毒素、内分泌干扰剂和潜在的致癌物。此外，甚至连倾向支持转基因食品的美国科学院都在其最近的报告中总结认为转基因不是解决世界饥饿的方法。 这份漏洞百出的文件的目的显然是要压制关于转基因食品风险的严肃讨论，那么为什么这么多知名的科学家还会签署它呢? 最明显的原因是他们不知道大多数相关事实，反而相信公开信是准确的。大多数人的专业领域与生物技术完全无关，很可能会以为他们是在坚守科学，在支持一个重要的人道事业。我们愿意打赌，一旦他们知道实际情况，他们不会同意让这样一个不正当的公关手段来借用他们的名字。我们也很确信，他们不会故意推广一个像黄金大米一样充满问题的产品，除非该产品已经过彻底的动物安全性试验、并且有已经就绪的严格的上市后监测手段。 如果通过不正当手段获取的他们的背书给这封不靠谱的信带来任何科学权威感，并因此说服了政策制定者来弱化管控机制，那将是令人遗憾的，实际上很多独立专家已经警告现在以有的对转基因作物非同寻常的风险的检控根本就不足够。也许转基因技术在诸如医药这样的领域有宝贵的应用，但是当前它在食品生产中的应用所导致的风险经常被歪曲。诺奖得主签署的信并没有反应现实，他们自己应该承认这个事实，然后公开谴责这封信是一个糟糕的宣传运动。 大卫·舒伯特博士 教授，索尔克生物研究学院 电邮：schubert@salk.edu 以下是舒伯特教授文章原文： How 107 Nobel Laureates Were Misled into Promoting GM Foods Recently an organization called ‘Support Precision Agriculture’ held a press conference in Washington DC to promote a letter signed by 107 Nobel laureates alleging that organizations and individuals that don’t support the unfettered introduction of genetically modified (GM) crops are committing a “crime against humanity”. The event was organized by Richard Roberts, chief scientific officer of New England Biolabs, with assistance from Jay Byrne, Monsanto’s former head of corporate communications. However, the letter makes many favorable claims about GM foods that are demonstrably false. Among them is the claim that scientific and regulatory agencies have “consistently” found that GM crops are “as safe or safer” than conventional ones. This is clearly untrue, and multiple scientific panels have concluded otherwise. For instance, an expert panel of the Royal Society of Canada asserted it is “scientifically unjustifiable” to regard all GM foods as safe due to the risk of unpredictable harmful side effects. Other respected institutions, such as the British Medical Association and the Public Health Association of Australia have also expressed concerns, with the Australian association calling for an “indefinite freeze” on GM crops. Most recently, Vladimir Putin, on the advice of Russian scientists, signed a ban on GM crops into law. Equally false is the letter’s assertion that “there has never been a single confirmed case of a negative health outcome for humans or animals” caused by consuming a GM product. In fact, many people died and thousands were sickened by a food supplement of tryptophan produced from GM bacteria. And a large body of scientific literature demonstrates adverse health effects on laboratory and farm animals caused by GM foods, as well as by chemicals required for their production. The letter’s claims about the only GM product it specifically mentions, Golden Rice, are also bogus. That product, which is designed to overproduce beta-carotene, the precursor to vitamin A, was developed in hopes of solving the widespread vitamin A deficiency in parts of Asia, which can lead to blindness and even death. Astonishingly, the letter insinuates not only that the rice will solve the problem, but that those who question its safety have unconscionably caused millions of deaths by blocking its use. Yet, in reality, it’s not in circulation because it hasn’t performed well and is nowhere near readiness; and the International Rice Research Institute has stated it’s still unclear whether the rice is capable of curing the deficiency. Furthermore, even if this GM rice were fully efficacious and ready, from the perspective of a scientist who has studied beta-carotene in the context of brain development, it should be delayed because it poses a major health risk. First, as recognized by the recent National Academy of Science (NAS) report on GM crops, the type of modification required to make golden rice is prone to generate unwanted byproducts. Second, some of the rice’s abundant byproducts will likely be related to retinoic acid, a compound that causes birth defects even at ultra-low levels. Perhaps more worrisome, proponents apparently want to feed this experimental rice to multitudes of children without first performing rigorous testing to make sure that it won’t harm mice! The letter’s other main claims are contrary to fact as well. For example, it boasts that GM crops are “less damaging to the environment” and are necessary to “feed the world”. But in reality, GM monocropping and the high levels of herbicides it requires have decimated our butterfly populations, induced the development of herbicide resistant super weeds, and contaminated the bodies of the human population in the developed world with glyphosate: a toxin, endocrine disrupter, and potential carcinogen. Moreover, even the NAS, which tends to promote GM foods, has concluded (in its recent report) that they’re not the solution to world hunger. So why would so many eminent scientists sign a severely flawed document whose apparent goal is to suppress serious discussion about the risks of GM foods? The most obvious reason is that they weren’t aware of most of the relevant facts and trusted that the letter was accurate. The vast majority are in fields completely unrelated to biotechnology and likely assumed they were upholding science and supporting an important humanitarian cause. And we’d be willing to bet that if they had known the actual facts, they would not have lent their names to such a devious public relations ploy. We’re also confident that they would not knowingly promote a questionable product such as golden rice until it had gone through extensive safety testing in animals and there was a rigorous post-release monitoring program in place. It would be a shame if their unfairly obtained endorsements afford the deceptive letter an aura of scientific authority it doesn’t deserve – and persuade policy makers to weaken the current set of regulations that are already inadequate to screen for the abnormal risks of GM crops about which so many independent experts have warned. While GM technology may have valuable applications in fields such as medicine, its current use in food production entails risks that are routinely misrepresented. The letter signed by the laureates does not reflect reality, and they should confirm this fact for themselves and then denounce the letter as a deplorable piece of propaganda. David Schubert, PhD Professor, Salk Institute for Biological Studies La Jolla, CA 92037 858-453-4100x1528 schubert@salk.edu