吃與活
科學地吃，健康地活
調查顯示，88%的美國科學促進會的成員（科學工作者）認為食用轉基因食品是安全的，而隻有37％的公眾這樣認為。也的確有科學家認為食用轉基因食品不安全，他們占11%，與88%相比，是明顯的少數。科學家有不同的看法是正常的，看法一致反而令人懷疑。
相比而言，隻有87%的科學家認為環球變暖是人類活動的結果。
大家知道，美國科學促進會是最大的科學團體，著名的“科學”雜誌就是該組織出版的。
剛剛看到這樣一個帖子，說
“2015年1月，300位科學界業內人士簽署聯合聲明，《No scientific consensus on GMO safety》。聲明發表在Environmental Sciences Europe (2015) 27:4。”
我孤陋寡聞，沒注意到這個消息。在我的印象裏，目前已經批準上市的轉基因食品的安全性當然是有共識的，大量的實驗結果也支持這一點。
我趕緊看了一眼這篇文章，不幸的是讀文章前注意到這個雜誌：Environmental Sciences Europe
這是個什麽樣的雜誌呢？
原來這是一個反轉基因的雜誌。那篇有名Séralini轉基因玉米有毒的文章被撤稿以後，找不到發表的雜誌，最後就發表在這個雜誌上。
這個雜誌的影響因子是多少呢？新雜誌，還沒有影響因子呢。計算下來，應該是0.55。在210個環境科學雜誌中占190位。影響因最高的醫學方麵的雜誌是New England Journal of Medicine， 為51.6。說句實話，我到目前為止還不好意思把文章發在影響因子這樣低的雜誌上。
水平不高沒關係，但不能有偏見。有人統計了該雜誌發表的有關轉基因的文章，多數是反對轉基因的 （文章名單附後）。
“No scientific consensus on GMO safety”這篇文章發在這樣一個有偏見的雜誌上，讓人懷疑這篇文章可能就如同Séralini的轉基因玉米有毒的文章一樣，實在是找不到第二家雜誌發表。在數以百計的雜誌中，兩篇著名的反轉文章都發在了同一個水平不高的雜誌上，由此可以了解科學專業界的共識。
話說回來，是不是轉基因植物都安全呢，當然不能這樣說。轉基因產品須逐一分析。抗除草劑的技術導致除草劑濫用可能是個問題。同樣，製造出有毒的轉基因植物也不是不可能的，可是這樣的產品哪裏有市場呢，賣給本拉登？
如果反對轉基因的人對特定的轉基因產品有疑問，這是合理的質疑。若對轉基因技術一概反對，我覺得這就不是基於事實，而是基於信仰/信條/迷信了。這樣就沒有討論的意義。
其實轉基因真的不是我最感興趣的話題，這篇“No scientific consensus on GMO safety”的文章就不看了吧，睡覺要緊。
資訊來源：
Scientific consensus on GMO safety stronger than for global warming
Examining Environmental Sciences Europe, journal that republished Séralini study
GMO papers in Environmental Sciences Europe
Environmental Sciences Europe was established in 1989 as "Umweltwissenschaften und Schadstoff-Forschung (German for Environmental Science and Pollution Research)", but changed to its current name in 2011. It has no impact factor.
It has published 22 articles dealing with GMOs. 15 are from authors opposed to GMOs (some papers have a quite aggressive tone) or members of anti-GMO organizations, or with financial links to anti-GMO lobbies. 2 papers have no obvious anti-GMO bias and 2 are replies to biased articles published in the journal. 3 articles are co-authored by a member of the editorial board, with no obvious anti-GMO bias, but indicating that the editorial board is aware of issues surrounding GMOs and should have identified the biased nature of most articles published in the journal on GMOs.
The journal claims to be peer-reviewed.
Papers published by authors linked to anti-GMO organizations (sometimes under the affiliation of such organizations)
CRIIGEN:
Genetically modified crops safety assessments: present limits and possible improvements
Gilles-Eric Séralini, Robin Mesnage, Emilie Clair, Steeve Gress, Joël Spiroux de Vendômois and Dominique Cellier
http://www.enveurope.com/content/23/1/10
GenØk:
The German ban on GM maize MON810: scientifically justified or unjustified?
Thomas Bøhn, Raul Primicerio and Terje Traavik
http://www.enveurope.com/content/24/1/22
TestBiotech:
Cultivation-independent establishment of genetically engineered plants in natural populations: current evidence and implications for EU regulation
Andreas Bauer-Panskus, Broder Breckling, Sylvia Hamberger and Christoph Then
http://www.enveurope.com/content/25/1/34
ENSSER:
Systemic risks of genetically modified crops: the need for new approaches to risk assessment
Hartmut Meyer
http://www.enveurope.com/content/23/1/7
Rat feeding studies with genetically modified maize - a comparative evaluation of applied methods and risk assessment standards
Hartmut Meyer and Angelika Hilbeck
http://www.enveurope.com/content/25/1/33
A controversy re-visited: Is the coccinellid Adalia bipunctata adversely affected by Bt toxins?
Angelika Hilbeck, Joanna M McMillan, Matthias Meier, Anna Humbel, Juanita Schläpfer-Miller and Miluse Trtikova
http://www.enveurope.com/content/24/1/10
Underlying reasons of the controversy over adverse effects of Bt toxins on lady beetle and lacewing larvae
Angelika Hilbeck, Matthias Meier and Miluse Trtikova
http://www.enveurope.com/content/24/1/9
Scrutinizing the current practice of the environmental risk assessment of GM maize applications for cultivation in the EU
Marion Dolezel, Marianne Miklau, Angelika Hilbeck, Mathias Otto, Michael Eckerstorfer, Andreas Heissenberger, Beatrix Tappeser and Helmut Gaugitsch
http://www.enveurope.com/content/23/1/33
Environmental risk assessment of genetically modified plants - concepts and controversies
Angelika Hilbeck, Matthias Meier, Jörg Römbke, Stephan Jänsch, Hanka Teichmann and Beatrix Tappeser
http://www.enveurope.com/content/23/1/13
Farmer’s choice of seeds in four EU countries under different levels of GM crop adoption
Angelika Hilbeck, Tamara Lebrecht, Raphaela Vogel, Jack A Heinemann and Rosa Binimelis
http://www.enveurope.com/content/25/1/12
Other papers linked to ‘green’ organizations
Surveying the occurrence of subspontaneous glyphosate-tolerant genetically engineered Brassica napus L. (Brassicaceae) along Swiss railways
Nicola Schoenenberger and Luigi D’Andrea
http://www.enveurope.com/content/24/1/23
The project was partially funded by AWEL, Section of Biological security of the Canton Zurich, the Fondation pour une Terre Humaine, and by Greenpeace Switzerland.
Impacts of genetically engineered crops on pesticide use in the U.S. -- the first sixteen years
Charles M Benbrook
http://www.enveurope.com/content/24/1/24
Funding to support the development of the model was provided by the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, Consumers Union, UCS, and The Organic Center.
Others papers with anti-GMO biases:
The booklet "Genetically modified crops" published from the German Research Foundation, does not meet the given claim
Friedhelm Taube, Michael Krawinkel, Andreas Susenbeth and Werner Theobald
http://www.enveurope.com/content/23/1/1
“We conclude that the evaluation of GMO's in agriculture primarily from a crop breeding perspective is lacking crucial positions…”.
European Union and German law on co-existence: Individualisation of a systemic problem
Gerd Winter and Sarah Stoppe-Ramadan
http://www.enveurope.com/content/23/1/28
This paper asks for tougher laws on GMOs.
From risk assessment to in-context trajectory evaluation - GMOs and their social implications
Vincenzo Pavone, Joanna Goven and Riccardo Guarino
http://www.enveurope.com/content/23/1/3
“the lack of long-term studies, further aggravated by current methodological deficiencies, prevent risk assessment from considering not only how GMOs affect the environmental context but also, and most importantly, the way people live in, and interact with, this context.”
List of references biased towards anti-GMO and postmodernist authors
Papers co-authored by a member of the editorial board
(no obvious bias, but a obvious lack of critical views on biased articles published in the journal)
Implications of GMO cultivation and monitoring-series
Gunther Schmidt and Winfried Schröder
http://www.enveurope.com/content/23/1/2
“Considerable scientific work has to be done to solve the remaining open questions”.
This article is an editorial on the GMLS conferences, which invite anti-GMO authors, which does not identify their biased nature.
Overview of principles and implementations to deal with spatial issues in monitoring environmental effects of genetically modified organisms
Winfried Schröder and Gunther Schmidt
http://www.enveurope.com/content/24/1/6
Cultivation of GMO in Germany: support of monitoring and coexistence issues by WebGIS technology
Lukas Kleppin, Gunther Schmidt and Winfried Schröder
http://www.enveurope.com/content/23/1/4
Other unbiased articles
Setup, efforts and practical experiences of a monitoring program for genetically modified plants - an Austrian case study for oilseed rape and maize
Kathrin Pascher, Dietmar Moser, Stefan Dullinger, Leopold Sachslehner,Patrick Gros, Norbert Sauberer, Andreas Traxler, Georg Grabherr and Thomas Frank
http://www.enveurope.com/content/23/1/12
Consequences of isolation distances on the allocation of GM maize fields in agricultural landscapes of Germany
Ulrich Stachow, Claudia Bethwell, Angelika Wurbs and Frieder Graef
http://www.enveurope.com/content/25/1/24
Replies to biased articles
A reply to Hilbeck’s parallel science:
Putative effects of Cry1Ab to larvae of Adalia bipunctata - reply to Hilbeck et al. (2012)
Jörg Romeis, Fernando Álvarez-Alfageme and Franz Bigler
http://www.enveurope.com/content/24/1/18
Response to the criticism by Taube et al. in ESE 23:1, 2011, on the booklet "Green Genetic Engineering" published by the German Research Foundation (DFG)
Inge Broer, Christian Jung, Frank Ordon, Matin Qaim, Barbara Reinhold-Hurek,Uwe Sonnewald and Andreas von Tiedemann
你的有毒轉基因作物如果價格便宜，我也買一些。價格太高，我就不要了！：））
謝遊士兄光顧！我說過我孤陋寡聞吧，連本拉登不幸遇難都不知道，看來有毒轉基因作物要自己消化了：）