尼羅河水手中來
風在雲上，雲在水上，水在我心上。
今年初，美國科學促進會（AAAS）和皮尤研究中心（Pew Research Center）聯合公布的一項調查顯示，88％的科學家認為轉基因食品可安全食用，持這一看法的公眾隻有37％。報告認為差距如此之大的一個可能原因是，三分之二的公眾認為科學家對轉基因食品的健康後果沒有清晰認識。這就是真正的原因嗎？
根據報告全文，皮尤中心給19，984名科學家發出了調查問卷，3748人（18.8%）完成了問卷調查。其中生物醫學學科背景的科學家占50%。報告沒有說明50%的生物醫學背景是否能夠代表科學家總體的學科構成。更大問題是在這50%的科學家人群中，有多少人的工作是與轉基因作物的研究有關，以什麽樣的方式相關。報告沒有提供任何信息。
由於這些關鍵信息缺失，88%的科學家相信轉基因安全的說法毫無意義。在一個沒有代表性並且無法排除偏向性的樣本中調查，科學家相信轉基因安全從1%到99%與88%沒有任何不同。好消息是超過半數的美國民眾認為轉基因不安全。
2012年10月，美國科學發展協會以官方名義（Board of Directors ）拋出了一個反對轉基因標識聲明（附錄1）。目的就是誘導民眾反對加利福尼亞轉基因標識立法。由於聲明中多處行文與孟山都的宣傳口徑一致，而且最高領導者 Nina Federoff本人就是轉基因公司的代言人，這份聲明的科學信譽受到廣泛質疑。很多科學家聯名發表反對聲明。其實無需在文章後麵分辨是非，聲明本身就是白紙黑字的謊言鐵證。
謊言一：Indeed, the science is quite clear: crop improvement by the modern molecular techniques of biotechnology is safe.
事實：與抗除草劑轉基因作物如影隨形的草胺膦被世界衛生組織確認為2A類致癌物。草胺膦導致DNA和染色體損害。在人類與非何傑金淋巴瘤的發生有關，動物實驗證明可導致毛細血管瘤，腎小管癌，皮膚癌，胰島細胞瘤（附錄2）。
謊言二：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.
事實：WHO宣稱不存在也不可能存在所謂“轉基因安全科學共識”。因為轉基因作物的安全性必須逐一驗證（case-by-case basis）。美國醫學協會（American Medical Association）認為轉基因有可能導致基因的水平轉移和毒性損害，轉基因作物的安全性需要進一步的檢驗。
謊言三：In order to receive regulatory approval in the United States, each new GM crop must be subjected to rigorous analysis and testing.
事實：FDA與轉基因公司之間的共識是，轉基因農作物本來就與傳統農作物實質相同。於是，轉基因農作物的安全性和營養評價由轉基因公司自己操作，也就是所謂的一般安全認證（generally recognized as safe ，GRAS）。FDA隻要求公司提供鑒定結論，而無需提供具體實驗數據。所謂轉基因食品經過嚴格的安全檢測完全是假的。
著名Salk研究所細胞神經生物專家David Schubert說：“Any statement suggesting extensive safety testing of all genetically modified crops is absolutely false”.
謊言四：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 .
上麵這段文字是這篇聲明的科學實證依據所在。一開始說，轉基因食品偶爾有導致各種病狀的報道。然後拿出一篇強有力的科學證明：『the GM and their non-GM counterparts are nutritionally equivalent』。注意，科學大牛們在這裏玩了一個小小的文字遊戲。不是證明轉基因食品安全無害而是與傳統作物有同等營養價值。
曆經多年的轉基因論戰。尼羅河發現一個規律。轉基因利益集團的一個營銷策略就是極力把轉基因的危害輕描淡寫，然後拿出一篇權威論著證明轉基因無害。但是認真看進去就發現事實完全相反。轉基因食品的問題大概格局已經很清楚了。人工基因的轉移會對健康對環境帶來某種影響。但是其性質和程度不是當下就能得出一個明確的結論。但是，有一個問題很清楚，如前文所論，轉基因作物的次生危害草胺膦才是迫在眉睫的危害。打開聲明提供的參考文獻二（附錄3）。跳過所有的長篇大論，把目光直接鎖定在抗草胺膦轉基因黃豆的長期作用（附錄4）。
表2，動物長期飼養實驗結果。草胺膦抗性黃豆。前麵同一作者的四篇文章觀察的都是大體指標，如體重，攝食量，器官重量和血生化檢測，沒有發現轉基因與傳統作物的毒性差異。但是在亞細胞水平上轉基因飼養動物的異常就出來了。包括滑麵內質網，細胞核膜，核仁，核染色絲，核漿內拚接因子數量的改變。這些與WHO研判認定草胺膦可以造成DNA和染色體損害是一致的。
表3的結果中一個重要的發現就是在山羊的奶和血液中發現了轉基因的DNA成分。這個發現與在孕婦和嬰兒血液中發現Bt蛋白相吻合。也再次證實了最早用結腸造瘺人作的轉基因黃豆服用實驗得出的推斷，人工基因片段在胃腸道不會完全分解，而是整合進入腸道細菌並且可能以大分子片段方式進入人體。其他異常結果還有肝細胞蛋白表達異常。應急反應異常和鈣信號轉導異常。免疫係統異常（淋巴結腫大和淋巴細胞數量改變）。
事實很清楚。轉基因安全共識是不存在的。轉基因的安全性是沒有得到公正客觀的檢驗的。轉基因作物潛在危險是存在的，直接危害健康是有科學證據的。科學隻認事實，不講民主，藐視權威。科學真理往往掌握那些探索事實的少數人手中。不論是誰，不管有多少人頭多少票數，不論打著什麽樣的大旗，偽造事實、屏蔽事實、歪曲事實是一定會被揭露的。
但是美國人民麵臨的局麵是嚴峻的。轉基因利益集團正在企圖借司法之手剝奪人民轉基因知情權。加利福尼亞州轉基因標識立法失敗了。美國國會農業委員會今年7月通過議案禁止各州強製轉基因標識，離正式立法隻有一步之遙。轉基因在科學戰場上的失敗被商人和政客們轉化成了政治舞台上的勝利。如果禁止轉基因標識的法律獲得通過，與強迫人民吃轉基因食品沒有任何不同。這就是赤裸裸的法西斯統治，完全背離了科學民主的理想
越戰落葉劑的繼承者Roundup（一掃光，草胺膦的商品名）準備重新出發占領世界。十年前美國就強迫貿易夥伴國把進口大豆的草胺膦標準從2ppm提高到20ppm，現在又推銷40ppm的草胺膦黃豆。這個劑量與在小型動物中沒有生殖損害的劑量水平73ppm相差還不到一倍（要知道小型動物的耐受劑量往往是人的十幾倍甚至幾十倍）。已經把人類的健康推向了極為危險的邊緣。麵對轉基因法西斯帝國的崛起。是沉默還是抗爭，到了必須作出選擇的時候。
附錄1，AAAS反對轉基因食品標識聲明
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
附錄2，世界衛生組織對草胺膦致癌性的說明。
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
附錄3，AAAS聲明參考文獻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
附錄4，AAAS聲明參考文獻2中的轉基因黃豆毒性結果。
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
延伸閱讀尼羅河相關文章
Is Glyphosate Safe?
Glyphosate inhibits an enzyme that is essential to plant growth; this enzyme is not found in humans or other animals, contributing to the low risk to human health. Comprehensive toxicological studies in animals have demonstrated that glyphosate does not cause cancer, birth defects, DNA damage, nervous system effects, immune system effects, endocrine disruption or reproductive problems. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) classified the carcinogenicity potential of glyphosate as Category E: “evidence of non-carcinogenicity for humans.”
EPA, which reviews extensive toxicological and environmental data before registering an active ingredient, classifies glyphosate as “practically non-toxic.” That is the most favorable acute toxicity category possible based on single–exposure oral, dermal and inhalation studies. In addition to studies with the active ingredient of herbicide products, regulatory agencies also require specific toxicological studies with the full formulation.
http://www.monsanto.com/glyphosate/pages/is-glyphosate-safe.aspx
你有不消費轉基因的權利。轉基因不標記是作賊心虛。你可以去買非轉基因標記的食品。也可以拒絕買已知的轉基因食品。例如食用油，不要買黃豆油玉米油和菜籽油。買花生油葵花油橄欖油。
你還可以把你知道的告訴你的朋友。
抗草胺膦GM與草胺膦的關係是如影隨形的。沒有不用草胺膦的抗草胺膦GM.所以兩者有直接的不可分割的聯係。
我不需要絕食。因為人類主糧沒有轉基因。
有意誤導的人一個最通常的手段就是混淆兩種完全不同的東西。目的 就是要混淆真假。
看看這個叫蔣加華的人，就是這麽幹的。減少農藥使用的是Bt類轉基因作物。減少農藥的原因是把農藥長進了植物中，作為農藥Bt的成分並沒有減少，而且更容易吃進去。本文針對的是抗草胺膦轉基因。不減少農藥使用而是劇烈增加農藥使用。
"這就是赤裸裸的法西斯統治"?? 那你從今就絕食抗議，天堂裏沒有轉基因！哈哈哈哈。
====================================================================
99%的百姓和灑家一樣，沒有這方麵的專業知識，如何抗爭？在肘子麵前走不上三個回合。。。
草胺膦是除草劑的有效成分，它會把普通大豆殺死。轉基因大豆抗草胺膦，所以農民可以把除草劑用於大豆。但轉基因技術本身與草胺膦無關。你可以說轉基因間接地帶來農藥的問題，但你的論述是在誤導。在更多的例子中，轉基因技術減少了農藥的使用。