中欧社会论坛 - China Europa Forum

转载自光明网卫生频道

[编者按]

光明网卫生频道“专家.专栏”作者顾秀林教授给我们提供了一篇译文，它是由刚刚公开、用二年时间拿小白鼠做了全球第一个转基因玉米毒性试验的法国科学家 Gilles-Eric Seralini（塞拉利尼）同全球34位科学家就转基因毒性问题撰写的一封公开信，这是Seralini先生不久前接受完法国电视台采访、用数据揭露全球转基因跨国企业压制科学界按严谨的科学研究流程的黑幕之后，又一次借助媒体反击转基因跨国企业近几十年来一直掩盖转基因作物存在潜在风险问题事实的行动。本网将顾秀林教授中译文及英文原文一齐登载，供有兴趣的人士参考。

[翻译者顾秀林教授按] 法国科学家塞拉利尼提出一个问题：在一个被大公司主导的世界中，科学所面临的挑战，究竟是什么挑战？

我来概括一下他的问题：在金钱的世界里，科学家有没有去推磨？

公开信的结尾说：“所谓安全性检测、所谓基于科学的管理、甚至科学程序本身，这一切是否能够实行，完全取决于科学家群体是否真诚地献身于公众利益、是否整体忠于科学操守。假如把这一切反过来，让一个科学产品的评估从起点开始就作弊，仅仅朝研发者的利益倾斜，依赖全面地一贯地压制独立科学家为公众利益所做的研究而推行，那么所谓诚实、理性或者科学的辩论，就是根本不可能的事情。”

——可不是吗，关于转基因风险的科学辩论在哪里？也许在生物技术公司大总裁的裤兜里？

中文译文翻译投稿时间：2012年10月4日

---

塞拉利尼等人发表的报告及其招致的媒体关注，揭示了一个非常深刻的问题：在一个被大公司主导的世界中，科学所面临的挑战，究竟是什么挑战？

第一 一项备受攻击的风险研究

塞拉利尼和同事遭受的，不过是最新的一轮有组织的攻击。最近几年发生过的同类事件中，包括有：

伯克利大学当时的助理教授Ignacio Chapela 所做的关于墨西哥转基因玉米污染的报告(见Quist和Chapela在2001年报告)，他因此遭到了来自互联网浪潮般的污名攻击；据报道，那一次攻击是由黑客公关公司(Bivings Group)负责策划实施的，这家公司常受雇于孟山都公司，提供孟山都公司所需服务支持。

英国杰出的生物化学家阿帕德.普兹泰(Ewen and Pusztai, 1999a)因发表了转基因土豆问题的研究报告后，被迫终结了学术生涯。是英国皇家学会下了封口令，强制他退休、并没收他的数据，目的是不让他继续做研究(见Ewen和Pusztai在1999b; Laidlaw在2003年报告)。

转基因公司还采用人身暴力，最近的一次施暴是针对布宜诺斯艾利斯大学的分子胚胎学家安德烈斯.卡拉斯科教授（Andres Carrasco），因为他的研究报告中告诉公众，发现农达中的草甘膦成份存在对人畜健康有危害风险(见Amnesty International在2010年报告)。

因此,公众就不用奇怪为什么在2009年，第一次直接致信美国环保署、批评大公司控制对转基因农作物的研究的那26位昆虫学家，他们提交的是一封匿名信件( 见Amnesty International在2010年报告)。因为他们若署名可能会丟失工作甚至生命安全受到威胁。

第二 科学媒体的责任

一个很重要但很少被注意的问题是，转基因公司给科学界施加压力时，常见到科学媒体身影 (见Ermakova在 2007年的报告; 见Heinemann和Traavik在2007年的报告; 见Latham和Wilson在,2007年的报告)。

最近 Gilles-Eric Seralini（塞拉利尼）等人的有关转基因玉米饲养小白鼠二年后的毒性科学报告在网络上公开发表后，来自名望最高的报道科学问题媒体，如《科学》，《纽约时报》，《新科学家》，还有《华盛顿邮报》，全都无一例外地展示媒体在批评与反对声中评论“中立性”，它们几乎都不让支持意见刊发(见Carmen在2012年的报告; Enserink在2012年的报告; MacKenzie在2012年的报告; Pollack在2012年的报告)。而那些影响力可能差一点的媒体，如：《英国每日电讯报》，公众发现可能听到对这个研究的支持的科学观点(见Poulter在2012的报告)。

第三 误导性媒体报道

以往针对研究转基因风险问题的报道，转基因公司最拿手的媒体公关手段是：声东击西、鱼目混珠——让批评意见出现时像一条“青熏鱼”，云里雾里讲不清、很容易被调转方向，或直接就是谣言。

所以， Gilles-Eric Seralini（塞拉利尼）等人在2012年公布的研究报告，尽管是运用常规研究方法，却被媒体暗示为不靠谱、是假冒的科学，而那些之前转基因公司采用同样的研究方法，却是正确的（见上面引述的那些科学媒体2012年发布的相关稿件）。

这些媒体采用的误导性媒体报道手法，令非专业读者感到了疑惑和迷惘。

例如，伦敦国王学院（Kings College）的Tom Sanders被引述说：“这种实验鼠特别容易罹患乳腺肿瘤，尤其是在不限制摄食量的时候” (见Hirschler和Kelland在2012年的报告)。

但是,Tom Sanders并没有指出，也许他确实不知道，几乎所有的转基因公司自己做喂养实验用的也都是这种试验大鼠,名叫SD鼠(例如： Hammond 等在1996, 2004, 2006的研究以及MacKenzie等在2007年写的综述)，并且在那些实验中，摄食量也不受限(例如Malley等在2007年的报告)。

Sanders的评论产生了重要影响，因为他的观点被广为引述，而且他的说法成了英国皇家学会下面的科学媒体中心策划的，针对 Gilles-Eric Seralini（塞拉利尼）等人的研究报告最有组织的回击论点之一。这个科学媒体中心正是长期以来一直在封杀对转基因作物安全异议争论的操盘手，出资人正是生产转基因作物种子和杀虫剂的公司。

签名人（Signatories）：

1. Brian Wynne (Professor of Science Studies, UK Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) Centre for Economic and Social Aspects of Genomics, Cesagen, Lancaster University) 英国兰卡斯特大学

2.Irina Ermakova, Dr of Biology, Russian Academy of Sciences 俄国科学院

3.Jo Cummins (Professor Emeritus University of Western Ontario) 美国加拿大大略大学

4. Michael Antoniou, (Reader in Molecular Genetics his university (King’s College, London) has a policy not to allow Dr Antoniou to use his affiliation here) 伦敦大学国王学院

5.Philip L. Bereano (Professor Emeritus University of Washington & Washington Biotechnology Action Council) 华盛顿大学

6. Dr P M Bhargava (Former and Founder director, Centre for Cellular & Molecular Biology, Government of India) 印度国家细胞与分子生物学中心

7.Carlo Leifert (Professor for Ecological Agriculture Newcastle University) 英国纽卡斯尔大学

8.Peter Romilly (formerly University of Abertay, Dundee) 阿伯泰大学

9.Robert Vint (FRSA)

10. Dr Brian John (Durham University, UK, retired) 英国杜伦大学

11. Professor C. Vyvyan Howard, University of Ulster) Diederick Sprangers Genethics Foundation)美国华盛顿阿尔斯特大学 哈沃德

12. Mariam Mayet (African Centre for Biosafety, South Africa) 南非非洲生物安全中心

13. Eva Novotny (ret. University of Cambridge) 剑桥大学

14. Ineke Buskens (Research for the Future)未来研究（所）

15. Hector Valenzuela (Professor, University of Hawaii) 美国夏威夷大学教授

16. Ronald Nigh, (Centro de Investigaciones y Estudio Superiores en Antropología Social, Chiapas, Mexico) 墨西哥

17. Marcia Ishii-Eiteman (PhD, Senior Scientist, Pesticide Action Network North America) 北美农药行动网络

18. Naomi Salmon (Dept. of Law, Aberystwyth University, Wales) 威尔士大学

19. Michael W, Fox (Minnesota, Veterinarian & Bioethicist, PhD, MRCVS) 美国明尼苏达州

20. Neil J. Carman (PhD Sierra Club) 美国塞拉俱乐部

21. Vandana Shiva (India) 印度

22. Hans Herren (President, Millennium Institute, Washington DC, USA) 美国华盛顿

23. John Fagan (PhD Earth Open Source, UK and USA) 英国和美国

24. Sheila Berry and the Global Environmental Trust

25. Av Singh (PhD, Perennia)

26. Laurel Hopwood (for the Sierra Club, USA) 美国塞拉俱乐部

27. Philip H. Howard (Associate Professor of Community, Food and Agriculture, Michigan State University ) 美国密西根州大学

28. Donald B. Clark (on behalf of Cumberland Countians for Peace & Justice and Network for Environmental & Economic Responsibility, United Church of Christ, Pleasant Hill, TN) 美国田纳西州基督联合教会

29. Robert Mann (Senior Lecturer in Biochemistry & in Environmental Studies (rtd) University of Auckland, NZ) 新西兰奥克兰大学

30. Chris Williams (PhD, FRSA, University of London) 英国伦敦大学

31. Mae-Wan Ho (PhD Director Institute of Science in Society) 英国社会科学研究所

32. Peter Saunders (Prof. Emeritus of Applied Mathematics, King’s College London) 英国伦敦大学国王学院

33. Dr. Terje Traavik (Prof. Gene Ecology, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Troms?) 挪威特罗姆瑟大学

34. Oscar B. Zamora (Prof. Crop Science University of the Philippines Los Banos College, Philippines). 菲律宾洛斯巴诺斯学院

and if you are a scientist or academic and would like your name added to this list, please email: isneditor@bioscienceresource.org and write ‘Seralini letter’ in the headline, providing an affiliation if you wish.

可以连署，发电邮至上述邮箱 本人已经要求连署了。

A new paper by the French group of Gilles-Eric Seralini describes harmful effects on rats fed diets containing genetically modified maize (variety NK603), with and without the herbicide Roundup, as wellas Roundup alone. This peer-reviewed study (Seralini et al., 2012), has been criticized by some scientists whose views have been widely reported in the popular press (Carmen, 2012; Mestel, 2012; Revkin,2012; Worstall, 2012). Seralini et al. (2012) extends the work of other studies demonstrating toxicity and/or endocrine-based impacts of Roundup (Gaiv?o et al., 2012; Kelly et al., 2010; Paganelli et al.,2010; Romano et al., 2012), as reviewed by Antoniou et al. (2010). The Seralini publication, and resultant media attention, raise the profile of fundamental challenges faced by science in a world increasingly dominated by corporate influence. These challenges are important for all of science but are rarely discussed in scientific venues.

Gilles-Eric Seralini

1) History of Attacks on Risk-finding Studies. Seralini and colleagues are just the latest in a series of researchers whose findings have triggered orchestrated campaigns of harassment. Examples from just the last few years include Ignacio Chapela, a then untenured Assistant Professor at Berkeley, whose paper on GM contamination of maize in Mexico (Quist and Chapela, 2001) sparked an intensive internet-based campaign to discredit him. This campaign was reportedly masterminded by the Bivings Group, a public relations firm specializing in viral marketing – and frequently hired by Monsanto (Delborne, 2008). The distinguished career of biochemist Arpad Pusztai, came to an effective end when he attempted to report his contradictory findings on GM potatoes (Ewen and Pusztai, 1999a). Everything from a gag order, forced retirement, seizure of data, and harassment by the British Royal Society were used to forestall his continued research (Ewen and Pusztai, 1999b; Laidlaw, 2003). Even threats of physical violence have been used, most recently against Andres Carrasco, Professor of Molecular Embryology at the University of Buenos Aires, whose research (Paganelli et al. 2010) identified health risks from glyphosate, theactive ingredient in Roundup (Amnesty International, 2010). It was no surprise therefore, that when in 2009, 26 corn entomologists took the unprecedented step of writing directly to the US EPA to complain about industry control of access to GM crops for research, the letter was sent anonymously (Pollack, 2009).

2) The Role of the Science Media. An important but often unnoticed aspect of this intimidation is that it frequently occurs in concert with the science media (Ermakova, 2007; Heinemann and Traavik, 2007; Latham and Wilson, 2007). Reporting of the Seralini paper in arguably the most prestigious segments of the science media: Science, the New York Times, New Scientist, and the Washington Post uniformly failed to “balance” criticism of the research, with even minimal coverage of support for the Seralini paper (Carmen, 2012; Enserink, 2012; MacKenzie, 2012; Pollack, 2012). Nevertheless, less well-resourced media outlets, such as the UK Daily Mail appeared to have no trouble finding a positive scientific opinion on the same study (Poulter, 2012).

3) Misleading Media Reporting. A key pattern with risk-finding studies is that the criticisms voiced in the media are often red herrings, misleading, or untruthful. Thus, the use of common methodologies was portrayed as indicative of shoddy science when used by Seralini et al. (2012) but not when used by industry (see refs above and Science Media Centre, 2012). The use of red herring arguments appears intended to sow doubt and confusion among non-experts. For example, Tom Sanders of Kings College, London was quoted as saying: “This strain of rat is very prone to mammary tumors particularly when food intake is not restricted” (Hirschler and Kelland, 2012 ). He failed to point out, or was unaware, that most industry feeding studies have used Sprague-Dawley rats (e.g. Hammond et al., 1996, 2004, 2006; MacKenzie et al., 2007). In these and other industry studies (e.g. Malley et al. 2007), feed intake was unrestricted. Sanders’ comments are important because they were widely quoted and because they were part of an orchestrated response to the Seralini study by the Science Media Centre of the British Royal Institution. The Science Media Centre has a long history of quelling GMO controversies and its funders include numerous companies that produce GMOs and pesticides.

4) Regulator Culpability. In our view a large part of the ultimate fault for this controversy lies with regulators. Regulators, such as EFSA (the European Food Safety Authority) in Europe and the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) and FDA (Food and Drug Administration) in the US, have enshrined protocols with little or no potential to detect adverse consequences of GMOs (Schubert, 2002;Freese and Schubert, 2004; Pelletier, 2005). GMOs are required to undergo few experiments, few endpoints are examined, and tests are solely conducted by the applicant or their agents. Moreover, current regulatory protocols are simplistic and assumptions-based (RSC, 2001), which by design, will miss most gene expression changes – apart from the target trait - induced by the process of transgene insertion (Heinemann et al., 2011; Schubert, 2002). Puzstai (2001) and others have consequently argued that well-conducted feeding trials are one of the best ways of detecting such unpredictable changes. Yet feeding trials are not mandatory for regulatory approval, and the scientific credibility of those which have been published to date has been challenged (Domingo, 2007; Pusztai et al., 2003; Spiroux de Vend?mois et al., 2009). For example, Snell et al. (2012), who assessed the quality of 12 long term (>96 days) and 12 multigenerational studies, concluded: “The studies reviewed here are often linked to an inadequate experimental design that has detrimental effects on statistical analysis…the major insufficiencies not only include lack of use of near isogenic lines but also statistical power underestimation [and], absence of repetitions…”. Apparently, the same issues of experimental design and analysis raised about this (Seralini) risk-finding study were not of concern to critics when the studies did not identify risk, resulting in ill-informed decision-makers. In the end, it is a major problem for science and society when current regulatory protocols approve GMO crops based on little to no useful data upon which to assess safety.

5) Science and Politics. Governments have become habituated to using science as a political football. For example, in a study conducted by the Royal Society of Canada at the request of the Canadian government, numerous weaknesses of GM regulation in Canada were identified (RSC, 2001). The failure of the Canadian government to meaningfully respond to the many recommended changes was detailed by Andree (2006). Similarly, the expert recommendations of the international IAASTD report, produced by 400 researchers over 6 years, that GMOs are unsuited to the task of advancing global agriculture have been resolutely ignored by policymakers. Thus, while proclaiming evidence-based decision-making, governments frequently use science solely when it suits them.

6) Conclusion: When those with a vested interest attempt to sow unreasonable doubt around inconvenient results, or when governments exploit political opportunities by picking and choosing from scientific evidence, they jeopardize public confidence in scientific methods and institutions, and also put their own citizenry at risk. Safety testing, science-based regulation, and the scientific process itself, depend crucially on widespread trust in a body of scientists devoted to the public interest and professional integrity. If instead, the starting point of a scientific product assessment is an approval process rigged in favour of the applicant, backed up by systematic suppression of independent scientists working in the public interest, then there can never be an honest, rational or scientific debate.

(1)In addition, US scientists who publish studies finding adverse environmental effects are frequently vehemently attacked by other pro-GM scientists. As a report in Nature, which discusses numerous examples, points out, “Papers suggesting that biotech crops might harm the environment attract a hail of abuse from other scientists. Behind the attacks are scientists who are determined to prevent papers they deem to have scientific flaws from influencing policy-makers. When a paper comes out in which they see problems, they react quickly, criticize the work in public forums, write rebuttal letters, and send them to policy-makers, funding agencies and journal editors” (pg. 27 in Waltz. 2009a). Indeed, when one of us wrote a Commentary in Nature Biotechnology ten years ago suggesting that more attention needs to be paid to the potential unintended effects associated with insertional mutagenesis, we received a flood of responses, and an administrator at the Salk Institute even said that the publication “was jeopardizing funding for his institution” (see Waltz, 2009a). Similar attacks have greeted studies on adverse effects of Bt toxins on ladybird beetles and green lacewing larvae, which were used by German authorities to ban cultivation of Mon810, a Bt corn variety (see: Hilbeck et al.2012a,b, respectively). In 2009, a group of 26 public sector corn entomologists sent a letter to the US Environmental Protection Agency which stated “No truly independent research can be legally conducted on many critical questions involving these crops [because of company-imposed restrictions]” (pg. 880 in Waltz, 2009b it was no surprise that the letter was sent anonymously as the scientists feared retribution from the companies that funded their work (Pollack, 2009).?Furthermore, industry control over what research can be conducted in the US means that adverse findings can effectively be suppressed. In one example cited in the article, Pioneer was developing a binary Bt toxin, Cry34Ab1/Cry35Ab1, against the corn rootworm. In 2001, Pioneer contracted with some university laboratories to test for unintended effects on a lady beetle. The laboratories found that 100% of the lady beetles died after eight days of feeding. Pioneer forbade the researchers from publicizing the data. Two years later Pioneer received approval for a Bt corn variety with Cry34Ab1/Cry35Ab1 and submitted studies showing that lady beetles fed the toxin for only 7 days were not harmed. The scientists were not allowed to redo the study after the crop was commercialized (Waltz, 2009b). In another example, Dow AgroSciences threatened a researcher with legal action if he published information he had received from US EPA. As the article notes, “The information concerned an insect-resistant variety of maize known as TC1507, made by Dow and Pioneer. The companies suspended sales of TC1507 in Puerto Rico after discovering in 2006 that an armyworm had developed resistance to it. Tabashnik was able to review the report the companies filed with the EPA by submitting a Freedom of Information Act request. “I encouraged an employee of the company [Dow] to publish the data and mentioned that, alternatively, I could cite the data,” says Tabashnik. “He told me that if I cited the information…I would be subject to legal action by the company,” he says. “These kinds of statements are chilling” (pg. 882 in Waltz, 2009b).

参考文献（References）:

Amnesty International. 2010. Argentina: Threats deny community access to research UA: 173/10 Index: AMR 13/005/2010 Argentina Date: 12 August 2010

Andree, Peter. 2006. An analysis of efforts to improve genetically modified food regulation in Canada. Science and Public Policy 33(5):399-389.

Antoniou, Michael., Paolo Brack, Andres Carrasco, John Fagan, Mohamed Habib, Paolo Kageyama, Carlo Leifert, Rubens Nodari, Walter Pengue. 2010. GM Soy:Sustainable? Responsible? GLS Gemeinschaftsbank and ARGE Gentechnik-frei.Carmen, Tim. 2012. French scientists question safety of GM corn. Washington Post 19 Sept 2012.

Delborne, Jason. 2008. Transgenes and transgressions: scientific dissent as heterogeneous practice. Social Studies of Science 38(4):509-541

Domingo, Jose L. 2007. Toxicity studies of genetically modified plants: a review of the published literature. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 47:721–733

Enserink, Martin. 2012. France and European Commission order review of controversial GM study in rats. ScienceInsider 21 Sept 2012

Ermakova, Irina. 2007. GM soybeans: revisiting a controversial format. Nature Biotech 25:1351-1354

Ewen, Stanley W.B. and Arpad Pusztai. 1999a Effect of diets containing genetically modified potatoes expressing Galanthus nivalis lectin on rat small intestine. The Lancet 354 (9187):1353-1354

Ewen, Stanley W.B. and Arpad Pusztai. 1999b. Health risks of genetically modified foods. The Lancet 354(Issue 9179):684. HYPERLINK”

Freese, W. and D. Schubert. 2004. Safety Testing and Regulation of Genetically Engineered Foods. Biotechnol Genet Eng Rev 21:299-324

Gaiv?o I, Guilherme S, M.A. Santos MA, M. Pacheco. 2012. DNA damage in fish (Anguilla anguilla) exposed to a glyphosate-based herbicide —elucidation of organ-specificity and the role of oxidative stress. Mutat Res 18 743(1-2):1-9.

Hammond, Bruce, John L Vicini, Cary F. Hartnell, Mark W. Naylor, Christopher D. Knight, Edwin H. Robinson, Roy L. Fuchs and Stephen R. Padgette. 1996. The feeding value of soybeans fed to rats, chickens, catfish and dairy cattle is not altered by genetic incorporation of glyphosate tolerance. J. Nutr. 126:717-272

Hammond, B., R. Dudek, J. Lemen, M. Nemeth. 2004. Results of a 13 week safety assurance study with rats fed grain from glyphosate tolerant corn. Food Chem Toxicol 42:1003–1014

Hammond, B., R. Dudek, J. Lemen, M. Nemeth. 2006. Results of a 90-day safety assurance study with rats fed grain from corn borer-protected corn. Food Chem Toxicol 44:1092–1099

Heinemann, J.A. and Traavik, T. 2007. GM soybeans—revisiting a controversial format. Nature Biotech 25: 1355-1356

Heinemann, J. A., B. Kurenbach, B. and D. Quist. 2011. Molecular profiling — a tool for addressing emerging gaps in the comparative risk assessment of GMOs. Env. Int. 37: 1285-1293.

Hilbeck, A., J.M. McMillan, M. Meier, A. Humbel, J. Schl?pfer-Miller and M. Trtikova. 2012. A controversy revisited: Is the coccinellid Adalia bipunctata adversely affected by Bt toxins? Environmental Sciences Europe, 24:10

Hilbeck, A., M. Meier and M. Trtikova. 2012. Underlying reasons of the controversy over adverse effects of Bt toxins on lady beetle and lacewing larvae. Environmental Sciences Europe, 24:9.

Hirschler, Ben and Kate Kelland. 2012. Study on Monsanto GM corn concerns draws skepticism. Reuters: Ed UK 20 Sept 2012

Kelly, David, Robert Poulin, Daniel M. Tompkins and Colin R. Townsend. 2010. Synergistic effects of glyphosate formulation and parasite infection on fish malformations and survival. J. Appl. Ecol. 47(2): 498-504

Laidlaw, Stuart. 2003. Ch. 4 What’s Good for GM. In: Secret Ingredients. McClelland and Stewart Ltd., Toronto.

Latham, Jonathan and Allison Wilson. 2007. What is Nature Biotechnology good for? Independent Science News 4 Dec 2007.

MacKenzie, Debora. 2012. Study linking GM crops and cancer questioned. New Scientist 19 Sept 2012.

MacKenzie and 12 others. 2007. Thirteen week feeding study with transgenic maize grain containing event DAS-?15?7-1 in Sprague–Dawley rats. Food Chem. Toxicol. 45:551–562

Malley and 14 others. 2007. Subchronic feeding study of DAS-59122-7 maize grain in Sprague-Dawley rats. Food Chem. Toxicol. 45:1277–1292 Mestel, Rosie. 2012. Study points to health problems with genetically modified foods. LA Times 20 Sept 2012

Paganelli, Alejandra, Victoria Gnazzo, Helena Acosta, Silvia L. Lopez, and Andres E. Carrasco. 2010. Glyphosate-based herbicides produce teratogenic effects on vertebrates by impairing retinoic acid signaling. Chem. Res. Toxicol. 23(10):1586–1595

Pelletier, D. 2005. Science, Law, and Politics in the Food and Drug Administration’s Genetically Engineered Foods Policy: FDA’s 1992 Policy Statement. Nutr. Rev. 63:171-181

Pollack, Andrew. 2009. Crop scientists say biotechnology seed companies are thwarting research. New York Times 19 Feb 2009.

Pollack, Andrew. 2012. Foes of modified corn find support in a study. New York Times 19 Sept 2012.

Poulter, Sean. 2012. Cancer row over GM foods as study says it did THIS to rats… and can cause organ damage and early death in humans.Mail OnLine 19 Sept 2012.

Pusztai, Arpad. 2001. Genetically Modified Foods: Are They a Risk to Human/Animal Health? American Institute of Biological Sciences

Pusztai, A,, S. Bardocz, and S.W.B. Ewen. 2003. Ch. 16. Genetically Modified Foods: Potential Human Health Effects. pp. 347-372. In: J.P.F. D’Mello (ed) Food Safety: Contaminants and Toxins. CAB International 472 pp.

Quist, David and Ignacio Chapela. 2001. Transgenic DNA introgressed into traditional maize landraces in Oaxaca, Mexico. Nature 414 (6863): 541–543

Revkin, Andrew. 2012. Single-Study Syndrome and the G.M.O. Fight. New York Times 20 Sept 2012 HYPERLINK “” http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2…

Romano M.A., R.M. Romano, L.D. Santos, P. Wisniewski, D.A. Campos, P.B. de Souza, P. Viau, M.M. Bernardi, M.T. Nunes, C.A. de Oliveira. 2012. Glyphosate impairs male offspring reproductive development by disrupting gonadotropin expression. Arch. Toxicol. 86(4):663-73.

RSC (Royal Society of Canada). 2001. Elements of Precaution: Recommendations for the Regulation of Food Biotechnology In Canada Science Media Centre. 2012. Study on cancer and GM maize – experts respond. Posted 20 Sept 2012.

Schubert, David. 2002. A different perspective on GM food. Nature Biotech. 20: 969

Séralini, G-E., E. Clair, R. Mesnage, S. Gress, N. Defarge, M. Malatesta, D. Hennequin, J. Spiroux de Vend?mois. 2012. Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize. Food Chem. Toxicol.

Snell, C., A. Bernheim, J-B. Berge, M. Kuntz, G. Pascal, A. Paris, and A.E. Ricroch. 2012. Assessment of the health impact of GM plant diets in long-term and multigenerational animal feeding trials: A literature review. Food Chem. Toxicol. 50:1134-1148

Spiroux de Vend?mois, J., F. Roullier, D. Cellier, and G.-E. Séralini. 2009. A Comparison of the Effects of Three GM Corn Varieties on Mammalian Health. Int. J. Biol. Sci. 5(7):706–726

Waltz, E. 2009a. Battlefield. Nature 461: 27-32.

Waltz, E. 2009b. Under Wraps. Nature Biotechnology 27(10): 880-882.

Worstall, Tim. 2012. Proof Perfect That The Seralini Paper On GM Corn And Cancer In Rats Is Rubbish. Forbes 21 Sept 2012.

全文下载