秀才遇见兵，有理说不清 --- 逼上前台的转基因科学家（ZT）

[9981]

有意思的是DDT，石棉孟山都都生产过，而这些产品问世之初都被标榜为造福人类，与当今的挺转专家的囗气何其相似。
那句话怎么说来着：cheat on me once, shame on you... cheat on me twice, shame of me.

你不能否认的是， 及时现在某些产品被弃用， 但是历史上他们还是起了非常大的功绩。 否则不会在那么长时间被使用。 之所以被弃用也是因为发现问题才会有人找到更好的替代品。

并不是说发展了转基因就不对它做品质监控了。

 

[老闹子]

严是农业学家，也可以称为生物学家，但可惜他不是医学家，所以有人要置疑。农业学家的研究对象是庄稼，而医学家研究的是人体。什么时候有医学家站出来为转基因说话可態就没有那么多反对的声音了。

并不是没有医学家做这些研究，而是医学家们的研究结论不符合反转基因团体的需要，所以被视而不见了。

看看下面这个汇集了美国顶尖医学家的AMA关于转基因食品的意见。

农业学家的意见有了。医学家的意见有了。你是不是还要其它什么家的研究意见？

http://www.biotech-now.org/food-and...-for-special-labeling-of-bioengineered-foods#

AMA: “No Scientific Justification for Special Labeling of Bioengineered Foods”
Concurrent to the 2012 BIO International Convention in Boston, the American Medical Association (AMA) is hosting its 161st annual meeting in Chicago during which the group discussed the issue of mandatory labeling of biotech food products.

During the AMA meeting, the AMA House of Delegates adopted a formal statement in opposition to the mandatory labeling of genetically engineered, or bioengineered, foods. (Note: the organization did not consider or take a position on the California food labeling ballot measure).

The AMA formal statement reads, in part: “Our AMA believes that as of June 2012, there is no scientific justification for special labeling of bioengineered foods, as a class, and that voluntary labeling is without value unless it is accompanied by focused consumer education.”

 

[flapjack_monkey]

有个说法：学拳容易，改拳难。
跟一个什么都不知道的农村老太太，也许一两个小时可以让她相信转基因食品是安全的。因为她们什么成见都没有。
跟一个一知半解的主持人或经济学家或军事家，你用一两个月甚至一两年也难以改变他们对转基因食品的态度。因为他们自以为很懂基因。
“基因，不就是影响遗传的东西吗？别蒙我，连基因都被转变了，你还能肯定它不影响到我们的后代？什么，吃下去就没问题？你别蒙我，基因不就是分子吗？分子不是很小的吗？它们能够穿够肠子，细胞壁。细胞壁你懂不懂，这基因，它穿过细胞壁，就那个什么什么，就影响了。你们都是良心被狗吃了。转基因粮食，那就是生物武器。美国人有哪么好心，帮你发展粮食？告诉你吧，上次克林顿，后来那什么布希，，，矛盾都对着中国。孟山都听说把美国科学家都收买了，，，收买之后美国科学家就专门给中国人研究转基因。什么，你吃转基因，你脑袋有病，你知道不？你傻，以为大家都要跟着你傻，，，你先让你儿子吃吃。什么，你儿子也吃，你这是毒害青少年。，，，”

你真的认为反转的主力和理论基础来自以上那些人？不管是挺转还是反转总会有些人一知半解但又信囗开河，你要拿这种人说事就纯粹是为辩论而辩论了。
建议你看一下转基因的短片
http://v.youku.com/v_show/id_XNjE2ODcwMzI0.html
反驳一下07：06-08：50反转专家就转基因是如何引起疾病的观点。
再来反驳一下08：51-12：40种子公司是如何介入政府决策，扰乱公众视线的观点。

 

[老闹子]

你真的认为反转的主力和理论基础来自以上那些人？不管是挺转还是反转总会有些人一知半解但又信囗开河，你要拿这种人说事就纯粹是为辩论而辩论了。
建议你看一下转基因的短片
http://v.youku.com/v_show/id_XNjE2ODcwMzI0.html
反驳一下07：06-08：50反转专家就转基因是如何引起疾病的观点。
再来反驳一下08：51-12：40种子公司是如何介入政府决策，扰乱公众视线的观点。

如果是你指出专家的意见，我不评论专家的意见，却拿那些主持人经济学家军事评论家来说事，那就符合你说的“就纯粹是为辩论而辩论了”。我拿这些人说事，只是回应老向的感叹，说明那些一知不解而固执己见的人是最难被改变观点的。

看过几个这样的东西，基本都是似是而非的东西。你提供的这个不清楚我是否已经看过。既然你那么认真地建议，我有时间看看再来说我的评论吧。

同时，既然你指定只相信医学家的意见，我也希望听听你对美国医学家们认为转基因食品无需标识的意见的意见。

 

[salas88]

你几天不露面， 我还以为你回国被共党抓了呢

咋没露面，昨天我还为大统华反华加拿大小孩们被驱逐而欢呼雀跃呢！

 

[salas88]

应该加上一段美帝规划50年的转基因生物战阴谋妄图灭亡中国，那就跟来事了！

如果是你指出专家的意见，我不评论专家的意见，却拿那些主持人经济学家军事评论家来说事，那就符合你说的“就纯粹是为辩论而辩论了”。我拿这些人说事，只是回应老向的感叹，说明那些一知不解而固执己见的人是最难被改变观点的。

看过几个这样的东西，基本都是似是而非的东西。你提供的这个不清楚我是否已经看过。既然你那么认真地建议，我有时间看看再来说我的评论吧。

同时，既然你指定只相信医学家的意见，我也希望听听你对美国医学家们认为转基因食品无需标识的意见的意见。

 

[flapjack_monkey]

如果是你指出专家的意见，我不评论专家的意见，却拿那些主持人经济学家军事评论家来说事，那就符合你说的“就纯粹是为辩论而辩论了”。我拿这些人说事，只是回应老向的感叹，说明那些一知不解而固执己见的人是最难被改变观点的。

看过几个这样的东西，基本都是似是而非的东西。你提供的这个不清楚我是否已经看过。既然你那么认真地建议，我有时间看看再来说我的评论吧。

同时，既然你指定只相信医学家的意见，我也希望听听你对美国医学家们认为转基因食品无需标识的意见的意见。

这也是美国医学家们的观点。好象非常旗帜鲜明，不似AMA的中立立场。
http://aaemonline.org/gmopost.html

Genetically Modified Foods

According to the World Health Organization, Genetically Modified Organisms(GMOs) are "organisms in which the genetic material (DNA) has been altered in such a way that does not occur naturally."1 This technology is also referred to as "genetic engineering", "biotechnology" or "recombinant DNA technology" and consists of randomly inserting genetic fragments of DNA from one organism to another, usually from a different species. For example, an artificial combination of genes that includes a gene to produce the pesticide Cry1Ab protein (commonly known as Bt toxin), originally found in Bacillus thuringiensis, is inserted in to the DNA of corn randomly. Both the location of the transferred gene sequence in the corn DNA and the consequences of the insertion differ with each insertion. The plant cells that have taken up the inserted gene are then grown in a lab using tissue culture and/or nutrient medium that allows them to develop into plants that are used to grow GM food crops.2

Natural breeding processes have been safely utilized for the past several thousand years. In contrast, "GE crop technology abrogates natural reproductive processes, selection occurs at the single cell level, the procedure is highly mutagenic and routinely breeches genera barriers, and the technique has only been used commercially for 10 years."3
Despite these differences, safety assessment of GM foods has been based on the idea of "substantial equivalence" such that "if a new food is found to be substantially equivalent in composition and nutritional characteristics to an existing food, it can be regarded as safe as the conventional food."4 However, several animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with GM food consumption including infertility, immune dysregulation, accelerated aging, dysregulation of genes associated with cholesterol synthesis, insulin regulation, cell signaling, and protein formation, and changes in the liver, kidney, spleen and gastrointestinal system.
There is more than a casual association between GM foods and adverse health effects. There is causation as defined by Hill's Criteria in the areas of strength of association, consistency, specificity, biological gradient, and biological plausibility.5 The strength of association and consistency between GM foods and disease is confirmed in several animal studies.2,6,7,8,9,10,11
Specificity of the association of GM foods and specific disease processes is also supported. Multiple animal studies show significant immune dysregulation, including upregulation of cytokines associated with asthma, allergy, and inflammation. 6,11 Animal studies also show altered structure and function of the liver, including altered lipid and carbohydrate metabolism as well as cellular changes that could lead to accelerated aging and possibly lead to the accumulation of reactive oxygen species (ROS). 7,8,10 Changes in the kidney, pancreas and spleen have also been documented. 6,8,10 A recent 2008 study links GM corn with infertility, showing a significant decrease in offspring over time and significantly lower litter weight in mice fed GM corn.8 This study also found that over 400 genes were found to be expressed differently in the mice fed GM corn. These are genes known to control protein synthesis and modification, cell signaling, cholesterol synthesis, and insulin regulation. Studies also show intestinal damage in animals fed GM foods, including proliferative cell growth9 and disruption of the intestinal immune system.6
Regarding biological gradient, one study, done by Kroghsbo, et al., has shown that rats fed transgenic Bt rice trended to a dose related response for Bt specific IgA. 11
Also, because of the mounting data, it is biologically plausible for Genetically Modified Foods to cause adverse health effects in humans.
In spite of this risk, the biotechnology industry claims that GM foods can feed the world through production of higher crop yields. However, a recent report by the Union of Concerned Scientists reviewed 12 academic studies and indicates otherwise: "The several thousand field trials over the last 20 years for genes aimed at increasing operational or intrinsic yield (of crops) indicate a significant undertaking. Yet none of these field trials have resulted in increased yield in commercialized major food/feed crops, with the exception of Bt corn."12 However, it was further stated that this increase is largely due to traditional breeding improvements.
Therefore, because GM foods pose a serious health risk in the areas of toxicology, allergy and immune function, reproductive health, and metabolic, physiologic and genetic health and are without benefit, the AAEM believes that it is imperative to adopt the precautionary principle, which is one of the main regulatory tools of the European Union environmental and health policy and serves as a foundation for several international agreements.13 The most commonly used definition is from the 1992 Rio Declaration that states: "In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation."13
Another often used definition originated from an environmental meeting in the United States in 1998 stating: "When an activity raises threats to the environment or human health, precautionary measures should be taken, even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically. In this context, the proponent of an activity, rather than the public, should bear the burden of proof (of the safety of the activity)."13
With the precautionary principle in mind, because GM foods have not been properly tested for human consumption, and because there is ample evidence of probable harm, the AAEM asks:

Physicians to educate their patients, the medical community, and the public to avoid GM foods when possible and provide educational materials concerning GM foods and health risks.

Physicians to consider the possible role of GM foods in the disease processes of the patients they treat and to document any changes in patient health when changing from GM food to non-GM food.

Our members, the medical community, and the independent scientific community to gather case studies potentially related to GM food consumption and health effects, begin epidemiological research to investigate the role of GM foods on human health, and conduct safe methods of determining the effect of GM foods on human health.

For a moratorium on GM food, implementation of immediate long term independent safety testing, and labeling of GM foods, which is necessary for the health and safety of consumers.

(This statement was reviewed and approved by the Executive Committee of the American Academy of Environmental Medicine on May 8, 2009.)

Submitted by Amy Dean, D.O. and Jennifer Armstrong, M.D.





Bibliography: Genetically Modified Foods Position Paper AAEM

World Health Organization. (Internet).(2002). Foods derived from modern technology: 20 questions on genetically modified foods. Available from: http://www.who.int/foodsafety/publications/biotech/20questions/en/index.php

Smith, JM. Genetic Roulette. Fairfield: Yes Books.2007. p.10

Freese W, Schubert D. Safety testing and regulation of genetically engineered foods. Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering Reviews. Nov 2004. 21.

Society of Toxicology. The safety of genetically modified foods produced through biotechnology. Toxicol. Sci. 2003; 71:2-8.

Hill, AB. The environment and disease: association or causation? Proceeding of the Royal Society of Medicine 1965; 58:295-300.

Finamore A, Roselli M, Britti S, et al. Intestinal and peripheral immune response to MON 810 maize ingestion in weaning and old mice. J Agric. Food Chem. 2008; 56(23):11533-11539.

Malatesta M, Boraldi F, Annovi G, et al. A long-term study on female mice fed on a genetically modified soybean:effects on liver ageing. Histochem Cell Biol. 2008; 130:967-977.

Velimirov A, Binter C, Zentek J. Biological effects of transgenic maize NK603xMON810 fed in long term reproduction studies in mice. Report-Federal Ministry of Health, Family and Youth. 2008.

Ewen S, Pustzai A. Effects of diets containing genetically modified potatoes expressing Galanthus nivalis lectin on rat small intestine.Lancet. 354:1353-1354.

Kilic A, Aday M. A three generational study with genetically modified Bt corn in rats: biochemical and histopathological investigation. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2008; 46(3):1164-1170.

Kroghsbo S, Madsen C, Poulsen M, et al. Immunotoxicological studies of genetically modified rice expression PHA-E lectin or Bt toxin in Wistar rats. Toxicology. 2008; 245:24-34.

Gurain-Sherman,D. 2009. Failure to yield: evaluating the performance of genetically engineered crops. Cambridge (MA): Union of Concerned Scientists.

Lofstedt R. The precautionary principle: risk, regulation and politics. Merton College, Oxford. 2002.

 

[flapjack_monkey]

你不能否认的是， 及时现在某些产品被弃用， 但是历史上他们还是起了非常大的功绩。 否则不会在那么长时间被使用。 之所以被弃用也是因为发现问题才会有人找到更好的替代品。

并不是说发展了转基因就不对它做品质监控了。

没有否认某些产品在历史上的功绩，但一旦这些产品被发现对人类有害，它们就逃脱不了被无情淘汰的命运。
转基因不是什么刚出炉的新鲜产品，从商业应用到现在有十几年的历史了，对转基因的置疑很早就有了（远早于方舟子在中国的大力推广或是CFC的大辩论）。转基因目前在各国的的处境很象是在被淘汰之前的垂死挣扎。

 

[RareEarth]

孟山都的转基因产品都偶们来说只是食品安全问题，对中国来说还有国家安全问题。 中国自己转基因产品，又涉及到中国食品安全体系的问题。这些问题实在太大。
转基因是科学，搞科学是好事。转基因产品是生意，做生意是为赚钱，对商家是好事，对草根百姓就难说了。 一个破秀才从自己的利益出发，说出什么道道，都只能算放屁。

 

[flapjack_monkey]

其实在CFC上讨论转基因的就那么几个人，估计整个渥村华人圈里关心挺转反转的也是很少一部分人，所以在这谁的嗓门大说起来是无足轻重的。
真正能反应广大民众对转基因的态度应该是正在华盛顿州进行的给GMO食品加标签的全民投票I-522。
也许明天这个时候我们就会知道由强大财力，理论支持的挺转派在这一回合中是否会被愚昧无脑固执的反转P民所扳倒。

 

[向问天]

其实在CFC上讨论转基因的就那么几个人，估计整个渥村华人圈里关心挺转反转的也是很少一部分人，所以在这谁的嗓门大说起来是无足轻重的。
真正能反应广大民众对转基因的态度应该是正在华盛顿州进行的给GMO食品加标签的全民投票I-522。
也许明天这个时候我们就会知道由强大财力，理论支持的挺转派在这一回合中是否会被愚昧无脑固执的反转P民所扳倒。

其实我觉得反转P民要求贴标签、要求知情权是合理的。
但是美帝资本家为了利益就是不同意。

在中国， 转基因食品是必须贴标签的。
从这一点看， 美国要赶上中国的人权标准， 还有一段艰难的路走。

 

[老闹子]

这也是美国医学家们的观点。好象非常旗帜鲜明，不似AMA的中立立场。
http://aaemonline.org/gmopost.html
,,,
Lofstedt R. The precautionary principle: risk, regulation and politics. Merton College, Oxford. 2002.

美国人要投票决定是否对转基因食品强制贴标签。群众的态度大概只有三类：支持贴标签，不表态，反对贴标签。

美国医学会AMA的态度是：
“Our AMA believes that as of June 2012, there is no scientific justification for special labeling of bioengineered foods, as a class, and that voluntary labeling is without value unless it is accompanied by focused consumer education.”

＂我们美国医学会相信，直到２０１２年六月的今天，没有任何科学证据表明有必要对生物工程食品作为一种类别特别标识出来；而且，除非是为了针对消费者的教育需要，自愿性贴标签也是毫无价值的。＂

你能把这样的正式声明理解为＂中立立场＂。我只有无语。

你说我＂为辩论而辩论＂的时候，我很快就回顾一下自己的发言何以给你那样的印象。我知道，我不能期望别人也有这样的反思。

你提到的这个AAEM（美国环境医学科学院），我是第一次听到这个机构。有时间我会看看他们的说法。

BTW，我对贴标签的态度才是中立立场：无所谓。出于对恐转基因们的同情，我也许支持贴标签。或者有人贿赂我，我就给谁的立场投票。：－）

 

[胡说芝]

老闹子是好心，出于同情恐转人士的恐惧心理，支持贴标签。可问题是标签真贴出来了，恐转人士不敢去超市了咋办？恐转人士也不敢在外面吃饭了咋办？家家在院子里种菜自制调料吗？村长讲话，院子自己种也不敢讲种子啦肥料啦啥的没转基因成分，也不敢讲随风飘过来的花粉啥的不是GMO
不贴标签还好，咪咪哥们心里很坦荡除了玉米大豆菜油不吃，其它转基因闭着眼也就吃了，按恐转人士的话讲，这些转基因吃进肚子了，他们体内的基因早就被转了。。。吓死人了啊

 

[reine02]

No scientific consensus on safety of genetically modified organisms
Oct 21, 2013

http://phys.org/news/2013-10-scientific-consensus-safety-genetically.html

 

[老闹子]

这也是美国医学家们的观点。好象非常旗帜鲜明，不似AMA的中立立场。
http://aaemonline.org/gmopost.html
,,,
Lofstedt R. The precautionary principle: risk, regulation and politics. Merton College, Oxford. 2002.

,,,
你提到的这个AAEM（美国环境医学科学院），我是第一次听到这个机构。有时间我会看看他们的说法。

这个American Academy of Environmental Medicine＂美国环境医学科学院＂，听起来名头很大，我以为值得我化点时间阅读一下。结果，在维基百科上对这个＂美国环境医学科学院＂的介绍中说：

The AAEM has been cited as an illegitimate organization by Quackwatch, for promoting the diagnosis of multiple chemical sensitivity.[4]
，，，
Quackwatch lists the American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) as a questionable organization, and its certifying board, the American Board of Environmental Medicine as a dubious certifying board.[4] They are not recognized by the American Board of Medical Specialties.[8]

Quackwatch（我觉得可以翻译为＂庸医侦探所＂）是美国一个专门揭露医疗领域相关的虚假欺骗行为的机构。

根据这个＂庸医侦探所＂的揭发，＂美国环境医学科学院＂是一个非法机构，是一个不被＂美国医学专业委员会＂承认的民间机构。我只能说，这是一个野鸡科学院。大概跟中国众多的＂国际华陀医院＂、＂环球骨科推拿＂、＂宇宙针灸中心＂差不多吧。我就不必浪费时间看它的东西了。

有那么多声誉很好的国际权威科学研究机构对转基因食品做出了评论，比如国际卫生组织，美国医学协会、美国卫生和健康研究院，加拿大健康卫生部，，，你怎么偏偏就找出一个被＂庸医侦探所＂发现是庸医组织的民间机构的东西来看呢？