当前位置:首页 >> 农林牧渔 >>

转基因大豆与不育


转基因大豆与不育,婴儿死亡率有关联 星期三,2010 年 4 月 21 日 20:09 faraway2010 译 http://14099853.blog.hexun.com/49023617_d.html http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/1-news-items/12160-gm-soy-linked-to-sterility -i

nfant-mortality 摘录:“我们没有权利使用转基因生物,直到我们了解可能产生的不利影响,不 仅对自己,而且对后代。我们一定要全面详细地研究以澄清这一点。”- 俄罗斯 生物学家 Alexey V. Surov Genetically Modified Soy Linked to Sterility, Infant Mortality Jeffrey Smith Huffington Post, April 20 2010 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-smith/genetically-modified-soy_b_544575.ht ml “这项研究只是例行公事,”俄罗斯生物学家 Alexey V. Surov 说,在本世纪会以 掩饰的方式结束。Surov 和他的同事发现,如果孟山都公司的转基因(GM)大 豆,在美国大豆田里,91%种植转基因大豆,导致生长或繁殖问题。他的发现可 能铲除一个数十亿美元的产业。 在喂食仓鼠两年经历了三代后,那些食用转基因食物的,尤其是那组食用最大量 的的转基因大豆的仓鼠,显示出灾难性的结果。在产生第三代之前,大多数喂食 转基因大豆的仓鼠失去生育能力,它们生长缓慢,幼仔死亡率高。 并且如果这还不够令人震惊,第三代中的一些小鼠毛发甚至生长在嘴里——一种 罕见的现象,但显然在食用转基因大豆仓鼠中,这种现象更普遍。 这项研究由 Surov 供职的俄罗斯科学院生态和进化研究所和基因安全国家协会 联合执行,预计 3 个月后(2010 年 7 月)发表结果——因此该技术细节拭目以 待。但 Surov 在发给我的电子邮件中勾勒出基本的内容。 他把具有快速繁殖率的坎贝尔仓鼠分为 4 组。所有的按标准饮食喂养,但一组的 饮食中没有任何大豆,另一组食用非转基因大豆,第三组食用转基因大豆,第四 组食物中所含的转基因大豆数量最大。每个实验组有 5 对仓鼠,每对生产 7-8 胎, 共 140 只。 Surov 告诉俄罗斯之声, “最初,一切顺利。然而,当我们从它们的幼仔中重新选择配对并按照之前的方 案喂养时,我们注意到一个相当严重的影响。这些成对的幼仔生长速度较慢,达 到他们的性成熟期缓慢。” 他从每组选择新的配对,会产生的另 39 只幼仔。对照组产仔 52 只,非转基因大 豆组产仔 78 只。食用转基因大豆组,只有 40 个幼仔出生。而其中,25%死亡。 与对照组相比,死亡率是对照组 5%死亡率的 5 倍。食用转基因大豆含量最高的 那组仓鼠,只有一只雌鼠生产。它她生产了 16 个幼崽,约 20%死亡。 Surov 说:“F2 [第三代]代的低的数字显示,许多动物不育。”

发表的论文还将包括第三代动物器官的大小尺寸,包括睾丸,脾,子宫等。如果 该团队能筹集足够的资金,他们也将分析收集的血液样本中的激素水平。 毛发生长在口中 今年早些时候,Surov 以共同作者身份在《生物科学报告》发表了一篇论文,展 示了罕见的实例,毛发生长在仓鼠的口中。 有些袋包含单一的毛;有些,厚束的无色或色素毛发达到牙齿的咀嚼表面。有时 候,牙齿被整齐的发束在两侧包围。毛发垂直生长,末端锐利,往往覆盖着一团 粘液“ (这些毛束的照片真正恶心。相信我,或你自己寻找。) 在研究结论中,作者推测,这种惊人的缺陷可能是由于实验室仓鼠的饮食造成 的。他们写道,“该病变会因天然食品中的元素缺乏而恶化,如转基因(GM) 的成分 (转基因大豆或玉米粉) 或污染物 (杀虫剂,毒枝菌素,重金属等) “事 。 实上,口中长毛的仓鼠数量在食用转基因大豆的仓鼠的第三代中比例较高,远远 高于 Surov 以前在任何地方见过的动物。 初步的,但是不吉利的 Surov 警告不要过早下结论。他说,“很可能,转基因食品本身并不导致这些影 响。” Surov 希望优先进行饲料成分分析,发现是什么原因造成这些影响并且 如何影响。 除了转基因生物,可能是污染物,他说,或高浓度除草剂残留,如农达 (Roundup) 。事实上,这些大豆含有高浓度的农达(Roundup) ,他们是所谓的 “抗农达”。细菌的基因被整合到它们的 DNA 所以植株可以容忍孟山都的农达 除草剂。因此,转基因大豆总是携带者高浓度的除草剂的双重威胁,伴随着基因 工程带来的任何副作用的。 转基因生物饲料造成多年的生殖障碍 Surov 的仓鼠只是最近的动物在消费转基因食品之后患有生殖紊乱 2005 年 Irina 。 , Ermakova,也与俄罗斯国家科学院一起报告,喂养转基因大豆的母鼠后代有超 过一半的幼仔在三周内死亡。这一死亡率也是 5 倍于非转基因大豆组的死亡率 10%。转基因组的幼仔也更小(见照片) ,无法生育。 讲述一件巧合的事,在 Ermakova 的饲养试验之后,她的实验室开始喂食饲养设 施中的所有大鼠转基因大豆。两个月内,幼仔死亡率达到 55%。 当 Ermakova 喂食雄性大鼠转基因大豆,雄性大鼠睾丸从正常的粉红色转变为深 蓝色!意大利科学家在试验小鼠身上发现同样的变化,包括受损的初级精子细 胞。此外,喂食转基因大豆亲本小鼠的胚胎 DNA 功能不全。 2008 年 11 月奥地利政府发表的研究表明,转基因玉米喂养的小鼠,吃的转基因 玉米越多,后代的数量及个体就越小。 爱荷华州中部农民 Jerry Rosman 饲养的猪和牛出现麻烦,变成不育。他饲养的一 些猪甚至假怀孕或生下水袋。经过几个月的调查和试验,他终于追踪到问题源于 转基因玉米饲料。每次报纸,杂志,或电视节目报道 Jerry 的问题,他将接到更

多的农民的电话抱怨他们的农场的牲畜不育,与转基因玉米有关。 贝勒医学院的研究人员偶然发现,饲养在玉米棒子作为草垫的大鼠“既不繁殖也 不展示生殖行为。”玉米材料试验揭示两种化合物”在浓度大约比传统植物雌激 素低两百倍时“终止了雌鼠的性周期。一种化合物也缩减了雄鼠的性行为,这两 种物质促进乳腺癌和前列腺癌细胞的增长。研究人员发现,这些物质的数量随转 基因玉米品种不同而变化。在贝勒医学院用的压碎的玉米芯很可能来自爱荷华州 中部,靠近 Jerry Rosman 和其他的农场,这些农场抱怨牲畜不育。 在印度的哈里亚纳邦,兽医的调查报告说,食用转基因棉籽的水牛遭受不育,以 及频繁的流产,早产和子宫脱垂的痛苦。许多成年和幼年的牛也离奇死亡。 否定,攻击,并取消后续 发现转基因生物不利结果的科学家均定期遭受攻击,嘲笑,拒绝提供资金,甚至 被解雇。当 Ermakova 报告食用转基因大豆动物的后代婴儿死亡率高,例如,她 呼吁科学界重复并验证她的初步结果。她还要求更多的资金来分析保留的器官。 相反,她受到攻击和诋毁。样品从她的实验室被盗,论文在她的办公桌上被烧毁, 她说,她的老板,从他的老板那里受到压力,告诉她不要再做任何更多的转基因 生物研究。还没有人一再重复 Ermakova 的简单,廉价的研究。 在试图向她表示同情,她的一位同事建议,或许对转基因大豆将解决超越人口的 问题! Surov 报道,到目前为止,他还没有受到任何压力。 选择退出大规模转基因生物饲养试验 如果没有详细的测试,没有人能够查出究竟是什么原因造成俄罗斯仓鼠和大鼠, 意大利和奥地利小鼠,印度和美国的牲畜的生殖悲剧。我们只能推测转基因食品 在 1996 年被引进,与相应的低出生体重婴儿的比例高涨,不育不孕症,其他美 国人口问题之间的联系。但许多科学家,医师和有关人士并不认为公众应继续为 生物技术产业的大规模无节制的试验而保留实验室动物。 Alexey Surov 表示,“我们没有权利使用转基因生物,直到我们了解可能产生的 不利影响,不仅对自己,而且对后代。我们一定要全面详细地研究以澄清这一点。 任何类型的污染必须在消费之前进行测试,转基因食品 (生物) 只是其中之一。” GM soy linked to sterility, infant mortality Wednesday, 21 April 2010 20:09

数据显示,1990 年代中期,我国由大豆净出口国转变为净进口国。到 2001/2002 年度,我国进口大豆达到 1039 万吨。而 2003/04 年度突破 2000 万吨,2005 年 达到 2659 万吨,2007 年突破 3000 万吨,2008 年达到 3744 万吨,2009 年更达 到 4255 万吨。 也就是说,过去不到 10 年时间里,中国大豆进口量增长了 300%!到 2009 年每 个中国人平均每年要消耗进口大豆 32.7 公斤的进口大豆,平均每天超过 1.6 两。

而这些大豆,几乎全是转基因的。 转基因大豆会是种族灭绝工具吗? 2010-02-21 16:03 转自:财来博客 转基因:人口战争 2010-02-19 21:31 他们说,转基因大米和转基因玉米都是安全的。 可是,我们知道的是: 1、转基因大豆没有繁殖能力。你种的大豆,成熟以后,大豆看起来很美,但它 的种子没有繁殖能力。即便有的品种可以繁殖,三代之后肯定无法繁殖。那么, 我们要问,吃了转基因大豆的人们,如果三代以后也没有繁殖能力了怎么办—— 对人而言,三代,意味着 70 年以上。 2、吃了转基因大豆的虫子没有繁殖能力。转基因,就是要抗虫害的,虫子吃了, 要么自个儿死,要么没有繁殖能力。人,不是虫子,人的抗药力要更强一些。但 人要多久才能死?人要多久才能没有繁殖能力?是一代还是两代抑或三代? 3、转基因种植时的除草剂是要让草“断子绝孙”的,也就是说,大豆不能繁殖, 连土壤里的草也不能繁殖。那么,这些农药除草剂什么的,会不会在大豆里有残 留?会不会也让人断子绝孙? 如果我们吃的一种东西,是没有繁殖能力的,将来会不会导致我们自己也没有繁 殖能力?这是一个大问题。 中国人吃转基因的大豆油已经有好些年了。这些年来,几乎所有中国人(除了吃 特供食品以外)都不得不吃一些转基因的大豆油。比如炒菜的时候,出去下饭店 的时候,吃任何糕点的时候。只要你开口吃饭,就不得不吃转基因。 那么,这么多年来,有这样的现象是否可以有一个答案: 1、越来越多的不孕不育者。尤其是 30 岁以后的年轻人出现了多少不孕不育患 者? 2、越来越多的癌症患者。 3、体质越来越弱以至于动辄就伤风感冒的孩子。 这一切,是否都与转基因的大豆油没有丝毫关系? 现在,如果我们除了大豆油这种辅食品之外不得不天天吃转基因的大米,那么, 谁能保证三代以后的人们仍能保持现有的生育能力? 所以,转基因的食品,也许是一种人口战争的工具。 为了子孙后代,千秋万代,转基因食品,还是悠着点吧:我们没有把握,但可以 尽量只吃花生油等纯正的非转基因食品。尽量不吃豆油,不吃豆制品,不下饭店, 不吃糕点,尽量自己做着吃…… 如果有一天,我们不得不面对转基因的大米,那就再也不吃大米,天天吃麦粉做

的面食。 如果又有一天,我们不得不吃面食了,那就放弃一切主食,只吃杂粮,一直到三 代以后,看看真的没事,再接受它。而那,需要 70 年…… 转基因大豆与不育、后代畸形和死亡有关联(摘要) 中国加入 WTO 开放农场品市场 自己自然生长的本土大豆玩完了 数据显示,1990 年代中期,我国由大豆净出口国转变为净进口国。到 2001/2002 年度,我国进口大豆达到 1039 万吨。而 2003/04 年度突破 2000 万吨,2005 年 达到 2659 万吨,2007 年突破 3000 万吨,2008 年达到 3744 万吨,2009 年更达 到 4255 万吨。 也就是说,过去不到 10 年时间里,中国大豆进口量增长了 300%!到 2009 年每 个中国人平均每年要消耗进口大豆 32.7 公斤的进口大豆,平均每天超过 1.6 两。 而这些大豆,几乎全是转基因的 2010.04.20 最新的研究报告--- Jeffrey Smith:转基因大豆与不育,婴儿死亡率有 关联(网上自己查) …..在喂食仓鼠两年经历了三代后,那些食用转基因食物的,尤其是那组食用最大 量的的转基因大豆的仓鼠,显示出灾难性的结果。在产生第三代之前,大多数喂 食转基因大豆的仓鼠失去生育能力,它们生长缓慢,幼仔死亡率高。 并且如果这还不够令人震惊,第三代中的一些小鼠毛发甚至生长在嘴里——一种 罕见的现象,但显然在食用转基因大豆仓鼠中,这种现象更普遍。 ….中国人民食用转基因大豆已超过 15 年而且越吃越多 如果像仓鼠那样 那么等待中国人民的灾难性后果是…….. 他们说,转基因大米和转基因玉米都是安全的。 可是,我们知道的是: 1、转基因大豆没有繁殖能力。你种的大豆,成熟以后,大豆看起来很美,但它 的种子没有繁殖能力。即便有的品种可以繁殖,三代之后肯定无法繁殖。那么, 我们要问,吃了转基因大豆的人们,如果三代以后也没有繁殖能力了怎么办—— 对人而言,三代,意味着 70 年以上。 2、吃了转基因大豆的虫子没有繁殖能力。转基因,就是要抗虫害的,虫子吃了, 要么自个儿死,要么没有繁殖能力。人,不是虫子,人的抗药力要更强一些。但 人要多久才能死?人要多久才能没有繁殖能力?是一代还是两代抑或三代? 3、转基因种植时的除草剂是要让草“断子绝孙”的,也就是说,大豆不能繁殖, 连土壤里的草也不能繁殖。那么,这些农药除草剂什么的,会不会在大豆里有残 留?会不会也让人断子绝孙? 如果我们吃的一种东西,是没有繁殖能力的,将来会不会导致我们自己也没有繁

殖能力?这是一个大问题。 中国人吃转基因的大豆油已经有好些年了。这些年来,几乎所有中国人(除了吃 特供食品以外)都不得不吃一些转基因的大豆油。比如炒菜的时候,出去下饭店 的时候,吃任何糕点的时候。只要你开口吃饭,就不得不吃转基因。 那么,这么多年来,有这样的现象是否可以有一个答案: 1、越来越多的不孕不育者。尤其是 30 岁以后的年轻人出现了多少不孕不育患 者? 2、越来越多的癌症患者。 3、体质越来越弱以至于动辄就伤风感冒的孩子。 4. 2003 年的时候,成都地区大学生精子质量异常率就已经达到 37%。短短 6 年 后,广西地区大学生精子质量异常率达到 56.7%,显著上升了近 20 个百分点。 这一切,是否都与转基因的大豆油没有丝毫关系? 现在,如果我们除了大豆油这种辅食品之外不得不天天吃转基因的大米,那么, 谁能保证三代以后的人们仍能保持现有的生育能力? 本贴由[wagen]最后编辑于: 27 日/10 月/2010 13 时 22 分 5 秒 基因改造(GM, GMO) 的為害

產量沒有增加 沒有減少農藥的使用 Roundup 除草劑對青蛙及人類胎盤及胚胎有毒 GM 農作物傷害野生動物 產生抗 GM 農藥的超級害蟲及雜草 GM 食品造成疾病與死亡

(from Dr. Erina Ermakova) 食用接觸 GM 的動物 的影響

基因改造品種 動植物 www.6park.com

Transgene trait 基因移轉類型

影響

Soya 大豆 Rat 鼠

Roundup Ready (容忍除草劑)

發育不良、死亡、 不孕

Humans 人類

Cotton 棉花

Cry1Ac/Cry1Ab

過敏症狀 www.6park.com

死亡、肝毒性 Sheep 綿羊 " " www.6park.com

Cows 牛

"

"

"www.6park.com

Goats 洋

"

"

"www.6park.com

肺發炎、一般食物 Mice 鼠 Pea 碗豆 Alpha-amylase Inhibitor 過敏 www.6park.com

Mice 鼠

Soya 黃豆

Roundup Ready 容忍除草劑

肝臟、胰臟、睪丸 受到影響 www.6park.com

Humans 人類

Maize 玉米

Cry1Abwww.6park.com

疾病與死亡

Rats 鼠

Maize 玉米

Cry3Bbwww.6park.com

肝與腎毒性

Cows 牛

Maize 馬鈴薯

Cry1Ab/Cry1Acwww.6park.com

死亡與疾病

Rats 鼠

Potato 馬鈴薯

Snowdrop lectinwww.6park.com

每個器官都受損. 胃內壁變成兩倍厚

Mice 鼠

Potato 馬鈴薯

Cry1A

腸胃內壁變成兩倍 厚 www.6park.com

胃穿孔 Rats 鼠 Tomato 蕃茄 Delay ripening 晚熟

死亡 Chickens Maize 玉米 雞 Glufosinate tolerance (容忍除草 劑)

-www.6park.com Ban GMOs Now Dr. Mae-Wan Ho warns that further indulgence in GMOs will severely damage our chances of surviving the food crisis and global warming; organic agriculture and localised food systems are the way forward

Invited lecture at conference on TRADITIONAL SEEDS OUR NATIONAL TREASURE AND HERITAGE -Traditional and Organic Agriculture instead of GMO, 17 May 2008,

Bewelder, Warsaw, Poland www.6park.com

www.6park.com www.6park.com The Brave New World of GM Science In 1994, I met some of the most remarkable leaders in the Third World: Tewolde Berhan Gebre Egziabher (Institute of Sustainable Development, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia), Martin Khor (Third World Network, Penang, Malaysia), and Vandana Shiva (Navdanya, New Delhi, India), who persuaded me to look into genetically modified organisms (GMOs), especially GM crops, which they rightly saw as a special threat to small family farmers. The biotech industry was promising miracle GM crops that would boost yield to feed the world, improve nutrition, and clean up and protect the environment. Monsanto’s Flavr Savr tomato, the first GM crop, had just been commercialised, though it turned out to be a complete flop, and was withdrawn several years later.. The biotech industry’s aggressive campaign of disinformation and manipulation of science did nothing to obscure the signs that the dream would soon turn into nightmare; and I said so in my book first published in 1997/1998 [1] Genetic Engineering Dream or Nightmare, the Brave New World of Bad Science and Big Business, which became an international bestseller, translated into many languages, and recently reprinted with an extended introduction to coincide with its translation into Indonesian. Everything predicted in that book has happened. It also explained why the science behind GM is obsolete; a story elaborated further in Living with the Fluid Genome

[2] published in 2003. Genetic modification based on an obsolete theory and hence ineffective and dangerous Genetic engineering of plants and animals began in the mid 1970s in the belief that the genome (the totality of all the genetic material of a species) is constant and static, and that the characteristics of organism are simply hardwired in their genome. But geneticists soon discovered that the genome is remarkably dynamic and ‘fluid’, and constantly in conversation with the environment. This determines which genes are turned on, when, where, by how much and for how long. Moreover, the genetic material itself could also be marked or changed according to experience, and the influence passed on to the next generation. The best thing about the human genome project is to finally explode the myth of genetic determinism, revealing the layers of molecular complexity that transmit, interpret and rewrite the genetic texts [3] (Life Beyond the Central Dogma series, SiS 24). These processes are precisely orchestrated and finely tuned by the organism as a whole, in a highly coordinated molecular ‘dance of life’ that’s necessary for survival. In contrast, genetic engineering in the laboratory is crude, imprecise and invasive. The rogue genes inserted into a genome to make a GMO could land anywhere; typically in a rearranged or defective form, scrambling and mutating the host genome, and have the tendency to move or rearrange further once inserted, basically because they do not know the dance of life. That’s ultimately why genetic modification doesn’t work and is also dangerous. Independent science against GM In 1999, I co-founded the Institute of Science in Society (ISIS) with my husband and long-time collaborator Peter Saunders, Professor of Mathematics at King’s College, London, to work for science, society and sustainability and to reclaim science for the public good. We are fortunate to have the support of wonderful fellow scientists, especially Prof. Joe Cummins, who joined ISIS from the start and continues to play the leading role in monitoring GM science. (Joe Cummins has been honoured with the ISIS Distinguished Fellow Award 2008.)

In 2003, dozens of scientists from around the world joined us in ISIS to form the Independent Science Panel, and produced a report, The Case for A GM-Free Sustainable World [4], documenting all the problems and hazards of GM crops as well as the successes and benefits of non-GM sustainable agriculture. The report was republished within a year, translated into many languages and widely circulated. We presented the report to the European Parliament in 2004 [5] (Keep GM Out of Europe, SiS 24), with the help of Jill Evans MEP. In 2007, we updated the ISP report with a dossier containing more than 160 fully referenced articles from the archives of ISIS’ magazine Science in Society, spelling out the scandals of serious hazards ignored, scientific fraud, the regulatory sham and violation of farmers’ rights [6] (GM Science Exposed: Hazards Ignored, Fraud, Regulatory Sham, Violation of Farmers Rights). Duped farmers in India are driven to suicide in hundreds of thousands. GM science is a crime against humanity. In a scientific review paper [7] (GM Food Nightmare Unfolding in the Regulatory Sham), we documented how national and international regulators and advisory bodies such as the European Food Safety Authority have been ignoring the precautionary principle (which is accepted by the European Commission), abusing science, sidestepping the law, and helping to promote GM technology in the face of evidence piling up against the safety of GM food and feed. We presented our dossier and review paper to the European Parliament in June 2007, once again to press for a GM-Free Europe and a GM-free world, thanks to the sponsorship of Polish MEP Mr. Janusz Wojciechowski and his office. Our panel consisted of key scientists from six countries including Poland, and friends of independent scientists, including MEPs Dr. Caroline Lucas and Jill Evans. The case for a GM-free world has grown much stronger since 2004, not only because so much more evidence has stacked up against GM crops; but especially because accelerating global warming, the depletion of water and fossil fuels, and the current food crisis make it that much more urgent to shift comprehensively

to sustainable food and energy systems as proposed in ISIS/TWN’s energy report Which Energy? [8]. There is neither the time nor resources to waste on GM. We’d had 30 years of GMOs and more than enough damage done, as detailed in the ISP Report [4], in our GM Science dossier [6], and more recent evidence has been piling up. Thirty years of GMOs are more than enough · No increase in yields; on the contrary GM soya decreased yields by up to 20 percent compared with non-GM soya [4], and up to 100 percent failures of Bt cotton have been recorded in India [6]. New studies confirmed these findings. Research from the University of Kansas found a 10 percent yield drag for Roundup Ready soya [9] that required extra manganese applied to the soil to make up the yield deficit. A team of scientists from the USDA and the University of Georgia found growing GM cotton in the US could result in a drop in income by up to 40 percent [10, 11] (Transgenic Cotton Offers No Advantage, SiS 38) · No reduction in pesticides use; on the contrary, USDA data showed that GM crops increase pesticide use by 50 million pounds from 1996 to 2003 in the United States [4]. New data paint an even grimmer picture: the use of glyphosate on major crops went up more than 15-fold between 1994 and 2005, along with increases in other herbicides [12] in order to cope with rising glyphosate resistant superweeds [6]. Roundup tolerant canola volunteers are top among the worries of Canadian farmers [13, 14] (Study Based on Farmers’ Experience Exposes Risks of GM Crops, SiS 38) · Roundup herbicide is lethal to frogs and toxic to human placental and embryonic cells [6]. Roundup is used in more than 80 percent of all GM crops planted in the world · GM crops harm wildlife, as revealed by UK’s farm scale evaluations [6], and more recently in a study led by Loyola University, Chicago, Illinois in the United Stated, which found that wastes from Bt corn impaired the growth of a common aquatic insect [15, 16] (Bt Crops Threaten Aquatic Ecosystems, SiS 36)

· Bt resistance pests and Roundup tolerant superweeds render the two major GM crop traits practically useless [6]. A recent review concluded that [17] “evolved glyphosate-resistant weeds are a major risk for the continued success of glyphosate and transgenic glyphosate-resistant crops.” And the evolution of Bt resistant bollworms worldwide have now been confirmed and documented in more than a dozen fields in Mississippi and Arkansas between 2003 and 2006 [18] · Vast areas of forests, pampas and cerrados lost to GM soya in Latin America, 15 m hectares in Argentina alone [6]; and this has worsened considerably with the demand for biofuels (see later) · Epidemic of suicides in the cotton belt of India involving 100 000 farmers between 1993-2003, and a further 16 000 farmers a year have died since Bt cotton was introduced [6] · Transgene contamination unavoidable, scientists find GM pollination of non-GM crops and wild relatives 21 kilometres away [19] · GM food and feed linked to deaths and sicknesses both in the fields in India and in lab tests around the world (more below) GM food and feed inherently hazardous to health [7] Here are some highlights from our GM Science dossier [6] on the hazards of GM food and feed. Dr. Irina Ermakova of the Russian Academy of Sciences showed how GM soya made female rats give birth to severely stunted and abnormal litters, with more than half dying in three weeks, and those remaining are sterile. Hundreds of villagers and cotton handlers in India suffer allergy-like symptoms, thousands of sheep died after grazing on the Bt cotton residues, goat and cows as well were reported in 2007 and 2008 [20] (Mass Protests against GM Crops in India , SiS 38). A harmless bean protein transferred to pea when tested on mice cause severe inflammation in the lungs and provoked generalised food sensitivities. Dozens of villagers in the south of the Philippines fell ill when neighbouring GM maize fields came into flower in 2003, five have died and some remain ill to this day. A dozen cows died having eaten GM maize in Hesse Germany and more in the herd had to be slaughtered from mysterious illnesses.

Arpad Pusztai and his colleagues in the UK found GM potatoes with snowdrop lectin damaged every organ system of young rats; the stomach lining grew twice as thick as controls. Chickens fed GM maize Chardon LL were twice as likely to die as controls. And finally, GM maize Mon 863 was claimed to be as safe as non-GM maize by the company, and accepted as such by European Food Safety Authority. But independent scientists of CriiGen in France re-analysed the data and found signs of liver and kidney toxicity. Different animals and human beings exposed to a variety of transgenic crops with different traits either fall ill or die. The evidence compels us to consider the possibility that the hazards of GMOs may be inherent to the technology, as I suggested more than ten years ago [1].

Litter from female rat fed GM soya (bottom) compared with control (from Dr. Erina Ermakova)

Table 1. Summary of Exposure of Animals and Human Beings to GMOs www.6park.com GM species Species Transgene trait

Effect

www.6park.com Rat

Soya

Roundup Ready

Stunting, death, sterility

Humanswww.6park. Cotton com

Cry1Ac/Cry1Ab

Allergy symptoms

Sheep

"www.6park.com

"

Death, liver toxicity

Cows

"

"www.6park.com

"

Goats

"

"

"www.6park.com

Mice

Pea

Alpha-amylase Inhibitor

Lung Inflammation, General food sensitivity www.6park.com

Liver, pancreas and Mice Soya Roundup Ready testis affected

www.6park.com Humans

Maize

Cry1Ab

Illnesses and death

Liver and kidney Ratswww.6park.com Maize Cry3Bb toxicity

Cows

Maizewww.6park. com

Cry1Ab/Cry1Ac

Death and illnesses

Rats

Potato

Snowdrop lectinwww.6park. com

Damage in every organ system. Stomach lining twice as thick as controls

Gut lining Mice Potato Cry1A thickenedwww.6park. com

Rats

Tomato

Delay ripening

Holes in the stomach www.6park.com

Chickens

Maize

Glufosinate tolerance

Deaths

US courts rule GM crop field-tests and releases illegal The message that GM crops are unsafe appears to have got through to the judiciary system in the United States. There have been three court rulings against the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) for failing to carry out proper environmental impact assessment,

making the original releases illegal [21] (Approval of GM Crops Illegal, US Federal Courts Rule, SiS 34). These are the first rulings against GMOs in the top producing country in the world, which has been also promoting GMOs aggressively. The first case was on drug-producing GM crops in Hawaii. The court said that the USDA violated the Endangered Species Act as well as the National Environmental Policy Act. The second court case not only ruled GM herbicide-tolerant creeping bentgrass illegal, but also that the USDA must halt approval of all new field trials until more rigorous environmental reviews are conducted. 美國基改技術處於領導地位,同時也是全球最大基改作物製造國,但劇烈的變化 正在美國國內醞釀發生。過去幾個月來,美國的醫生發表了一項強烈的聲明,表 示基於安全性的考量,應中止基改食品的生產與販售。科學家也宣佈基改作物是 農業上的失敗。這兩項關鍵性的文件分別是五月時由美國環境醫學學會 (AAEM),以及四月時由科學家關懷聯盟(UCS)所發佈的,它們各自代表了醫生 以及科學家反對基改生物的立場,並對社會大眾提出警告。科學家關懷聯盟發表 的報告書「增產的失敗」 ,證實了在經過 20 年的研究以及 13 年的商業化,基改 作物無法達到增加產量的效果,而傳統育種在成果上更勝過基改技術。報告中同 時提出了三項建議: · 美國農業部、地方農業機關以及各大學應重新制定經費運用、獎勵制度與研究 方向,選擇有效且比基因改造更有希望的方法來增加作物產量。可能的方法包括 傳統植物育種的現代技術,有機耕種或其他低投入的農業活動。 · 食物援助組織應與開發中國家的農民合作,以確保農民能使用到這些有效且負 擔得起的增產方法。 · 針對更新更複雜的基改作物,管制機關應開發並執行辨別力更強的技術,以評 估這些基改作物潛在性的危害。現有的規定過於薄弱,無法確實察覺可能有的危 害。 對基改作物持中立立場的 Oxfam 美國也發表了一項聲明來支持科學家關懷聯盟 的報告。他們也重申接受食物援助的政府與人民不該被迫接受基改食物的立場。 在一項個別的活動中,26 位科學家對美國環境保護局所提出的公共評論要求做 出回應。科學家抗議他們必須簽署所謂的「科技管理同意書」 ,讓他們無法從事 科學研究以增進公共利益。而這個科技管理同意書導致的結果就是,在基改科技 面臨到如此強大的批評與質疑下,沒有人能真正進行獨立的研究。AAEM 的報 告也做出如下的結論:在預防原則的考量下,由於尚未完整地檢驗基改食物是否 適合人類消費,且有大量的證據證明基改可能具有的危險性。因此 AAEM 要求: *

醫師應教導患者、醫學團體,以及社會大眾盡可能地避免食用基改食物,且提供 關於基改食物與健康危害的相關指導資料。 * 醫師應考慮基改食物對患者疾病發展上可能扮演的角色,並紀錄患者從食用基改 食物轉到非基改食物時健康上的變化。 * 會員、醫學團體,以及個別的科學團體收集基改食物可能與健康影響有關連的個 案,展開流行病學的研究以調查基改食物在人體健康上扮演的角色,並運用安全 的方法來確定基改食物對人體健康的影響。 · 應中止基改食品,並立即執行長期的安全性獨立檢測,且必須確實標示基改食 品以確保消費者的健康與安全。 AAEM 附屬於關注社會責任醫師協會(PSR),這個協會擁有三萬五千名會員,並 於 1985 年與國際預防核戰醫師協會共同獲得諾貝爾和平獎。關注社會責任醫師 協會本身曾站出來反對基因重組牛生長荷爾蒙(rBST)的使用。 SIS Report 22/06/09

US Opposition to GMOs Gathers Momentum Scientists and physicians in the heartland of genetic modification are alerting policy-makers and the public to the dangers of GM crops. Prof. Peter Saunders

MATERIAL ON THIS SITE MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED IN ANY FORM WITHOUT EXPLICIT PERMISSION. FOR PERMISSION, AND REPRODUCTION REQUIREMENTS, PLEASE CONTACT ISIS. WHERE PERMISSION IS GRANTED ALL LINKS MUST REMAIN UNCHANGED

www.6park.com

www.6park.com www.6park.com Safety and agronomic performance under fire Great upheavals may be afoot in the United States, the world’s leader in genetic modification (GM), and biggest producer of GM crops. Within the past several months, doctors have issued a strong statement calling for a moratorium on GM foods on grounds of safety, and scientists have declared GM crops an agronomic failure. The evidence they presented is familiar to readers of SiS. ISIS has submitted close to 60 reports on GMOs (genetically modified organisms, including those used for drugs) to the US’ Department of Agriculture, Environmental Protection Agency, and the Food and Drugs administration over the past ten years. But this may be the turning point, now that the Obama administration, unlike its predecessor, clearly intends to look at the evidence when taking a decision. Two key documents issued by the American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AEEM) in May [1] and the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) in April [2] capture the rising opposition to GMOs from doctors and scientists, who are actively alerting the public. Traditional breeding outperforms GM The UCS report, Failure to Yield [2] confirms that after 20 years of research and 13 years of

commercialization, GM crops have failed to increase yields. And “traditional breeding outperforms genetic engineering hands down.” It also makes three recommendations

The US Department of Agriculture, local agricultural agencies and universities should redirect substantial funding, research and incentives towards approaches that are proven and show more promise than genetic engineering for improving crop yields. These approaches include modern methods of conventional plant breeding as well as organic and other sophisticated low-input farming practices. (see ISIS report [3] Food Futures Now: *Organic *Sustainable *Fossil Fuel Free ) Food aid organisations should work with farmers in developing countries to make these more promising and affordable methods available Regulatory agencies should develop and implement techniques to better identify and evaluate potentially harmful side effects of the newer and more complex genetically engineered crops. Current regulations are too weak to detect them reliably Oxfam America, which explicitly has no position on GM crops as such, issued a statement broadly supporting the UCS report. They also reiterated their view that governments and citizens receiving food aid should not be forced to accept GM food. [4] In a separate development, 26 scientists responded to a call for public comment from the Environmental Protection Agency by protesting the “technology/stewardship agreements” they have to sign, which inhibit them from doing research for the public good. And as a result, “no truly independent research can be legally conducted on many critical questions regarding the technology” (see [5] (Corporate Monopoly of Science, SiS 42) “Ample evidence of probable harm” from GM food The AAEM position paper [1] concludes as follows “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.” The AAEM is affiliated to Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR), a group that has 35 000 members and shared the 1985 Nobel Peace Prize awarded to the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War. PSR itself has come out against the use of the genetically engineered recombinant bovine somatotrophin (rBST) [6]. Alerted consumers demand labelling According to the polls, American consumers now want GM foods to be labelled; the US is one of the few developed countries where this is not required. And there is a movement, especially in the dairy industry, to drop GM products owing to customer demand [6]. While there is a great deal to be done before many governments, including the UK, are convinced that GMOs are not the way to feed the world, this will be a lot easier with a US administration that is willing to look at the evidence rather than blindly

supporting the big corporations. References 1. American Academy of Environmental Medicine. (2009) Genetically Modified Foods. http:aaemonline.org/gmopost.html. 2. Gurian-Sherman, D. Failure to Yield. Union of Concerned Scientists, April 2009. http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/food_and_agriculture/failure-to-yield.pdf 3. Ho MW, Burcher S, Lim LC, et al. Food Futures Now, Organic, Sustainable, Fossil Fuel Free, ISIS TWN, London, 2008. http://www.i-sis.org.uk/foodFutures.php 4. Pfeifer, K. (2009) Comments on UCS Report “Failure to Yield”, American Oxfam, 14 April. http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/food_and_agriculture/Oxfam-statement-on-F TY.pdf 5. Pollock, A. Crop scientists say biotechnology seed companies are thwarting research. New York Times, 20 February 2009. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/20/business/20crop.html?_r=1 The original (anonymous) statement is Docket EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0836. http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocumentDetail&o= 090000648084de39

6. Health Care Reform: Scrap GMOs. Now Public, 6 June, 2009 http://www.nowpublic.com/world/health-care-reform-scrap-gmos 於深信不疑之處,往往得咎。

最近有一項新研究指出細菌會和不同種的細菌交配,這會讓細菌更具有抗藥性

(新聞來源: 《Superbugs’ ‘casual sex’ with unrelated strains leads to antibiotic resistance》。 ) 有趣的是 1997 年做的一項關於在植物內病毒之間的基因交換研究:

Scientists from Agriculture Canada have demonstrated this possibility. They developed a strain of cucumber mosaic virus lacking the gene for a specific protein needed to infect new plant cells. They then took an equivalent gene from another virus and inserted it into the host plant’s DNA. In plants artificially infected with the disabled virus, new and fully infective viruses appeared within 10 days. “This appears to be the first time anyone has shown recombination between two different kinds of viruses within a plant,” warns New Scientist magazine. “The risks may be much higher than biotechnology companies want to admit(Kurt Kleiner, `Fields of genes, New Scientist, 16 August 1997) 來自加拿大農業組織的科學家證實基因改造作物可以和病毒之間交換基因。他們 培養一種黃瓜花葉病毒,這種病毒缺乏能製造感染植物所需的蛋白質的基因。接 著他們從另外一種病毒抽取人工病毒所欠缺的基因,並將此基因插入到宿主植物 的 DNA 中,然後再用人為的方法讓植物感染到這種基因有缺陷的病毒。十天後, 一種完全具備感染能力的新病毒就出現了。這顯示在植物中就算是不同種類的病 毒也會發生基因的重組。 資料來源: 《GREED OR NEED? Genetically modified crops(需求還是貪慾?談基 因改造作物)》 乍看之下,細菌之間的基因交換,和植物內病毒也會交換基因看起來好像沒什麼 關聯,但談到基因改造作物,那就和我們息息相關了。從這幾篇來看,不同種的 病毒、細菌之間都會進行基因交換,而且莫名其妙它們就會找到對它們有利的基 因組合,當然,這種「有利」可能來自於人為的「選擇」 ,就像醫院那些超級細 菌一樣。而進一步我們會想再問,對更「高等」一點的,比方說植物,甚至是人 類會不會從不同種之間交換基因,甚至帶到下一代去?而會不會我們已知的某些 會造成 DNA 損傷的天然毒素,其實只是一種人類不想要的基因重組? 有人認為,越是高等的生物,基因相對比較穩定。因為過大的改變可能讓個體反 而不容易維持本來的組合優勢。但是對病毒、細菌而言,它們的改變不需要巨大 到變種,就可以大幅提昇對環境的適應性或抗藥性。這對採取單一途徑作用的人 類製藥來說,實在是個令人喪志的消息。不過更糟糕的是,撇開藥品不談,有些 天天會吃到的基因改造作物所插入/改造的基因卻是具有抗生素拮抗的作用,我 們不知道這些作物一旦在自然環境中被細菌、病毒「截取」之後,會不會增加細

菌、病毒的抗藥性? 法國綠色和平組織成員 Arnaud Apoteker 在他的一篇文章《Les dangers du génie génétique》提到:

De nombreuses plantes génétiquement modifiées. contiennent des gènes de résistance aux antibiotiques. C’est le cas par exemple du ma?s génétiquement modifié de Novartis. Ces gènes de résistance aux antibiotiques ne sont pas utiles pour la plante. Ils ont été insérés en même temps que le gène d’intérêt et servent à déterminer les cellules qui ont intégré le nouveau gène. On les appelle des gènes marqueurs. Par la suite, ces gènes totalement inutiles sont transmis aux générations suivantes et restent dans le patrimoine génétique de l’espèce et de toutes les futures variétés dont il sera à l’origine. Pourtant, il est techniquement possible de retirer ces gènes de résistance aux antibiotiques. D’un point de vue sanitaire, il para?t inquiétant de disséminer dans l’environnement des gènes de résistance à des antibiotiques couramment utilisés en santé humaine et animale. 有一些基因改造作物含有抗生素拮抗的基因。以 Novartis 基因改造的玉米來 說,這些會增進抗生素抗藥性的基因對植物並沒有用,它們是隨著靶基因插入到 植物中,用來識別細胞已經和插入的新基因結合,也因此被稱為標籤基因。然而 這些無用的基因會轉移到後代去,但並不是所有的部份都會被後代完全保留,而 使各種衍生變化都會在原產地出現。雖然,有可能完全去除這些抗生素拮抗的基 因,但若考慮人類的健康,在環境中廣泛散佈這些會拮抗對人類及動物有利的抗 生素的基因,似乎頗令人擔憂。 而根據一些研究指出,有些基因改造作物在動物實驗上被認定為有害,像這篇報 導就指出 MON863 基因改造玉米對老鼠有肝腎毒性。如果我們大致相信對老鼠 有害的對人類也有害的話, 「證明即使是經過核准、適用於人類的 GMO 產品, 仍具有毒性風險」 。 不過這並不是最糟糕的。更糟糕的是,這些作物往往還受到法律、專利的 「保護」 , 而影響到非基因改造作物的種植。1999 年,有一個加拿大農民種植的作物受到 附近非基因改造作物的授粉,農民在不知情的情況下,按照原來的習慣,留下作 物的種子以待下次的種植。結果這樣的行為遭到生物科技公司的控告:認為農民 非法擁有公司專利基因的作物。結果呢?農民敗訴《自耕自食.奇蹟的一年》 pp.66。這也就是說,哪天要是有人對他的屁組成申請個專利,然後這人不小心 放個屁隨著風吹到你家,被你聞到,你可能就會被控告非法擁有專利產品。就算

你因為此屁感到頭暈、噁心、嘔吐、免疫能力受到抑制、顏面神經麻痺等等等, 只怕法院還是會判你敗訴。所以同樣是屁隨風吹,基因改造作物一旦進入到農 地,就無可避免污染到附近的非基因改造作物。所以就算農民能號稱他們種植的 是非基因改造作物,但是你怎麼知道農民旁邊的地這麼巧剛好沒有基因改造作 物,或者是剛好沒有那陣風? 所以有一些國家乾脆就禁止種植基因改造作物,像最近匈牙利、奧地利就持續禁 止種植 MON810(可抵抗玉米螟品種) 和 Bayer T25(對抗除草劑品種)這兩種基 因改造的玉米。澳洲則甚至禁止進口 MON863 玉米。 就看到的使用基因改造作物的理由多是可以增加產量。利用基因改造作物增加產 量是為了什麼?一定不是為了讓全人類都能吃飽,因為產量一多,為了不要打壞 市場價錢,大量大量的穀物或是大豆都成噸地拿去填海。而在此同時,這些拿作 物去填海的國家也不是每個人民都吃得飽。那麼,基因改造的目的何在呢? 可怕的是那些基因改造的作物和一般非基因改造的作物看起來根本沒什麼兩 樣,換言之,你用什麼中醫那種長什麼顏色、裡面又什麼顏色,所以什麼什麼的 理論完全拿基因改造作物沒轍。換言之,你可能以為吃得是養人的大米,就算那 顆大米還號稱是有機種植好了,再經過什麼祖傳秘法煮的,很抱歉,你長期吃說 不定就有肝腎毒性。這不是你用什麼易經、陰陰陽陽推的出來。老媽就說「你難 道沒注意到我們家只種過一兩次甜玉米嗎?」原來,市面上的甜玉米幾乎都是基 因改造的。啊,其實我還滿愛吃甜玉米的說。就我所知,台灣的一些有機種植的 認證協會基本上是反對基因改造作物,但並不是所有的基因改造作物都被有機種 植排拒在外。再說,基因改造作物不是說它只會自己在那邊乖乖長出來就算了, 它和其他同類有相同的生長過程,一樣會授粉。加上連生產基因改造作物的公司 都自己承認基因改造作物的基因 「漂移」 到非基因改造作物是無可避免的,那麼, 只要這些人造的基因改造作物進入大自然的基因庫,很顯然,它可能就會一直永 遠傳下去。這比有機種植旁邊卻是打農藥的田地還更可怕。再加上之前就已經聽 說打算對中藥材進行基因改造,藥用根部的就透過基因改造讓它的根多一點,粗 一點。但是我們無法得知這樣的基因改造藥材除了本來的毒性/藥性之外,還有 沒有其他的「藥性」?乍看起來一切符合中醫理論的藥材,骨子裡卻早已換上不 為人知的性格。若真是如此,中醫失去了藥,理法還能做些什麼? 如果不是因為基因改造背後所帶來的龐大利益,誰會去做基因改造?以前種子公 司可能要和農民簽約,農民要保證不會採收種子作為下次種植之用,但這終究有 「漏網之魚」 。但是帶著自殺基因的種子,種子公司可以更直接有效地不讓這些 種子,或者說,不讓公司的利益被「剝奪」 。這樣看,好像很合理。但種子公司 還不只想做這樣而已。人類數量遽增後,大家意識到大量的收穫很重要,所以農

藥、肥料就不斷地被研發出來。站在公司的角度來看,如果農民買我的種子,還 買我的農藥、肥料,我豈不更賺?是啊,所以除了自殺基因之外,種子裡面的基 因還和農藥、肥料沾在一起了。舉前面說過的基因改造玉米來說,有種基因改造 玉米是具有抗除草劑能力的,當然,它只能抗種子公司開發出來的除草劑。換言 之,你要是灑了別家公司的除草劑,那你家的玉米就下次再聯絡了。所以對你來 說,最好(?)的策略是買種子公司開發出來的除草劑。推而廣之,種子的基因就 和這龐大的商業利益掛在一起了。你說什麼?自然?改造基因的危害?對大自然 基因庫的污染?我想這些公司不是不知道,只是龐大的利益在眼前,只要是個人 他都很難坐懷不亂。 但是非基因改造作物的改良其實是耗日費時的。台灣許多農改場做出來的優良品 種都是好幾年利用人工授粉、雜交而培育的結果,當然你可以說它也不那麼自 然,但總比 Arnaud Apoteker 說吃蔬果的時候有魚腥味的情況好太多了。所以台 灣在這方面還是可以說比較有「優勢」 。像家中跟農改場買苗買種,也從來不必 保證說不會留種這種事情。我承認,對農改場來說,他們的利益某些部份可以說 被農民吃掉了,但長遠來看,或者說考慮得更多來看(這通常是資本主義最缺乏 的,總是不考慮外部成本),這相對於大自然基因庫的影響比較小。消費者也不 用擔心「魚腥味」的問題或是有附帶的「免費贈品」 。有些人認為抗藥性細菌的 增加有部份得歸咎於基因改造作物的出現。但我覺得這可能有些過頭了,不過若 此為真,那麼台灣一些農改場不使用基因改造的方式,可能不只幫忙了農民,還 連帶降低醫療的風險。 只是台灣的農業環境越來越困難,有機、非基因改造的價錢和消費者的荷包又常 常是不相當的。看似能大量產出,方便管理,減少人工的結合農藥、化肥的基因 改造作物看起來實在非常甜美。對於只想有口飽飯能吃的農民來說,他們的為難 很難被站在銷售末端掏錢養通路的消費者體會。加上政府的休耕政策,提高每畝 地的休耕金額,乍看是對農民有好處。但是對於想耕作租地的人來說,休耕政策 的金額越高,代表的是租金的提昇。因為租金如果沒有超過休耕金額,地主為何 要租給別人?這雪上加霜的一擊,讓回家種地這條「退路」更顯困難(連我都在 想回家種菜到底是退路還是死路),也讓化肥、農藥等的慣型農法變成不得不然 的選擇。 當然,我們不知道基因改造會不會走到一條像台灣的農改場那樣,比較不那麼利 益導向的路上去,。但現階段來看,消費者還是會認為食物佔收入的比例應該很 低,通路商還是會很肥,所以大概很難有什麼轉機。就像那天公視談蜜蜂消失的 節目一位蜂農講的話,這已經不是一個人能夠解決的問題。可是,怎麼辦?有些 人預言,在未來家庭的功能會被公司所取代。在我來看,不只是家庭,可能什麼 都會被大公司所取代,因為當國家社會以商業利益為導向時,公司自然是最好的

工具,而個人遲早終被吞沒。 美國亞利桑那大學昆蟲學家,支持基改作物的 Tabashnik 教授表示,玉米和棉花 害蟲已逐漸發展出抵抗 Bt 基因的抗性。儘管目前對美國廣大的 Bt 基改玉米田以 及 Bt 基改棉花還不會有立即的威脅,不過仍要持續追蹤觀察。Tabashnik 教授的 研究分析了來自世界五大洲的 41 份報告,並發表於 12 月的經濟昆蟲學期刊。發 表在名不見經傳的一篇期刊、未公開的一篇政府報告、以及若干有數據卻未能寫 出好結論的報告,經過他的整理後,顯現了有關自然演化出抗性的 「強力證據」 。 www.6park.com 孟山都的代表勉強承認在南非以及波多黎各的獨立農田有發現害蟲對 Bt 基因產 生抗性的情形,不過否認 Tabashnik 教授其他的說法。Tabashnik 教授表示,目前 全世界約有 25%的玉米和棉花是從 Bt 種子來的,發展抗性的機率非常低。不過 在他的文章中提到,波多黎各在 2006 年發現一種蛾已經可以抵抗基改玉米所產 的毒素 Cry1f,Dow AgroSciences 與 Pioneer Hi-Bred International 這兩基基改公 司向環保署報告之後,將該基改種子從市場回收,並且勸告農民噴殺蟲劑。 www.6park.com 其他學者表示,Tabashnik 的研究對種植者、種子公司,以及消費者在避免昆蟲 發展出 Bt 抗性上有很大的幫助。科學家以及美國環保署要求在高劑量的 Bt 間應 開闢庇蟲區,讓普通昆蟲能以非 Bt 作物為棲息地增加數量,以稀釋抗性昆蟲的 數量。Tabashnik 教授的研究正顯示這種規定的重要性。如果沒有確實進行的話, 害蟲發展抗性的速度可能更快。 www.6park.com UA researcher says crop pests abroad resistant to controls Tuesday, December 22, 2009 By Tom Beal www.6park.com Tucson, Arizona - A UA researcher says pests that destroy corn and cotton have developed resistance to the most effective and benign method to kill them. www.6park.com Bruce Tabashnik, University of Arizona research entomologist, said resistance does not pose an immediate threat to the vast acreages of Bt corn and cotton grown with genetically introduced Bt toxins, but argues for continued monitoring. www.6park.com Tabashnik's study, published this month in the Journal of Economic Entomology, analyzed 41 reports from five continents. It uncovered "strong evidence" of naturally evolved resistance in an obscure journal, an unpublished government report and multiple studies that he said failed to reach the obvious conclusions their data supported. www.6park.com Officials for Monsanto, which dominates development of the world's genetically modified crops, concede resistance to Bt developed in isolated fields in South Africa and Puerto Rico, but dispute Tabashnik's other claims. www.6park.com

Scientists have long expected corn and cotton pests to develop resistance to Bacillus thuringiensis, or Bt. Since their introduction as transgenic seed products in 1996, various Bt products have proved effective in reducing damage to cotton bolls and corn crops and have let growers reduce the amount of pesticides sprayed on crops worldwide. www.6park.com Bt is a naturally occurring soil bacteria that is used by organic farmers to ward off pests. The U.S. Department of Agriculture says "use of Bt cotton reached 65 percent of planted cotton acreage in 2009 and Bt corn use grew from about 1 percent of corn acreage in 1996 to 63 percent in 2009." www.6park.com Worldwide, about 25 percent of corn and cotton are grown from Bt seed, said Tabashnik, and the incidence of resistance is very small. www.6park.com "This is a success story and should be portrayed as such," said Margaret Mellon, director of the food and environment program at the Union of Concerned Scientists. www.6park.com "Bt is a splendid pesticide. It is notable for the fact that it goes after pest insects without having effects on mammals or other organisms," said Mellon. "This is the kind of pesticide we want to work as long as possible." www.6park.com Keeping it working requires honest discussion of problems that arise, Mellon said. www.6park.com She said Tabashnik's work in this and other studies is important for growers, seed companies and consumers who all have an interest in preventing development of Bt-resistant insects. www.6park.com Reports of resistance would have been a "tragedy" a few years back, said Fred Gould, an expert on insect ecology and evolution at North Carolina State University. www.6park.com "But now the (seed) companies have the ability to see this and the technology has moved ahead and they should be able to remedy this issue," said Gould. www.6park.com Gould said Tabashnik's research illustrates the need to stick to practices recommended by scientists and ordered by the EPA that require a potent dose of Bt and "refuge" fields where non-Bt crops can house non-resistant insects to dilute the population of resistant insects. www.6park.com The studies unearthed and analyzed by Tabashnik show that resistance can evolve more rapidly when recommendations are not followed, Gould said. www.6park.com In one 2006 case in Puerto Rico, the paper says, the EPA concluded that a moth species, whose larva is known as fall armyworm (S. frugiperda), developed resistance to Bt corn crops that expressed a toxin known as Cry1f. www.6park.com

Dow AgroSciences and Pioneer Hi-Bred International reported the incident to the EPA, withdrew the seed from the market and advised growers to spray pesticides. www.6park.com The incident was not reported in any peer-reviewed journal, Tabashnik said. He gotthe data with a Freedom of Information Act request to the EPA. www.6park.com A similar lack of safeguards led to resistance to a Monsanto Bt corn in South Africa by a stem-borer known as B. fusca in the 2005-06 and 2007-08 growing seasons. www.6park.com That evidence was reported in the South African Journal of Plant and Soil. The journal is not available through online scientific sites; Tabashnik, working with a grant from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, went to South Africa and gathered the data. It's author, J.B.J. Van Rensburg, became a co-author of the report, along with Yves Carrière, also of the UA's Department of Entomology. www.6park.com A more widely known reinfestation of Bt cotton crops by a bollworm in the Southeastern United States between 1992 and 2006 was reported in at least five scientific publications, said Tabashnik, but researchers never used the data to draw the conclusion that the bollworm in question, Helicoverpa zea, evolved resistance to Cry1Ac, the toxin in a Monsanto product called Bollgard. www.6park.com A Monsanto spokesman disputed Tabashnik's characterization of the problem in the Southeast United States, but conceded that the South African and Puerto Rican incidents were evidence of field-developed resistance. Those incidents were limited to small areas where effective management practices were not followed, said Timothy Dennehy, lead researcher for insect resistance management in cotton for Monsanto. www.6park.com Dennehy, a former colleague of Tabashnik at UA, said earlier claims of field resistance to Bollgard in the Southeast were rebutted by "the entomological community in the South." Dennehy said a second generation of Bollgard with 2 Bt toxins is now available to growers in the Southeast. www.6park.com "Why would you be trying to find fault with something that is by no means a clear and present danger?" he asked. www.6park.com Tabashnik said the rebuttal of his earlier study on cotton was a letter, not a study, and was signed by seven researchers with financial ties to Monsanto. www.6park.com "There was no criticism in that letter that had a sound, scientific basis," he said. www.6park.com Some of Tabashnik's own research is underwritten by Monsanto. His department at the UA monitors resistance to the Bt cotton program in Arizona. The principal cotton pest in the Southwest — pink bollworm — is very susceptible to Bollgard and has shown no signs of evolving resistance. It is an "unqualified success," Tabashnik said.

www.6park.com Mellon, of the Union of Concerned Scientists, said a series of "lucky breaks" kept resistance to Bt from developing worldwide. www.6park.com Bt resistance is a recessive trait in most pests, meaning two resistant pests would have to mate to produce resistant offspring. "That's lucky for the world," she said, "but this is no time to slack off and to foolishly think we've beaten the bugs." www.6park.com Tabashnik is a fan of Bt crops, but considers himself "an honest broker of information" in the politically charged world of genetically modified crops. www.6park.com He wants genetic modification to be used wisely, in scientifically based programs that prevent, or at least ward off, development of resistance. www.6park.com The overwhelming success of the Bt crops has made growers a bit complacent, Tabashnik said. www.6park.com Compliance with refuge requirements, as reported to the EPA, slips yearly, he said. www.6park.com His research is a warning, he said, "not the end of he game." www.6park.com "Everybody is aware that insects adapt," he said. "There is no such thing as a permanent solution to insect control." www.6park.com Copyright ?2009 Arizona Daily Star Source: Arizona Daily Star 基改試驗驗使用花椰菜嵌紋病毒(CaMV 35S)啟動子來提高外來基因在基改植物 中的表現,但由於過度濫用的結果,如今所有商業化種植的基改作物中都有花椰 菜嵌紋病毒啟動子的存在。科學家於 2000 年,也就是基改作物商業化邁入第 6 年時,重新檢視有關花椰菜嵌紋病毒啟動子危害的相關研究,包含 CaMV 35S 啟 動子與 B 型肝炎病毒以及 HIV 病毒(與愛滋病有關)的連繫。研究發現,用來強 化基因重組以及促使水平基因移轉重組可能性的 CaMV 35S 啟動子重組連結點 並非僅僅存在於植物中,啟動子混雜地活躍於所有的活生物體中,包括動物與人 類細胞。自 2000 年起,至少有 2 個不同的研究團隊證實 CaMV 35S 啟動子活躍 於動物與人類細胞中。新的證據也顯示 CaMV 35S 啟動子能以反轉錄的方式, 引起製造 CaMV 與 HIV 基因的轉錄因子。其中的危險性在於如果 CaMV 35S 啟 動子轉移到了人類細胞中,將可能促進 HIV 病毒的轉錄以及活化其他致病性病 毒,包括高比例潛伏於人類總數中的人類巨細胞病毒。種種的發現顯示,如果 CaMV 35S 啟動子轉移到人類細胞中,可能誘導特別的轉錄因子使其繁殖,且活 化一些常見的致病性病毒,包括致癌病毒。 ISIS Report 15/06/09

New Evidence Links CaMV 35S Promoter to HIV Tran***ion The controversial promoter in all GM crops does enhance multiplication of disease-causing viruses; yet another reason why [1] GM is Dangerous and Futile (SiS 40). Dr. Mae-Wan Ho and Prof. Joe Cummins MATERIAL ON THIS SITE MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED IN ANY FORM WITHOUT EXPLICIT PERMISSION. FOR PERMISSION, AND REPRODUCTION REQUIREMENTS, PLEASE CONTACT ISIS. WHERE PERMISSION IS GRANTED ALL LINKS MUST REMAIN UNCHANGED

www.6park.com

www.6park.com www.6park.com The CaMV 35S promoter that should never have been used The cauliflower mosaic virus (CaMV) was the first plant virus found to contain DNA instead of RNA as genetic material [2]. The CaMV 35S promoter was exploited

extensively to drive the expression of foreign genes in transgenic plants, so much so that it is present in all genetically modified (GM) crops commercially grown today. In 2000, some six years after the first GM crop was commercialised, we drew attention to new and old findings that have been overlooked on the hazards of the CaMV 35S promoter; including its relationship to hepatitis B virus (HPV) and human immune deficiency virus (HIV); the discovery of its recombination hotspot that enhances both genomic rearrangement and the potential for horizontal gene transfer and recombination; and far from being specific for plants, the promoter is promiscuously active in all kingdoms of living organisms, including animal and human cells [3-5] (Cauliflower Mosaic Viral Promoter - A Recipe for Disaster?, Hazards of Transgenic Plants Containing the Cauliflower Mosaic Viral Promoter, CaMV 35S promoter fragmentation hotspot confirmed, and it is active in animals , ISIS scientific publications). We called for all GM crops containing the CaMV 35S promoter to be withdrawn [3]; and were met with an avalanche of criticisms, which we answered [4, 5] and abuse which we largely ignored. Since then, at least two different research teams have confirmed that the CaMV 35S promoter is active in animal and human cells [6, 7]. And new evidence has emerged that the CaMV 35S promoter specifically induces tran***ion factors required for making CaMV and HIV genomes by reverse tran***ion [8]. (We thank ISIS member Ingrid Blank from South Africa for drawing our attention to the publication.} The danger is that if the CaMV 35S promoter transfers into human cells, it would facilitate the tran***ion of HIV and activate other disease-causing viruses, including the human cytomegalovirus (HCMV) that is latent in high proportions of human populations CaMV related to HPBV and HIV CaMV is a pararetrovirus whose DNA genome is replicated by reverse tran***ion of an RNA intermediate. The CaMV genome consists of a circular double-stranded

DNA molecule of ~8kb that forms a mini-chromosome in the nucleus of the host cell. Phylogenetically, CaMV belongs to a group of caulimoviruses most closely related to the hepadnaviruses of animals, which includes the human hepatitis B virus. The reverse tran***ase of CaMV, however, is most similar to that of retrotransposons belonging to the Gypsy group, and also to that of retroviruses such as HIV [9]. CaMV multiplication depends on specific host tran***ion factors CaMV is transcribed by the host cell RNA polymerase II (RNAPII) into two major tran***s, the 35S and the 19SRNAs from their respective promoters. CaMV therefore, relies on host RNAPII to synthesize its viral RNA templates for reverse tran***ion (into more viral genomes) and translation of its coat and other proteins. During tran***ion, the C-terminus of RNAPII is phosphorylated by cyclin-dependent kinases (CDKs). The CDKs and interacting cyclin T partners form the tran***ion elongation factor b (P-TEF-b) complexes that phosphorylate the RNAPII C-terminal domain to promote tran***ion elongation. In Arabidopsis thaliana, CDKC;1, CDKC;2, and their interacting cyclin T partners CyCT1:4 and CYCT1:5 are important for cauliflower mosaic virus infection. Researchers led by Zhixiang Chen at Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana, in the United States used knockout mutants of the corresponding genes to investigate how the different factors affect CaMV infection [8]. They found that knockout mutants of cdkc:2 and cyct1:5 are highly resistant to CaMV infection, and the double mutant even more so. (Note: the convention is to represent the protein in capital letters and the corresponding genes in small italics.) Infection was delayed 3 to 4 days relative to wild type in the single mutants. At ~3 weeks after CaMV inoculation, almost 100 percent of the single mutants developed symptoms, but only 10 to 20 percent of the double mutant plants had symptoms, reaching 40 to 50 percent at 4 weeks. The mutants were not resistant to tobacco mosaic virus (a RNA virus) or cabbage leaf curl virus, a single-stranded DNA virus, neither of which replicates through reverse tran***ion. CaMV 35S promoter depends on the same tran***ion factors

To test whether CDKC:2 and CYCT1:5 are important for the viral promoter activity, the researchers transformed the cdkc:2 and cyct1:5 mutants with a construct containing a b -glucuronidase (GUS) reporter gene driven by the CaMV 35S promoter. As controls, the same reporter gene construct was transformed into the wild type and also the cyct:2-1 mutant, which responds normally to CaMV. They looked for GUS gene expression and tran***s in 10 to 20 percent of independent wild-type or mutant transformants. The wild type and cyct;2-1 mutant had an average of ~265 units of GUS activity, and accumulated high levels of GUS tran***s. The single cdkc:2 and cyct1:5 mutants had ~66 units and correspondingly reduced levels of GUS tran***s. In the double cdkc:2 and cyct1:5 mutant, GUS activity was further reduced to ~35 units, and the reduced GUS activity was correlated with very low levels of GUS tran***s. Thus, CDKC;2 and CYCT1:5 are required for the high CaMV 35S promoter activity, and furthermore, they are induced by the CaMV35S promoter. CaMV 35S promoter induce tran***ion factors for HIV and other pathogenic viruses In humans, P-TEFb is required by HIV-1 for its tran***ion and replication [10]. The long terminal repeat of HIV-1 has minimal promoter activity in the absence of the viral Tat protein. The CaMV 35S promoter, on the other hand, is strongly active in plant cells in the absence of any viral protein [11]. Thus, the presence of CaMV 35S promoter effectively facilitates the tran***ion of HIV and other viruses. A more recent study reported that human T-lymphotropic virus type 1, another complex retrovirus, recruits P-TEFb to stimulate viral gene tran***ion [12]. No such close link of P-TEFb has been reported with other animal DNA viruses that also depend on RNAPII for tran***ion. Thus, P-TEFb appears to be an evolutionary conserved target of complex retroviruses and pararetroviruses for tran***ion activation. Although human P-TEFb is not known to play a crucial role in the tran***ion of any human DNA virus, its over-expression in human cells can greatly activate the in vivo activity of the cytomegalovirus promoter [13]. Recently, it has been reported that replication of human cytomegalovirus is dependent on the cellular protein kinase CDK9 and cyclin T1 proteins [14]; which are similar respectively to the CDKC;2 and CYCT1:5 induced by the CaMV 35S promoter.

Within crop plants, the CaMV promoter is well known to alter the level and patterns of activity of adjacent tissue and organ-specific gene promoters [15]. In the absence of the 35S promoter sequence, the AAP2 promoter is active only in vascular tissue as indicated by the expression of the AAP2:Gus gene. With the 35S promoter sequence in the same T-plasmid used to transform tobacco plants, the resultant transgenic plants exhibit 2-fold to five-fold increase in AAP2 promoter activity and the promoter became active in all tissue types. Similar effects were found on the ovary specific AGL5:iaaM gene, and ovule- and early embryo-specific PAB5:barnase gene. In contrast, the NOS promoter did not have such effects. Thus, the 35S promoter sequence can convert an adjacent tissue and organic specific gene into a globally active promoter. Furthermore, a 60-nucleotide region (S1) downstream of the tran***ion start site of the cauliflower mosaic virus 35S RNA was found to enhance gene expression [16]. The region contains sequence motifs with enhancer function that re normally masked by the powerful upstream enhancers of the promoter. A repeated CT-rich motif is involved both in enhancer function and interaction with plant nuclear proteins. The SI region can also enhance expression from heterologous promoters, and the researchers speculated that this could guarantee a “minimal basal activity of the promoter under every possible circumstance,” and could reflect a fundamental survival strategy for the virus. These findings indicate that the CaMV 35S promoter, if transferred to human cells, could up-regulate specific tran***ion factors that will multiply and activate a number of common viruses that cause diseases including cancer.

References

Ho MW. GM is dangerous and futile, we need organic sustainable food and energy systems now. Science in Society 40, 4-8, 2008. Zaitlin M, Palukaitis P. Advances in understanding plant viruses and viral diseases Annu Rev Phytopathol. 2000;38:117-143. Ho MW, Ryan A and Cummins J. Cauliflower mosaic viral promoter – a recipe

for Disaster? Microbial Ecology in Health and Disease 1999. 11, 194-7. http://www.i-sis.org.uk/onlinestore/papers2.php#section5 Ho MW, Ryan A and Cummins J. Hazards of transgenic plants with the cauliflower mosaic viral promoter. Microbial Ecology in Health and Disease 2000, 12, 6-11. http://www.i-sis.org.uk/onlinestore/papers2.php#section5 Ho MW, Ryan A and Cummins J. CaMV35S promoter fragmentation hotspot confirmed and it is active in animals. Microbial Ecology in Health and Disease 2000, 12,: 189. http://www.i-sis.org.uk/onlinestore/papers2.php#section5 Myhre MR, Fenton KA, Eggert J, Nielsen KM and Traavik T. The 35S CaMV plant virus promoter is active in human enterocyte-like cells. European food Research and Technology 2006, 222, 185-93. Tepfer M, Gaubert S, Leroux-Coyau M, Prince S and Houdebine L-M. Transient expression in mammalian cells of transgenes transcribed from the cauliflower mosaic virus 35S promoter. Environ Biosafety Res 2004, 3, 91-7. Cui X, Fan B, Scholz J and Chen Z. Roles of Arabidopsis cyclin-dependent kinase C complexes in cauliflower mosaic virus infection, plant growth and development. The Plant Cell 2007, 19, 1388-1402. Xiong Y. and Eickbush TH.. Origin and evolution of retroelements based upon their reverse tran***ase sequences. EMBO J. 1990. 9, 3353-62. Mancebo HS, Lee G, Flygare J, Tomassini J, Luu P, Zhu Y, Peng J, Blau C, Hazuda D, Prcie D and Flores O. P-TEFb kinase is required for HIV Tat tran***ional activation in vivo and in vitro. Genes Dev 1997, 11, 2633-44. Odell JU, Nagy F and Chua NJ. Identificaqtion of DNA sequences required for activity of the cauliflower mosaic virus 35S promoter. Nature 1985, 313, 810-12. Zhou M, Lu H, Park H, Wilson-Chiru J, Linton R and Brady JN. Tax interacts with P-TEFb in a novel manner to stimulate human T-lymphotropic virus type 1 tran***ion. J. Virol 2006, 80, 4781-91. Peng J, Zhu Y, Milton JT and Price DH. Identification of multiple cyclin subunits of human P-TEFb. Genes Dev 1998, 12, 755-62. Rechter S, Scott GM, Eickhoff J, Zielke K, Anerochs S, Müller R, Stamminger T, Rawlinson WD and Marschall M. Cyclin-dependent kinases phosphorylate the cytomegalovirus RNS export protein pUL69 and Modulate its nuclear localization and activity. J Biol Chem 2009, 284, 8605-13. Zheng X, Deng W, Luo K, Duan H, Chen Y, McAvoy R, Song S, Pei Y, Li Y.The

cauliflower mosaic virus (CaMV) 35S promoter sequence alters the level and patterns of activity of adjacent tissue- and organ-specific gene promoters. Plant Cell Rep 2007, 26.1195-203. Pauli S, Rothnie HM, Chen G, He X, and Hohn T. The cauliflower mosaic virus 35S promoter extends into the transcribed region. J Virol 2004, 78, 12120-8.


相关文章:
转基因大豆与不育
转基因大豆与不育,婴儿死亡率有关联 星期三,2010 年 4 月 21 日 20:09 faraway2010 译 http://14099853.blog.hexun.com/49023617_d.html http://www.gm...
转基因大豆与不育、后代畸形和死亡有关联
转基因大豆与不育、后代畸形和死亡有关联(摘要) /来自中华网社区 http://club.china.com/data/thread/1011/2712/37/00/9_1.html 作者:fmyb1234 中国加入 ...
转基因大豆真的是害人的吗
转基因技术终于走出实验 室和试验田,进入像玉米、大豆和棉花作物的日常耕作。...在美国中西部农场出现假孕或不育; 3、食用了转基因玉米饲料的母牛,在德国实验...
进口转基因大豆为何不可怕?
进口转基因大豆其实并不可怕, 原因有三:其一此次批准并不是我国第一次进口 转基因大豆, 只是增加了新的进口品种;其二大豆的转基因成份并不直接被居民 食用;其三...
业内称转基因与肿瘤和不孕不育高度相关
业内称转基因与肿瘤和不孕不育高度相关在进口转基因大豆的冲击下,我国大豆业“奄奄一息” 。15 年来,转基因大 豆在安全性争议声中,进口数量不断攀升。日前,农...
大豆能否致癌
大豆能否致癌_农学_农林牧渔_专业资料。流言黑龙江大豆协会发表文章《转基因大豆与肿瘤和不孕不育高度相关》 (简称《转》,在该文 ) 章中一位负责人引用了年初由...
转基因工程 辩论赛 反方资料
5、转基因大豆中存在未知 DNA,可能带来新的不安全。人类对转基因大豆的研究很...主 要包括不育,免疫力下降,加速老化,胰岛素调节和主要脏腑及胃肠系统改变等严重...
对转基因大豆的看法
对转基因大豆的看法_工学_高等教育_教育专区。辩证法浅谈转基因大豆每次去超市购买...转基因大豆与不育 38页 免费 超市转基因大豆制品调查... 7页 免费 转基因...
怎样辨别是转基因黄豆还是非转基因黄豆
怎样辨别买来的黄豆是转基因还是非转基因下面有两幅图,你们知道那个是转基因,哪个不是转基因黄豆吗? 这几天,我和很多朋友讨论怎么辨别转基因的黄豆和非转基因的...
教你如何识别转基因大豆
教你如何识别转基因大豆_农学_农林牧渔_专业资料。转:转基因让人不育!教你如何识别转基因大豆!黑龙江地产大豆: 成熟的黑龙江地产大豆,呈圆形、颗粒饱满、色泽明黄...
更多相关标签:
转基因大豆鉴别 | 转基因大豆 | 转基因大豆能发芽吗 | 转基因大豆的危害 | 如何区分转基因大豆 | 如何识别转基因大豆 | 转基因大豆图片 | 如何分辨转基因大豆 |