对草甘膦现有的批准有什么错误?12.1公开发表的经同行审查的科学文献被拒绝:草甘膦除草剂致癌性。2002年的审查声称对草甘膦与草甘膦除草剂对致癌性“没有证据”。但是,2002年审查以前很长时间就知道草甘膦有致癌性效应。本文系《草甘膦除草剂与生育缺陷–是否向公众掩盖真相?》第12章前部分。
What’s wrong with the current approval of glyphosate?:12.1 Open peer reviewed scientific literature is denied:Reveals Glyphosate/Roundup causeCarcinogenicity。The 2002 review claims“no evidence” of carcinogenicity for glyphosate andglyphosate trimesium. But glyphosate was known to have carcinogeniceffects long before the 2002 review. This paper is1st part of section 12 of “Roundup and birth defects --Is the public being kept in the dark?”
12. What’s wrong with the current approval of glyphosate?(3)
12. 对草甘膦现有的批准有什么错误?(3)
-- Roundup and birth defects-- Is the public being kept in thedark?
-- 草甘膦除草剂与生育缺陷 –是否向公众掩盖真相?
译者:陈一文(cheniwan@cei.gov.cn)
Translated by Chen I-wan
《转基因技术与人类安全》研究专家、80年代前全国青联委员
“GM Technology & MankindSafety” researcher
《新浪网》“陈一文顾问博客”:http://blog.sina.com.cn/cheniwan
译自《地球开放式资源》网站下载pdf文件:
Translated from pdf document downloadat:
http://earthopensource.org/files/pdfs/Roundup-and-birth-defects/RoundupandBirthDefectsv5.pdf
[Translator’s note: This is 1st draftof direct translation, unproof read. If errors are found, thetranslator most appreciates being notifying.]
【译者注;本文系直译第1稿,未经校对。如果发现译误,感谢告知译者。】
Carcinogenicity
致癌性
The 2002 review claims“no evidence” of carcinogenicity for glyphosate andglyphosate trimesium. But glyphosate was known to have carcinogeniceffects long before the 2002 review.
2002年的审查声称对草甘膦与草甘膦除草剂对致癌性“没有证据”。但是,2002年审查以前很长时间就知道草甘膦有致癌性效应。
Two long-term studies on rats wereconducted in 1979–1981 and 1988–1990.[274] The rats received 3, 10 and 32 mg/kgof glyphosate per day in the first study and 100, 410 and 1060mg/kg per day in the second. The first study found a significantincrease in tumours in the testes of rats fed glyphosate, but thesame effect was not found in the second test using the higherdoses. On this basis, glyphosate was excluded from the carcinogeniccategory.[275, 276]
1979-1981年与1988-1990年对老鼠进行了两项长期研究。[274] 第一项研究中,老鼠每天接受3、10与32mg/kg草甘膦,第二项研究中每天接受100、410与1060mg/kg草甘膦。第一项研究在喂食了草甘膦的老鼠试验中发现肿瘤显著增多,但是喂食更高剂量草甘膦的第二项试验没有发现同样的效应。在此基础上,将草甘膦从致癌性类别中取消。[275、276]
274. WHO (World Health Organization).1994. Glyphosate. Environmental Health Criteria. 159. 274. WHO(世界卫生组织)。1994。草甘膦。环境健康标准。159. http://www.inchem.org/documents/ehc/ehc/ehc159.htm#SectionNumber:7.3 275. WHO (World Health Organization).1994. Glyphosate. Environmental Health Criteria. 159. 275. 274. WHO(世界卫生组织)。1994。草甘膦。环境健康标准。159. http://www.inchem.org/documents/ehc/ehc/ehc159.htm#SectionNumber:7.3 276. Dallegrave, E., Mantese, F. D.et al. 2003. The teratogenic potential of the herbicideglyphosate-Roundup in Wistar rats. Toxicol Lett 142(1–2):45-52. 276. Dallegrave, E., Mantese, F.D.等,2003。草甘膦除草剂农达在Wistar鼠中的致畸形潜力。毒理学通讯,142(1–2): 45-52. |
This move was based on outdated andincorrect assumptions about toxicology. It used to be thought thattoxic effects increased in proportion to dose, and that there is asafe level of a chemical, below which toxic effects are not found.But toxicologists now know that these assumptions are not alwaystrue. Some chemicals have more potent effects (notably endocrineeffects) at l ow doses than higher doses.[277] In some cases, no safe threshold canbe found.[278, 279] However, regulators have not revisedtheir conclusions on glyphosate based on up-to-date scientificknowledge.
这样一项措施基于对于毒理学的过时了的以及不正确的假设。原本想像毒性效应随剂量按比例增加,而且认为对一种化学品存在着一个安全水平,毒性效应在这个水平之下不被发现。但是,毒理学家们现在知道,这些假设不一定总正确。某些化学品在低剂量比高剂量具有威力更强大的效应(特别是内分泌效应)。[277] 在某些情况下,找不到它们的安全门槛(安全阈值)。[278、279] 然而,政府监管者们没有基于最新的科学知识修正他们对草甘膦的结论。
277. Gierthy, J. F. 2002. Testing forendocrine disruption: how much is enough? Toxicol Sci 68(1):1-3. 277. Gierthy, J.F.,2002。对内分泌干扰进行试验:多少足够?毒理学科学,68(1): 1-3. 278. Sheehan, D. M. 2006.No-threshold dose-response curves for nongenotoxic chemicals:findings and applications for risk assessment. Environ Res 100(1):93-99. 278. Sheehan, D.M.,2006。对非致基因毒性化学品没有阈值剂量-反应曲线:对风险评估的发现与应用。环境研究,100(1): 93-99. 279. Vom Saal, F. S. and Hughes,C. 2005. An extensive new literatureconcerning low-dose effects of bisphenol A shows the need for a newrisk assessment. Environmental Health Perspectives 113:926–933. 279. Vom Saal, F. S. and Hughes,C.,2005。有关双酚A(BPA)低剂量影响的广泛新的文献表明进行新的风险评估的需要。环境性健康前景,113: 926–933. |
Studies from the independentliterature also show that Roundup and glyphosate have carcinogeniceffects:
独立文献的研究表明草甘膦除草剂农达与草甘膦具有致癌性效应:
●Glyphosate induces cancer in mouseskin[280]
●草甘膦在小鼠皮肤中诱发癌[280]
●Epidemiological studies show a linkbetween Roundup/glyphosate exposure and two types of cancer:multiple myeloma[281] and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.[282, 283, 284]
●流行病学研究表明草甘膦除草剂农达/草甘膦暴露与两种癌症关联:多发性骨髓瘤[281]与非霍奇金淋巴瘤。[282、283、284]
●Other studies (mentioned underGenotoxicity, above) show that Roundup, glyphosate, and itsmetabolite AMPA cause changes to cells and DNA that are known tolead to cancer.[285, 286, 287, 288, 289, 290]
●其他的研究(在前述“致基因毒性”一节中提到)表明,草甘膦除草剂农达、草甘膦、及其代谢物AMPA对细胞与DNA造成已知导致癌症的变化。[285、286、287、288、289、290]
280. George, J., Prasad, S., Mahmood,Z., Shukla, Y. 2010. Studies on glyphosate-induced carcinogenicityin mouse skin: A proteomic approach. J Proteomics 73:951–964. 280. George, J., Prasad, S., Mahmood,Z., Shukla, Y.,2010。对小鼠皮肤中草甘膦诱发致癌性的研究:一种蛋白质组学方法。蛋白质组学杂志,73: 951–964. 281. De Roos, A. J., Blair, A.,Rusiecki, J. A., et al. 2005. Cancer incidence amongglyphosate-exposed pesticide applicators in the Agricultural HealthStudy. Environ Health Perspect. 113(1): 49–54. 281. De Roos, A. J., Blair, A.,Rusiecki, J. A.等,2005。农业健康研究中草甘膦暴露农药喷洒者中的癌症发生率。环境性健康前景,113(1): 49–54. 282. Hardell, L., Eriksson, M. 1999.A case-control study of non-Hodgkin lymphoma and exposure topesticides. Cancer. 85(6): 1353–1360. 282. Hardell, L., Eriksson,M.,1999。非霍奇金淋巴瘤与农药暴露的对照组研究。癌症。85(6): 1353–1360. 283. Hardell, L., Eriksson, M., Nordstrom,M. 2002. Exposure to pesticides as risk factorfor non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and hairy cell leukemia: pooled analysisof two Swedish case-control studies. Leuk Lymphoma. 43(5): 1043–1049. 283. Hardell, L., Eriksson, M., Nordstrom,M.,2002。农药暴露作为对非霍奇金淋巴瘤与多毛细胞白血病的风险因素:两项瑞典对照组研究的合并分析。白血病淋巴瘤。43(5): 1043–1049. 284. Eriksson, M., Hardell, L.,Carlberg, M., Akerman, M. 2008. Pesticide exposure as risk factorfor non-Hodgkin lymphoma including histopathological subgroupanalysis. Int J Cancer. Oct 1 2008;123(7): 1657–1663. 284. Eriksson, M., Hardell, L.,Carlberg, M., Akerman, M.,2008。农药暴露作为对非霍奇金淋巴瘤的风险因素,包括组织病理学子群分析。国际癌症杂志,10月1日,2008;123(7): 1657–1663. 285. Mañas, F., Peralta, L., Raviolo,J., Garcia, O.H., Weyers, A., Ugnia, L., Gonzalez, C.M., Larripa,I., Gorla, N. 2009. Genotoxicity of glyphosate assessed by theComet assay and cytogenic tests. Environ Toxicol Pharmacol 28:37–41. 285. Mañas, F., Peralta, L., Raviolo,J., Garcia, O.H., Weyers, A., Ugnia, L., Gonzalez, C.M., Larripa,I., Gorla, N.,2009。由彗星分析与细胞基因试验评估的草甘膦致基因毒性。环境毒理学药理学,28: 37–41. 286. Manas, F., Peralta, L. et al.2009. Genotoxicity of AMPA, the environmental metabolite ofglyphosate, assessed by the Comet assay and cytogenetic tests.Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 72(3): 834–837. 286. Manas, F., Peralta,L.等,2009。草甘膦环境代谢物AMPA由彗星分析与细胞基因试验评估的致基因毒性。生态毒性环境安全,72(3): 834–837. 287. Marc, J., Mulner-Lorillon, O.,Belle, R. 2004. Glyphosate-based pesticides affect cell cycleregulation. Biol Cell. 96(3): 245–249. 287. Marc, J., Mulner-Lorillon, O.,Belle, R.,2004。草甘膦为基础农药影响细胞周期雕制。生物细胞。96(3): 245–249. 288. Bellé, R., Le Bouffant, R., Morales, J.,Cosson, B., Cormier, P., Mulner-Lorillon O. 2007. Sea urchinembryo, DNA-damaged cell cycle checkpoint and the mechanismsinitiating cancer development. J Soc Biol. 201: 317–327 288. Bellé, R., Le Bouffant, R., Morales, J.,Cosson, B., Cormier, P., Mulner-Lorillon O.,2007。海胆胚胎,DNA损伤细胞周期检查点与启动癌症发展的机制。社会生物学杂志,201: 317–327 289. Marc, J., Mulner-Lorillon, O.,Boulben, S., Hureau, D., Durand, G., Bellé, R. 2002. Pesticide Roundup provokescell division dysfunction at the level of CDK1/cyclin B activation.Chem Res Toxicol. 15(3): 326–331. 289. Marc, J., Mulner-Lorillon, O.,Boulben, S., Hureau, D., Durand, G., Bellé, R.,2002。草甘膦除草剂农达在CDK1/细胞周期蛋白活化水平激发细胞分类功能失调。化学研究毒理学。15(3): 326–331. 290. Marc, J.,Bellé, R., Morales, J., Cormier, P.,Mulner-Lorillon, O. 2004. Formulated glyphosate activates theDNA-response checkpoint of the cell cycle leading to the preventionof G2/M transition. Toxicol Sci. 82(2): 436–442. 290. Marc, J.,Bellé, R., Morales, J., Cormier, P.,Mulner-Lorillon, O.,2004。配方的草甘膦启动细胞周期DNA-反应检查点导致防止G2/M传递。毒理学科学。82(2): 436–442. |
相关研究资料:
陈一文:中国真正共产党人三代真诚的朋友
http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_4bb17e9d01017r5c.html
陈一文北大讲演:老一辈新闻工作者对当代新闻工作者启示
http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_4bb17e9d0102dzgx.html
草甘膦除草剂与生育缺陷是否向公众掩盖真相?-目录与作者简介
Roundup and birth defects -- Is the public beingkept in the dark?- Content & Authorsintroduction
http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_4bb17e9d0102e03z.html
概述
Summary
http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_4bb17e9d0102e03g.html
草甘膦与生育缺陷:草甘膦除草剂致基因毒性
Genotoxicity
http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_4bb17e9d0102e00q.html
草甘膦与生育缺陷:草甘膦致神经毒性
Neurotoxicity
http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_4bb17e9d0102e00o.html
草甘膦评估忽略对"脆弱群体"影响与"积累性与协作增强"作用
Reproductive and developmental toxicity and endocrinedisruption
http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_4bb17e9d0102e00m.html
草甘膦评估漏洞:未解决的草甘膦对于唾液腺病变的担忧
Unresolved concerns about salivarygland lesions
http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_4bb17e9d0102e00k.html
草甘膦评估漏洞:未能够考虑草甘膦对内分泌干扰后果
Failure to consider endocrinedisruption
http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_4bb17e9d0102e00j.html
<参考消息>不应对"美国农田'超级杂草'泛滥"做误导性编译
ReferenceNews Should Not CarryOut Missleading Translationand Editing With “US Fields Are Flooded by ‘SuperWeeds’”
http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_4bb17e9d0102dzp6.html
丹麦养猪场档案:转基因大豆损害健康非转基因大豆有益健康-概述
GM Soylinked to health damage in pigs - a Danish Dossier -Introduction
http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_4bb17e9d0102dzfm.html
草甘膦与孟山都转基因大豆对健康危害远超过孕妇用反应停
Thalidomide were minor problems whenset alongside GMOs and Glyphosate
http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_4bb17e9d0102dzf3.html
美国科学家:草甘膦除草剂可以诱发脊椎动物形态改变
http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_4bb17e9d0102dzbm.html
陈一文:喷洒草甘膦地区儿童癌症十年增两倍生育缺陷增三倍
http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_4bb17e9d0100o8gx.html
美国不生不育高达15%中国不孕不育超5000万紧随其后
USAInfertility Reaching 15%, China Closely Following InfertilityPatients Already Exceeding 50 Million
http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_4bb17e9d0102dz1u.html
美韩女童性早熟急剧增加美国发现早熟儿童骨骼提前成熟
Why DoesPrecocious pubertyRapidly Increase in American and South Korean And Bone Age ofChildren Exceed Their Actual Age?
http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_4bb17e9d0102dyz5.html
中国为何女童性早熟十年增十倍而且儿童骨骼提前成熟
Why DoesPrecocious pubertyRapidly Increase in Chinese Young Girls Ten Years Increase TenFold, And Bone Age of Children Exceed Their ActualAge?
http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_4bb17e9d0102dyz2.html
美澳与中国儿童哮喘发病率逐年上升即便空气质量有好转
USA,Australia and China’s Children Asthma Incident Rate Increase Yearby Year, Even if Air Quality is Improved
http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_4bb17e9d0102dyrn.html
美国与中国孩子们慢性病急剧增多,人民不救谁来救?
USA andChina’s Children with Chronic Diseases Rapidly Increase, NotRelying on the People to Save Them, Who Could We RelyOn?
http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_4bb17e9d0102dyqy.html
美国与中国过去十年患多种慢性病患者数均遭遇原因不明增加
USA andChina’s Patients With More Than One Chronic Disease EncounteredReason Unclear Increase During Past Ten Years
http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_4bb17e9d0102dyqa.html
美国糖尿病发生率8.3%中国糖尿病发生率9.7%超过美国
8.3%Americans Have Diabetes, 9.7% Chinese Have Diabetes Exceeding USA, the Risk is Very High forthe “East Asian Weakling” Nightmare to ArriveAgain!
http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_4bb17e9d0102dypf.html
美国与中国均遭遇原因被不明新生儿先天性心脏缺陷上升趋势
USA andChina Both Have Encountered "Reasons Unclear" Trends of IncreasingRate of Newborns with Congenital Heart Defects
http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_4bb17e9d0102dyp0.html
美国新生儿低出生体重发生率8.1%中国4.6%尚未与美接轨
Thepercentage of infants with low birthweight are 8.1% in the USA,compared with 4.6% in China
http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_4bb17e9d0102dyom.html
从转基因大豆对土壤细菌影响不同结论看利益如何干扰科学
http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_4bb17e9d0102dym0.html
方舟子诽谤郎咸平与法学者美化孟山都草甘膦除草剂
http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_4bb17e9d0100ol7r.html
韩长赋部长,请讲清农业部非法批准转基因进口问题再言它
http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_4bb17e9d0102dyep.html
维基泄密网站:美国驻华大使馆2009-12-9转基因专题密电
http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_4bb17e9d0102dyew.html
非法进口抗草甘膦转基因大豆饲料危害动物人类健康须禁绝
http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_4bb17e9d0102dy3j.html
农业部对患病水产品罪魁祸首“化学浸出”抗草甘膦转基因豆粕水产饲料为何不追查到底?
http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_4bb17e9d0102dy10.html
益海嘉里集团“化学浸出”金龙鱼等品牌转基因大豆油副产品“化学浸出”转基因大豆粕成分饲料危害家禽与鸡蛋、牛与猪健康,为何不追查?
http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_4bb17e9d0102dy11.html
意大利科学家:怀孕羊喂食化学浸出转基因豆粕饲料羊仔血液与器官发现转基因片段怀孕羊喂食化学浸出转基因豆粕饲料羊仔血液与器官发现转基因片段。农业部为何不进行追查?
http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_4bb17e9d0102dy1r.html
国内外科学家在喂食转基因成分饲料的鱼、猪、鼠、羊与奶及其下一代血液、内脏、肌肉中发现转基因饲料转基因DNA片段与生理异常,农业部为何不组织任何调查研究、科学试验进行追查?
http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_4bb17e9d0102dy29.html
中国、美国喂食孟山都抗草甘膦转基因大豆、玉米饲料家畜流产增加,农业部为何不查?
http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_4bb17e9d0102dy2k.html
美国十年前发现喂食孟山都抗草甘膦转基因大豆、玉米饲料肉牛异常早衰变老,农业部为何不查?
http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_4bb17e9d0102dy2x.html
农业部益海嘉里勾结进口残留毒性为草甘膦50倍转基因大豆
http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_4bb17e9d0102dyar.html
必须追究农业部非法审批孟山都转基因大豆进口的法律责任
http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_4bb17e9d0102dy99.html
化学浸出大豆油致幼儿骨骼发育问题心脏异常应当全部禁绝
http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_4bb17e9d0102dy4r.html
转基因增加农药使用量“转基因减少农药使用量”骗人鬼话
http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_4bb17e9d0102dxz2.html
德国大学在城镇居民所有检测尿样发现孟山都不孕不育草甘膦
http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_4bb17e9d0102dxy6.html
益海嘉里必须交待消费者对金龙鱼转基因大豆油的52问题
http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_4bb17e9d0102dxre.html
转基因作物、转基因食品对人类健康65方面危害的科学证据
http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_4bb17e9d0102drz2.html
美全科医生针对草甘膦与转基因食品危害与胡伯博士访谈目录
http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_4bb17e9d0102dxf0.html
人类家畜草甘膦中毒高死亡率揭穿农业部转基因权威关注谎言
http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_4bb17e9d0102dvfo.html
全国教育系统严禁大中小学采购转基因食用油风暴不可阻挡
http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_4bb17e9d0102dtlf.html
郭鹤年背叛母亲遗训:转基因大豆油禁供香格里拉专供民众
http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_4bb17e9d0102dthh.html
农业部何以孟山都一家私利冒充中美贸易大局欺骗领导与人民
http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_4bb17e9d0102dt0w.html
美国环保署对草甘膦生态人类健康风险重新评估农业部怎么办
http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_4bb17e9d0102dsux.html