【杜鲁克博士为《改变的基因、扭曲的真相》的】

　　美国新书《改变的基因、扭曲的真相》揭露FDA转基因欺诈

　　

　　（注：有影响力的出版社已同意出版杜鲁克《改变的基因、扭曲的真相》中文版，但要求提供中文翻译，目前部分志愿者已翻译了一部分，为完成出版，需要有资质的翻译公司翻译其余部分，大约需要7万元经费，如有兴趣赞助该项目的企业人士，请与转基因观察联系（[email protected]），资金不过手，企业直接转给翻译公司。）

　　

　　Although it purports to be based on solid science and the open flow of information on which science depends, the massive venture to reconfigure the genetic core of the world’s food supply has substantially relied on the propagation of falsehoods. Its advancement and very survival have been crucially and chronically dependent on the misrepresentation of reality – to the extent that more than thirty years after the creation of the first genetically engineered plant, the vast majority of people the world-over (including most government officials, journalists, and even scientists) continue to be misled about the important facts.

　　

　　虽然声称依据科学赖以发展的坚实科学与开放流动信息，重新配置世界粮食供应遗传核心的巨大风险投资实质性依赖的是传播谎言。它的进展与生存至关重要长期依赖歪曲现实--自创造头一种转基因作物后，在世界大部分人(包括大部分政府关于、记者以至科学家)中延续了三十多年，在重要的事实上继续误导他们。

　　

　　Moreover, contrary to what people would expect, the biotechnology industry has not been the main source of the deceptions.

　　

　　然而，与与大部分人的预计不同，生物技术产业并不是这些谎言的主要。

　　FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, DC

　　

　　美国食品药物管理署(FDA)

　　

　　Instead, the chief misrepresentations have been issued by respected government agencies and eminent scientists and scientific institutions.

　　

　　与一般人理解的相反，对转基因作物首位的虚假陈述的发布者是是受人尊敬的政府机构、著名的科学家和科研机构。

　　

　　The following paragraphs describe several of the key deceptions and delinquencies that have been essential in enabling the genetically engineered (GE) food venture to advance – all of which are more thoroughly documented in my book: Altered Genes, Twisted Truth.[1]

　　

　　下边的段落描述了使转基因食物风险投资事业得以进展的某些关键的欺骗和违约 --我的专著《改变的基因、扭曲的真相》中对这些谎言提供了充分的文件记录。[1]

　　

　　The Disaster Caused by GE’s First Edible Product Was Obfuscated

　　

　　转基因的头一项食用产品造成的灾难被混淆掩盖

　　

　　The genetic engineering venture had an alarming jolt when its first ingestible product caused an epidemic that killed dozens of Americans and seriously sickened thousands, permanently disabling many of them.

　　

　　转基因的头一项食用产品致数十美国人死亡、数千人严重患病、许多人终生残疾的灾难，让基因工程冒险事业遭遇惊人震动。

　　

　　注：1989年在美国，使用转基因细菌生产的L-色氨酸，一种食品增补剂，被发现有毒，造成37人死亡以及超过1500人永久性残废。它们造成的疾病被称之为嗜酸粒细胞增多肌痛综合症(EMS)。其症状包括称之为嗜酸粒细胞的白血球产生过多，严重肌痛(肌肉疼痛)，以及某些情况下发生瘫痪。

　　

　　这个实例不仅提醒人们对于转基因作物、转基因食品对健康可能隐藏巨大危险必须高度警觉，它同时提醒人们对转基因药物必须同样警觉，要求转基因药物必须标识使用了转基因技术。

　　

　　转基因支持者们宣称“到目前为止，转基因食品没有发生一起被证实了的食品安全问题”，这是彻头彻尾的谎言!

　　

　　神话：L-色氨酸致流行病无关转基因;真相:转基因细菌祸首

　　

　　英中文对照：

　　

　　The product was a food supplement of the essential amino acid L-tryptophan that had been derived from genetically altered bacteria. Although it met the standards for pharmacological purity, like all other tryptophan supplements it contained minute amounts of impurities. However, unlike the conventionally produced supplements, one or more of its accidental additions was highly toxic, even at extremely low levels.

　　

　　这个产品是用转基因微生物培育生产的人类必需氨基酸色氨酸食用补剂。尽管它达到制药纯度标准，像所有其他氨基酸色氨酸补剂那样，它含有微量的杂质。然而，与传统生产补充剂不同，这种基因工程转基因微生物生产的氨基酸色氨酸补剂的意外添加物为高度毒性，即便含量非常低。

　　

　　Because none of the tryptophan supplements produced via non-engineered bacteria had ever been linked to disease, and because genetic engineering can create unintended disruptions within the altered organisms, there were legitimate reasons to suspect that the process had induced the formation of the extraordinarily toxic substance that caused the calamity.

　　

　　由于非基因工程微生物生产的氨基酸色氨酸补剂从来没有与疾病联系，以及由于基因工程能够在改变了的生物体内造成未预料感染，有正当理由怀疑正式这种转基因过程诱发构成造成这场灾难的非常有毒物质。

　　

　　Consequently, the proponents of genetic engineering, including the United States Food and Drug Administration (the FDA), which admits it has a policy “to foster” biotechnology, strove to convince the public that the technology was blameless.[2] But to do so, they had to issue a string of deceptive statements. Those deceptions have been highly successful.

　　

　　因此，转基因支持者们，包括承认自己有“促进”生物技术政策的美国食品药物管理署(FDA)，不得不努力说服公众生物技术对这场灾难没有责任。[2] 但是为了这样做，他们不得不发布一系列欺骗性声明。这些欺骗造成了相当成功的效果。

　　

　　Consequently, despite the fact the evidence points to genetic engineering as the most likely cause of the toxic contamination, most people who know of this tragedy are under the illusion that the technology has been exonerated. [3]Worse, because GE proponents routinely claim that none of its products has ever been linked to a health problem, most people aren’t even aware that such a catastrophe happened.

　　

　　因此，尽管这场灾难的证据指出基因工程是毒性污染最为可能的原因，造成了解这场灾难的大部分人获得基因工程技术被证明无罪的错解。[3] 更恶劣的是，由于转基因支持者们再三声称他们的任何转基因产品一直与健康问题无关，大部分人甚至不了解曾经发生郭这样一场灾难。

　　

　　The Problems Linked to the First GE Whole Food Were Also Covered Up

　　

　　与头一个转基因全食品联系的问题也遭到掩盖

　　

　　The first whole food produced via genetic engineering (Calgene’s “Flavr Savr” tomato) was also problematic. Calgene voluntarily conducted feeding studies, and the FDA scientists who reviewed them expressed concern about a pattern of stomach lesions that raised a safety issue. The Pathology Branch concluded that safety had not been demonstrated, and other FDA experts concurred. One wrote that the data “raise a question of safety”– and that they “fall short” of satisfactorily resolving it.[4]Another agreed that “unresolved questions still remain.”[5]

　　

　　用转基因技术生产的头一个全食品(Calgene公司的“Flavr Savr”西红柿)也大有问题。Calgene公司自愿进行了喂养试验，审查这些试验的食品药物管理署(FDA)科学家对于喂养试验中提出安全性问题的胃损伤模式感到担忧。FDA的病理学分支结论：喂养试验中未能演示这种转基因西红柿的安全性，其他的FDA专家同意这种意见。某位专家写道，这些数据“对安全性提出了问题”--而且表明他们“未能”令人满意解决这些问题。[4] 另外一位专家同意“尚未得到解决的问题依然存在。”[5]

　　

　　Nevertheless, the FDA claimed that its scientists had determined that all safety questions had been resolved – and that the tomato had been demonstrated to be just as safe as other tomatoes. And because the FDA kept a lid on its scientists’ memos, no one outside the agency was aware of the fraud.

　　

　　尽管如此，食品药物管理署公开声称他们的科学家确定所有的安全性问题都得到了解决 -- 声称这种转基因西红柿已经证实与其他西红柿同样安全。而且，由于FDA将其科学家的备忘录掩盖起来，所有外部机构对这样的欺诈毫无所知。

　　

　　The memos only came to light four years later (in 1998) when my organization, the Alliance for Bio-Integrity, led a lawsuit that compelled the FDA to hand over more than 44,000 pages of its internal files.

　　

　　多年后(1998年)，我的组织《生物整体性联盟》领导了一场诉讼，迫使FDA不得不向我们提供了44,000多页其内部档案文件，这些备忘录才得以披露出来。

　　

　　However, because the mainstream media has failed to adequately report what those documents reveal, most people are still unaware of the FDA’s misbehavior.

　　

　　然而，由于主流媒体未能对这些文件披露的内容给予充分道，大部分人至今依然对FDA的不当行为一无所知。

　　

　　GE Foods Reached the Market Through Governmental Fraud

　　

　　转基因食品通过政府性欺诈进入市场

　　

　　If the actual facts about the toxic tryptophan and the troubling tomato had been disclosed, the GE food venture might well have been brought to a halt – and at minimum would have been slowed and subjected to more rigorous testing. A similar effect would have resulted if concerns that other FDA experts had expressed about GE foods in general had been publicized.

　　

　　如果转基因微生物生产的毒性色氨酸补剂与造成健康问题的转基因西红柿的真实情况被及时披露出来，转基因食物风险投资事业很有可能已经陷入停滞--至少其发展被减缓而且不得不通过更加严格的试验。如果美国食品药物管理署对转基因食物的担心被道出来，也可能造成类似的影响。

　　

　　Those concerns appeared in memos written a few years before the GE tomato entered the market, and they reveal that the agency’s scientists didn’t agree with the biotech proponents’ claims that GE is substantially the same as conventional breeding.

　　

　　FDA专家的这些担心出现在转基因西红柿上市前好几年前的备忘录中，它们揭示即便FDA的科学家们也不同意生物技术支持者声称转基因食物与传统育种作物“实质等同”的说法。

　　

　　For example, an FDA microbiologist stated: “There is a profound difference between the types of unexpected effects from traditional breeding and genetic engineering.” He added that GE “. . . may be more hazardous . . .” [6]

　　

　　例如，FDA的一位微生物学家表明：“传统育种作物与转基因作物之间存在未预料作用差别。”他进一步说转基因“...可能更加危险...”。[6]

　　

　　A toxicologist warned that GE plants could contain unexpected new toxins.[7]

　　

　　FDA的一位毒理学家警告，转基因作物可能含有未预料的新毒素。[7]

　　

　　The Director of FDA’s Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) stated: “… CVM believes that animal feeds derived from genetically modified plants present unique animal and food safety concerns.” [8] He explained that residues of unexpected substances could make meat and milk products harmful to humans.

　　

　　FDA的兽药中心(CVM)主任表明：“... CVM认为来自转基因作物的动物饲料提出独特的动物与食物安全性方面担忧。“[8] 他解释，未预料物质残留可能使肉和奶产品对人类有害。

　　

　　The pervasiveness of the concerns is attested by an FDA official who studied the expert input and declared: “The processes of genetic engineering and traditional breeding are different, and according to the technical experts in the agency, they lead to different risks.” [9] In light of the unique risks, those experts called for GE foods to undergo careful testing capable of detecting unexpected side effects.

　　

　　这些普遍性问题也获得一位FDA官员的证实，他研究了专家们的意见后表明：“转基因与传统育种的过程不同，依据FDA技术专家们的意见，这样的差别导致不同的风险。”[9] 考虑到这些独特的风险，FDA的这些专家要求对转基因食物进行有能力发现未预料副作用的仔细试验。

　　

　　Moreover, the FDA’s Biotechnology Coordinator acknowledged there was not a consensus about safety in the scientific community at large. He also admitted that the allergenic potential of some GE foods “is particularly difficult to predict.”[10]

　　

　　此外，FDA的生物技术协调官员承认对于转基因食物的安全性在科学界中并没有共识。他还承认某些转基因食物潜在的过敏性“特别难于预测。”[10]

　　

　　Nonetheless, in May 1992 the FDA claimed that “the agency is not aware of any information showing that foods derived by these new methods differ from other foods in any meaningful or uniform way.” [11]

　　

　　竟如此，美国食品药物管理署(FDA)于1992年5月公开声称“本机构不了解表明来自这种新方法的食物与其他食物以任何有意义或统一的方式不同。”[11]

　　

　　It also asserted that there is overwhelming consensus among scientists that GE foods are so safe they don’t require any testing. Accordingly, the agency doesn’t require a smidgen of testing and allows GE foods to enter the market without any.

　　

　　FDA甚至宣称科学家们中获得有压倒性的共识，认为转基因食品很安全，认为对转基因食品不需要进行任何测试。因此，FDA不要求对转基因食品做哪怕一点点测试，反而允许转基因食品不经任何测试就进入市场。

　　

　　If the FDA had told the truth and disclosed the extensive concerns of its own experts, the subsequent history of the GE venture would have surely been very different – and might well have been quite short. At the least, any GE foods that did reach market would have been subjected to much more rigorous testing than regulators anywhere have required.

　　

　　如果FDA告诉了真相而且公开了他们自己专家广泛方面的担心，转基因风险投资事业后来的历史发展必定非常不同 -- 而且可能相当短暂。至少，进入市场的任何转基因食物不得不进行各地监管机构必定要求的远为更加严格的测试。

　　

　　The State of the Research and the Degree of Expert Consensus Have Been Misrepresented

　　

　　所进行研究的状态与专家共识的程度也遭到歪曲

　　

　　Like the FDA, other GE proponents habitually claim there’s an overwhelming expert consensus that GE foods are safe. And the American Association for the Advancement of Science has declared that “every respected organization” that examined the evidence has determined they’re “no riskier” than conventional ones. But this is flat-out false.

　　

　　像FDA那样，其他的转基因支持者们习惯于声称已经获得压倒性转基因共识认为转基因食物安全。美国科学促进会(AAAS)甚至宣布，审查过证据的“每一个令人尊敬的组织”都确定转基因食物并不比传统食物“更加有风险”。但是，这是彻头彻尾的欺诈。

　　

　　For instance, in 2001 the Royal Society of Canada issued a report concluding that (a) it is “scientifically unjustifiable” to presume that GE foods are safe and (b) the “default prediction” for each should be that the genetic alteration has induced unintended and potentially harmful side effects.[12]

　　

　　例如，加拿大皇家协会(=加拿大科学园--译注)2001年发布的一项告结论，(a)假定转基因食物安全在“科学上没有理由”，而且(b)对每一种转基因食物的“默认预测”应当是转基因诱发了未预料与潜在危害性的作用。[12]

　　

　　Moreover, the British Medical Association, the Public Health Association of Australia, and the editors of the Lancet (a premier medical journal) have all expressed concerns about the risks;[13]

　　

　　此外，英国医学协会(BMA)、澳大利亚公共卫生协会(PHAA)，以及《柳叶刀》(一家主要的医学杂志)都曾对转基因食物的风险表达郭担心;[13]

　　

　　and in 2015 a peer-reviewed journal published a statement signed by more than 300 scientists asserting that there is not a consensus about the safety of GE foods and that their safety has not been adequately demonstrated.[14]

　　

　　而且，2015年，一家经同行专家审查的杂志发表了全世界300多位科学家签署的一个声明，宣称对于转基因食物的安全性并没有共识，其安全性也未得到足够证实。[14]

　　

　　GE proponents also falsely profess that the safety of GE foods has been thoroughly demonstrated when in reality many well-conducted studies published in peer-reviewed journals have detected harm to the animals that ate GE food.

　　

　　转基因支持者们还错误地声称转基因食品的安全性已经彻底证实，但事实上，经同行专家审查的杂志发表过许多良好做的研究，发现喂养转基因食品对动物造成了危害。

　　

　　In fact, a systematic review of the toxicological studies on GE foods published in 2009 concluded that the results of “most” of them indicate that the products “may cause hepatic, pancreatic, renal, and reproductive effects and may alter hematological, biochemical, and immunologic parameters the significance of which remains unknown.” [15] It also noted that further studies were clearly needed.

　　

　　事实上，2009年发表的对转基因食物毒理学研究的系统性审查告结论，“大部分”这些研究表明转基因食品“可能会导致肝脏、胰腺、肾脏和生殖影响，还可能改变血液、生化、免疫参数，其意义仍然未知。”[15] 这篇告还指出，进一步的研究清楚需要。

　　

　　Another review that encompassed the additional studies that had been published up until August 2010 also provided cause for caution. It concluded that there was an “equilibrium” between the research groups “suggesting” that GE crops are as safe as their non-GE counterparts and “those raising still serious concerns.” [16]

　　

　　另外一项包括到2010年8月发表为止额外研究的系统性审查告亦提供了需要谨慎的原因。这篇告结论，认为转基因作物安全的研究组与“依然提出严重担忧”的非转基因学者们之间达到某种“平衡”。[16]

　　

　　Between 2008 and 2014 eight such research reviews were published, and although some interpreted the data in favor of GE crops, as a whole, they provide no grounds for unequivocally proclaiming safety.

　　

　　2008年与2014年之间发表了八项这样的系统性审查研究，尽管某些研究以赞同转基因作物方式对有关数据作出解释，整体来讲，没有提供明确宣布转基因作物安全的基础。

　　

　　As Sheldon Krimsky, a professor at Tufts University, observed in a comprehensive examination that itself was published in a peer-reviewed journal: “One cannot read these systematic reviews and conclude that the science on health effects of GMOs has been resolved within the scientific community.” [xvii] Yet, GMO proponents routinely proclaim that it has been conclusively resolved – and that safety is a certitude.

　　

　　如塔夫斯大学谢勒顿-科里姆斯基教授在经同行专家审查的杂志上发表的他自己综合性审查研究指出：“阅读了这些系统性审查研究后人民无法结论对于转基因健康影响的科学在科学界内已经获得解决。”[xvii] 然而，转基因支持者继续再三宣传转基因食物的安全性问题已经获得最终解决 -- 与转基因食品的安全性已经确信。

　　

　　Two Compelling – and Disturbing – Conclusions

　　

　　两项引人注目和令人不安的结论

　　

　　Thus, even from this brief summary, it’s clear that the GE food venture has been chronically dependent on twisting the truth; and this dependence can be readily detected in virtually every statement that’s been issued in support of its products.

　　

　　因此，即便从这个简要的总结，已经非常清楚转基因食物风险投资事业长期以来一直依赖于扭曲事实，在用来支持转基因产品所发表的几乎所有声明中都能够很容易检测到这种依赖。

　　

　　A striking example is the guide to GE crops published by the UK’s Royal Society in May 2016.[18] Although it professes to provide accurate, science-based information, analysis reveals that its case for the safety of these crops is based on multiple misrepresentations.[19]

　　

　　一个惊人的例子是英国皇家学会(=英国科学院--译注)2016年5月发表的对转基因作物的指导原则。[18] 它自称提供准确、科学的信息，但是分析揭示该案例中转基因作物的安全性依据的是多重虚假陈述。[19]

　　

　　So if the world’s oldest and most respected scientific institution cannot argue for the safety of GE foods without systematically distorting the facts, it indicates that such distortion is essential to the argument.

　　

　　所以，如果世界最长期与最为令人尊敬的科学机构无法咋不系统性歪曲事实情况下为转基因食品的安全性进行辩解，这表明这样的歪曲对于这样的辩解至关重要。

　　

　　Moreover, when the multitude of distortions and deceptions that have been issued on behalf of these products over the last thirty-five years are compiled and irrefutably documented (as in my book), the conclusion that the GE food venture could not have survived without them becomes virtually inescapable.

　　

　　此外，当过去35年为这些产品发布的大量扭曲和欺骗已经汇编并成为无法辩驳的文献记录(如我的书中所做的那样)，转基因食物风险投资事业没有这些扭曲和欺骗将无法存在的结论变得几乎不可避免。

　　

　　And another conclusion is equally obvious. The incontestable fact that the evidence has been methodically misrepresented is in itself compelling evidence of how strongly the aggregate evidence raises reasonable doubts about the safety of these foods – because if it was as favorable as the proponents claim, there would have been no need to distort it.

　　

　　另外一项结论也同样明显。无可争辩的事实证据已经有条不紊地歪曲本身成为合理的怀疑转基因食品安全性令人信服的证据--因为，如果转基因食品如同转基因支持者们声称的那样好的话，就没有必要歪曲这些事实。