中国琉球网

 找回密码
 立即注册

QQ登录

只需一步,快速开始

中国琉球网 首页 反转基因 查看内容

美国《大西洋月刊》“转基因食品有非常真实的危险”

2012-3-5 11:40| 发布者: 风在手| 查看: 5376| 评论: 2|原作者: 顾秀林|来自: 光明网卫生频道

摘要: 在真正的科学家面前,问题是逃不掉的,即使逃得了一时,也决逃不了一世。但是,就在在“一时”与“一世”的间隔里,美国的“21世纪生物技术战略”很快就要取得战略性胜利了!看看最近,2012年以来,杜邦公司多么高兴 ...
美国《大西洋月刊》“转基因食品有非常真实的危险”


 In other words, as long as the final product -- the pizza, as it were -- is non-toxic, the introduced DNA isn't any different and doesn't pose a problem. For what it's worth, if that principle were applied to intellectual property law, many of Monsanto's patents would probably be null and void.

中国RNA(核糖核酸)研究的领衔研究员是张辰宇。他并没有评论他的工作会如何影响转基因食品安全性的争论。但是,这项发现让公众都对孟山都公司的“实质性等同”深感忧虑。而事实上,在很多年前,科学共同体中就提出了这个危害性问题。

 Chen-Yu Zhang, the lead researcher on the Chinese RNA study, has made no comment regarding the implications of his work for the debate over the safety of GM food. Nonetheless, these discoveries help give shape to concerns about substantial equivalence that have been raised for years from within the scientific community.

一批科学家1999年就向著名的《自然》杂志写过一封信,题为《在实质性等同的背后》。埃里克•米尔斯通等人在这封信中指出:“‘实质性等同’是一个‘伪科学概念’,在本质上是反对科学的,因为把它提出来只是为不做生物化学检验或毒理学检验找了个借口。”

 In 1999, a group of scientists wrote a letter titled "Beyond Substantial Equivalence" to the prestigious journal Nature. In the letter, Erik Millstone et. al. called substantial equivalence "a pseudo-scientific concept" that is "inherently anti-scientific because it was created primarily to provide an excuse for not requiring biochemical or toxicological tests."

对于科学家的指控,孟山都公司是这样回应的:“在1991年的时候,‘实质等同性原则’这一概念在一个由‘经济合作与发展组织(OECD)’所召开的国际科学专家会议上制定了细节。那是早在生物工程产品还没有上市之前的事情了。”

 To these charges, Monsanto responded: "The concept of substantial equivalence was elaborated by international scientific and regulatory experts convened by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) in 1991, well before any biotechnology products were ready for market."

 孟山都公司这个回应,在表面上是反驳一项指责,实际上它是把这件事处理成一项监管性事务了。“实质上等同”显然需要在孟山都公司的转基因产品上市之前提出。这是为它的转基因食品全球化商业所做的一项政策准备。我们都己看见:在世界上任何一个地方,只要接受了“实质等同性”原则,转基因食品市场销售的准入合法性便顺理成章地办妥了。当“实质性等同”被世界采纳时,孟山都公司已经种出大量转基因农产品,不失时机地把它们包装起来推向市场了。

This response is less a rebuttal than a testimonial to Monsanto's prowess at handling regulatory affairs. Of course the term was established before any products were ready for the market. Doing so was a prerequisite to the global commercialization of GM crops. It created a legal framework for selling GM foods anywhere in the world that substantial equivalence was accepted. By the time substantial equivalence was adopted, Monsanto had already developed numerous GM crops and was actively grooming them for market.

拥有34个成员国的经济合作与发展组织(OECD),主要是发达、富裕、以白人为主的国家,而且是“亲”大公司的。这个组织有一个使命,把经济发展推延到世界上的每一个角落。在这项使命的推进当中,经济合作与发展组织(OECD)的确为孟山都公司向全球推广“实质性等同”助了一臂之力。



鲜花

握手

雷人

路过

鸡蛋

相关阅读

发表评论

最新评论

引用 风在手 2014-5-23 12:04
鸦片,那会儿叫福寿膏。借机输入中国。
  -----------------------------
  蒋高明:当年的“买办”都办些什么?

  转基因作物与罂粟花,前后170年,用同样的办法(本身带毒的植物和人工带毒的植物,且为主粮作物)来“掠夺”财富,在洋人眼里,中国人这三十年积累了不少白银了。且很快,中国人要过上他们那种日子了,一个地球不够了,怎么办?

  他们很可能是重新启用买办。
引用 风在手 2014-5-23 11:52
被南方日报视为美国精神的觉醒《大西洋月刊》,是左呢?还是右啊!】
  【被南方日报视为美国精神的觉醒《大西洋月刊》,是左呢?还是右啊!】
  【被南方日报视为美国精神的觉醒《大西洋月刊》,是左呢?还是右啊!】
  【被南方日报视为美国精神的觉醒《大西洋月刊》,是左呢?还是右啊!】

查看全部评论(2)

手机版|小黑屋|Archiver|中国琉球网 ( 闽ICP备13003013号 )

GMT+8, 2024-5-17 01:33 , Processed in 0.063117 second(s), 8 queries , File On.

Powered by Discuz! X3.4

© 2001-2023 Discuz! Team.

返回顶部