请选择 进入手机版 | 继续访问电脑版
 找回密码
 立即注册

孟山都竟然在35年前就知道草甘膦致癌!

2015-4-14 18:49

来自: 非转基因食品经营户
食物主权按:美国环境保护署(EPA)披露的档案显示,早在1981年,孟山都已经充分认识草甘膦导致哺乳类动物患癌的可能性。孟山都知道这些研究数据极可能威胁自己的商业计划,故以商业机密为缘由封存这些文件,导致第三方独立审查无法进行。孟山都草甘膦除草剂农达1988年向中国申请“农药登记”时,故意向中国政府与人民隐瞒这些毒理学动物试验报告。2014年,北京食品安全志愿者要求农业部公布孟山都1988年申请“农药登记”时提交的毒理学动物试验报告,农业部以试验报告涉及“重要个人隐私”、“涉及公司商业秘密”为借口拒绝公布。最近北京市民杨晓陆状告农业部,要求公开孟山都公司生产的“农达”信息,此案由北京三中院受理并立案,而且该院合议庭研究决定追加孟山都为当事人。目前,此案已经引起国际关注。

 翻译:孔伟、阿废;校对:黄瑜

        According to evidence unearthed from the archives of the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) in the United States, it has been established that Monsanto was fully aware of the potential of glyphosate to cause cancer in mammals as long ago as 1981.
        根据美国环境保护署(EPA)档案挖掘出来的证据,孟山都公司早在1981年就已经充分认识到草甘膦导致哺乳类动物患癌的可能性。

        Recently the WHO's International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) issued a statement in which glyphosate (the main component of Roundup herbicide) was classified as "probably carcinogenic" to humans and as "sufficiently demonstrated" for genotoxicity in animals (1). This announcement of a change to toxicity class 2A was given vast coverage in the global media, causing Monsanto to move immediately into damage limitation mode. The corporation demanded the retraction of the report, although it has not yet been published! Predictably, there was more fury from the industry-led Glyphosate Task Force (2). This Task Force also sponsored a "rebuttal" review article (3) from a team of writers with strong links with the biotechnology industry; but because of the clear bias demonstrated in this paper (which suggests that glyphosate has no carcinogenic potential in humans) it is best ignored until it has been carefully scrutinized by independent researchers (4).
        最近,世界卫生组织下属的国际癌症研究机构(IARC)发布声明,将草甘膦(抗农达除草剂的主要成分)分类为对人类“可能的致癌物”,同时在动物中“充分显示出”致基因毒性(1)。全球媒体广泛报道了将其毒性等级调整为2A的该则消息,致使孟山都公司立即采取行动,以减弱报道所带来的负面影响。尽管国际癌症研究机构的正式报告尚未发表,孟山都依然要求立即撤销这份报告!不出意料地,行业牵头组织草甘膦特别行动组(Glyphosate Task Force)表达了更多的愤怒(2)。该特别行动组还资助了一帮与生物科技产业联系密切的作者,撰写了一篇“反驳”的文献综述论文(3)。但是因为这篇论文存在明显的偏见(文章声称草甘膦对人类没有任何致癌性),所以在第三方独立研究人员审查这篇文章前,我们最好还是先不要去管这篇文章(4)。

       With Monsanto continuing to protest that glyphosate and Roundup are effectively harmless (5) if used according to instructions, in spite of accumulating evidence to the contrary, we undertook a search through Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) records with a view to finding out what was known about glyphosate at the time of its initial registration. This followed up earlier investigations by Sustainable Pulse which highlighted a sudden change in the EPA view on toxicity in 1991. What was discovered was very revealing. There were many animal experiments (using rats, mice and dogs) designed to test the acute and chronic toxicity of glyphosate in the period 1978-1986, conducted by laboratories such as Bio/dynamics Inc for Monsanto and submitted for EPA consideration. Two of these reports relate to a three-generation reproduction study in rats (6) (7), and another is called "A Lifetime Feeding Study Of Glyphosate In Rats" (8); but like all the other older studies they were and still are treated as Trade Secrets and cannot be freely accessed for independent scrutiny. That in itself is suggestive that the studies contain data which Monsanto still does not wish to be examined by experts in the toxicology field. It is also deeply worrying that EPA acceded to the routine Monsanto requests for secrecy on the flimsiest of pretexts.
        尽管面对不断增加的负面证据,孟山都依然不断辩解,称只要按照指定方法使用,草甘膦和农达实际上都是无害的(5)。于是,我们在美国环保署的档案中搜索,希望可以查明在草甘膦最初注册的时候,人们关于它到底知道些什么。这项调查继续了《可持续脉搏》(Sustainable Pulse )前一段进行的相关调查。《可持续脉搏》通过系列调查突出揭示美国环境署在毒性判断上态度在1991年发生突然转变。新的发现非常耐人寻味,1978~1986年间,“生物动力公司”(Bio/dynamics Inc.)等为孟山都服务的很多实验室开展了动物实验(用大鼠、小鼠和狗试验),以检测草甘膦急性和慢性的毒性影响,呈交实验报告给美国环保署予以考量。这些报告中有两份研究报告涉及大鼠三代繁殖的影响(6)(7),还有一份名为“大鼠食用草甘膦的终身研究”(8),和其他更早期的研究一样,以所谓商业机密的原因,不允许第三方独立机构自由地详细阅读此类研究报告。这样的禁令本身就暗示了这些研究中含有孟山不愿意毒理学领域专家查看的内容。更加令人担心的是,美国环保署纵容了孟山都以保密为借口的这种欲盖弥彰做法。

       However, archived and accessible EPA Memos from the early 1980's do give some indications as to what the rat studies contain (9). Although the studies predate the adoption of international test guidelines and GLP standards they suggest that there was significant damage to the kidneys of the rats in the 3-generational study -- the incidence of tubular dilation in the kidney was higher in every treated group of rats when compared to controls. Tubular dilation and nephrosis was also accompanied by interstitial fibrosis in all test groups and in some of the lumens the researchers found amorphous material and cellular debris. Less than a third of the control rats showed signs of tubular dilation. In the rat study results, the changes in the bladder mucosa are significant because metabolites, concentrated by the kidneys, have led to hyperplasia that could be considered as a very early and necessary step in tumour initiation. EPA was worried in 1981 that these indications were sinister, and at first declined to issue a NOEL (no observed adverse effect level) -- it asked for further information and additional research. In its 1982 Addendum, Monsanto presented evidence that minimised the effects and confused the data -- and on that basis EPA accepted that glyphosate was unlikely to be dangerous. But Monsanto knew that scrutiny of the data in the studies would potentially threaten its commercial ambitions, and so it asked for the research documents concerned to be withheld and treated as Trade Secrets. So there was no effective independent scrutiny. Monsanto and EPA connived in keeping these documents away from unbiased expert assessment, in spite of the evidence of harm. (It is clear that EPA was thinking about carcinogenic effects -- it knew in 1981 that glyphosate caused tumorigenic growth and kidney disease but dismissed the finding as "a mystery" in order to set the NOEL for the chemical and bring it to market.)
        尽管如此,美国环保署八十年代早期的存档与可以看到的备忘录仍然披露了一些大鼠研究报告包含内容的蛛丝马迹(9)。虽然上述研究进行的年代还没有采用国际实验规章和良好实验室规范(GLP),实验表明在大鼠三代研究中,大鼠的肾遭到严重破坏。每一个实验组中大鼠肾小管扩张的发生率都比对照组要高。在所有的实验组中,肾小管扩张和肾病同时伴随间质纤维化,研究员甚至在一些管腔内发现了无定形物质和细胞碎片,然而在对照组中,只有三分之一的大鼠出现了肾小管扩张的迹象。在大鼠实验中,膀胱粘膜的变化非常重要,因为肾聚集的代谢物会导致增生,这是肿瘤形成的早期必经阶段。在1981年,环保署觉得这些迹象非常危险,一开始便拒绝评定草甘膦的“无可见影响剂量”(NOEL)水平,要求孟山都提供进一步的信息和研究。在孟山都1982年补充提交的附录中,孟山都试图弱化(实验中反映的)负面效果并且混淆实验数据,而环保署在此基础上接受了草甘膦不太可能带来危险的说法。但是孟山都知道,对研究中数据进行详细审查,极有可能威胁到自己野心勃勃的商业计划,所以孟山都(要求美国环保署)以商业机密为缘由封存这些研究文件,导致没有有效的第三方独立审查。在孟山都和环保署密谋下,为罔顾有害证据的出现,这些研究档案被置于无偏见专家的评估之外。(很清楚,环保署曾经考虑过致癌性 -- 环保署早在1981年就知道草甘膦会导致肿瘤性增长和肾类疾病,但为了给该化学物设置“无可见影响剂量”(NOEL)的水平使之可以投放市场,环保署居然作为“一个谜团”驳回了这些发现)。

        In the rat studies, the glyphosate doses fed to the test groups were 1/100 of those used in a later mouse study (9). It is unclear why these very small doses were decided upon by Monsanto and accepted by EPA, since there must be a suspicion that the studies were manipulated or designed to avoid signs of organ damage. In its 1986 Memo, EPA remarked on the very low doses, and said that no dose tested was anywhere near the "maximally tolerated dose." Then the Oncogenicity Peer Review Committee said: "At doses close to an MTD, tumours might have been induced." A repeat rat study was asked for. However, BioDynamics (which conducted the research for Monsanto) used data from three unrelated studies, which they conducted in house, as historical controls to create "experimental noise" and to diminish the importance of the results obtained by experiment.
        在大鼠实验中,投喂的草甘膦剂量是之后小鼠实验用量的百分之一(9)。目前还不清楚,孟山都为何决定在实验中使用如此小的剂量而且这样的研究如何得到环保署的接受,因此不得不怀疑,这些研究是被操控设计的,以避免出现器官病变的迹象。在1986年的备忘录中,环保署注意到了剂量过低的问题,并声称,说实验中的剂量皆与“最大耐受量”相距甚远,然而致瘤性同行评议委员会(The Oncogenicity Peer Review Committee )解释,“在接近最大耐受量的情况下,肿瘤有可能诱发。” 随后,这项大鼠实验要求被重新进行。但是,为孟山都提供研究服务的生物动力公司(BioDynamics Inc)使用了三个内部操作且不相关的实验的数据,作为历史对照组来制造“实验干扰噪音”以及降低实验结果的重要性。

        In a 1983 mouse study conducted by Bio/dynamics Inc for Monsanto (10), there was a slight increase in the incidence of renal tubular adenomas (benign tumours) in males at the highest dose tested. Malignant tumours were found in the higher dose group. However, "it was the judgment of two reviewing pathologists that the renal tumors were not treatment-related". Other effects included centrilobular hypertrophy and necrosis of hepatocytes, chronic interstitial nephritis, and proximal tubule epithelial cell basophilia and hypertrophy in females. The EPA committee determined there was a "weak oncogenic response" -- so evidence was suggestive of early malignancy. The EPA Science Advisory Panel was asked for advice, and they said the data were equivocal and called for further studies in mice and rats. A further report was delivered in 1985. Part of the reason for this dithering was the prevalent but false EPA belief that all physiological effects had to be dose-related: namely, the higher the dose, the greater the effect.
        在1983年,孟山都的生物动力公司(Bio/dynamics Inc)开展了一次小鼠实验(10),在最高剂量组中,雄性小白鼠患有肾小管腺瘤(良性肿瘤)的可能性略有增加。同时在较高剂量组中也发现了恶性肿瘤。但是“两位病理学家得出判断,认为肾脏肿瘤与实验无关。” 实验动物的其他的症状包括:小叶增生和肝细胞坏死、慢性间质性肾炎,和雌性近曲小管上皮细胞嗜碱性增多和肥大。所以环保署委员会判断草甘膦仅有“微弱的致瘤性反应”,然而实验证据却表明早期恶性肿瘤的可能。在向环保署科学顾问组询问建议时,他们说实验数据模零两可并要求在小鼠和大鼠中做进一步研究。于是,在1985年,一份进一步的研究报告递交了上来,环保署办事拖沓的部分原因是基于当时一种普遍的然而错误的想法:所有生理的反应都和剂量相关,所谓剂量越大,影响越严重。

       Even though pre-cancerous conditions were imperfectly understood 35 years ago, and cortical adenomas in kidney were not thought dangerous at the time, the evidence from the Memos is that Monsanto, BioDynamics Inc and the EPA Committees involved were fully aware, probably before 1981, of the carcinogenic potential of glyphosate when fed to mammals. In the Memos there are references to many more "secret" animal experiments and data reviews, which simply served to confuse the regulators with additional conflicting data. Thus EPA publicly accepted the safety assurances of the Monsanto Chief of Product Safety, Robert W. Street, and the status of the product was confirmed for use in the field (11). But behind the scenes, according to a later EPA memo (in 1991), its own experts knew before 1985 that glyphosate causes pancreatic, thyroid and kidney tumors.
        尽管35年前人们尚不能很好地了解癌前状态,还错误地认为肾脏内的皮质腺瘤并不危险,但备忘录里的证据显示,或许在1981年以前,孟山都、BioDynamics有限公司以及美国环保署有关部门,已经清楚地知道用草甘膦喂养哺乳动物时可能会致癌。在备忘录里,还提及了大量“机密的”动物实验和数据的综述文献,目的是为了用这些附加的冲突数据来迷惑法规制定者。就这样,美国环保署公开接受了孟山都产品安全总监罗伯特·W·斯特里特(Robert W. Street)对草甘膦的安全性所做的担保,并批准这种产品能够在农田中使用(11)。但这只是表面现象,根据之后美国环保署1991年的一份备忘录显示,环保署的专家在1985年之前便知道草甘膦会导致胰腺肿瘤、甲状腺肿瘤和肾脏肿瘤。

        On the EPA website (last updated 31.10.2014) reference is made to five Monsanto studies of 1980 - 1985, and it is noteworthy that these studies have not been made public in the light of current knowledge about malignant tumours and pre-cancerous conditions (12). Neither have they been revisited or reinterpreted by Monsanto and EPA, although one 1981 rat study and one 1983 mouse study are mentioned in the recent review by Greim et al (2015) (3). Following the conclusion that glyphosate was "not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity" nothing in the EPA advice about this chemical has changed since 1990. Given the recent assessment by the WHO Panel, and given the flood of scientific papers relating to health damage associated with glyphosate (13) the EPA attitude smacks of complacency and even incompetence.

        截止到2014年10月31日,美国环保署的网站上提及了1980-1985年间孟山都所做的五项研究。值得注意的是,当下对恶性肿瘤和癌前状态的认识水平已经有了很大提高,但这些研究至今仍未对外公开(12)。孟山都和美国环保署也从未进行随访或对这些研究作重新解释,只有Greim等人最近发表的文章提及了1981年的一次大鼠实验和1983年的小鼠实验(3)。美国环保署对草甘膦的评估自1990年以来就未曾改变,仍然是草甘膦“不分类为对人类致癌物”。考虑到世界卫生组织研究机构最近的评估,以及大量科学论文揭露出草甘膦对健康的危害(13),美国环保署的态度无疑是自打耳光,也显示了自己的无能。

         Speaking for GM-Free Cymru, Dr Brian John says: "The evidence shows that by 1981 both Monsanto and the EPA were aware of malignant tumours and pre-cancerous conditions in the test animals which were fed small doses of glyphosate in the secret feeding experiments. Although concerns were expressed at the time by EPA committees, these concerns were later suppressed under the weight of conflicting evidence brought forward by Monsanto, some of it involving the inappropriate use of historical control data of dubious quality. None of these studies is available for independent examination (14). That is a scandal in itself. There has been a protracted and cynical cover-up in this matter (15). Glyphosate is a "probable human carcinogen", as now confirmed by the WHO Working Group, and no matter what protestations may now come from Monsanto and the EPA, they have been fully aware of its potential to cause cancer for at least 35 years. If they had acted in a precautionary fashion back then, instead of turning a blind eye to scientific malpractice (16), glyphosate would never have been licensed, and thousands of lives might have been saved."
        约翰博士(Dr. Brian John)在代表“无转基因威尔士”网站(GM-Free Cymru, 该网站致力于抵制转基因农作物进入威尔士)发言时说,“证据表明,在1981年孟山都和环保署就已经知道, 秘密喂养实验中的动物在摄入少量草甘膦后出现恶性肿瘤和癌前状况。尽管环保署一些委员会在当时表达了担忧,但后来孟山都提交了干扰证据,就把这些担忧压制下来。孟山都的做法包括不正当地使用历史对照组中的可疑数据。这些研究没有任何一个开放给第三方作独立调查(14),这本身就是一桩丑闻。有人故意拖延并可疑地掩盖事实(15)。世界卫生组织研究机构已经证实草甘膦是 ‘对人类可能的致癌物’,无论孟山都和美国环保署如何争辩,他们都无法否认自己至少在35年前已经知道其致癌的可能性。如果他们当时能以预防性的方式行动的话,而不是故意闭眼无视科学造假行为(16),草甘膦就永远不可能拿到许可,千万生命也许能得救。”

        Retired Academic Pathologist Dr Stanley Ewen says: "Glyphosate has been implicated in human carcinogenesis by IARC and it is remarkable that, as early as 1981, glyphosate was noted to be associated with pre neoplastic changes in experimental mice. This finding was never revealed by the regulatory process and one might therefore expect to see human malignancy increasing on the record in the ensuing years. John Little (personal communication) has demonstrated an unexpected and alarming 56% upsurge in malignancy in England in those under 65 in the past 10 years. Presumably British urinary excretion of glyphosate is similar to the documented urine levels in Germany, and therefore everyone is at risk. The effect of glyphosate on endocrine tissue such as breast and prostate, or even placenta, is disruptive at least and an increased incidence of endocrine neoplasia is likely to be seen in National Statistics. The Glyphosate Task Force denies the involvement of glyphosate in human malignancy despite their knowledge of many reports of lymphomas and pituitary adenomas in experimental animals dosed with glyphosate. On the other hand, Prof. Don Huber at a recent meeting in the Palace of Westminster, has warned of severe consequences if rampant glyphosate consumption is not reined in. I feel sure that the suppression of the experimental results of 1981 has enhanced the global risk of malignancy."
        已经退休的学术病理学家斯坦利·艾文博士(Dr Stanley Ewen)说,“草甘膦已经被国际癌症研究机构列为人类中可能的致癌物,而值得注意的是早在1981年草甘膦已经与实验小鼠的肿瘤病变联系在一起。监管过程从未公布这一发现,因此,接下来几年癌症记录可能会不断增多。约翰·利特(John Little)在私人交谈中告诉我,他发现过去十年英国65岁以下恶性肿瘤患者的人数惊人地增长了56%。据推测,英国人尿排泄中草甘膦含量与德国记录在案的含量相仿,因此人人都面临风险。草甘膦对乳房、前列腺,甚至胎盘在内的内分泌组织的影响,使英国国家统计局数据中很可能会发现内分泌腺肿瘤的发生几率在不断地增长。然而,尽管(草甘膦产业的)草甘膦特别行动组早就知道草甘膦的动物实验报告中多起淋巴瘤与垂体腺瘤的病例,他们仍然否认草甘膦对人体的致癌作用。另一方面,顿·胡伯教授(Prof. Don Huber)最近在威斯敏斯特皇宫的一次会议上警告,如果不控制草甘膦的猖獗使用,后果将不堪设想。我确信1981年被隐瞒的实验结果已经增加了全球恶性肿瘤的风险。”

        Toxico-pathologist Professor Vyvyan Howard says: "The drive towards transparency in the testing of pharmaceuticals is gathering pace with legislation in the EU, USA and Canada being developed. All trials for licensed drugs will likely have to become available in the public domain. In my opinion the case with agrochemicals should be no different. At least with pharmaceuticals exposure is voluntary and under informed consent. There are several biomonitoring studies which demonstrate that there is widespread exposure of human populations to glyphosate, presumably without informed consent. Given the clear level of mistrust over the licensing of this herbicide and the emerging epidemiological evidence of its negative effects there can, in my opinion, be no case whatsoever for keeping the toxicological studies, used to justify licencing, a secret. They should be put in the public domain."
        毒理病理学教授维安·霍华德(Vyvyan Howard)说,“欧盟、美国与加拿大相关法规的建立,要求药品测试公开透明。许可药物的全部试验将不得不对公众公开。我认为农用化学品也不应例外,至少对药品的接触必须是自愿且知情同意的。几项生物监测研究表明,人类群体广泛接触草甘膦,但很可能没有得到知情同意权。鉴于大众对这种除草剂的许可流程已明显地失去信任,再加上有越来越多的流行病学证据揭露草甘膦的副作用,我认为,既然这些研究是其取得许可的依据,就没有任何理由不公开草甘膦的毒理学研究而作为秘密。这些研究应该为公众所知。”

        Research scientist Dr Anthony Samsel says: "Monsanto's Trade Secret studies of glyphosate show significant incidence of cell tumors of the testes and tumorigenic growth in multiple organs and tissues. They also show significant interstitial fibrosis of the kidney including effects in particular to the Pituitary gland, mammary glands, liver, and skin. Glyphosate has significant effects to the lungs indicative of chronic respiratory disease. Glyphosate has an inverse dose response relationship, and it appears that its effects are highly pH dependent. Both Monsanto and the EPA knew of the deleterious effects of this chemical in 1980 at the conclusion of their multiple long-term assessments, but the EPA hid the results of their findings as "trade secrets." Monsanto has been lying and covering up the truth about glyphosate's harmful effects on public health and the environment for decades. The increases in multiple chronic diseases, seen since its introduction into the food supply, continue to rise in step with its use. Monsanto's Roundup glyphosate based herbicides have a ubiquitous presence as residues in the food supply directly associated with its crop use. Nations must stand together against Monsanto and other chemical companies who continue to destroy the biosphere. We are all part of that biosphere and we are all connected. What affects one affects us all."
        研究科学家安托尼·萨姆塞尔博士(Dr. Anthony Samsel)说,“孟山都的草甘膦‘商业机密’研究显示出睾丸细胞肿瘤以及多种器官组织肿瘤的显著发病率。研究也显示出草甘膦对肾脏造成显著的间质性纤维化作用,这尤其对脑下垂体、乳腺、肝脏和皮肤都会有极大影响。草甘膦对肺的影响也很显著,很可能导致慢性呼吸系统疾病。草甘膦呈现出逆向的剂量反应关系,并且其作用受pH值的强烈影响。从孟山都和美国环保署多份长期评估报告的结论来看,双方在1980年就知道草甘膦的有害性,但是环保署以‘商业机密’为借口将结果隐瞒,孟山都将草甘膦对公众健康与环境危害的真相欺骗与掩盖了几十年。自从食品中有了草甘膦残留,多种慢性疾病的发病率与草甘膦的使用并行增长。孟山都农达除草剂中的草甘膦成分会残留在农作物上并进入食品供应环节,因此草甘膦无处不在。各国必须团结起来反对孟山都以及其他持续破坏生物圈的化学公司。我们是整个生物圈的一部分,彼此相连。对一个人的影响,也使所有人受到影响。”

注释
(1)  Carcinogenicity of tetrachlorvinphos, parathion, malathion, diazinon, and glyphosate (2015)
Kathryn Z Guyton, Dana Loomis, Yann Grosse, Fatiha El Ghissassi, Lamia Benbrahim-Tallaa, Neela Guha, Chiara Scoccianti, Heidi Mattock, Kurt Straif,  on behalf of the International Agency for Research on Cancer Monograph Working Group, IARC, Lyon, France
Lancet Oncol 2015.  Published Online March 20, 2015 
(1) 杀虫畏、柏拉息昂、马拉松、二嗪磷,与草甘膦的致癌性(2015)
Kathryn Z Guyton, Dana Loomis, Yann Grosse, Fatiha El Ghissassi, Lamia Benbrahim-Tallaa, Neela Guha, Chiara Scoccianti, Heidi Mattock, Kurt Straif,代表国际癌症研究机构(IARC)对癌症专著工作组,里昂,法国
柳叶刀肿瘤学,2015年3月20日上网发布
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ S1470-2045(15)70134-8
 
International Agency for Research on Cancer 16 Volume 112: Some organophosphate insecticides and herbicides: tetrachlorvinphos, parathion, malathion, diazinon and glyphosate. IARC Working Group. Lyon; 3–10 March 2015. IARC Monogr Eval Carcinog Risk Chem Hum (in press).
国际癌症研究机构第16卷112期:某些有机磷杀虫剂与除草剂:杀虫畏、柏拉息昂、马拉松、二嗪磷与草甘膦。国际癌症研究机构工作组,里昂;2015年3月3日-10日,IARC专著评价对人类致癌风险化学品(出版中)
 
(2)  Monsanto seeks retraction for report linking herbicide to cancer, By Carey Gillam, Reuters
(2) 孟山都寻求撤掉将除草剂与癌症相连的报告,Carey Gillam报道,路透社
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/24/us-monsanto-herbicide-idUSKBN0MK2GF20150324
农药产业协会草甘膦行动组的回复,在这里:
The response by the pesticide industry association, the Glyphosate Task Force, is here:
http://www.wmcactionnews5.com/story/28574811/statement-of-the-gtf-on-the-recent-iarc-decision-concerning-glyphosate

(3)  Helmut Greim, David Saltmiras, Volker Mostert, and Christian Strupp (2015)  REVIEW ARTICLE:  Evaluation of carcinogenic potential of the herbicide glyphosate, drawing on tumor incidence data from fourteen chronic/carcinogenicity rodent studies. Crit Rev Toxicol, 2015; Early Online: 1–24  DOI: 10.3109/10408444.2014.1003423
 
(4) Not only is this paper written by authors who have strong industry links, but the 14 carcinogenicity studies assessed are carefully selected industry studies which have not been peer-reviewed and published in mainstream scientific journals.  All of the studies were conducted for clients (like Monsanto) who would have experienced gigantic commercial repercussions if anything "inconvenient" had been reported upon, with glyphosate already in use across the world.  Therefore the possibility of fraud and data manipulation cannot be ruled out.  The 14 studies are all secret, and cannot be examined by independent toxicology experts.  The fact that the review article in question reproduces (as online supplementary material) a series of tables and data sets is immaterial, since the data are useless in the absence of clear explanations of the laboratory protocols and practices of the research teams involved.
除了这篇文章的作者和相关产业有紧密联系以外,其他14篇接受评估的致瘤性研究是行业自身精挑细选出来的,没有经过同行审议,更没有在主流科学刊物上发表的文章。这些研究通通都是为诸如孟山都这样的客户服务,一旦有关于他们“不合宜”的报道,这些客户将会遭到巨大的商业打击,因为草甘膦已经在全球范围内投入使用。因此不能排除欺诈和操控数据的可能,这14项研究都很神秘,它们不允许独立的毒理学专家对之进行检查。这篇综述的文章重做了一系列表格和数据,但这明显是造假的事实,因为如果缺乏研究团队实验方案和操作的清楚解释,这些数据都是没有用的。
 
(5)  http://www.monsanto.com/glyphosate/pages/is-glyphosate-safe.aspx
(6)  "A Three-Generation Reproduction Study in Rats with Glyphosate" (Final Report; Bio/dynamics Project No. 77-2063; March 31, 1981)  -- submitted by Monsanto to EPA
(6) “用草甘膦在大鼠中进行的三代生殖性研究”(最终报告:Bio/dynamics项目第77-2063号;1981年3月31日)-- 由孟山都提交给美国环保署(EPA)
 
(7)  "Addendum to Pathology Report for a Three-Generation Reproduction Study in Rats with Glyphosate.  R.D. #374; Special Report MSL-1724; July 6, 1982" EPA Registration No 524-308, Action Code 401. Accession No 247793.  CASWELL#661A" -- submitted by Monsanto to EPA
(7)  “对用草甘膦在大鼠中进行的三代生殖性研究的生理报告的补充。R.D. #374;特别报告MSL-1724;1982年7月6日”美国环保署注册第 524-308,行动代码401.访问号247793. CASWELL#661A" --由孟山都提交给美国环保署(EPA)
 
(8)  "A Lifetime Feeding Study Of Glyphosate In Rats"  (Report by GR Lankas and GK Hogan from Bio/dynamics for Monsanto.  Project #77-2062, 1981:  MRID 00093879) -- submitted by Monsanto to EPA and Addendum Report  #77-2063
(8) “草甘膦在大鼠中终生喂养研究”(Bio/dynamics的GR Lankas与GK Hogan为孟山都完成的报告。项目号#77-2062, 1981:  MRID 00093879)--由孟山都提交给美国环保署(EPA)
 
(9)  Archived EPA memos from 1982 and 1986:
(9) 美国环保署(EPA)档案的1982年与1986年的备忘录
http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/chemicalsearch/chemical/foia/cleared-reviews/reviews/103601/103601-135.pdf
http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/chemicalsearch/chemical/foia/cleared-reviews/reviews/103601/103601-210.pdf
The 1991 EPA Memo is accessible via:
1991年的美国环保署备忘录,可以通过下述链接访问:http://sustainablepulse.com/2015/03/26/who-glyphosate-report-ends-thirty-year-cancer-cover-up/#.VSVPZ2Z3bJk

(10)  Knezevich, AL and Hogan, GK (1983) "A Chronic Feeding study of Glyphosate (Roundup Technical) in Mice".  Project No 77-2061. Bio/dynamics Inc for Monsanto.  Accession No #251007-251014  -- document not available but cited in EPA 1986 Memo.
Follow-up study:  McConnel, R. "A chronic feeding study of glyphosate (Roundup technical) in mice: pathology report on additional kidney sections". Unpublished project no. 77-2061A, 1985, submitted to EPA by BioDynamics, Inc. 
(10) Knezevich, AL 与 Hogan, GK(1983)“小鼠中的草甘膦慢性喂养研究(农达技术性)”。项目号77-2061. Bio/dynamics Inc为孟山都做的研究。访问号#251007-251014 -- 该文件不能获得但是在美国环保署(EPA)1986年备忘录中引用”。
跟随研究:McConnel, R.,“小鼠中的草甘膦慢性喂养研究(农达技术性):对额外的肾切片的生理报告”。未出版项目号77-2061A, 1985,由BioDynamics, Inc. 提交给美国环保署(EPA)
 
(11) Glyphosate was first registered for use by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) in 1974, and after various reviews reregistration was completed in 1993.
Glyphosate (CASRN 1071-83-6)
Classification — D (not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity)
Basis — Inadequate evidence for oncogenicity in animals. Glyphosate was originally classified as C, possible human carcinogen, on the basis of increased incidence of renal tumors in mice. Following independent review of the slides the classification was changed to D on the basis of a lack of statistical significance and uncertainty as to a treatment-related effect.
(11)草甘膦第一次在美国环保署登记注册使用是在1974年,经过一系列的审察,注册于1993年完成,
草甘膦 (CASRN 1071-83-6)
分级-D(未被分类为对人类有致癌性)
根据-动物实验中致瘤性证据不足。草甘膦最初分级为C,可能导致人类患癌,因为其增加了小鼠肾脏肿瘤发生的几率。根据随后的评议,因为缺乏数据上的显著关联性,以及药物致病的不确定性,分类被调整为D。
http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0057.htm
http://sustainablepulse.com/2015/03/26/who-glyphosate-report-ends-thirty-year-cancer-cover-up/
http://npic.orst.edu/factsheets/glyphotech.pdf
 
(12)  Monsanto Company. 1981a. MRID No. 0081674, 00105995. Available from EPA. Write to FOI, EPA, Washington, DC 20460.
Monsanto Company. 1981b. MRID No. 00093879. Available from EPA. Write to FOI, EPA, Washington, DC 20460.
Monsanto Company. 1985. MRID No. 00153374. Available from EPA. Write to FOI, EPA, Washington, DC 20460.
Monsanto Company. 1980a. MRID No. 00046362. Available from EPA. Write to FOI, EPA, Washington, DC 20460.
Monsanto Company. 1980b. MRID No. 00046363. Available from EPA. Write to FOI, EPA, Washington, DC 20460.
(12) 孟山都公司。1981a. MRID No. 0081674, 00105995.从美国环保署可获得。写信给FOI, EPA, Washington, DC 20460.
孟山都公司。1981b. MRID No. 00093879.从美国环保署可获得。写信给FOI, EPA, Washington, DC 20460.
孟山都公司。1985. MRID No. 00153374.从美国环保署可获得。写信给FOI, EPA, Washington, DC 20460.
孟山都公司。1980a. MRID No. 00046362.从美国环保署可获得。写信给FOI, EPA, Washington, DC 20460.
孟山都公司。从美国环保署可获得。写信给FOI, EPA, Washington, DC 20460.
 

(13)  http://www.i-sis.org.uk/Scandal_of_Glyphosate_Reassessment_in_Europe.php
http://permaculturenews.org/2012/11/01/why-glyphosate-should-be-banned-a-review-of-its-hazards-to-health-and-the-environment/
Key studies showing toxic effects of glyphosate and Roundup.  Ch 4 in GMO Myths and Truths
草甘膦与农达显示毒性影响的一些关键性研究。《转基因神话与真相》第4章
http://earthopensource.org/earth-open-source-reports/gmo-myths-and-truths-2nd-edition/
Antoniou, M. et al. Teratogenic Effects of Glyphosate-Based Herbicides: Divergence of Regulatory Decisions from Scientific Evidence J Environ Anal Toxicol 2012, S:4 
Antoniou, M. et al.草甘膦为基础除草剂的致畸形作用:从科学证据的不同的监管决策,环境分析性毒理学杂志,2012, S:4 
http://dx.doi.org/10.4172/2161-0525.S4-006
http://www.earthopensource.org/files/pdfs/Roundup-and-birth-defects/RoundupandBirthDefectsv5.pdf
 
(14) That having been said, Monsanto has allowed access to selected later reports to selected researchers (Greim et al, 2015).  It is still uncertain whether these selected reports are available in full, for detailed independent scrutiny -- even though there can now be no possible justification for "trade secret" designation, following the lapse of the US glyphosate patent in 2000.
(14)据称,孟山都有选择地允许一些研究者查看经过筛选的报告(Greim等人的研究)。尽管美国的草甘膦专利2000年之后已经失效,孟山都不能以“商业机密”为由隐瞒报告,但仍然不能确定这些经过筛选的报告是否全文开放,供研究者进行详细的独立审查。
 
(15)http://sustainablepulse.com/2015/03/26/who-glyphosate-report-ends-thirty-year-cancer-cover-up/
In 1985 the carcinogenic potential of glyphosate was first considered by an EPA panel, called the Toxicology Branch Ad Hoc Committee. The Committee then classified glyphosate as a Class C Carcinogen on the basis of its carcinogenic potential.  This classification was changed by the EPA in 1991 to a Class E category on the basis of “evidence of non-carcinogenicity for humans”.  Mysteriously this change in glyphosate’s classification occurred during the same period that Monsanto was developing its first Roundup-Ready (glyphosate-resistant) GM Crops.  Not for the first time, commercial considerations were allowed to trump public health concerns.
The EPA scale of cancer-forming potential of substances:
Group A: Carcinogenic to humans
Group B: Likely to be carcinogenic to humans
Group C: Suggestive evidence of carcinogenic potential
Group D: Inadequate information to assess carcinogenic potential
Group E: Not likely to be carcinogenic to humans
1985年,美国环保署下的毒理学分支特别委员会首次开始考虑草甘膦致癌的可能性。该分支特别委员会将草甘膦致癌性定位为C级。1991年美国环保署在“有证据表明不会对人体致癌”的基础上将草甘膦致癌性定位改为E级。诡异的是这次改动正发生在孟山都开发其第一个“抗农达”(抗草甘膦)转基因作物期间。并非第一次,公众健康再次被商业考量所绑架。
美国环保署对于物质致癌可能性的评级标尺:
A级:对人体致癌
B级:可能对人体致癌
C级:有暗示性的证据表明其可能致癌
D级:没有足够证据表明其可能致癌
E级:不太可能对人体致癌
 
(16) Wikipedia 2012:  Internal EPA Memos Document Fraud
1983 EPA Scientist on EPA's public stance: “Our viewpoint is one of protecting the public health when we see suspicious data.” Unfortunately, EPA has not taken that conservative viewpoint in its assessment of glyphosate’s cancer causing potential.”
“There are no studies available to NCAP evaluating the carcinogenicity of Roundup or other glyphosate-containing products.  Without such tests, the carcinogenicity of glyphosate-containing products is unknown.”
“Tests done on glyphosate to meet registration requirements have been associated with fraudulent practices.”
“Countless deaths of rats & mice are not reported.”
“Data tables have been fabricated”
“There is a routine falsification of data” 
(16) 维基百科2012年“美国环保署内部备忘录文件造假”条目摘要
“1983年,美国环保署科学家公开表示其立场,‘当我们看到可疑数据时,应该站在保护公众健康的立场。’不幸的是,美国环保署在评估草甘膦是否致癌时没有采取这种保守观点。”
“农药替代西北联盟”(Northwest Center for Alternatives to Pesticides)得不到任何关于农达除草剂或其他含草甘膦产品的致癌性评估研究。没有这种试验,谁也不知道含草甘膦产品的致癌性究竟怎样。”
“为使草甘膦达到注册要求而进行的试验被认为有欺诈行为。”
“无数实验大鼠和小鼠的死亡没有记入报告。”
“数据表是捏造的。”
 
“存在着常规性数据弄虚作假。”

鲜花
鲜花
握手
握手
雷人
雷人
路过
路过
鸡蛋
鸡蛋

相关阅读

注:© 作品版权归原作者所有。未经允许,请勿用于商业!
声明:转载或其他合作请联系邮箱:shiwuzhuquan@126.com

Time