陈一文译：生物学家揭露美国转基因作物草甘膦残留量大骗局

Genetic Engineering: the Glyphosate threat 2 health issues　　

转基因：草甘膦的威胁2健康问题　　

By Heimen Julius　　

：黑门·居里斯　　

本文原文链接/Link to original paper：　　

http://www.rag.org.au/modifiedfoods/rounduphealthissues.htm　　

Translator: Chen I-wan ([email protected])　　

译者：陈一文（[email protected]）　　

《新浪网》“陈一文顾问博客”全文发布：http://blog.sina.com.cn/cheniwan　　

Posted at Advisor Chen I-wan Blog: http://blog.sina.com.cn/cheniwan　　

侵界多：报告家础除草剂的e United States, but e to maintain persisting nkind health which theral understanding of the issue of earthquake pr　　

*                                  *                                  *　　

陈一文顾问按：　　

Comments by Advisor Chen I-wan:　　

黑门·居里斯是澳大利亚一位有社会责任感的生物学家。澳大利亚转基因食品网站发表了他撰写的两篇文章：《转基因：草甘膦威胁1–环境问题》（Genetic Engineering: the Glyphosate threat 1 environment issues）与《转基因：草甘膦威胁2–健康问题》（Genetic Engineering: the Glyphosate threat 2 health issues）。本文为第二篇英中文对照全文。　　

Heimen Julius is a biologist with sense of social responsibility from 　　Australia　　. The Australian GM Food website posted two papers written by him: “Genetic Engineering: the Glyphosate threat 1 environment issues”, and Genetic Engineering: the Glyphosate threat 2 health issues”. This paper is his second paper in corresponding English/ Chinese format.　　

译者者已翻译的大量科学论文有效证明：世界无论任何地方用孟山都转基因大豆种子种植必须施用草甘膦除草剂的抗草甘膦转基因大豆草甘膦残留量很高，对动物与人类持续健康生存与繁衍造成一系列严重危害！　　

The large amount of science papers translated by the translator has effectively proved: Using the Monsanto RR soy seeds growing glyphosate-resistant soy, regardless where they are grown, all applied with glyphosate herbicides, resulting the grown GM soy all have considerable high glyphosate residue levels, which cause a series of serious harm to animals and continue safety and healthy survival and reproduction of mankind!　　

请卫生部向全国人大常委会、全国政协、国务院、新闻界与全国人民通报说明：中国目前对于大豆（无论非转基因大豆或抗草甘膦转基因大豆）“草甘膦残留最高限量”的国家标准是多少mg/kg？　　

The Ministry of Health, please report to the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress, the CPPCC, the State Council, the media and the Chinese people: What is the 　　mg/kg　 　State　　 Standard for the “glyphosate residue maximum limit” for glyphosate-resistant soys?　　

近年来，中国每年大量进口孟山都转基因大豆种子种植的抗草甘膦转基因大豆的草甘膦残留量很高。　　

During recent years, 　　China　　 each year imports large amounts of glyphosate-resistant soy with very high glyphosate residue levels grown from Monsato’s GM soy seeds.　　

请国家质量监督检验检疫总局向全国人大常委会、全国政协、国务院、新闻界与全国人民通报说明：中国每年大量进口的抗草甘膦转基因大豆入关时监测到的草甘膦残留量水平是多少mg/kg？　　

The General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine, please tell the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress, the CPPCC, the State Council, the media and the Chinese people: What is the mg/kg glyphosate residue level inspected and measured from the large amount of glyphosate-resistant soy imported each year during recent years?　　

卫生部与国家质量监督检验检疫总局通报说明的结果，必定让全国人大常委会、全国政协、国务院、新闻界与全国人民大吃一惊！　　

The report and explanations by the Ministry of Health and the General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine surely will shock the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress, the CPPCC, the State Council, the media and the Chinese people!　　

*                                  *                                  *　　

Abstract: Glyphosate residues in food (from spraying food crops with glyphosate) will increase when more and more genetically modified foods reach the markets. Glyphosate sinks are bone and internal organs. It is unknown what the effects will be on the human body of ingesting glyphosate over a life time. When people reach their 50s how will they stand up to the accumulated glyphosate sludge in their internal organs? And would older people have more brittle bones? And what about people with allergies? 　　

原文摘要：随着越来越多转基因食品进入市场，食品中草甘膦残留量（来自对食物作物喷洒草甘膦）将增加。草甘膦在动物的骨头与某些器官中沉积。不知道持续食用食物草甘膦残留量一生对人体造成什么影响。内部器官不断积累草甘膦垃圾情况下，到50岁时人体怎么应付？更老的人是否造成更脆的骨头？有过敏症的人又怎么办？　　

目录/Index　　

http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_4bb17e9d0100naai.html　　

（1）陈一文：关于生物学家揭露转基因危害报告对中国读者的话　　

Chen I-wan: Words to the Chinese readers by the translator　　

一位学者怎么样才能被认为是真正的“打假、反伪”斗士，即便此种“造假、作伪证、伪科学”出自不惜危害人民健康的不良企业的商业利益、屈服于这样的不良企业商业利益的政府部门以至权威性国际组织！

1. The translator’s words to the Chinese readers

Genetic Engineering: the Glyphosate threat 2 health issues

1、译者关于澳大利亚生物学家生物学家揭露转基因危害研究报告对中国读者的话

转基因：草甘膦的威胁2健康问题

By Heimen Julius

：黑门·居里斯

本文原文链接/Link to original paper：

http://www.rag.org.au/modifiedfoods/rounduphealthissues.htm

Translator: Chen I-wan ([email protected])

译者：陈一文（[email protected]）

《转基因：草甘膦威胁2–健康问题》不仅揭示施用孟山都1971年开发草甘膦除草剂危害动物与人类健康，揭示孟山都开发越来越多抗草甘膦转基因作物加工食物草甘膦残留量情况及其在动物体内的不均匀分布；介绍美国环境保护部1985年基于动物实验确定草甘膦人类“可接受的每日摄取量”为0.10 mg/kg体重/天，又在没有解释任何理由情况下1993年9月将它突然提高20倍为 2 mg/kg体重/天，而且改称它为“参考剂量”；详细揭示1982年将人类对麦粒草甘膦“残留量耐受水平”确定0.10 mg/kg，如何在孟山都转基因作物推出后1997年没有任何科学理由提高为原先的50倍达到5 mg/kg；1982年大豆“残留量耐受水平”确定为6 mg/kg，如何在1997年孟山都抗草甘膦转基因大豆获得商业生产批准后，没有任何科学理由提高为原先的3.33倍达到20 mg/kg。

 “Genetic Engineering: the Glyphosate threat 2 health issues” not only reveals the harm of the glyphosate herbicide, developed by Monsanto in 1971, to animal and human health, reveals the glyphosate-residue contained in food processed from more and more glyphosate-resistant GM plants developed by Monsanto and it’s non-uniform distribution within animal and human body; introduces how the American Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 1985, based on certain animal tests, determines the “acceptable daily intake” (ADI) of 0.10 mg/per kg bodyweight per day for humans, and then in September 1993 without any reason explanation suddenly increases this “acceptable daily intake” for humans 20 times up to 2 mg per kg bodyweight per day, and changed its name to a 'reference dose.' The paper also provides details how the American EPA in 1982 determines the “Maximum residue tolerances” of glyphosate in grain products, including wheat grains at 0.10 ppm (= mg/kg), and then, after Monsanto began to introduce its GM crops how the EPA with no scientific reason increased it 50 times to 5 ppm; and also in 1982 determines the “Maximum residue tolerances” of glyphosate in soy as 6 ppm, and after Monsanto began to commercialize production of its glyphosate-resistant GM soy (RR) how the EPA again with no scientific reason increased it 3.33 times to 20 ppm.

论文同时揭示世界卫生组织如何在食品草甘膦“残留量耐受水平”问题上屈从于美国环境保护部在这个问题上代表的孟山都抗草甘膦转基因作物商业利益，因而在这个问题上未能履行了自己对世界人民健康承担的首要责任。

The paper also reveals how the World Health Organization (WHO) on the above mentioned “Maximum residue tolerances” of glyphosate in food lend themselves to the commercial interest of Monsanto’s glyphosate-resistant GM crops represented by the American EPA, and how the WHO on this issue fails to fulfill its primary responsibility to the health of the people of the World.

论文同时揭示，美国环境保护部没有任何科学依据1997年确定的不同食品草甘膦“残留量耐受水平”误导世界卫生组织接受，成为美国利用世贸规则迫使误导欧盟、中国等其他国家确定各自不同食品草甘膦“残留量耐受水平”的世界标准。

The paper also reveals, how the American EPA misled the WHO to accept their “Maximum residue tolerances” of glyphosate in food determined without any scientific reasoning, made it the World’s standards for USA to use the WTO rules to force and mislead EU, China and other nations of the Word to establish their standards of “Maximum residue tolerances” of glyphosate in food.

以译者之见，这是本文最重要的内容，也是笔者确定译文总标题的缘由。只有了解了这些内容读者们才有可能进一步理解欧盟、中国等许多国家卫生部为什么在这个问题上未能履行自己对本国人民健康承担的首要责任。

According to the translator’s opinion, this is the most important content of this paper, is also the reason why the translator determines the title of the translated paper. Only upon learning about such content, will enable the readers to further understand how the EU, China and the Ministries of Health of many nations on this issue could fails to fulfill their primary responsibility to the health of their respective nations.

黑门·居里斯先生今年73岁，目前身患重病。在感谢他履行自己作为一个生物学家对全球人类健康的责任八年前撰写的今天依然意义重大的论文的同时，译者祝愿他恢复健康。

Heimen Julius, the author of the paper is 73 years old, and seriously ill at present. At the same time expressing appreciation to him fulfilling his responsibility to the health of global mankind and writing this paper eight years ago of which today still remains significant, the translator wishes him to recover his health.

读者可以评论方式发表对于黑门·居里斯先生的感谢与祝愿，译者将协助翻译转给他。

Readers can by form of comments express their appreciation and wishes to the author Heimen Julius, the translator will help to translate and forward to him.

为便于读者审查译文，采用英文/中文对照方式发布中译文。读者如果发现译文有任何实质性错误，欢迎读者发表评论或用邮件予以指正。

To enable readers check the translation, the present paper is posted in corresponding English/Chinese text. If readers find any essential mistake in the translation, they are welcomed to point them out with corrections through posting comments or via email to the translator.

居里斯先生这篇论文撰写于2002年。为读者掌握更新信息，在某些章节的后边，提供了译者翻译推荐的相关资料链接。

Heimen’s paper was written in 2002. To enable readers master up-to-date information, at the end of certain sections, the translator has provided links to related materials.

农科院生物技术研究所农作物分子生物学重点实验室主任黄大昉研究员2010年6月25日在十一届全国人大常委会专题讲座第十六讲《黄大昉：农业转基因技术和安全管理》声称：

Huang Dafang, researcher, director, agricultural plants molecular biology key laboratory, Biotechnology Research Institute, Academy of Agricultural Science, presented lecture “Huang Dafang: Agricultural genetic engineering technology and safety management” to the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress on June 25, 2010 stating:

http://world.people.com.cn/GB/41217/11975156.html

“全世界每年上亿公顷土地种植转基因作物，每年数亿人群食用转基因食品，迄今尚未发现确有科学实证的转基因食用和环境安全问题。因此，应当肯定：农业转基因作物总体上是安全的，它的风险是可以预防和控制的。”

“GM plants are grown every year over 100 million hectares of land in the World, a few hundred million people are eating GM food, to this date have never found any GM food consumption or environment safety problems proved with solid scientific evidence. Therefore, should assure: agricultural GM plants in overall is safety, its risks can be prevented and controlled.”

众所周子，中国已经多年每年从美国与南美进口孟山都转基因大豆种子种植并施用草甘膦除草剂的巨量抗草甘膦转基因大豆，加工食用油、豆腐、豆奶、豆制品，同时加工动物饲料，使中国成为世界上进口孟山都抗草甘膦转基因大豆的最大进口国之一（亦可能就是最大进口国）。

It is well known, China has for many years every year import massive amount of glyphosate-resistant GM soy from USA and South America grown from Monsanto’s GM RR soy seeds and applied with glyphosate herbicides, making China one of the largest importers of Monsanto’s GM RR soy products (perhaps is the largest importer in the World).

译者请黄大昉研究员对人民负责地告诉我们：中国对每年进口的巨量抗草甘膦转基因大豆检测草甘膦“残留量残余量水平”的国家标准为多少 mg/kg？这对中国人民是否构成“转基因食用安全问题”？

The translator requests researcher Huang Dafang responsible to the people tell us, what is the mg/kg level of the State Standard for inspecting the glyphosate “residue level”? Does this not cause “GM food consumption safety problems”?

如果黄大昉研究员结论不造成“转基因食用安全问题”，请问你所依据的“科学实证”是什么？

If researcher Huang Dafang concludes that this does not cause any “GM food consumption safety problems”, please then tell us on what “solid scientific evidence” basis he reaches his conclusion?

（2）陈一文：怎样做一位称职的有社会责任感的生物学家？　　

Chen I-wan Preface: How to be a qualified and social responsible biologist？　　

黑门· 居里斯先生是一位普通的生物学家，但是他的研究报告向人们展示了生物学家怎么样做能够称之为称职的有社会责任感的生物学家，以及怎么样做才能够名副其实称之为“打假”与“反伪科学”，而不是“挂羊头卖狗肉”为虎作伥以“打假、反伪”之名行“造假、作伪证”之实！

2. Chen I-wan Preface: How to be a qualified and social responsible biologist？

Genetic Engineering: the Glyphosate threat 2 health issues

2、陈一文代序：怎样做一位称职的有社会责任感的生物学家？

转基因：草甘膦的威胁2健康问题

By Heimen Julius

：黑门·居里斯

本文原文链接/Link to original paper：

http://www.rag.org.au/modifiedfoods/rounduphealthissues.htm

Translator: Chen I-wan ([email protected])

译者：陈一文（[email protected]）

译者认为，黑门·居里斯先生2002年撰写的《转基因：草甘膦威胁2–健康问题》（Genetic Engineering: the Glyphosate threat 2 health issues）研究报告，对至今盲目崇拜至少六次自称自己“在美国生物信息公司兼任咨询科学家”至今大力鼓吹转基因作物与草甘膦的方舟子的许多“方粉”可能有重要教育作用：

The translator considers, the “Genetic Engineering: the Glyphosate threat 2 health issues” report prepared by Heimen Julius in 2002 might also play an important education role to many Fang-fans who to date still blindness worship Fang Zhouzi (Fang Shimin) who at least six times claimed that he “at an American bioinformatic company worked as a spare-time consultant scientist” and still strongly advocates GM plant and GM food:

黑门·居里斯先生是一位普通的生物学家，但是他的研究报告向人们展示了：

Heimen Julius is an ordinary biologist, but his report demonstrates to people:

生物学家怎么样做能够称之为一位称职的有社会责任感的生物学家？

How should a biologist perform to be considered a qualified and social responsible biologist？

怎么样做才能够名副其实称之为“打假”与“反伪科学”，而不是“挂羊头卖狗肉”为虎作伥以“打假、反伪”之名行“造假、作伪证”之实！

What activities could be truly called “fight sham” and “anti pseudoscience”, and not in fact posing and siding on the evil side, disguised under the name of “fight sham” and “anti pseudoscience” but in fact “creating fraud and forswearing”!  

学者怎么样才能被认为是真正的“打假、反伪”斗士，即便此种“造假、作伪证、伪科学”出自不惜危害人民健康的不良企业的商业利益、屈服于这样的不良企业商业利益的政府部门以至权威性国际组织？

How should a scholar perform to be considered as a true “fight sham, anti-pseudoscience” fighter, even if the “sham, foreswear and pseudoscience” results from commercial interest of bad enterprises at the cost of scarifying people’s health, and/or results from government departments, or even authoritative international organizations, who succumb to the commercial interest of such enterprises?

中国科学院《科学对社会的影响》2004年第2期发表译者重要文章《中国科学技术、经济和社会的高速健康发展呼唤向传统科学技术基本理论提出挑战的科技创新成果》对这个问题提出了指导性意见：

“Impact of Science on Society”, a journal under the China Academy of Science, published “Healthy Rapid Development of Chinese Science & Technology, Economy and Society Calls for Innovation Achievements Bringing Challenges to Traditional Basic Theories of Science and Technology”, an important paper by the translator’s, provides guidance on this issue:

http://cheniwan.sea3000.net/innovation/

认为，搞科学技术的人，无论学者还是科学技术管理者，或报道科学技术动态的新闻媒介，最重要、最宝贵的品格是出自高度社会责任感的“承认事实，讲真话”，即便这种“事实、真话”有时可能与有关领域绝大多数其它人有所不同，甚至针锋相对，也要能够象安徒生童话“皇帝的新衣”中的那个小孩那样，大胆的喊出“皇帝根本没有穿衣服！”

The author considers, those involved in science and technology, irrespective if they are scholars or administrators of science and technology development, or medias reporting on science and technology developments, the most important, most precious character and morals is “respect facts and tell the truth”, even if such “facts, truth” sometimes are different to the opinion of most other people in the concerned field, and some times even completely different, they must still be able like the little boy in Andersen’s fairy tale “The Emperor’s new cloths”, fearlessly shout out: “But the Emperor is wearing no cloths!”

译者推荐补充资料：

Supplementary material recommended by the translator:

方舟子：有关转基因作物的种种新谣言：  

Fang Zhouzi: Varius new rumors about GM plants:

方舟子的文章鼓吹：

Fang Zhouzi’s paper preaches:

“孟山都的除草剂“农达”的活性成分为草甘膦，这是孟山都公司在上个世纪70年代开发的，专利早过期了，现在许多农药公司都生产（包括中国的公司，阿根廷农民用的草甘膦除草剂相当大一部分是从中国进口的）。这是国际公认的低毒除草剂，对人体健康没有任何危险。”

“The active composition of Monsanto’s Round-up herbicide is glyphosate, this was developed by Monsanto during the 70s of the past century, the patent has long ago expired, many herbicide companies are all producing it (including Chinese companies, a considerable portion of glyphosate herbcides used by Argentine farmers are imported from China). This is a international recognized low toxicity herbicide, has no danger to human health.”

（3）陈一文译：抗草甘膦转基因作物是孟山都推销草甘膦的怪胎　　

Introduction – Glyphosate - The kill-all problem　　

孟山都1971年推出能够杀死所有植物的草甘膦除草剂。通过转基因技术使农作物耐草甘膦，使不加区别的喷洒草甘膦而只有不抗草甘膦的野草被杀死成为可行。在全球推广转基因作物使孟山都扩大草甘膦除草剂在全球销售，同时从转基因作物种子推销获暴利，但是将转基因食品及其草甘膦残留量对人类健康的危害置于不顾！

3. Introduction – Glyphosate - The kill-all problem

-- Genetic Engineering: the Glyphosate threat 2 health issues

3、引言--草甘膦--“全部杀死”的问题

-- 转基因：草甘膦的威胁2健康问题

By Heimen Julius

：黑门·居里斯

Translator: Chen I-wan ([email protected])

译者：陈一文顾问（[email protected]）

*                                  *                                  *

陈一文顾问按：

Advisor Chen I-wan comments:

转基因大豆的95%，以及其他转基因作物的75%，是抗草甘膦为基础除草剂的转基因作物。

95% of GM soy, 75% of other GM plants, are glyphosate-based herbicide resistant GM plants

世界绝大部分转基因作物的种植与草甘膦基除草剂利益相关、密不可分，与喷洒草甘膦基除草剂对环境、生态多样性、动物与人类的健康造成的一系列无法克服的危害密切相关，与转基因大豆、玉米、稻米含有的草甘膦及其辅佐物与代谢物残余量对动物与人类的健康与繁衍造成的一系列无法克服的危害密切相关！

The growing of most GM plants in the World are related with the interest of glyphosate-based herbicide, and are closely related with the series of harm caused by glyphosate-based herbicides to the environment, biodiversity, animal and mankind health which they not be overcome, and closely related to the series of harm caused by residue of glyphosate, adjuvants and metabolite contained in GM soy, GM maize, GM rice to animal and mankind health and reproduction!

以保持持久扩大推销草甘膦除草剂商业利益为主要目的而开发转基因作物，绝对不是“科技创新”与“科学道德”的象征，而是“反自然、反科学”邪恶的“怪胎”！

GM plants, developed with the main objective to maintaining the commercial interest of ongoing and expanding sales of glyphosate-based herbicides, absolutely do not stand for “science-technology innovation” and “science morality”, and only is an “anti-nature, anti-science” evil “monster”!

*                                  *                                  *

3. Introduction

3. 引言

Glyphosate

草甘膦

Glyphosate, a herbicide produced by Monsanto since 1971, is more widely known as 'Roundup.' It is available as a weed killer for gardens from supermarkets and hardware stores. To be effective it must be sprayed onto the leaves of the plant. It should be understood that herbicides or weed killers like glyphosate are taken up by the plant and work inside plants. Insecticides or insect killers on the other hand are left on the surface of plants and can be washed off.

草甘膦，孟山都公司自1971年开始生产的一种除草剂，更广泛被人们知道的商品名称为“终结者”（Roundup）。作为花园除草剂可以在超市或五金商店买到。为了有效，必须喷洒在植物的叶子上。应当了解，农药或草甘膦这样的除草剂被植物吸收，在植物内部发挥作用。

杀虫剂则留在植物表面上，可以被洗掉。

Glyphosate is widely used in agriculture. Many weeds are deep-rooted perennials with tubers and rootstocks. This makes them very difficult to eradicate. Through glyphosate all these problems were solved. Because, once past the leaf surface glyphosate moves throughout the plant, reaches deep into the roots and kills.

草甘膦在农业中广泛施用。许多野草有不断深长的根，带块茎与根茎。这使杀掉他们很困难。施用草甘膦时这些问题都得到解决。因为一旦侵入叶子表面，草甘膦能够传播到整个植物，深深进入根部，杀死植物。

With such an all-round plant killer, you have to be very careful not to hit your crop as well.

施用这样一种全部“终结”杀死的植物杀灭剂，你必须非常注意不要同时杀灭自己的作物。

The kill-all problem

“全部杀死”的问题

At this point a bright spark came up with the idea to make all crops glyphosate resistant. Then you could spray indiscriminately and only weeds would be killed. With the new genetic engineering techniques this idea was becoming feasible. It would result in convenient agricultural practices for farmers, who would also use much more glyphosate.

这时出现了明亮的一闪念，就是使所有农作物耐草甘膦的想法。这样你可以不加区别的喷洒草甘膦，而只有不抗草甘膦的野草被杀死。新的转基因技术使这种想法变为有可行性。这样能够导致对农民方便的农作操作，同时导致草甘膦的更多使用。

And guess what, this was good for Monsanto's bottom line. So, for the last ten years genetic engineers have been making a wide variety of crops glyphosate resistant. However, little thought was given to the long term health implications of ingesting glyphosate day in and day out.

你猜怎么样，这对孟山都的利益底线非常好。因此，基因工程师在过去十年中使广泛种类农作物成为耐草甘膦转基因作物。然而，很少考虑了长期吞吃草甘膦对健康的长期影响。

（4）陈一文译：喝孟山都除草剂能自杀引起对草甘膦毒性关注研究　　

Glyphosate toxicity to humans　　

1985年，孟山都研究者宣传“草甘膦……对其他形式生命实质上没有毒性”。1991/1992年医学刊物报道喝草甘膦除草剂的自杀事件，促使人们关注，发现草甘膦对动物与人类健康有一系列毒性。2010年9月，方舟子在媒体上还在鼓吹“孟山都的除草剂“农达”的活性成分为草甘膦……这是国际公认的低毒除草剂，对人体健康没有任何危险。”这是低智、糊涂，还是有偿故意！

4. Glyphosate toxicity to humans

-- Genetic Engineering: the Glyphosate threat 2 health issues

4、草甘膦对人类的毒性

-- 转基因：草甘膦的威胁2健康问题

By Heimen Julius

：黑门·居里斯

Translator: Chen I-wan ([email protected])

译者：陈一文顾问（[email protected]）

*                                  *                                  *

陈一文顾问按：

Advisor Chen I-wan comments:

大量论文发表揭露孟山都公司草甘膦除草剂对环境、动物与人类健康造成一系列严重危害以后，包括1991年台湾报道的人类草甘膦中毒事件以后大陆发生的多次草甘膦中毒事件。 （参看本文后边的“参考文献”与“译者推荐补充资料）

Massive published facts revealed that Monsanto’s glyphosate based herbicide causes a series of serious harm to the environment, to animal and human health, including the glyphosate human poisoned events reported in Taiwain in 1991, and a series of glyphosate human poisoned events reported on the continent of China. (Please visit the References and “Supplementary material recommended by the translator” listed at the end of this paper.

大量事实披露出来证明草甘膦对对环境、动物与人类健康造成一系列严重危害以后，至少六次自称自己“在美国生物信息公司兼任咨询科学家”的方舟子2010年9月在中国媒体上还发表文章鼓吹“孟山都的除草剂“农达”的活性成分为草甘膦……这是国际公认的低毒除草剂，对人体健康没有任何危险。”

After massive facts were published proving that Monsanto’s glyphosate based herbicide causes a series of serious harm to the environment, to animal and human health Fang Zhouzi, who has at least six times claimed that he worked “at an American biological information company as a part time consultant scientist”, on Sep. 2010 in his paper published by Chinese media still blew the trumpet claiming “the active composition of Monsanto’s Round-up herbicide is glyphosate …… this is an international widely recognized low toxicity herbicide, does not have any danger to human health”.

请方舟子认真读一遍居里斯先生2002年写的这篇论文，至少对自己负责地告诉我们，你现在是否依然坚持草甘膦“对人体健康没有任何危险”？

The translator requests Fang Zhouzi to carefully read this paper written by Heimen Julius in 2002, and at responsible to himself tell us, if he still insist that glyphosate “does not have any danger to human health”?

如果方舟子依然坚持草甘膦“对人体健康没有任何危险”，请告诉我们你所依据的“科学实证”是什么？

If Fang Zhouzi still insists that glyphosate “does not have any danger to human health”, then please tell us on what “solid scientific evidence” basis his reaches his conclusion?

*                                  *                                  *

4. Glyphosate toxicity to humans

4、草甘膦对人类的毒性

In 1985 a Monsanto researcher assured his readership that 'Glyphosate effectively controls 76 of the world's 78 worst weeds… and is essentially non-toxic to other life forms' [1].

1985年，孟山都的一位研究者向他的读者们保证，“草甘膦能够有效治理世界最严重的野草中的76 种……对其他形式生命实质上没有毒性”[1]

How reassuring if this were true. However, in 1991/92 reports appeared in the medical literature of humans being poisoned by glyphosate [2, 3] . True, they attempted to commit suicide and drank a whole glass of Roundup concentrate. Still, if you would drink a whole glass of water, which is essentially non-toxic you would get a different result.

这种保证有多么真实？然而，1991/1992年医学刊物出现有人受到草甘膦毒害的报告[2、3]确实，他们企图自杀并喝了一杯“终结者”（Roundup）除草剂。但是，如果你喝了一杯水，确实实质上没有毒性，你会获得完全不同的结果。

It turned out that if you were under 40 years of age and got timely medical assistance you would probably survive, but if you were 50 years and over you would probably die [2, 3]. These 'results' are similar to a pharmaceutical company testing a new drug with a huge overdose. Then the evaluations start.

结果是，如果你不到40岁而且获得了及时的医学救助，你可能被救活，但是如果你50岁以上你大概将死亡[2、3]。这些“结果”类似于一家医药公司超量试验一种新药。这促使开始对草甘膦的评价。

References:

参考文献：

[1] Franz J.E. 1985. Discovery, development and chemistry of glyphosate. in: The Herbicide Glyphosate 1985, by Butterworth & Co. (eds. E.Grossbard & D. Atkinson) p.16.

[1] Franz J.E. 1985。草甘膦的发现、发展与化学。收录：除草剂草甘膦1985，Butterworth & Co.，(eds. E.Grossbard & D. Atkinson) p.16.

[2] Tominack R.L. et al. 1991. Taiwan National Poison Center survey of glyphosate - surfactant herbicide ingestions. Clinical Toxicology 29: 91-109.

[2] Tominack R.L. et al. 1991。台湾国立中毒中心对草甘膦 – 表明活性剂摄取的调查。临床毒理学刊物，29：91-109。

[3] Temple W.A. Et al. 1992. Glyphosate herbicide poisoning experience in New Zealand. New Zealand Medical Journal 105: 173-174.

[3] Temple W.A. Et al. 1992。在新西兰的草甘膦除草剂中毒经验。新西兰医学杂志，105：173-174。

（5）陈一文译：对动物草甘膦一次性剂量研究有欺骗性导致误导　　

Single dose studies with animals -- Glyphosate in fish　　

 “草甘膦并非全部从体内排出。雄鼠喂食一次性剂量后94-98%的草甘膦在48小时内排出，雌鼠喂食后82-84%的草甘膦在48小时内排出。计算显示，这些剂量的大约1%保留在骨组织中。”这证明，长期持续食用摄取草甘膦的后果与一次性剂量使用草甘膦的后果有实质性的不同，对动物草甘膦一次性剂量研究有欺骗性导致误导！

5. Single dose studies with animals -- Glyphosate in fish

-- Genetic Engineering: the Glyphosate threat 2 health issues

5、对动物进行的一次性剂量研究--鱼中的草甘膦

-- 转基因：草甘膦的威胁2健康问题

By Heimen Julius

：黑门·居里斯

Translator: Chen I-wan ([email protected])

译者：陈一文顾问（[email protected]）

*                                  *                                  *

陈一文顾问按：

Advisor Chen I-wan comments:

本文揭示，哺乳动物食用含有某种“疑似毒素”的食物后是否产生毒性，必须进行持续的动物喂食实验，而不能通过喂食一次性剂量的实验进行证明。必须证明这些“疑似毒素”在每次动物喂食后合理时间内是否100%全部排出体外，还是其中一部分，无论多少，在体内某处（或几处）沉积，并在持续沉积达到一定水平后，对某些器官以至动物总体健康造成损害？

This paper reveals, to verify if or not toxicity effects occur after mammals eat food containing certain “suspected toxic composition”, animal feed test continued for a length of time is required as a must, which can not be proved by a one time dosage animal feed simply followed by observation for a length of time; must also prove if such “suspected toxic composition” is 100% discharged out of the body with limited time after being fed to the animal, or, if a certain portion, regardless how less, is accumulated in certain areas within the body, and after continue accumulation reaches a certain level, does it cause harm to certain organs and then further to the overall health of the animal?

在这个问题上，译者向读者们推荐中国学者一篇论文试验“结果”部分：

On this issue, the translator would like to recommend the “Result” portion of a paper by a Chinese scholar:

邬惠琼，草甘膦对大鼠细胞色素P450 2B1和P450 2C11基因表达的影响，《卫生毒理学杂志》1996年第10卷第4期，231-234页

Wu Huiqiong, The effect of glyphosate on the expression of the cytochrome P450 2B1 and P450 2C11 genes of adult rats, Sanitation Toxicity Journal, 1996 Vol.10(4), pp231-234

http://www.docin.com/p-41695032.html

--------------------------------

结果：

一、草甘膦对大鼠体重和肝重的影响当以草甘膦I（剂量为1/6D）灌胃，连续处理7天后，大鼠体重显著下降，与对照组比较，具有显著意义（P<0.05）。分别以草甘膦I、草甘膦II（剂量为1、10LD50）灌胃，连续7天后，草甘膦I处理组大鼠体重增长延缓，与对照组大鼠体重增长比较，有显著差异（P<0.05）；而草甘膦I号处理组大鼠体重增长与对照组比较，差异无显著意义。以1/6LD50和1/10 LD50处理的大鼠肝重和体重之比（脏器系数）与对照组比较均无显著差异（表1）。

二、草甘膦对微粒体细胞色素含量即细胞色素C氧化还原酶活性的影响（略）

三、草甘膦对几种肝微粒体酶活性的影响（略）

四、草甘膦对大鼠肝、肾组织中细胞色素P450酶基因表达的影响（略）。

--------------------------------

这篇论文告诉我们：（1）对实验老鼠进行了“灌胃连续7天”；（2）采用不同的剂量，对不同剂量的影响进行了比较；（3）进行了对照组比较的试验；（4）不仅检查不同对照组老鼠体重的变化进行比较，而且更深入对老鼠体内的器官（肝脏、肾脏）是否发生变化进行了比较。（5）不仅对器官宏观异常（重量）进行观察与比较，而且在更微观更深入的细胞、酶、色素层次生物化学异常进行观察与比较。

This paper tells us: (1) The stomach feeding test on the rat is continued for 7 days; (2) Different dosages is applied, comparing the effect of different dosages; (3) Test are carried out on controlled groups of animals for comparison; (4) Not only compares the overall weight of the different controlled groups of rats, but even further also compares the weight of internal organs (liver, kidney) of the rats; (5) Not only observes and compares macro abnormalities of the internal organs (weight), but also at more micro depths, observae and compare biochemistry anomalies of cells, enzymes and cytochrome.

这样的动物实验的科学意义，显然与进行一次性剂量喂食后再观察七天实验的效果大不相同。

The science significance of such an animal laboratory test obviously is very different to an animal test with only one dosage feed and followed by observation for seven days.

然而，应当指出，如果含有某种“疑似毒素”的新型食物属于人类经常使用的主粮，为了对人类持续安全健康生存与繁衍负责任，这样的动物喂食试验就不仅必须持续相当长的时间，必须同时对雄性的以及雌性的动物持续进行，而且必须持续至少三代，以便判断这种“疑似毒素”是否可能对哺乳动物及其后代造成生育异常与生育缺陷。

However, it also needs to be pointed out that if a new type of food containing a certain type of “suspected toxic composition” is a type of main food consumed by humans on regular basis, then, to be responsible to mankind’s safe and healthy survival and reproduction, such animal feed tests not only must continue for a considerable length of time, but must also be conducted on both male and female animals, and continued for at least three generations, to determine if the food containing such “suspected toxic composition” might or not cause any birth problems or birth defects to the second and third generation of such animals.

*                                  *                                  *

5. Single dose studies with animals

5、对动物进行的一次性剂量研究

In 1985 it was reported that glyphosate fed to animals was slightly toxic. Based on animal feeding studies with a single dose it was claimed that the acute toxicity of Roundup to humans was less than table salt and half as much as aspirin [4]. A rather crude and unscientific extrapolation.

1985年有报告讲，给动物喂食草甘膦发现稍有毒性。基于给动物一次剂量草甘膦的喂食研究,宣称草甘膦“终结者”除草剂对人类的急性毒性少于食用盐并比阿司匹林少一半[4]。这是一个比较粗糙而且不科学的推断。

A publication of 1994 gives us some idea about these experiments. A single dose given to rats showed that 30 to 36% of glyphosate passed the gut wall and entered the body [6]. Inside the body glyphosate was hardly broken down and showed up in urine. It's breakdown product AMPA was also found, but in minuscule amounts [5]. In a follow up study, rats were fed radioactive glyphosate for 14 days. This revealed that 80 to 90% was excreted through faeces and around 10% through urine [6]. Similar studies with rabbits, laying hens and lactating goats indicated that 30% of ingested glyphosate got past the gut wall [5].

1994年发表的一篇论文让我们对这样的实验获得了一些认识。喂食给老鼠的一次性剂量显示，30%-36%的草甘膦通过肠壁进入体内[6]。在体内，草甘膦很难分解在尿中排出。亦发现了其分解物AMPA（氨甲基膦酸），但是不重要量极少[5]。在继续的研究中，对老鼠连续14天喂食（译注：含有同位素）放射性草甘膦。这项研究揭示80%-90%的草甘膦通过粪便排出，大约10%通过尿排出[6]。用兔子、孵蛋的鸡与哺乳期的羊进行了类似的研究，显示吞食的草甘膦的30%通过肠壁[5]。

Ongoing trials found that glyphosate was not fully cleared from the body. Total body clearance of a single dose was after 48 hours in male rats 94-98% and in female rats 82-84% . Another study found that it took rats around 168 hours (7 days) to eliminate glyphosate. Here, a high dose of 10 mg glyphosate per kg body weight was given. Calculations indicated that around 1% of the dose was still present in bone tissue [7]. Glyphosate was also detected in egg whites and egg yolks in a study with laying hens using high glyphosate doses [5].

继续进行的试验发现，草甘膦并非全部从体内排出。雄鼠喂食一次性剂量后94-98%的草甘膦在48小时内排出，雌鼠喂食后82-84%的草甘膦在48小时内排出。另外一项研究发现，喂食一次性剂量的老鼠需要大约168小时（7天）才能排出完。该项研究中喂食的剂量很高，依照体重10 mg/kg的剂量。计算显示，这些剂量的大约1%保留在骨组织中[7]。采用大剂量的草甘膦的孵蛋鸡研究中，在蛋白与蛋黄中都检测到草甘膦[5]。

Glyphosate in fish

鱼中的草甘膦

Similar research was done on fish. Glyphosate was 'not expected' to accumulate in fish, crustaceans and molluscs [10]. Nonetheless, when fish and shellfish were first exposed to water containing glyphosate followed by removal of glyphosate from their water it was found that glyphosate did accumulate in their tissues [10]. So much for single dose studies, but what about ongoing glyphosate intake? The difference is that in a single dose study the animal has an opportunity to clear its body, while ongoing intake makes this impossible.

对鱼进行了类似的研究。草甘膦“没有预料”能够在鱼、甲壳动物与软体动物中沉积[10]。虽然如此，当鱼与甲壳类动物首先暴露接触含有草甘膦的水接着从水中除去草甘膦时，发现草甘膦确实在它们的组织中沉积[10]。一次性剂量如此，持续食用草甘膦又将如何？区别在于，在一次性剂量研究中，动物有机会将它从体内排出，但是持续食用情况下使这不可能。

References:

参考文献：

[4] Atkinson D. 1985. Toxicological properties of glyphosate - a summary. In: The Herbicide Glyphosate 1985, by Butterworth & Co. (eds. E. Grossbard & D. Atkinson) pp. 127-133.

[4] Atkinson D. 1985。草甘膦的毒理学性质 – 概述。收录：除草剂草甘膦 1985，by Butterworth & Co. (eds. E. Grossbard & D. Atkinson) pp. 127-133。

[5] Mensink H. et al.1994. Glyphosate. Environmental Health Criteria 159, by World Health Organisation, Geneva. p. 66

[5] Mensink H. et al.1994。草甘膦环境健康标准159，世界卫生组织组织，日内瓦，p66。

[6] Ibid 5 at pp. 63-64

[6] 参考文献[5] pp. 63-64

[7] Ibid 5 at p. 67.

[7] 参考文献[5] p.67

[10] Ibid 5 at pp. 52-54.

[10] 参考文献[5] pp. 52-54

（6）陈一文译：草甘膦试验论文含糊不清掩盖真相有意欺骗误导　　

Chronic vagueness and glyphosate intake　　

美国环保部1993年发表的一篇关于草甘膦喂食动物试验论文强调：“使用老鼠、小鼠与猎兔犬的几项慢性毒性/致癌性研究，基于所审查的指标没有发现任何影响。” 论文没有解释是什么指标，没有提供关键细节，整篇论文含糊不清。1977/1978年转基因食物推出后，到2002年1月为止，1993年的这篇论文依然是美国环保局关于动物喂食试验的最新论文。

6. Chronic vagueness and glyphosate intake - Evasiveness

-- Genetic Engineering: the Glyphosate threat 2 health issues

6、病态含糊不清与草甘膦摄取--回避

-- 转基因：草甘膦的威胁2健康问题

By Heimen Julius

：黑门·居里斯

Translator: Chen I-wan ([email protected])

译者：陈一文顾问（[email protected]）

*                                  *                                  *

陈一文顾问按：

Advisor Chen I-wan comments:

本文揭示，为了保护转基因业的商业利益，孟山都与美国环保部许多试验研究及其论文有意含糊不清、回避关键问题、掩盖真相、欺骗与误导公众，将人民持续安全健康生存与繁衍置于次要地位以至不顾！

This paper reveals, to protect the commercial interest of the GM industry, many tests, studies and papers by Monsanto and the American EPA are intentionally vague, evasive and slide away from key issues, hide truths, deceive and mislead the public, and only give secondary consideration or even ignore the persistence safe and healthy survival and reproduction of the people!  

与此类似，转基因作物安全证书审评问题上，农业部组织第三方进行试验时，首先有一个基本立场问题：是坚持优先考虑维护中国人民持续安全健康生存与繁衍的立场，还是优先考虑如何让农业部能够堂而皇之向某个“转基因作物研究团队”颁发“转基因作物安全证书”的立场，将中国人民持续安全健康生存与繁衍置于次要地位以至不顾！

Similarily, on the issue of examination and approving GM plant safe certificates, when the Ministry of Agriculture organizes third parties to carry out tests, there first is the issue of a basic standpoint: Taking the standpoint giving top priority consideration to maintaining the persistence safe and healthy survival and reproduction of the Chinese people, or taking the standpoint giving top priority consideration for the Ministry of Health to “openly and legally” issue the “GM pet-resistance rice safety certificate” to a certain “GM plant R&D team”, and only give secondary consideration or even ignore the persistence safe and healthy survival and reproduction of the Chinese people!  

在事关公众健康问题的试验研究问题上，国际上对“独立研究者”从事的试验研究给予高度重视，因为“独立研究者”及其研究与企业商业利益很少瓜葛，他们对公众健康具有更强的社会责任感，因而他们从事的试验研究更为客观与诚实，公众的信任度较高。

On test and studies concerning public health, test and studies performed by independent researchers are highly recognized internationally, because independent researchers and their studies have less ties with commercial interests, independent researchers usually have stronger sense of responsibility to public health, therefore there tests and studies are more impersonal and honest; enjoy higher trust by the public.

译者建议，中国必须创造必要的政策条件，允许与鼓励私人研究所与独立研究者在中国尽快发展起来，以便在事关公众健康问题试验研究问题上，同时依靠私人研究所与独立研究者为公众利益提供更为客观与诚实的服务。

The translator suggests, China should create policy conditions, enable and encourage private research institutes and independent researchers to develop in China as fast as possible, enabling on test and studies concerning public health issues, also to rely on private research institutes and independent researchers to provide more impersonal and honest services for public interest.

*                                  *                                  *

6. Chronic vagueness and glyphosate intake

病态含糊不清与草甘膦摄取

A publication from 1985 tells us that 31 mg glyphosate per kg body weight was given each day in a 26-month study with rats and that this did not result in any observable tumour formation [11].

1985年发表的一篇论文告诉我们，依照31mg/kg体重剂量对老鼠每天喂食草甘膦连续进行26个月的研究没有造成任何可观察到的癌瘤形成[11]。

Was this the only thing they were looking for? It does not state that there was no tumour formation, only that it was not observable. And what about other toxic effects? A paper from the American Environmental Protection Agency from 1993 tells us that 'several chronic toxicity/carcinogenicity studies using rats, mice and beagle dogs resulted in no effects based on the parameters examined' [12]. Again vagueness. What were these parameters? What were they looking for? The same vagueness continues throughout this paper:

这是否是他们寻找的唯一情况？论文没有说没有癌瘤形成，只说”没有可观察到”癌瘤的形成。那么其他毒性作用如何？美国环保部1993年发表的一篇论文告诉我们，“使用老鼠、小鼠与猎兔犬的几项慢性毒性/致癌性研究，基于所审查的指标没有发现任何影响”[12]。再一次含糊。这是些什么指标？该项研究在找什么？整篇论文继续这种含糊不清：

A sub-chronic feeding study with rats showed effects on blood and pancreas. On mice this resulted in reduced body weights [12].

“用老鼠进行的一项准慢性喂食研究显示对血液与胰腺影响。对小鼠这造成了减轻体重[12]。”

In toxicity studies with pregnant rats and rabbits, glyphosate caused treatment-related effects such as diarrhoea, reduced weight, nasal discharge and death.

“用怀孕老鼠与兔子进行的毒性研究中，草甘膦造成了与该种处理相关的影响，如腹泻、减轻体重、流鼻涕与死亡。”

In a toxicity study (rats), kidney effects showed up in male pups, and in another study digestive effects and decreased weight [12].

“在（老鼠）毒性研究中，雄性小鼠中显示对肾的影响，在另外一项研究中显示消化影响与减轻体重[12]。”

In rats it appeared that very little glyphosate reached the bone marrow and that it was rapidly eliminated from bone marrow and plasma [12].

“在老鼠中看来很少草甘膦进入骨髓，并且从骨髓与血浆zhog很快排出[12]。”

It was stressed adverse effects in these trials were only observed at the highest glyphosate doses.

论文强调这些试验中的负面影响仅是在最高草甘膦剂量情况下观察到。

Evasiveness

回避

Why this vagueness? What are blood effects? What are pancreatic effects? What are digestive effects? What are kidney effects? And why pretend that little glyphosate reached the bone marrow? If glyphosate reaches the blood, it reaches the bone marrow. The quick elimination from marrow and plasma was probably through uptake by bone as bone is a specific glyphosate sink.

为什么这样含糊不清？没有明确什么“血液影响”？什么“胰腺影响”？什么“消化影响”？什么“肾脏影响”？为什么假装“很少草甘膦进入骨髓”？如果草甘膦进入血液，它当然达到骨髓。从骨髓与血浆的快速排出可能通过被骨摄取，因为骨头是草甘膦特别沉积之处。

What was the duration of those chronic studies? What were the dosages given to the experimental animals and why were the feeding experiments not published on the Internet as an extension of this vague EPA paper?

也没有明确这些长期研究的期限？也没有明确喂食实验动物的剂量以及为什么没有将喂食实验报告作为美国环保局这篇含糊不清论文的延伸内容发表在互联网上？

Were there any updates of this EPA paper from 1993? Around 1997/8 genetically engineered foods were introduced for the first time. This paper from 1993 was the latest on feeding trials in January 2002 on the Internet.

美国环保局1993年这篇论文以来有没有更新的内容？1977/1978年转基因食物首次推出。到2002年1月为止，1993年的这篇论文依然是（美国环保局）关于动物喂食试验的最新论文。

References

参考文献：

[12] http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/search.htm in browsing you come somewhere across EPA R.E.D. FACTS this is the paper. You find in the heading EPA-738-F-93-011 September 1993. Go to section: Human Health Assessment.

[12] 浏览http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/search.htm你们可以访问美国环保部EPA R.E.D. FACTS这篇报告。在标题EPA-738-F-93-011，1993年9月。访问：“人类健康评估”这一段。

（7）陈一文译：美国环保部草甘膦可接受每日摄取量ADI误导世界　　

Acceptable glyphosate levels　　

美国环保部1985年这样确定“可接受的每日摄取量”，简称ADI ：“在10 mg/kg 体重（对老鼠进行的繁殖研究）没有可观察到的影响水平以及安全因素100基础上，（人体对）草甘膦可接受的每日摄取量（ADI）为每天0.10 mg/kg体重剂量。”在世界卫生组织下，这成为欧盟、中国等所有国家遵循的指导原则。

7. Acceptable glyphosate levels

-- Genetic Engineering: the Glyphosate threat 2 health issues

7. 可接受的草甘膦水平

-- 转基因：草甘膦的威胁2健康问题

By Heimen Julius

：黑门·居里斯

Translator: Chen I-wan ([email protected])

译者：陈一文顾问（[email protected]）

*                                  *                                  *

陈一文顾问按：

Advisor Chen I-wan comments:

如果向卫生部官员询问，卫生部规定草甘膦“可接受的每日摄取量”（ADI）国家标准的依据是什么？卫生部的官员会告诉你：依据世界卫生组织推荐的草甘膦“可接受的每日摄取量”（ADI）。

If inquire officials of the Ministry of Public Health what is the basis for the Ministry to determine the “acceptable daily intake” (ADI) of glyphosate“? The officials of the Ministry will surely tell you: The basis is the “acceptable daily intake” (ADI) of glyphosate proposed by the WHO.

但是，如果进一步询问，世界卫生组织草甘膦“可接受的每日摄取量”（ADI）数据是从哪里来的？卫生部的官员肯定答不出！

But, if you further inquire, where does the data for the WHO to determine the “acceptable daily intake” (ADI) of glyphosate“ come from? The officials of the Ministry of Public Health surely will not be able to reply!

读了本文，了解到他们极为尊重的世界卫生组织推荐的草甘膦“可接受的每日摄取量”（ADI）数据来自美国，但不是来自美国卫生部，也不是来自美国食品药物管理署（FDA），甚至不是来自美国农业部，而是来自美国环保部，而美国环保部的数据又从维护孟山都推销草甘膦的商业利益而来，不知中国卫生部的官员有何感想！

Upon reading this paper, learning that the “acceptable daily intake” (ADI) of glyphosate“ proposed by the WHO, whom they highly respect, comes from the United States but does not come from the United States Ministry of Public Health, nor from the FDA or from the United States Department of Agriculture, but comes from the American Environment Protection Agency from maintaining the glyphosate sales commercial interest of Monsonta, what thoughts will the officials of the Ministry of Public Health have?

*                                  *                                  *

7 Acceptable glyphosate levels

7. 可接受的草甘膦水平

What matters most is of course how much glyphosate will end up in our food and whether these amounts could be harmful in any way.

最为重要的问题当然是我们的食物中最终含有多少草甘膦残留量，以及这些含量的草甘膦能否以任何方式影响人们的健康。

Animals fed commodities from glyphosate treated fields (pre 1985) did not pass on detectable levels of glyphosate or AMPA to meat tissue, fat, eggs and milk. However, low levels were found in liver and kidney and therefore a tolerance level of 0.5 ppm was set for them [9].

1985年以前进行的动物喂食施用过草甘膦农作物商业产品的试验，没有发现传递到肉类、脂肪、鸡蛋或牛奶的草甘膦或其代谢物AMPA（氨甲基膦酸）可检测到的含量水平。然而，在喂食转基因作物的动物的肝脏与肾脏中检测到它们，因此对它们（草甘膦或其代谢物AMPA）设定了0.5ppm（=0.5 mg/kg）的耐受水平[9]。

The EPA (US Environmental Protection Agency) went even so far as to stipulate an acceptable dose for humans and the publication of 1985 spelled out how they arrived at this dose. They called this the acceptable daily intake or ADI, which was based on data going back to 1982.

美国环境保护部据此甚至规定了人类可以接受的剂量水平，并且在1985年的文件中解释了他们如何确定了这样的剂量水平。在1982年数据基础上，美国环保局称这样的剂量水平为“可接受的每日摄取量”，简称ADI（= Acceptable Daily Intake）

"The acceptable daily intake (ADI) of glyphosate is 0.10 mg per kg body weight per day based on no observable effect level (NOEL) of 10 mg per kg body weight per day (rat reproduction study) and a safety factor of 100. On this basis, the maximum permitted intake (MPI) for a 60 kg man is calculated at 6.0 mg per day. With the addition of these new tolerances, the theoretical maximum residue contribution (TMRC) has been calculated at 1.39 mg per day for a 1.5 kg daily diet. All approved tolerances thus utilise about 23 percent of the ADI. These calculations suggest risks to be small relative to amounts of residue in the diet "[9].

“在10 mg/kg 体重（对老鼠进行的繁殖研究）没有可观察到的影响水平（NOEL= no observable effect level）以及安全因素100基础上，草甘膦可接受的每日摄取量（ADI）为每天0.10 mg/kg体重剂量。在此基础上，一位60 kg的男人的最大允许摄取量（MPI = maximum permitted intake）被计算为每天6.0 mg。有了这些新的额外耐受水平，对于每天1.5 kg饮食量的理论最大残余贡献（TMRC = theoretical maximum residue contribution）被计算为1.39 mg/每天。所有已经批准的耐受水平因而仅使用了草甘膦可接受的每日摄取量（ADI）的23%。这些计算提议，相对于饮食中的草甘膦残留量而言风险小”[9]。

This calculation based on a rat reproduction study is a straight extrapolation from rats to humans. How valid is that? Anyway let us stick for the moment to 0.10 mg per kg body weight as acceptable daily intake. This calculated dose is from glyphosate on food crops when irrigation water had picked up glyphosate residues in the field. So, the glyphosate levels in question were very low anyway.

在老鼠繁殖研究基础上进行的计算从老鼠直接推断到人类。这样做的有效性有多大？尽管如此，让我们暂时假定每天0.10 mg/kg体重剂量是草甘膦“可接受的每日摄取量”（ADI）。这样的计算的剂量来自食物农作物上的草甘膦，而灌溉用水还带走了一部分农田中的草甘膦残留量。因此，所涉及到的草甘膦水平实际上很低。

Surprise, surprise by September 1993 this acceptable daily intake had gone up to 2 mg per kg bodyweight per day. This time it was called a 'reference dose.'

令人惊奇又惊奇的是，1993年9月美国环保局将这个“可接受的每日摄取量”（ADI）（从0.10 mg/kg体重/每天）突然提高到了2 mg/kg体重/每天。这时它被改了名称，称之为“参考剂量”。

The EPA paper tells us about a dietary risk assessment for humans. This was based on a worst-case scenario, which meant that 100 percent of all possible commodities and acreage were treated with glyphosate and, that tolerance-level residues remained in/on all treated commodities.

美国环保局的论文对我们讲述对人类的饮食风险进行评估。这基于最坏情景的情况，意味着施用草甘膦全部农田与全部可能的农产品的100%，以及意味着这些耐草甘膦农作物中所有草甘膦残留量全部保留在所有经过这样处理的农产品中。

The EPA concluded (how??) that the chronic dietary risk to humans was minimal. And so we are informed that the EPA had determined that 2 mg glyphosate per kg body weight per day would not cause adverse effects in humans throughout a lifetime [12]. This no doubt refers to those imaginary 'standard humans' who don't exist.

美国环保局结论（但不知道他们怎么得到这样的结论？），对人类的长期饮食风险很小。因此我们被告知，美国环保局确定2 mg/kg体重/每天剂量的草甘膦，在人类的一生中都不会影响健康[12]。这样的毫无疑问只能涉及根本不可能存在的想像中的“标准人类”。

This whole messing round with 'acceptable' glyphosate levels misses the point totally in the presence of body sinks for glyphosate. In those places glyphosate is accumulating no matter what. An acceptable level over a life time would only make any sense in case of an ongoing complete and quick elimination of glyphosate from the body. But as the following rat study illustrates this does not happen.

围绕“可接受的”草甘膦水平的说法全部是胡扯，脱离了体内存在着草甘膦沉积处的关键点。（美国环保局认为）草甘膦在这些沉积之处的积累无关紧要。实际上，人的一生中可以接受的剂量水平，只有在草甘膦持续不断快速从体内排出才合情合理。但是，下述老鼠研究说明这（持续不断快速从体内排出）并不发生。

References

参考文献：

[4] Atkinson D. 1985. Toxicological properties of glyphosate - a summary. In: The Herbicide Glyphosate 1985, by Butterworth & Co. (eds. E.Grossbard & D. Atkinson) pp. 127-133.

[4] Atkinson D. 1985。草甘膦的毒理学性质 – 概述。收录：除草剂草甘膦 1985，by Butterworth & Co. (eds. E.Grossbard & D. Atkinson) pp. 127-133。

[9] Ibid 4 at p. 132.

[9] 参考文献[4] p.132

[12] http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/search.htm in browsing you come somewhere across EPA R.E.D. FACTS this is the paper. You find in the heading EPA-738-F-93-011 September 1993. Go to section: Human Health Assessment.

[12] 浏览http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/search.htm你们可以访问美国环保部EPA R.E.D. FACTS这篇报告。在标题EPA-738-F-93-011，1993年9月。访问：“人类健康评估”这一段。

（8）陈一文译：持续转基因饲料草甘膦残留量在老鼠不同器官分布　　

Ongoing glyphosate accumulation　　

草甘膦在老鼠体内分布表显示，进行草甘膦一次性剂量喂食七天后，最高草甘膦集结处为骨头。较次一些集结处为结肠、骨髓、脾、胃与肝脏。这个结论来自世界卫生组织1994年发表的文件。食品中毒素或“疑似毒素”在体内分布有沉积情况下，必须进行持续喂食试验，以至持续多代喂食试验，才能判断这种沉积是否有毒性影响，有什么毒性影响？

8. Ongoing glyphosate accumulation

-- Genetic Engineering: the Glyphosate threat 2 health issues

8. 持续的草甘膦沉积

-- 转基因：草甘膦的威胁2健康问题

By Heimen Julius

：黑门·居里斯

Translator: Chen I-wan ([email protected])

译者：陈一文顾问（[email protected]）

*                                  *                                  *

陈一文顾问按：

Advisor Chen I-wan comments:

根据世界卫生组织1994年的文件揭示的事实，居里斯先生非常正确强调：“一旦你发现有证据显示草甘膦在哺乳动物有某些特别的沉积之处，这种‘参考剂量’不再有任何合理之处，因为它是基于草甘膦从体内持续全部排出的假设。”

According to the facts revealed by the 1994 WHO publication, Heimen very correctly stresses: “Once you find evidence of specific sinks for glyphosate in the mammalian body, a reference dose makes no longer any sense as it is based on the assumption of ongoing total clearing of glyphosate from the body.”

该项事实颠覆了世界卫生组织遵循美国环保部意见推荐的草甘膦“可接受的每日摄取量”（ADI）与不同食物草甘膦“残留最高限量”标准本来就不科学的基础。

This fact topples the non-scientific basis establishing both the “acceptable daily intake” (ADI) of glyphosate“ as well as the “glyphosate residue maxium limit” for various foods proposed by the WHO following the opinion of the American EPA.

这事实上意味着草甘膦“可接受的每日摄取量”（ADI）与不同食物草甘膦“残留最高限量”标准必须重新审查并通过科学的、仔细的与诚实的动物喂食试验重新建立。

This in fact means that both the “acceptable daily intake” (ADI) of glyphosate“ as well as the “glyphosate residue maxium limit” for various foods must be re-examined and re-established through scientific, careful and honest animal feed tests.

*                                  *                                  *

8. Ongoing glyphosate accumulation

8. 持续的草甘膦沉积

A table on the distribution of glyphosate in rats showed that seven days after a single dose was given, the highest glyphosate concentration was in bone. Lesser concentrations were in the colon, bone marrow, spleen, stomach, kidney and liver [8].

下边草甘膦在老鼠体内分布表显示，进行草甘膦一次性剂量喂食七天后，最高草甘膦集结处为骨头。较次一些集结处为结肠、骨髓、脾、胃与肝脏[8]。

Table: radioactive glyphosate per kg organ fresh weight

表：放射性草甘膦每公斤器官新鲜重量

The full description of the table was as follows: Concentrations of ^{14C label (as mg glyphosate-equivalents/kg fresh weight) in selected tissues of rats on day 7 after a single oral dose (rounded values) (Monsanto, 1988b).}

对该表格完整的描述如下：老鼠一次性剂量口服7天后有选择的组织中的14碳同位素标记浓度（与mg草甘膦等值/kg新鲜重量）（孟山都文件，1988b）。

This table is from a 1994 WHO publication [8] and tells us that 'the isotope was widely distributed throughout the body, but was primarily found in bone'. As the table shows it concerns here two different doses: 10 and 1000 mg glyphosate per kg bodyweight.

该表格引自世界卫生组织（WHO）1994年发表的文件[8]，它告诉我们，“同位素在整个身体内广泛分布，但是主要发现在骨头中”。如表格显示的那样，其中涉及两种不同的剂量：10 mg/每kg体重，与1000 mg/kg体重。

Another study is mentioned in this WHO paper whereby radioactive glyphosate was determined again in rat tissues. This occurred on several occasions throughout a treatment period of 14 days and a post-dosing withdrawal period of 10 days (dietary administration of radioactive glyphosate at 1, 10 and 100 mg/kg diet). Maximum tissue levels were reached after 10 days or less, with highest concentrations in kidneys. (Monsanto, 1973c). In this study no concentrations in bone or bone marrow were measured [8].

世界卫生组织（WHO）这份文件提到另外一项研究，也对老鼠组织中分布的放射性草甘膦进行确定。研究涉及连续14天喂食处理期间数次检查，以及停止喂食后10天进行的检查（检查每天饮食含有1 mg/每kg体重、10 mg/每kg体重与100 mg/每kg体重不同剂量结果）。老鼠身体组织草甘膦浓度于喂食10天或更少天数达到最高水平，其中浓度最高之处为肾脏（孟山都文件, 1973c）。该项研究没有检测骨头或骨髓中的浓度[8]。

These studies show that a proposed reference dose misses the point totally.

这些研究表明“参考剂量”完全脱离了关键点。

Once you find evidence of specific sinks for glyphosate in the mammalian body, a reference dose makes no longer any sense as it is based on the assumption of ongoing total clearing of glyphosate from the body.

一旦你发现有证据显示草甘膦在哺乳动物有某些特别的沉积之处，这种“参考剂量”不再有任何合理之处，因为它是基于草甘膦从体内持续全部排出的假设。

So, the question becomes, how will glyphosate accumulate in people's bodies over a lifetime, and how will this affect their health? Let us have a closer look at some accumulation points and make an estimate of the possible consequences.

因此，真正的问题成为，草甘膦在人的一生中如何在人体内积累，以及这是否影响他们的健康？让我们对某些积累之处进行更仔细的观察，同时预计可能的后果。

References

参考文献：

[5] Mensink H. et al.1994. Glyphosate. Environmental Health Criteria 159, by World Health Organisation, Geneva. p. 66

[5] Mensink H. et al.1994。草甘膦环境健康标准159，世界卫生组织组织，日内瓦，p66。

[8] Ibid 5 at pp. 64-65

[8] 参考文献[5] pp. 64-65

（9）陈一文译：转基因食品草甘膦残留量对人体各器官的影响　　

Effects of glyphosate in body　　

转基因大豆的95%，以及其他转基因作物的75%，是抗草甘膦除草剂转基因作物。来自转基因作物的转基因食品，以及来自喂食转基因作物饲料动物的肉类、器官、鸡蛋、牛奶中的草甘膦残留量进入人体后，对不同的器官可能发生什么作用？到目前为止，无论世界卫生组织，或者各国卫生部，回避对此组织全面深入调查研究。他们怕什么？

9. Effects of glyphosate in body

-- Genetic Engineering: the Glyphosate threat 2 health issues

9. 进入体内草甘膦对不同器官与部分可能造成的影响

-- 转基因：草甘膦的威胁2健康问题

By Heimen Julius

：黑门·居里斯

Translator: Chen I-wan ([email protected])

译者：陈一文顾问（[email protected]）

*                                  *                                  *

陈一文顾问按：

Advisor Chen I-wan comments:

本文探讨了体内草甘膦对不同器官可能造成的损害。

This paper explored the possible harm caused by the glyphosate in the body to different internal organs of the body.

为了对中国人民持续安全健康生存与繁衍负责，本顾问建议卫生部对草甘膦可能造成的这些危害，尽快组织相关学科专家组成跨学科团队进行深入研究。

To be responsible to the continue safety and healthy survival and reproduction of the Chinese people, Advisor Chen suggests the Ministry of Public Health as soon as possible organize trans-disciplinary teams of experts from concerned fields and carry out in-depth studies to these harmful effects caused by glyphosate in the body to different internal organs of the body.

*                                  *                                  *

9. Effects of glyphosate in body

9. 进入体内草甘膦对不同器官与部分可能造成的影响

Bone: this is a living tissue that is constantly broken down and reassembled, especially during growth and healing of broken bones. Its major constituent is calcium phosphate. In the plant world glyphosate acts as a fake phosphate. It may well act in a similar way in bone tissue and interfere in normal bone formation. Could any build-up in glyphosate cause weaker bones? Could it contribute to bone deformities? Could it slow down the healing of broken bones? And could it cause more brittle bones in old age? No one really knows.

骨头：这是人体的一个活性的组织，不断破碎并重新组合起来，特别在生长期与断骨再生过程中。骨头的主要成分是磷酸钙。在植物界中，草甘膦起到“伪磷酸盐”作用。在骨组织中，草甘膦或许以类似方式作用与干扰正常的骨形成。骨头中草甘膦的不断沉积是否能够造成骨头易碎？它能否造成骨头畸形？它能否减缓碎骨恢复的过程？它能否使老年人的骨头更脆？谁也不知道。

Bone marrow: here blood bodies are produced. How glyphosate influence these processes is anyone's guess. Could it lead to lower output of red blood bodies? In other words could it contribute to anaemia? And what about the many kinds of white blood bodies? Could glyphosate moving continuously through bone marrow on its way to being fixed in bone tissue lead to an impaired immune system? Or worse even, could it contribute to leukaemia ? No one really knows.

骨髓：血液的某些组份在骨髓中生成。草甘膦如何影响这些过程，谁也不知道。它能否导致声称较少的红血球？换句话讲，它能否导致贫血？对许多种类白血球又如何？草甘膦能否持续通过骨髓，在此过程中固定在骨头组织中，导致损害免疫系统？或者更严重，它能否促进引发白血病？谁也不知道。

Spleen: this is another point where the immune system could be weakened by glyphosate build-up.

脾：如果草甘膦沉积，这是可能损害弱化免疫系统的另外一处。

Stomach: if lining the stomach wall with glyphosate would hamper stomach acid production, then this could spell troubles for digestive processes. Or, could glyphosate contribute to stomach ulcers through increased acid production? No one really knows.

胃：如果沉积在胃的内壁上，草甘膦可能妨碍胃酸的生产，那么将对消化过程造成麻烦。或者，草甘膦能否通过增加胃酸的生产导致胃溃疡？还是没有人知道。

Liver: here many functions are performed. One of them is detoxification. Given the glyphosate sinks in the body, this detoxification process is not very effective for glyphosate. A build-up of glyphosate would very likely impair liver functioning. Could glyphosate contribute to liver cancer? No one really knows.

肝脏：肝脏发挥许多功能，其中一个是去毒。在草甘膦在体内沉积的情况下，这种去毒过程对草甘膦并非非常有效。草甘膦在肝脏中的沉积将非常看来损害肝脏的功能。草甘膦能否促进肝癌？谁也不知道。

Pancreas: here are digestive enzymes secreted. If membranes become plastered with glyphosate, would this hamper the amount of enzyme secreted? Could this result in digestive problems? Also, the pancreas is where insulin is produced. Could insulin production be hampered by glyphosate build-up and contribute to diabetes? No one really knows.

胰腺：多种消化酶在这里分泌。如果胰腺薄膜粘贴上草甘膦，这是否会妨碍这些酶的分泌量？这是否造成消化问题？同时，胰腺也是胰岛素产生之处。草甘膦的沉积是否阻碍胰岛素的生产并促进糖尿病？没有人知道。

Colon: this is the place where water is resorbed from the gut. It prevents water loss from the body. Often toxins are moved back into the body if the contents remains too long inside the colon. So, regular elimination is important (a shit a day, keeps the doctor away). If glyphosate starts to build up in the colon wall, could this hamper the water resorption? Could this mean in later life chronic diarrhoea and too much water loss? Could glyphosate build-up contribute to colon cancer? No one really knows.

结肠：这是肠内水分再吸收之处。他防止身体脱水。如果毒素在结肠中停留的时间过长，它们将再次移回到体内。因此，正常排出非常重要（“一天拉一次，大夫不来临”）。如果草甘膦开始在结肠壁中沉积，这是否将阻碍水分的再吸收？这是否意味着年长时发生慢性腹泻并过分脱水？草甘膦在结肠的沉积是否促进结肠癌》还是没有人知道。

Kidneys: they filter blood and through resorption urine is separated from the blood. The kidneys are structured as a bundle of very fine tubes. Within these tubes filtration and resorption take place at different locations. It seems obvious that any glyphosate coating of those tubes will hamper the filtration and resorption processes. In other words it will lead to an impairment of the kidneys. How will ongoing impairment of the kidneys work out over a life time? No one really knows.

肾脏：它们对血液进行过滤，然后通过再吸收将尿从血液中分离。肾脏的结构像紧捆的非常细的管子。在这些细管中不同处进行过滤与尿液分离。非常明显，如果草甘膦沉积形成这些细管的涂层，它们将阻碍这种过滤和分离过程。换言之，它将导致对肾脏的损害。一生对肾脏的持续损害将造成什么问题？谁也不知道。

（10）陈一文译：WHO食物草甘膦残留量标准对人类健康丧失责任　　

The peculiar role of the WHO 　　

到目前为止，世界卫生组织（WHO）对转基因食品还没有发表任何正式的意见。他们的态度奇怪又暧昧。他们包括草甘膦耐受程度的清单，倾向于是美国环保局的副本，使美国环保局显然处于主导地位。尽管发现单项食品、饮水或饮食总量有草甘膦残留量，到多年没有任何直接检测结果，甚至没有推荐作为食物安全监查应进行这样的检测，全然丧失对人类健康责任。

10. The peculiar role of the WHO

-- Genetic Engineering: the Glyphosate threat 2 health issues

10. 世界卫生组织奇怪的作用

-- 转基因：草甘膦的威胁2健康问题

By Heimen Julius

：黑门·居里斯

Translator: Chen I-wan ([email protected])

译者：陈一文顾问（[email protected]）

*                                  *                                  *

陈一文顾问按：

Advisor Chen I-wan comments:

在中国当今许多学者来看，在事关人类健康的任何重大问题上，世界卫生组织（WHO）是一个享有极高权威性的国际机构，WHO确定的标准必定正确不会有错误，绝对不可能直接间接受到美国某个公司以牺牲人类健康为代价商业利益的误导。

In views of many scholars in China, on any major issue concerning mankind’s health, the WHO is an international institution enjoying very high prestige, standards established by the WHO must be correct and not mistake, absolutely could not be mislead directly or indirectly by the commercial interest of a certain American corporation sacrificing mankind’s health.

本文揭示这样的认识过于天真，揭示世界卫生组织2002年之前确确实实屈从于美国政府的影响，面临美国政府批准孟山都推出抗草甘膦转基因大豆商业化生产的转基因大豆很高草甘膦残留量的现实，世界卫生组织在转基因食品问题上，在不同食品草甘膦残留最高限量标准问题上，“倾向于是美国环保局的副本。因此，美国环保局显然处于主导地位”，而美国环保局又确实屈从于孟山都草甘膦除草剂与抗草甘膦转基因作物的商业利益，从而在这些问题上放弃了世界赋予世界卫生组织的优先对全球人类健康承担的责任。

This paper reveals that such understandings are too naive, reveals that the WHO before 2002 truly bent over to the influence of the United States influence, facing the situation in which the United States government has approved commercial production of glyphosate-resistant GM soy and such GM soy contain very high glyphosate residue level, on the issue of GM food, and on the issue of the glyphosate residue maximum allowance standard for different foods, the WHO “tend to be copies of the EPA tables. So, the EPA is in general calling the shots”, thus on such issues the WHO failed its priority responsibility to mankind’s health assigned by the World. 

居里斯先生《转基因：草甘膦的威胁2健康问题》研究报告最令人尊敬之处，就在于他没有回避世界卫生组织在这些问题上的严重错误，而是如实详尽予以揭露。

The most respectful aspect of Heimen’s “Genetic Engineering: the Glyphosate threat 2 health issues” report is he did not slide over the serious mistake of WHO on these issues, but faced them, and truthfully revealed them in detail.

译者还必须指出，根据译者目前掌握的信息，世界卫生组织目前还没有采取任何实质性的有效措施，对世界卫生组织2002年以前在这些问题上的严重错误予以纠正。

The translator must also point out, according to the information learnt to date, the WHO to date has still not adopted any fundamental and effect measures, to correct the serious mistakes on these issues caused by the WHO before 2002.

*                                  *                                  *

10. The peculiar role of the WHO

10. 世界卫生组织奇怪的作用

So far the World Health Organisation has not made any waves about genetically engineered foods. Their attitude is rather peculiar. They also produce lists with glyphosate tolerances, which tend to be copies of the EPA tables. So, the EPA is in general calling the shots.

到（2002年8月）目前为止，世界卫生组织（WHO）对转基因食品还没有发表任何正式的意见。他们的态度相当奇怪。他们也产生了包括草甘膦耐受程度的清单，倾向于是美国环保局的副本。因此，美国环保局显然处于主导地位。

A WHO report on glyphosate was published by them in 1994 as Environmental Health Criteria 159 [5]. It mentions another report claiming that glyphosate was found in groundwater in Texas, USA. No details were given about the measured concentration or the year of measurement [13]. This same WHO report informs us that when glyphosate was applied 5 to 14 days before the harvest of cereals that this resulted in significant residue uptake in the grain and plant materials. What happened then to these residues during milling, baking and brewing is also revealed.

1994年世界卫生组织（WHO）发表了关于草甘膦的“环境健康标准159”[5]的报告。它提到在美国德克萨斯州地下水发现草甘膦的另外一篇报告。但是对检测到的浓度或者该项检测的年代没有提供详细情况[13]。世界卫生组织的这同一个报告告诉我们，谷物收割前5到14天期间如果施用草甘膦的话，将造成谷粒与作物材料摄取显著残余量。这篇报告同时揭示了这些残余量在谷物磨面、烘烤与酿造过程中的情况。

Residues in white flour were approximately 10-20% of those of wheat. Bran had 2 to 4 times more glyphosate than wheat. During baking no glyphosate was lost, but during bread making glyphosate levels were diluted [14].

白面粉中的草甘膦残留量为麦子中残余量的105-20%。麸皮中的草甘膦残留量为麦子中残余量的2 至4倍。面包烘烤过程中草甘膦残留量没有任何损失，但是制作面包过程中草甘膦残留量被（掺入的非转基因面粉—译注）稀释[14]。

Glyphosate in malt and beer originated from barley that was treated in the field. Levels in malt and beer were around 25 and 4% of that in barley. Some of the glyphosate was lost by washing, but most decrease was from dilution in the brewery processes [14].

麦芽与啤酒中的草甘膦残留量来自农田施用过草甘膦的大麦。麦芽与啤酒中的草甘膦残留量为大麦残留量的大约25%与4%。清洗过程中损失了一些草甘膦，但是大部分减少来自酿造过程中的稀释[14]。

Glyphosate in groats (processed oats) was around 50% of that in oats from fields with pre-harvest spraying of glyphosate [14].

碾去壳的燕麦（加工的燕麦）为收割前施用过草甘膦农田的燕麦[14]。

Despite these findings no direct measurements of glyphosate in foods (as part of food surveillance), in drinking water or in total diets had been carried out by 1994 [13, 14]. The odd thing here is that the WHO did not recommend that this should be done. They only establish this fact and then move on.

尽管有这些发现，对食品中的草甘膦残留量，饮水或饮食总量中的残留量，到1994年为止没有任何直接检测结果（作为食物监视的一部分）[13、14]。这方面另外一件古怪的事是世界卫生组织甚至没有推荐应当进行这样的检测。他们仅仅确认这样的事实后就不管了。

References

参考文献：

[5] Mensink H. et al.1994. Glyphosate. Environmental Health Criteria 159, by World Health Organisation, Geneva. p. 66

[5] Mensink H. et al.1994。草甘膦环境健康标准159，世界卫生组织组织，日内瓦，p66。

[13] Ibid 5 at p. 55.

[13] 参考文献[5] p.55

[14] Ibid 5 at 59.

[14] 参考文献[5] p.59

（11）陈一文译：WHO草甘膦标准报告大量引用公司未发表论文　　

Unpublished research - Some questions 　　

世界卫生组织1994年的“草甘膦—环境健康标准 159” 很少涉及人类健康影响。大部分健康影响涉及进行一次性剂量的动物试验以及某些较长期一些的试验。参考文献部分列出了360篇参考文献，但是只有159篇参考文献来自发表的科学刊物，201篇参考文献来自孟山都为首的一篇商业公司从来没有发表过的研究。

11. Unpublished research - Some questions – What next?

-- Genetic Engineering: the Glyphosate threat 2 health issues

11. 没有发表论文的研究 - 某些问题 – 后边

-- 转基因：草甘膦的威胁2健康问题

By Heimen Julius

：黑门·居里斯

Translator: Chen I-wan ([email protected])

译者：陈一文顾问（[email protected]）

*                                  *                                  *

陈一文顾问按：

Advisor Chen I-wan comments:

转基因“专家”及其支持者们告诉公众，发展转基因作物的目的是给公众消费食用提供越来越多安全无害更好的转基因食品。

The GM “specialists” and their supporters tell the public, the objective of developing GM plants is to provide more and more safety non-harmful better foods for the public to consume and eat.

既然给大众消费食用提供安全无害更好的转基因食品，当然应当公开透明发展，尽量让公众了解公众希望了解的所有情况，而不应当暗箱操作、关门发展、对公众保密!

Since it is to provide to provide more and more safety non-harmful better foods for the public to consume and eat, its development surely should be open and transparent, making efforts for the public to learn everything the public hopes to learn, and definitely should not be black-box operation, close door development, secrete to the public!

越是暗箱操作、关门发展、对公众保密，公众必然越有理由怀疑转基因“专家”实际上是像“皇帝的新衣”中的两个裁缝那样，在搞见不得人的欺骗！

The more it is black-box operation, close door development, secrete to the public, the public then has even better reasons to suspect that the GM “specialists” are like to two tailors in the “Emperor’s new cloths”, they in fact are engaged in shady cheating!

世界卫生组织关于草甘膦的唯一的报告，即1994年的报告“草甘膦—环境健康标准159”，看来具有这样的特征。

The WTO’s only report so far on glyphosate, i.e. the 1994 “Glyphosate - Environmental Health Criteria 159” report, appears to have such a character!

方舟子不是自我标榜有最求科学真相的“洁癖”吗？为什么在这些问题上失语不“打假”！？

Does not Fang Zhouzi trumpet he suffers “cleanliness” in searching for science truth? Why he becomes silent on such issues and fails to “fight sham”?

*                                  *                                  *

Their only report so far on glyphosate seems to be the one of 1994: Glyphosate - Environmental Health Criteria 159 and is more about environmental issues than about human health.

到（2002）目前为止，世界卫生组织关于草甘膦的唯一的报告是1994年的那篇报告：“草甘膦—环境健康标准159”，它实际上更多关于环境问题而不是人类健康问题。

It was put together by 'an international task group of experts.' One expert from an Institute of Terrestrial Ecology, one from a College of Agriculture, two from a National Institute of Public Health and Environmental Hygiene, one from a National Environmental Protection Agency and … one from the US Environmental Protection Agency, their Health Effects Division.

世界卫生组织1994年的“草甘膦—环境健康标准159”的编撰者为“一个国际工作目标专家组”，包括来自陆地生态研究所的一名专家，来自农业学院的一名专家，来自国家公共卫生与环境卫生的两名专家，来自国家环境保护局的一名专家……来自美国环境保护部健康影响部的一名专家。

Human health effects are hardly touched upon in this report. Most health effects concern animals in trials with a single dose or tests of some longer duration. Any adverse effects that show up are just mentioned without going into any depth about the human health implications.

这篇报告中很少涉及人类健康影响。大部分健康影响涉及进行一次性剂量的动物试验以及某些较长期一些的试验。显示出来的任何负面影响仅仅提一下，而不涉及关于人类健康牵连问题的任何深度。

A cursory look through the reference section shows 360 references, but only 159 are from scientific journals and 201 from never published research. Oddly enough, the monograph on glyphosate from 1985 put together by genuine experts in their field [4] was not included.

粗略浏览这篇报告的参考文献部分列出了360篇参考文献，但是只有159篇参考文献来自发表的科学刊物，201篇参考文献来自从来没有发表过的研究。更为稀奇的是，1985年由各自领域真正专家的关于草甘膦的专著[4]甚至没有包括在参考文献中。

11. Unpublished research

11. 没有发表论文的研究

It turns out that this unpublished research was done by the following big companies：

原来，这些没有发表过论文的研究是由下述一些大公司进行的研究：

.

Monsanto, - Rhone Poulenc (French), - Luxan BV (Dutch), - Agrichem BV (Dutch), - Institute for Technical Scientific Services GmnH (German), - Cheminova A/S (Danish), - Institute for Environmental Analysis and Biotechnology (German), - International Bioresearch Hannover (Germany), - Huntingdon Research Centre (UK), - Food & Drug Research Laboratories Waverly, New York (USA), - EVS Consultants Seattle, Washington (USA), - Analytical Biochemistry Laboratories Inc. Columbia, Missouri (USA), - Aquatic Toxicology Laboratory Wareham, Massachusetts (USA), - Marine Research Laboratory Pensacola, Florida (USA), - Bio/Dynamics Inc. Dept of Toxicology East Millstone, New Jersey (USA).

孟山都，- Rhone Poulenc (法国), - Luxan BV (荷兰), - Agrichem BV (荷兰), - Institute for Technical Scientific Services GmnH (德国), - Cheminova A/S (丹麦), - Institute for Environmental Analysis and Biotechnology (德国), - International Bioresearch Hannover (德国), - Huntingdon Research Centre (英国), - Food & Drug Research Laboratories Waverly, New York (美国), - EVS Consultants Seattle, Washington (美国), - Analytical Biochemistry Laboratories Inc. Columbia, Missouri (美国), - Aquatic Toxicology Laboratory Wareham, Massachusetts (美国), - Marine Research Laboratory Pensacola, Florida (美国), - Bio/Dynamics Inc. Dept of Toxicology East Millstone, New Jersey (美国).

Some questions

某些问题

It doesn't seem that the mentioned companies have much to do with human health issues. Some questions come immediately to mind: why was their research not published in scientific journals and opened up for peer review? Who commissioned this research? The WHO would not have had the money. Was it Monsanto? Who determined the research procedures? Was this left to the scientists of these companies or were they under contract to do the research in a certain way? In other words, was it genuine research or could it have been set up with certain outcomes in mind?

上述这些公司看来与人类健康问题没有什么关系。这使我们立即想到一些问题：为什么他们的研究没有发表在科学刊物上，为什么没有接受同领域学者进行审查？谁出钱委托进行这些研究？世界卫生组织没有这样的钱。是否孟山都出的钱？谁确定这些研究的程序？这些程序由这些公司的科学家确定，还是这些科学家依照合同依照规定的程序进行？换句话讲，这是真正的研究，还是依照考虑的某些结果事先设定的研究？

It would not be the first time that this happened. Then fake research is used to crowd out genuine research leading to outcomes favouring commercial interests. It is not said that this occurred here, only that it could have happened. The best way to dispel any such suspicion is by publishing this research and open it up to peer review with a short explanation as to why this had not been done earlier.

这不是头一次发生这样的事。过去发生过伪装的研究被是用来排挤真正的研究以便满足某些商业利益。这里并不是说这里也是如此，只是说这有可能。消除任何这样的猜疑的最好方式，是发表这些研究的论文并且接受相同领域学者的审查，同时简短解释为什么早些时候没有这样做。

The WHO should have the common sense to stay clear of unpublished research; why at all endorse unpublished research? And … why was this WHO expert task force extended with an observer from Monsanto? Was this an attempt to influence the direction this publication would take?

世界卫生组织应当有常识避开任何没有发表论文的研究；为什么认可没有发表论文的研究？而且……为什么这个世界卫生组织的专家工作组扩展有来自孟山都的一名观察员？这是否是有意影响发表这篇报告试图影响的方向？

It is obvious that a WHO publication with so much unpublished research cannot be given much scientific credence. The secrecy of the mentioned research enables the companies involved to tell us anything they like.

显然，世界卫生组织组织引用如此多没有发表过论文研究的报告无法给予太多科学信任。上述的这些研究的秘密性任由这些公司想告诉我们就讲什么情况。

（12）陈一文译：WHO与EPA-农药计划比人类健康问题更为重要　　

What next WHO?　　

2002年期间面临一种奇怪哈的情况：世界卫生组织忙于对环境问题发表声明而美国环保局对人类健康问题发表声明。这看起来像世界倒置。美国环保局有一个农药计划部，下面设“健康影响处”。这样的安排之下，农药计划显然比人类健康问题更为重要。2010年，2002年八年以后，在转基因作物、转基因食品、食品中草甘膦“残余最高限量”等问题上，世界卫生组织依然没有采取实质性措施纠正2002年前造成的一系列严重错误。

12. What next WHO?

-- Genetic Engineering: the Glyphosate threat 2 health issues

12. 世界卫生组织后是什么？

-- 转基因：草甘膦的威胁2健康问题

By Heimen Julius

：黑门·居里斯

Translator: Chen I-wan ([email protected])

译者：陈一文顾问（[email protected]）

*                                  *                                  *

陈一文顾问按：

Advisor Chen I-wan comments:

在事关全球人类健康的转基因作物、转基因食品、食品中草甘膦“残余最高限量”等重大问题上，世界卫生组织应当听凭2002年以前由美国环境保护部说了算造成的错误状况继续，还是应当尽快采取采取实质性措施纠正世界卫生组织2002年前造成的一系列严重错误！？

On the issues of GM plant, GM food, glyphosate “residue maximum tolerance limit” contained in food and other important issues concerning global mankind health, should the WHO enable the wrong situation caused by the WHO let the American EPA decide on such issues before 2002 to continue, or should as soon as possible adopt fundamental measures to correct the series of serious mistakes made by WHO before 2002!?

*                                  *                                  *

12. What next WHO?

12. 世界卫生组织后是什么？

We have now the situation whereby the WHO is occupied with environmental issues and the US Environmental Protection Agency is making statements about human health. This looks like the world upside down.

我们现在（2002年）面临这样的情况，世界卫生组织忙于对环境问题发表声明而美国环保局对人类健康问题发表声明。这看起来像世界倒置。

The contributor from the US Environmental Protection Agency to this WHO publication was Dr M.S. Morrow, Health Effects Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, US Environmental Protection Agency. So, here we have them all: the EPA has an Office of Pesticide Programs and this has a Health Effects Division. This arrangement would seem that pesticide programs are more important than human health issues. Is there any evidence for this? The setting of glyphosate tolerance levels for food seems to point in that direction.

美国环保局对上述世界卫生组织发表的报告做出贡献的人为M·S· 莫楼博士，在美国环保局农药计划部健康影响处任职。所有，他们现在全部在一起：美国环保局有一个农药计划部，他们又有一个健康影响处。这样的安排之下，农药计划显然比人类健康问题更为重要。这样的看法有无任何证据？对食物的草甘膦耐受水平的设定看来是引导我们指向这样的方向。

References

参考文献

[4] Atkinson D. 1985. Toxicological properties of glyphosate - a summary. In: The Herbicide Glyphosate 1985, by Butterworth & Co. (eds. E.Grossbard & D. Atkinson) pp. 127-133.

[4] Atkinson D. 1985。草甘膦的毒理学性质 – 概述。收录：除草剂草甘膦 1985，by Butterworth & Co. (eds. E.Grossbard & D. Atkinson) pp. 127-133。

（13）陈一文：草甘膦最大残留量标准服从孟山都转基因商业利益　　

Maximum residue tolerances - A new update from September 2001 – A trend　　

美国环保部1982年规定：“用于直接食用的大部分食品的最高残留量耐用水平，无论肉类、水果或蔬菜，大约为0.2ppm（=mg/kg – 译注），尽管通常较大量食用的谷物产品中的残留量较低（0.1ppm）”（= 0.1 mg/kg – 译注）。1997年进入了孟山都推出耐草甘膦作物的时代，顺应孟山都的商业利益，以牺牲人类健康为代价，美国环保局将大豆草甘膦残留量耐受水平显著提高200倍到20 mg/kg。

13. Maximum residue tolerances

-- Genetic Engineering: the Glyphosate threat 2 health issues

13. 最大残留量耐受水平

-- 转基因：草甘膦的威胁2健康问题

By Heimen Julius

：黑门·居里斯

Translator: Chen I-wan ([email protected])

译者：陈一文顾问（[email protected]）

*                                  *                                  *

陈一文顾问按：

Advisor Chen I-wan comments:

食品含有的除草剂“残留最高限量”必须以优先考虑人类健康为指导原则通过严格的持续动物喂食试验决定，还是以优先考虑除草剂公司商业利益为指导依据施用造成的食品含有的这种除草剂“残留最高量”来决定？

The “residue maximum tolerance limit” of herbicide contained in food, should be determined through rigorous continued animal feed tests according to principles giving priority consideration to mankind health, or determined by the “residue maximum level” of the herbicide in fact contained in food guided by the commercial interest of such herbicide manufacturing companies.

任何思维正常没有商业利益偏见的人士都会强调，当然必须以优先考虑人类健康为指导原则通过严格的持续动物喂食试验决定食品含有的除草剂“残留最高限量”。

All person with normal thoughts and without commercial interest bias opinion will emphasize, surely must determine “residue maximum tolerance limits” of herbicide contained in food through rigorous continued animal feed tests according to principles giving priority consideration to mankind health!

但是，孟山都抗草甘膦转基因大豆推出之后，美国环保部却是以优先考虑孟山都公司商业利益为指导原则依据施用孟山都草甘膦除草剂造成的食品含有的草甘膦“残留最高量”来决定顺应孟山都的商业利益，以牺牲人类健康为代价，美国环保局将大豆草甘膦残留量耐受水平显著提高200倍到20 mg/kg!

However, after Monsanto introduced the glyphosate – resistant GM plants, to conform with Monsanto’s commercial interest, with sacrificing human health as the price, the American EPA increased the glyphosate residue tolerance level 200 times to 20 mg/kg!

*                                  *                                  *

13. Maximum residue tolerances

13. 最大残留量耐受水平

In 1982 the EPA set maximum glyphosate levels for a number of food items. To quote: "Maximum residue tolerances in most foods for direct consumption, whether meat, fruit or vegetable, are around 0.2 parts per million (ppm), although those in grain products, normally eaten in larger quantities, are lower (0.1ppm). Actual residues in these commodities are usually found to be much lower. Residue studies in animals have shown no detectable levels (<0.05 ppm) of glyphosate or its metabolite to be present in meat tissue, fat, eggs or milk. Low levels were found in liver and kidney and, therefore, a tolerance of 0.5 ppm has been set" [9]. This quote is accompanied by a list of 50 food items. And sure enough most items are in the 0.1 and 0.2 ppm range. But a few stick out.

1982年，美国环保局对一系列食品项目设定了最高草甘膦水平。引用原话：“用于直接食用的大部分食品的最高残留量耐用水平，无论肉类、水果或蔬菜，大约为0.2ppm（=mg/kg – 译注），尽管通常较大量食用的谷物产品中的残留量较低（0.1ppm）”（= 0.1 mg/kg – 译注）。这些商品中的残留量通常发现更低。对动物进行的残留量研究表明，肉类组织、脂肪、鸡蛋或者牛奶中没有可探测到水平（<0.05 ppm）（=<0.05 mg/kg – 译注）草甘膦或者其代谢物。仅在肝脏与肾脏中发现低水平的残留量，因此，设定了 0.5 ppm（=0.5 mg/kg – 译注）的耐受力水平”[9]。引用的上述原话附有50项食品的清单。大部分项目在0.1与0.2 ppm（= 0.1-0.2 mg/kg – 译注）范围。但是个别项目显然突出。

Some tolerance levels

某些耐受水平

In the following table I have combined some of the values I found in the individual tables for 1982, 1997 and 2001. The bold figures show a trend over the years.

下边的列表中，我将1982年、1997年与2001年相应列表中发现的某些食品的耐受水平值列在一起，其中的黑体字显示了这些年期间的变化趋势。

§ 180.364 Glyphosate; tolerances for residues in parts per million (ppm)

§ 180.364 草甘膦；残留量耐受水平表示为ppm（= mg/kg – 译注）

Forage and hay with high glyphosate levels fed to animals cause of course high glyphosate levels in their livers and kidneys.

高草甘膦残留量饲料与麦草喂食动物，当然导致牠们的肝脏与肾脏中的高草甘膦残留量。

The slightly higher accepted level in fish from 1982 onwards indicates that fish is a glyphosate sink.

1982年以来对鱼设定的相对高一些的可接受残留量水平表明鱼成为草甘膦沉积处。

A new table appeared in 1997 [15]. This time there were 133 items and after having entered the era of glyphosate resistant crops some tolerance levels went up remarkably.

美国环保局1997年发布了一个新的表[15]。这一次列出了133项食品，而且，由于进入了耐草甘膦作物的时代，某些草甘膦残留量耐受水平显著提高。

Remember what in 1982 was stated? Here it is again: "Maximum residue tolerances in most foods for direct consumption, whether meat, fruit or vegetable, are around 0.2 ppm, although those in grain products, normally eaten in larger quantities, are lower (0.1ppm)."

记得1982年期间怎么声明的？再次引用一下：“用于直接食用的大部分食品的最高残留量耐用水平，无论肉类、水果或蔬菜，大约为0.2ppm（=mg/kg – 译注），尽管通常较大量食用的谷物产品中的残留量较低（0.1ppm）”（= 0.1 mg/kg – 译注）。

But in 1997 the wheat tolerance level was raised to 5 ppm. On what grounds? Obviously to remain in step with the new glyphosate practices for glyphosate resistant crops. This tolerated ppm increase shows clearly that human health is less important to the EPA than pesticide use.

但是1997年，麦子的草甘膦残留量耐受水平提高到了5 ppm（= 5mg/kg – 译注）。在什么基础上提高？显然，为了与耐草甘膦作物新的草甘膦喷洒作业一致。这种耐受水平ppm的提高清楚表明，对美国环保局而言，人类健康的重要性与农药使用相比没有那么重要。

Other grain crops (except wheat, oats, grain sorghum and barley) remained at 0.1 ppm.

其他谷物作物（麦子、燕麦、高粱粒与大麦除外）的草甘膦耐受水平维持在0.1 ppm（= 0.1 mg/kg –译注）。

References

参考文献

[15] This list appeared in a publication of 1999 by the Environmental Protection Agency and to my eternal shame I did not jot down its complete title. It concerns a large collection of pesticide residue tolerances in ppm and under § 180.364 you find a list of 133 items for glyphosate residues. The list itself is from 1997 and is also on a federal register (FR 17730, Apr.11, 1977). Fortunately an update of this list is now on the Internet.

[15] 美国环保部1999年列出了这个清单，因为深感羞耻我没有列出它完整的标题。它涉及一大批农药残余量耐受水平的ppm，在§ 180.364下边你们可以找到对于草甘膦残留量的133个食品项目。该清单本身来自1997年，也进行联邦注册（FR 17730， 1977年4月11日）。幸运的是，更新的该清单目前在互联网上公布。

（14）陈一文译：WHO对过敏人群耐受草甘膦残余没进行任何评估　　

A new update from September 2001 - A trend　　

美国环保部1982年规定：“用于直接食用的大部分食品的（草甘膦 – 译注）最高残留量耐用水平，无论肉类、水果或蔬菜，大约为0.2ppm，尽管通常较大量食用的谷物产品中的残留量较低（0.1ppm）”。1997年进入了孟山都推出耐草甘膦作物的时代，顺应孟山都的商业利益，以牺牲人类健康为代价，美国环保局将大豆草甘膦残留量耐受水平显著提高200倍到20 mg/kg! 世界卫生组织对于过敏人群没有进行任何评估。为什么没有？

14. A new update from September 2001 - A trend

-- Genetic Engineering: the Glyphosate threat 2 health issues

14. 2001年9月新的更新 - 趋势

-- 转基因：草甘膦的威胁2健康问题

By Heimen Julius

：黑门·居里斯

Translator: Chen I-wan ([email protected])

译者：陈一文顾问（[email protected]）

*                                  *                                  *

陈一文顾问按：

Advisor Chen I-wan comments:

美国环保部1982年规定：“用于直接食用的大部分食品的（草甘膦 – 译注）最高残留量耐用水平，无论肉类、水果或蔬菜，大约为0.2ppm（=mg/kg – 译注），尽管通常较大量食用的谷物产品中的残留量较低（0.1ppm）”（= 0.1 mg/kg – 译注）。

In 1982 the American EPA stipulated: "Maximum residue tolerances (of glyphosate – translator note) in most foods for direct consumption, whether meat, fruit or vegetable, are around 0.2 parts per million (ppm), although those in grain products, normally eaten in larger quantities, are lower (0.1ppm).”

1997年进入了孟山都推出耐草甘膦作物的时代，顺应孟山都的商业利益，以牺牲人类健康为代价，美国环保局将大豆草甘膦残留量耐受水平显著提高200倍到20 mg/kg!

In 1997 had entered the Monsanto introduced of glyphosate – resistant GM plant era, to conform with Monsanto’s commercial interest, with sacrificing human health as the price, the American EPA increased the glyphosate residue tolerance level 200 times to 20 mg/kg!

本文尖锐指出：“然而，到目前（2002年）为止，世界卫生组织对于过敏人群（的草甘膦残留量耐受水平 – 译注）没有进行任何评估。为什么没有？（因为从来没有试验过任何过敏的老鼠！）”

The author of the paper sharply pointed out: “No evaluations (on glyphosate maximum tolerance level – translator note) have been made so far by the WHO it seems concerning people with allergies. Why not? (Because no allergic rats were ever tested!)”

据译者到目前为止掌握的信息，世界卫生组织（WHO）一直到今天无论对正常人群或者过敏人群对食品中草甘膦残留量耐受水平依然没有组织过优先考虑人类健康的任何科学的评估！

Based on information learnt by the translator to date, the WHO until today still has not organized any scientific assessment giving priority to human health on the glyphosate maximum tolerance level to either normal people or people with allergies!

*                                  *                                  *

14. A new update from September 2001

14. 2001年9月新的更新

The list contains this time 178 items and we are informed that approved pesticides and tolerances are constantly changing [16].

食品清单增加到178项，并再次告诉我们已经批准的农药及耐受水平进一步变化[16]。

A trend

趋势

A trend is emerging:

显现出一个趋势：

First reassuring statements are made based on research results with glyphosate sensitive crops. The 1993 paper on the Internet with a worst case scenario is based on research with glyphosate sensitive crops and glyphosate levels representing irrigation water that might have picked up glyphosate in the field.

首次较为可靠的声明基于对草甘膦敏感的作物的研究结果。网络公布的1993年的论文列出了最差的情景，也基于对草甘膦敏感的作物的研究以及代表灌溉用水可能吸收了农田中部分草甘膦的水中含有草甘膦水平。

Then the glyphosate tolerance levels are raised to bring them into line with the new practices for glyphosate resistant crops. And … hopefully nobody will notice the deceit.

然后，将草甘膦残余量耐受水平提高，使他们与引入的抗草甘膦作物新作业一致。并且……希望没有人能够注意到其中的诈骗。

Another trend is that the list of glyphosate tolerances for plants gets longer and longer. This indicates that more and more plants are being considered for genetic engineering.

另外一个趋势是，列出草甘膦残余量耐受水平的作物种类变得越来越长。这反映出越来越多的作物被考虑基因工程。

No evaluations have been made so far by the WHO it seems concerning people with allergies. Why not? (Because no allergic rats were ever tested!)

然而，到目前（2002年）为止，世界卫生组织对于过敏人群（的草甘膦残留量耐受水平 – 译注）没有进行任何评估。为什么没有？（因为从来没有试验过任何过敏的老鼠！）

References

参考文献

1.[16] From http://www.epa.govthere go to OPP Home if you are not there already. This is the Office of Pesticide Programs home page. Under 1 Enter words/phrases in text box, fill in as follows: glyphosate and tolerances and crop and § 180.364. Under 2 Limit your research fill in text box: all of these words and within the entire document. Then click on the link to your database. This is on right side of your page under Database Searches.Click on Pesticide Residue Limits on Food. Now you should get the table on glyphosate tolerances. I found here a new Internet address, perhaps it will get you there directly. It is: http://www.epa.gov/cgi-bin/oppsrch

从http://www.epa.gov，可以访问OPP主页，如果你们还没有访问他们的话。这是农药计划办公室（Office of Pesticide Programs = OPP）的主页。在1下边输入glyphosate and tolerances and crop and § 180.364（草甘膦与耐受水平与作物与§ 180.364）。在2下边限制你的搜寻：all of these words（所有这些词）以及within the entire document（整个文件内）。然后点击你们的数据库。这在该页右侧Database Searches（数据库搜寻 ）。点击Pesticide Residue Limits on Food（食品的除草剂残留量限制）。你现在能够获得草甘膦的耐受水平清单。在这里我发现了一个新的互联网地址，也许你们能够从哪里之间获取。地址为：http://www.epa.gov/cgi-bin/oppsrch

（15）陈一文译：WHO应关注人类健康不能成为转基因企业挡箭牌　　

      Conclusions　　

人类草甘膦摄取可接受水平，由美国环境保护机构确定，很大程度基于对老鼠研究。试验显示负面作用被忽略，以尽可能含糊不清方式报告出来。对粮食作物施用农药的剂量设定标准，从公共卫生角度达到不可接受水平，应用法律禁止。世界卫生组织应当醒悟过来，关注人类健康问题，不能再使自己成为转基因企业的挡箭牌。

15. Conclusions

-- Genetic Engineering: the Glyphosate threat 2 health issues

15. 结论

-- 转基因：草甘膦的威胁2健康问题

By Heimen Julius

：黑门·居里斯

Translator: Chen I-wan ([email protected])

译者：陈一文顾问（[email protected]）

*                                  *                                  *

陈一文顾问按：

Advisor Chen I-wan comments:

译者者翻译的本文以及其他大量科学论文有效的证明：世界无论任何地方用孟山都转基因大豆种子种植的必须施用草甘膦除草剂的抗草甘膦转基因大豆有很高的草甘膦残留量，对动物与人类的持续健康生存与繁衍造成一系列及其严重的危害！

This paper and a large amount of other science papers translated by the translator has effectively proved: Using the Monsanto RR soy seeds growing glyphosate-resistant soy, regardless where they are grown they are all applied with glyphosate herbicides, resulting the grown GM soy all have considerable high glyphosate residue levels, which cause a series of serious harm to animals and continue safety and healthy survival and reproduction!

请卫生部告诉全国人大常委会、全国政协、国务院、新闻界与全国人民：中国目前对于大豆（无论非转基因大豆或抗草甘膦转基因大豆）“草甘膦残留最高限量”的国家标准是多少mg/kg？

The Ministry of Health, please report to the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress, the CPPCC, the State Council, the media and the Chinese people: What is the mg/kg State Standard for the “glyphosate residue maximum limit” for glyphosate-resistant soy?

近年来，中国每年大量进口草甘膦残留量很高的孟山都转基因大豆种子种植的抗草甘膦转基因大豆、抗草甘膦转基因玉米。

During recent years, China each year imports large amounts of glyphosate-resistant soy with very high glyphosate residue levels grown from Monsato’s GM soy seeds.

请国家质量监督检验检疫总局告诉全国人大常委会、全国政协、国务院、新闻界与全国人民：中国目前对于每年大量进口的抗草甘膦转基因大豆监测出来的草甘膦残留量水平是多少mg/kg？

The General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine, please tell the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress, the CPPCC, the State Council, the media and the Chinese people: What is the mg/kg glyphosate residue level inspected and measured from the large amount of glyphosate-resistant soy imported each year during recent years?

卫生部与国家质量监督检验检疫总局报告的结果，必将让全国人大常委会、全国政协、国务院、新闻界与全国人民大吃一惊！

The reports by Ministry of Health and the General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine will surely shock the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress, the CPPCC, the State Council, the media and the Chinese people!

*                                  *                                  *

15. Conclusions

15. 结论

1.      Acceptable levels of glyphosate intake for humans is determined by the US Environmental Protection Organisation, largely based on rat studies. Adverse affects that showed up were ignored and reported in the vaguest possible way. The fact that glyphosate sinks were found in rats, other mammals and fish makes this approach meaningless.

1、人类的草甘膦摄取的可以接受的水平，是由美国环境保护机构确定的，很大程度基于对老鼠的研究。试验中显示的负面作用被忽略，并且以尽可能含糊不清的方式报告出来。在老鼠、其他哺乳动物与鱼中发现草甘膦有沉积的事实，使这样一种途径变得毫无意义。

2.      The signs are on the wall that glyphosate will build up in bone and internal organs over a life time. Nobody knows how our bodies will stand up to increasing glyphosate sludge in our internal organs. And what will be the effects on ageing bones? What will be people's health prospects be at age 45-50 after a life time of ingesting glyphosate? And what about people with allergies?

2、已经非常清楚的证据表明，草甘膦残留量能够一生在骨头与内部器官中沉积。没有人知道我们的身体对于我们内部器官中不断增加的草甘膦垃圾将如何应对。对年龄越来越长骨头的影响有如何？一生摄取草甘膦残留量情况下，到45-50岁时人们的健康前景将如何？哪些有过敏症的人又怎么办？

3.      All foods will in due time contain substantial amounts of glyphosate and/or other herbicides for which food crops have been made genetically resistant.

3、随着越来越多食品作物变为抗除草剂作物，到一定阶段所有的食物都将含有相当大草甘膦和/或其他农药残留量。

4.      With continuously upwards changing glyphosate tolerance levels, the final body load of glyphosate from daily food intake will be anybody's guess. It will increase progressively over time.

4、在（官方确定的 – 译注）草甘膦残留量耐受水平标准不断提高情况下，人体从每天饮食中摄取的草甘膦残留总量将大豆令人猜测的水平。它将随着时间的进展不断增加。

5.      The World Health Organisation should pull up its socks and focus on human health issues. It should stop endorsing unpublished research and so making itself a respectability shield for big business.

5、世界卫生组织应当醒悟过来，关注人类健康问题。他们应当停止赞同没有公开发表论文的研究，不再使自己成为大企业的挡箭牌。

6.      The dosing of food crops with herbicides is from a public health viewpoint unacceptable and should be prohibited by law.

6、对粮食作物施用农药的剂量设定的标准，从公共卫生角度达到了不可接受的水平，应当用法律禁止。

译者推荐补充资料：　　

Supplementary material recommended by the translator:　　

《经济观察》：转基因主粮生产准入门槛抬高至1亿元　　

http://www.eeo.com.cn/Politics/beijing_news/2010/12/01/187815.shtml　　

顾秀林：农业部已经擅自允许中国三大粮食作物全部转基因！　　

http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_6188d2520100n1ba.html　　

陈一文译：四国九科学家全面揭露转基因作物危害报告　　

 “GM Soy: Sustainable? Responsible?” Report　　

陈一文译：开发种植进口抗除草剂转基因作物都是战略性错误　　

-- 为决策者准备的概述　　

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY -- GM Soy: Sustainable? Responsible?　　

陈一文译：英国土壤协会揭露转基因恶果研究报告　　

GM crops -- the health effects, A report by the Soil Association, UK　　

陈一文批判转基因技术文章：　　

http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/articlelist_1269923485_9_1.html　　

×  WYZXWK.COM

您的打赏将用于网站日常运行与维护。
帮助我们办好网站，宣传红色文化！

欢迎扫描下方二维码，订阅网刊微信公众号