今天真热闹。塞拉利尼的论文被FCT撤稿了。中国的挺转科学家和支持者，差一点笑背过气、快要乐死了。但是，塞拉利尼团队又一次发表严正声明了。欧洲独立科学委员会，即塞拉利尼团队的支持者之一，CRIIGEN，也严正宣布：
如果FCT坚持只是撤下我们那篇论文的决定，CRIIGEN将诉诸法律以回击，包括在美国采取行动，以补偿此举对我们的团队所造成的巨大伤害。我们还要求，欧洲有关权威机构重审关于核准转基因和杀虫剂的每一项以往的研究，因为我们发现，所有对照组所用的材料（饲料）中已经含有GMO和其他污染物（因此实验结果不可靠），连已经发表被援引作为根据的的研究文献所涉及的研究，也存在相同的问题。
我倒是很想看看，挺转的科学家们，你们的科学精神在哪里，你们的公平公正透明在哪里，你们的标准在哪里?我现在不会相信你们，我很清楚，我们是在打仗，刀来剑往，没有什么稀奇。你们不讲道理不是一天两天了。你们已经忘记了怎样才像一个真正的科学家，科学应该怎样对待数据和事实，所以，我只是想向公众说：为了自己，都来反对转食品基因吧!
今天要提到的两位泰山压顶不屈服的科学家：塞拉利尼和Joël Spiroux 医生
网名“种田农民_”的华中农业大学教授严建兵今天上午9点贴出博文：
【转基因玉米致癌文章正式被《食品化学毒物学》撤稿》】 (2013-11-29 09:00:50)
http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_4abe58910102etb2.html#bsh-24-317565649
内容如下。
去年《食品化学毒物学》一篇关于转基因玉米致癌的文章，闹得满城风雨，被反转控当做至尊法宝到处传播，在文章发表后不久就有无数科学家对此提出质疑，正式提出反对意见并被《食品化学毒物学》当做读者来信发表的就有10多篇。具体见http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691512005637
我也发表了一篇博客"转基因玉米致癌?--谎言总比事实传播的快" http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_4abe58910102edqz.html 质疑该文章的致命缺陷是样本大小不够，没有统计学意义。今天《食品化学毒物学》主编正式宣布在通过长时间的调查研究后，认为文章的数据不能支持结论，正式撤回该篇文章。http://www.elsevier.com/about/press-releases/research-and-journals/elsevier-announces-article-retraction-from-journal-food-and-chemical-toxicology
主编要求通讯提供了原始数据，并对原始数据进行了重新分析，最后认为，该文章在试验材料的选择(选择的是易感鼠)，样本太小等方面存在致命缺陷，对原始数据的分析并不能得出得出的结论，所以决定正式撤稿!
不知道争相抢报转基因玉米致癌的媒体是否会报道这个撤稿消息。
下面是截止17:00时188转发68评论的一部分，按时间顺序排列，只选择了挺转的内容。
土摩托：当时对这篇烂文章转发得那么起劲的中国媒体们，考验你们的时候到了。 (今天 09:21)
蒜妞儿：撤回原文http://t.cn/8kUkkuw (今天 09:24)【多次发此贴与链接】
伟大的费德勒：国内那些没科学理性的媒体和反转控们对此绝对会视而不见。 (今天 09:30)
似是而非的大蚂蚁：无良媒体每次被打脸后都会选择不做声，好像别人看不到他脸上的手印似得。 (今天 09:46)
bbjmmj：我写个转基因赞歌投过去，肯定不会发表，这能证明转基因很烂? 不难证明转基因玉米致癌，喂食老鼠，然后解剖淋巴，淋巴里有毒性启动子就可以断定转基因致癌，我琢磨法医就能做这个检测。 (今天 09:47)
vieuxcheval：国外期刊不得不爱惜声誉。这样的垃圾文章不撤，在别人眼里就变成垃圾期刊了。作为教授，实验室负责人，做出这样水准低劣的工作，也该免职了，不过法国现行体制下可能性不大。//@土摩托: 当时对这篇烂文章转发得那么起劲的中国媒体们，考验你们的时候到了。 (今天 09:54)
混吃骗喝五岳谎人：崔抑郁说：“肯定被转基因集团收买了，利益集团太强大了” (今天 09:57)
精锐菜花虫：中国媒体要有脑子当初也不会这样子了，土摩托的期待还是图样图森破。 (今天 09:57)
上海西边雨：《食品化学毒物学》如果在国内，也就是五类或者六类期刊，影响面太小，被引用的次数极少。//@小爱打听: 微博里要自宫的人过来排队//@伟大的费德勒:国内那些没科学理性的媒体和反转控们对此绝对会视而不见。 //@西西福厮:这可是反转基因义和团们的圣经啊， (今天 09:58)
syppeng：放心吧，不会有媒体报道的。//@土摩托: 当时对这篇烂文章转发得那么起劲的中国媒体们，考验你们的时候到了。 (今天 11:25)
dirwdirw：反转控的唯一宝典被撤稿?宝典没了还有谣言。 (今天 11:26)
黄豆荚：反转基因的人会假装没看到撤稿，还接着引用转基因玉米致癌文章，来妖魔化转基因滴。 (今天 12:26)
dogsdad2013：看@陈一文顾问@顾秀林的微博@金微 等人如何响应。 (今天 12:26)
我找到Elsevier的撤稿公告，做了一点归纳：
1. 你是否自己撤回论文?若你不撤，我这儿就撤了。
2. 您的论文一发表，编辑部就收到许多读者来信，要求撤掉你的文章。理由有：研究的发现不能成立，实验动物的运用不恰当，等。甚至有人指控你们作假。
3. 原始数据审查：做过了。
4. 主编审查，没有发现作假和不正当解释数据的行为。
5. 有道理的指责是这两个：每一组的动物数量不足，动物品系选择不当。实验动物数量(不足)的问题在同行评审时就被提出了，作为一个不足之处，但认为研究仍然具有价值，
6. 进一步审查认为，因动物数量不足而不能对于NK603/草甘膦对于肿瘤发生和死亡比率等达到确定的结论。
7. 实验组观察到的较高的死亡率不能排除SD大鼠易患肿瘤的原因和正常的(个体间)差异。
8. 最终，论文报告的结果(并非不正确)是不完整的、没有达到确定的结论(inconclusive),
因此本文够不上本刊发表的标准。同行评审虽然很有用，也不是完美无缺【主编的意思是：即使发表前通过了同行评审、程序正确，没有走后门，现在也得撤】。
后面的文字在一定程度上是套话，但可读：
本刊恪守的原则是坚持公平，完整，及时和同行评审。“有时为了追求完整可能要牺牲一些变通性。公平对于和读者来说，都需要很多的时间，同样，编辑部收到的来信，不论是支持还是反对，都不妨作为‘发表后同行评审’来对待。读者和之间的交流，在科学对话中占有一席之地，不仅有用而且有益。”
【英文原文附上以待高明指正：sometimes expediency might be sacrificed in order to be as thorough as possible. The time-consuming nature is, at times, required in fairness to both the authors and readers. Likewise, the Letters to the Editor, both pro and con, serve as a post-publication peerreview. The back and forth between the readers and the author has a useful and valuable place in our scientific dialog..】
主编再次建议，通讯以开放的态度参与对话。撤稿只是基于本论文的结论没有达到决定性结论(inconclusive)。 本刊将继续奉行接受有争议稿件的做法，而不论争议有多激烈。本编辑部当以此例激励自身，今后把同行评审做得更好，当呕心沥血不负众望。【英文原文：The Editor-in-Chief again commends the corresponding author for his willingness and openness in participating in this dialog. The retraction is only on the inconclusiveness of this one paper. The journal’s editorial policy will continue to review all manuscripts no matter how controversial they may be. The editorial board will continue to use this case as a reminder to be as diligent as possible in the peer review process.】
撤稿公告出处：
Elsevier Announces Article Retraction from Journal Food and Chemical Toxicology - See more at:http://www.elsevier.com/about/press-releases/research-and-journals/elsevier-announces-article-retraction-from-journal-food-and-chemical-toxicology#sthash.6xDX4KyP.dpuf
我其实昨天晚上就收到了这消息。不仅仅有撤稿公告，还有塞拉利尼团队的回应， CRIIGEN 的声明。这些事，严建兵教授，袁越先生，你们知道还是不知道?作为科学的辩论，需要提及，还是不需要提及对方的回应?科学家，手里应该只拿一个标准，还是见人下菜碟?人前是人，人后是鬼?
第一节的译文如下。（全文稍后再贴出）塞拉利尼团队的声明
We, authors of the paper published in FCT more than one year ago on the effects of Roundup and a Roundup-tolerant GMO (Séralini et al., 2012), and having answered to critics in the same journal (Séralini et al., 2013), do not accept as scientifically sound the debate on the fact that these papers are inconclusive because of the rat strain or the number of rats used. We maintain our conclusions. We already published some answers to the same critics in your Journal, which have not been answered (Séralini et al., 2013).
我们是FCT一年多前发表的论文的，关于农达和耐受农达的转基因生物（塞拉利尼等2012），我们已经在同一个刊物回应过同样的质疑（塞拉利尼等，2013），即：作为正常的科学辩论，仅仅由于实验鼠品系的选择和数量的原因，就判定研究结果“结论不完整”，这是不能接受的。我们坚持我们的结论。我们早已公布了对相同的质疑所做的回应，但至今没有见到对我们的回答（塞拉利尼等，2013）。
Séralini, G.E., Clair, E., Mesnage, R. Gress, S., Defarge, N. Malatesta, M. Hennequin, D. Spiroux de Vendômois, J. (2012) Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize. Food and Chem. Tox. 50:4221-4231
Séralini, G.E., Mesnage, R., Defarge, N., Gress, S., Hennequin, D., Clair, E., Malatesta, M., Spiroux de Vendômois, J. (2013) Answers to critics: why there is a long term toxicity due to NK603 Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize and to a Roundup herbicide. Food and Chem. Tox. 53:461-468
CRIIGEN PRESS RELEASE NOVEMBER 28, 2013 欧洲独立科学委员会的新闻发布11-28
国际食品与化学毒理学杂志(FCT)要求我们撤回一年多以前发布的研究结果，农达除草剂与耐受农达的转基因玉米的长期毒性。在分析了我们提供的全部原始数据后，主编认为，论文没有作假，没有操作数据，也没有对数据做不正当的表达。但是他仍然提出，数据不完整，原因是老鼠品系的选择和实验用的老鼠数量有问题。
The international journal Food and Chemical Toxicology (FCT) has requested the retractation of our study published more than one year ago (ref) on the long term toxicity of the herbicide Roundup, and of a GM maize tolerant to it. After the analysis of all our raw data, the chief editor signs that there is no fraud nor incorrect data, nor intentional misinterpretation. However, he writes that the data are inconclusive, because of the rat strain and the number of animals used.
我们不能接受这个指责。这些问题早已在辩论中回应过，一年前就发布在同一家杂志上(Séralini & al., 2013, Answers to critics: why there is a long term toxicity due to NK603 Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize and to a Roundup herbicide. Food and Chem. Tox. 53:461-468)。
These critics are unacceptable for us, they have already been answered in a debate published one year ago by the same journal (Séralini & al., 2013, Answers to critics: why there is a long term toxicity due to NK603 Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize and to a Roundup herbicide. Food and Chem. Tox. 53:461-468).
这些指责是在孟山都公司指使下刊登在媒体上的。在我们的论文发表后，该公司的一位主管加入(渗透)到FCT的编辑部，负责生物技术论文。撤稿一事，将不会得到(COPE)即国际学术伦理标准的认可，FCT自己也是接受该标准的杂志，因为我们既没有出错又没有作假。
They were promoted by the Monsanto Company in the press, when simultaneously one its directors penetrated the FCT editorial office to be in charge of biotech papers, after our publication. The retractation would not be authorized by the international ethical norms accepted by FCT (called COPE), because there is no error nor fraud.
相反，同时同期发表的孟山都公司一篇以短时研究为基础的、试图证明它的产品安全的论文，内容有错误，或者做了假，却没有导致任何争议。那个研究用了和我们相同的老鼠品系和同样的数量，但是它的对照组是假的，对照所用饲料受到转基因污染的程度和实验组的饲料不相上下。这也关系到癌症相关项目的实验需要大量动物的问题。采用双重标准和主观标准的做法，是不能容忍的，这样做，会危害科学，也危害公众健康。
By contrast, a short Monsanto study was published in the same journal to prove the safety of their product contains errors or frauds, and is not the subject of a controversy. It was done with the same strain and number of rats, but its comparators are false because the feed for the control rats is contaminated by GMOs, at doses comparable to the treated rats. This is linked to the very high number of animals requested for the carcinogenesis studies. These double subjective criteria are not admissible and endanger science and public health.
我们要求FCT撤下孟山都公司对同一个转基因作物(HK603转基因玉米)的研究论文，那论文已经被用做批准(应用)的根据。如果FCT坚持只是撤下我们那篇论文的决定，CRIIGEN将诉诸法律以回击，包括在美国采取行动，要求经济赔偿以补偿此举对我们的团队所造成的巨大伤害。我们还要求，欧洲有关权威机构重审关于核准转基因和杀虫剂的每一项以往的研究，因为对照组所用的材料(饲料)中已经含有GMO和其他污染物，可援引的研究文献所涉及的研究也有相同的问题。
We request to FCT the retractation of the Monsanto study on the same GMO, which has been used for its authorization. If FCT persists in its decision to retract our own study, CRIIGEN would attack with lawyers, including in the USA, to require financial compensation for the huge damages to our group. We question the european authorities to re-rexamine the studies used to authorize GMOs and pesticides, because the GMO and other contaminants presence in control feed as well as in the reference or historical data invalidate these studies.
联系人：Contact : Dr Joël Spiroux : tél 02 32 38 57 71/ 06 10 81 00 36; [email protected]
CRIIGEN PRESS RELEASE NOVEMBER 28, 2013
【下面是塞拉利尼团队声明中英对照本。2013-11-28。请严建兵教授袁越先生以及差一点乐得发疯的对手们来一个真正的科学批判。乌云遮天难持久，科学骗人难善终。转基因用于农业之邪恶，我们大家心里其实都明明白白。】
我们是FCT一年多前发表的论文的，关于农达和耐受农达的转基因生物的事（塞拉利尼等2012）。对于同样的质疑，我们已经在同一个刊物上回应过（塞拉利尼等，2013），即：作为正常的科学辩论，仅仅由于实验鼠品系的选择和数量的原因，就判定研究结果“结论不完整”，这是不能接受的。我们坚持我们的结论。我们早已公布了对相同的质疑所做的回答，但至今没有见到对我们的任何回应（塞拉利尼等，2013）。
We, authors of the paper published in FCT more than one year ago on the effects of Roundup and a Roundup-tolerant GMO (Séralini et al., 2012), and having answered to critics in the same journal (Séralini et al., 2013), do not accept as scientifically sound the debate on the fact that these papers are inconclusive because of the rat strain or the number of rats used. We maintain our conclusions. We already published some answers to the same critics in your Journal, which have not been answered (Séralini et al., 2013).
关于实验大鼠品系
同一个大鼠品系，被用在研究致癌性和慢性化学毒理学的美国国家毒理学项目中(King-Herbert et al., 2010)。SD大鼠是常规性用于毒理和致癌效果实验中的动物，其中有孟山都公司的90天实验，被当做批准NK603转基因玉米应用的依据，其他转基因农作物也是这样做的(Sprague Dawley rats did not came from Harlan but from Charles-River) (Hammond et al., 2004; Hammond et al., 2006a; Hammond et al., 2006b).
Rat strain
The same strain is used by the US national toxicology program to study the carcinogenicity and the chronic toxicity of chemicals (King-Herbert et al., 2010). Sprague Dawley rats are used routinely in such studies for toxicological and tumour-inducing effects, including those 90-day studies by Monsanto as basis for the approval of NK603 maize and other GM crops (Sprague Dawley rats did not came from Harlan but from Charles-River) (Hammond et al., 2004; Hammond et al., 2006a; Hammond et al., 2006b).
这里有一个简明的初步的文献清单，表明在同行评审的杂志上SD大鼠被用在36个月的实验如(Voss et al., 2005) or in 24-month studies by (Hack et al., 1995), (Minardi et al., 2002), (Klimisch et al., 1997), (Gamez et al., 2007).，其中有一些文章就发表在FCT上。
A brief, quick and still preliminary literature search of peer-reviewed journals revealed that Sprague Dawley rats were used in 36-month studies by (Voss et al., 2005) or in 24-month studies by (Hack et al., 1995), (Minardi et al., 2002), (Klimisch et al., 1997), (Gamez et al., 2007).Some of these studies have been published in Food and Chemical Toxicology.
Number of rats, OECD guidelines
实验动物数量与OECD实验规范
OECD 实验规范：第408条，关于90天实验，第452条关于慢性毒性试验，第453条关于综合致癌性/慢性毒性试验，都要求用20只动物为一组(1981和2009的规定都这样要求)，尽管可以用10只动物的实验就能取得生物化学参数。我们做的是长期毒性研究而不是致癌性研究，从一开始就不是这样设想的。根据常规10只动物一组已经足够在生物化学水平上进行研究，我们测量的参数数量是非常大的。
OECD guidelines (408 for 90 day study, 452 chronic toxicity and 453 combined carcinogenicity/chronic toxicity study) always asked for 20 animals per group (both in 1981 and 2009 guidelines) although the measurement of biochemical parameters can be performed on 10 rats, as indicated. We did not perform a carcinogenesis study, which would not have been adapted at first, but a long-term chronic full study, 10 rats are sufficient for that at a biochemical level according to norms and we have measured such a number of parameters!
在我们的实验中，性激素干扰的参数以及其它参数对于解释一年之后的严重后果是充分的。我们采用的OPLS-DA统计方法是最适宜的。关于肿瘤和动物死亡，时间效果以及每只动物的平均肿瘤数量都必须被纳入分析。在风险研究中出现的每一个迹象，都必须被充分重视。孟山都公司的研究用了同样的大鼠品系，每组仅10只衡量20个参数，就得出同一种NK603转基因玉米“安全”的结论，而且他们的实验只做了3个月 (Hammond et al., 2004)
The disturbance of sexual hormones or other parameters are sufficient in themselves in our case to interpret a serious effect after one year. The OPLS-DA statistical method we published is one of the best adapted. For tumours and deaths, the chronology and number of tumours per animal have to be taken into account. Any sign should be regarded as important for a real risk study. Monsanto itself measured only 10 rats of the same strain per group on 20 to conclude that the same GM maize was safe after 3 months (Hammond et al., 2004).
The statistical analysis should not be done with historical data first, the comparison is falsified, thus 50 rats per group is useless
统计分析不应该先做历史数据，用这个方法做比较研究是错误的，用每组50只动物做研究是无意义。
采纳历史数据会把健康风险评估变成研究造假，因为食谱中的材料已经受到化学污染(by dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans (Schecter et al., 1996)和汞污染(Weiss et al., 2005)，镉污染，铬污染等，污染的程度足以改变动物肝脏和肺脏的基因表达，足以扰乱基因分析(Kozul et al., 2008)。以往的食料中还发现农药和增塑剂污染，污染来自箱笼或者水(Howdeshell et al., 2003)。历史数据也有来自可能食用了转基因的动物，很多地方的鼠粮中的确发现了转基因成分。这一切都与污染水平相关，我们已经在实验大鼠和对照组大鼠中检测到这些问题。
The use of historical data falsifies health risk assessments because the diet is contaminated by dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans (Schecter et al., 1996), mercury (Weiss et al., 2005), cadmium and chromium among other heavy metals in a range of doses that altered mouse liver and lung gene expression and confounds genomic analyses (Kozul et al., 2008). They also contained pesticides or plasticizers released by cages or from water sources (Howdeshell et al., 2003). Historical data also come from rats potentially fed on GMOs, some animal pellets in the world do indicate that. All that corresponds to the contamination levels for which we have detected some effects in our treated rats versus appropriate controls.
在历史数据中，2年SD雌性大鼠罹患乳腺纤维瘤的为13%~62%(Giknis, 2004)，但在我们的实验中对照组的发病率要低得多，这才是真正的对照，而我们的实验鼠发病率比对照组高很多，这使得我们的研究结果有显著性。动物的死亡率也是这样。
2-year historical data mammary fibroadenoma rate from Charles River SD females ranged from 13 to 62% (Giknis, 2004). We obtain a lot less in our controls, the real comparators, a lot more in treated rats. This makes our results significant, like for deaths.
Double standards 双重标准
遵循同一个逻辑把塞拉利尼的实验和孟山都公司的实验做一对一的比较，如果前者被认为不足以显示危害，那么后者也不能认为证明了安全。
A factual comparative analysis of the rat feeding trial by the Séralini’s group and the Monsanto trials clearly reveals that if the Séralini experiments are considered to be insufficient to demonstrate harm, logically, it must be the same for those carried out by Monsanto to prove safety.
以往的研究发现凡是显示转基因农作物有负面效果的，都会被监管者从实验到统计方法做严格的重审，凡是声称转基因农作物安全的研究，都被照单接受。只要是没有报告负面效果的研究，都被接受为“安全”的证明，无论他们的研究方法有何种不足(被认为无关紧要)。
Basically, all previous studies finding adverse effects of GE crops have been treated by regulators with the attitude: only those studies showing adverse effects receive a rigorous evaluation of their experimental and statistical methods, while those that claim proof of safety are taken at face value. All studies that reported no adverse effects were accepted as proof of safety regardless of these manifest (but deemed irrelevant) deficiencies of their methods.
来自(Snell et al., 2012) 的一份文献概览研究可以说明这个倾向。如在摘要中这样说，“在这里的24项研究的结果都不建议存在任何健康危害问题…”即所有被审阅的研究都被按“票面价值”被接受和通过了。然而在文章中却指出，研究报告的们留下了无数缺陷，同他们指责塞拉利尼论文的问题类似，或者更严重。例如24篇中16篇(67%)文章没有交代对照组饲料是否与实验用的饲料属于同基因品种(他们的解释只是“没有采用”)。许多篇文章连讨论所用的方法都没有介绍。此外还有其他被指出的缺陷。
The review by (Snell et al., 2012) illustrates this issue. In the abstract, the authors state "Results from all the 24 studies [reviewed] do not suggest any health hazards [...]" – taking all those studies at face value. Yet in their review, the authors find numerous weaknesses of similar or greater severity [than those] raised for the Séralini group's paper. For example, of the 24 studies they evaluated 16 (67% of all studies) did not mention using the isogenic line as control (interpreted as having not used them), many did not describe the methods in any detail, and according to the reviewers had other deficiencies too.
基于完全相同的原因，FCT应该把Hammond 等人关于耐受农达转基因玉米的那些论文全都撤回。那些论文貌似都是真正的科学讨论，发表它们只是为了给孟山都提供权威证据。
FCT should retract the Hammond et al. paper on Roundup tolerant maize for all these reasons, published for Monsanto’s authorization, or consider that each of these papers is part of the scientific debate.
References 参考文献
Gamez, R., Noa, M., Mas, R., Mendoza, N., Pardo, B., Menendez, R., Perez, Y., Gonzalez, R.M., Gutierrez, A., Marrero, G., Goicochea, E., Garcia, H., Curveco, D., 2007. Long-term carcinogenicity of D-003, a mixture of high molecular weight acids from sugarcane wax, in Sprague Dawley rats: a 24 months study. Food Chem Toxicol 45, 2352-2358.
Giknis, M.L.A.a.C., C.B., 2004. Charles River Laboratories. Compilation of spontaneous neoplastic lesions and survival in Crl:CD (SD) rats from control groups.
Hack, R., Ebert, E., Leist, K.H., 1995. Chronic toxicity and carcinogenicity studies with the insecticide endosulfan in rats and mice. Food Chem Toxicol 33, 941-950.
Hammond, B., Dudek, R., Lemen, J., Nemeth, M., 2004. Results of a 13 week safety assurance study with rats fed grain from glyphosate tolerant corn. Food Chem Toxicol 42, 1003-1014.
Hammond, B., Lemen, J., Dudek, R., Ward, D., Jiang, C., Nemeth, M., Burns, J., 2006a. Results of a 90-day safety assurance study with rats fed grain from corn rootworm-protected corn. Food Chem Toxicol 44, 147-160.
Hammond, B.G., Dudek, R., Lemen, J.K., Nemeth, M.A., 2006b. Results of a 90-day safety assurance study with rats fed grain from corn borer-protected corn. Food Chem Toxicol 44, 1092-1099.
Howdeshell, K.L., Peterman, P.H., Judy, B.M., Taylor, J.A., Orazio, C.E., Ruhlen, R.L., Vom Saal, F.S., Welshons, W.V., 2003. Bisphenol A is released from used polycarbonate animal cages into water at room temperature. Environ Health Perspect 111, 1180-1187.
King-Herbert, A.P., Sills, R.C., Bucher, J.R., 2010. Commentary: update on animal models for NTP studies. Toxicol Pathol 38, 180-181.
Klimisch, H.J., Deckardt, K., Gembardt, C., Hildebrand, B., Kuttler, K., Roe, F.J., 1997. Long-term inhalation toxicity of N-vinylpyrrolidone-2 vapours. Studies in rats. Food Chem Toxicol 35, 1041-1060.
Kozul, C.D., Nomikos, A.P., Hampton, T.H., Warnke, L.A., Gosse, J.A., Davey, J.C., Thorpe, J.E., Jackson, B.P., Ihnat, M.A., Hamilton, J.W., 2008. Laboratory diet profoundly alters gene expression and confounds genomic analysis in mouse liver and lung. Chem Biol Interact 173, 129-140.
Minardi, F., Belpoggi, F., Soffritti, M., Ciliberti, A., Lauriola, M., Cattin, E., Maltoni, C., 2002. Results of long-term carcinogenicity bioassay on vinyl acetate monomer in Sprague-Dawley rats. Ann N Y Acad Sci 982, 106-122.
Séralini, G.E., Clair, E., Mesnage, R. Gress, S., Defarge, N. Malatesta, M. Hennequin, D. Spiroux de Vendômois, J. (2012) Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize. Food and Chem. Tox. 50:4221-4231
Séralini, G.E., Mesnage, R., Defarge, N., Gress, S., Hennequin, D., Clair, E., Malatesta, M., Spiroux de Vendômois, J. (2013) Answers to critics: why there is a long term toxicity due to NK603 Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize and to a Roundup herbicide. Food and Chem. Tox. 53:461-468
Schecter, A.J., Olson, J., Papke, O., 1996. Exposure of laboratory animals to polychlorinated dibenzodioxins and polychlorinated dibenzofurans from commerical rodent chow. Chemosphere 32, 501-508.
Snell, C., Bernheim, A., Berge, J.B., Kuntz, M., Pascal, G., Paris, A., Ricroch, A.E., 2012. Assessment of the health impact of GM plant diets in long-term and multigenerational animal feeding trials: a literature review. Food Chem Toxicol 50, 1134-1148.
Voss, C., Zerban, H., Bannasch, P., Berger, M.R., 2005. Lifelong exposure to di-(2-ethylhexyl)-phthalate induces tumors in liver and testes of Sprague-Dawley rats. Toxicology 206, 359-371.
Weiss, B., Stern, S., Cernichiari, E., Gelein, R., 2005. Methylmercury contamination of laboratory animal diets. Environ Health Perspect 113, 1120-1122.
相关文章
「 支持！」
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
