美国律师向利益集团下战书，无情揭露转基因食品安全谎言
来源: 原创译文 发布时间：2017-12-13 阅读：3900 次
食物主权按：
近日，5部与转基因有关的农业部规定或修或废，这些规定涵盖了转基因生物安全评价、进口管理、标识管理等方面。恰在这时，《篡改的基因‧扭曲的真相》一书刚刚完成中文翻译。本书针对从首个转基因食品到新研发的转基因食品所存在的危害，提供了大量翔实的证据，逐条批驳了孟山都及其拥护者声称转基因食品与天然食品一样安全的幻象。
本书作者德鲁克更向孟山都下了封战书，要求孟山都公司的法利博士能同样用真实的证据一一反驳他的观点。正如德鲁克所说，人民有获取真相的权利。如果孟山都无法提供真实可靠的证据，人们自然会得出“转基因食品存在不可接受的风险”这一结论，并反对转基因食品上市。
特别感谢《篡改的基因，扭曲的真相》台版译者周家麒先生提供战书的译稿！
作者简介：史蒂文•M•德鲁克（Steven M. Druker），美国公益律师，法律学博士暨生物整体性联盟（Alliance For Bio-integrity）执行长。是卓越的转基因食品危险性的评论员，服务于由国家调查委员会和美国食品及药物管理局（FDA）组织的食品安全事务委员会。德鲁克曾发起强制FDA披露转基因食品文件的诉讼。
法律学博士暨生物整体性联盟执行长史蒂文•M•德鲁克（Steven M. Druker）于2015年5月20日，向孟山都公司科技部主任罗勃•法利（Robb Fraley）博士致信，言明孟山都应面对转基因食品涉及不可接受的风险，应该即刻下市的事实。
德鲁克博士呼吁孟山都找出《篡改的基因，扭曲的真相》（Altered Genes, Twisted Truth）这本书中不正确的事实陈述。这一本普获赞誉的著作，彻底揭露了转基因食品（简称 GE, GM 或 GMO食品）的事实风险，以及促使转基因食品遍布世界市场的多重错误陈述。德鲁克主张，如果孟山都无法证明这本书的实质错误，世人就有权利认为这些有争议的食品具有不可接受的风险，并应该立即予以禁止。
以下是信件正文：
对转基因食品安全幻象的批判
亲爱的法利博士：
虽然孟山都与其他基因工程食品（又名基因修饰食品或简称GMOs）的拥护者，把这些新颖食品既安全又能满足发展中国家营养需求的印象灌输给大众，但事实上，这个印象却是建立在错误信息上的幻象。
孟山都2013年出版的《农业生物科技植物的安全与利益》（The Safety & Benefits of Biotech Plants Used in Agriculture）宣传手册中，就含有这种错误信息的例子。例如，手册中宣称基因工程食品与天然食品一样安全，并引述美国科学促进会（American Association for the Advancement of Science, AAAS）董事会的主张：“每一个检视过证据的高声望的组织”都做出了这个结论。
但发表这一主张的作者若不是忽略就是有意模糊一个事实：包括英国医学学会（British Medical Association）、澳大利亚公共卫生协会（Public Health Association of Australia）与加拿大皇家学会（Royal Society of Canada）在内的几个高声望的组织，都做出了完全相反的结论。
这些组织发表的报告也提供了足以令人忧心的理由。例如，加拿大皇家学会的报告宣称：
（a）转基因食品的安全推定在“科学上是不合理的”；
（b）对每一种转基因食品所做的“预设推定”（default presumption），应该是指基因改造已经诱发了非意图与潜在的伤害性副作用。
针对该报告就转基因食品监管途径所做的批评，《多伦多星报》（Toronto Star）表示：“专家说这一途径有致命的瑕疵……，并会使加拿大人暴露在几种潜在的健康风险之中，其中包括中毒与过敏反应。”
此外，据《英国医学期刊》（British Medical Journal）的描述，英国医学协会（British Medical Association）的报告中主张：“我们还需要做更多的研究，才能显示转基因作物与其成份对人和环境是安全的，以及转基因作物提供的真实利益的确大于传统食物。”
孟山都的宣传手册声称：“自从农民于1996年开始种植GM作物以来，并沒有发生有记录的安全议题。”但实际上，许多不错的研究，都清楚地记录了与这一类农作物有关的安全议题。许多具有统计学意义的案例显示，喂食这些作物的实验室动物都蒙受了伤害。
这些研究都在同行评审的科学期刊上发表过，而且其中的几篇报告也在我新出版的《篡改的基因‧扭曲的真相：转基因食品投机如何顛覆科学、腐化政府及有系统地欺瞒大众》一书中做了说明：
弗沙番茄毒素致病被证实
此外，孟山都有关安全议题不存在的虚假吹嘘，构成了双重欺骗行为。因为它错误地表述了商业化转基因作物初次种植的日期，这是一项严重的欺骗行为。 1994年上市的第一个商业化转基因作物──弗沙番茄（Flavr Savr™ tomato），就牵涉了有记录的安全议题。
正如书中所揭示的，我透过一场官司取得的美国食品药物管理局（FDA）的内部档案显示，该局病理科（与其他专家）对转基因番茄饲养研究的动物进行检测的结论是：弗莎番茄引发了永远无法解决的安全议题。然而，FDA的行政主管（承认扶植生物技术农业是该局的议程），却肆无忌惮地谎称所有的安全议题都已经获得了解决。
我在书中进一步揭露了第一个转基因食品（以左旋色胺酸为主要成份的食品添加剂），涉及了最严重的安全议题。该食品添加剂在1989年引发一场造成几十人死亡、数千人重病和许多人终身残障的流行病。
与生物技术拥护者的宣称截然相反的证据显示，过程中采用的基因工程是造成该添加剂毒素污染的最可能肇因。正如书中的说明，这种毒素也是造成基因工程充满风险，以及使其产品比常规食品具有更大风险的另一个证明。
我在书中不仅断然驳斥了孟山都所谓的有专家共识及无安全议题的宣称，也驳斥了宣传手册（与转基因食品拥护者）所做的其他主要宣称。
转基因作物存在风险的事实
总之，本书证明了以下几个事实：
一、基因工程的生产过程含有固有的风险，而且它所制造的食品也含有异常的风险；
二、这些风险都被转基因产品拥护者以有系统的方式做了错误的表述；
三、关键性的错误表述来自著名科学家与科学机构，其中一些最重要的欺骗则是由FDA所主使的；
四、FDA 除了对大众欺骗转基因食品的风险以外，也公然违反联邦法律，容许这些食品进入美国市场，而且继续以非法的方式存在于市场；
五、不仅从生物学的观点来看，转基因食品投机是不健全的，从电脑科学的角度来审视，这甚至是鲁莽之至的做法。相较于软件工程师修正生命攸关信息系統的谨慎态度，生物技术专家修改细胞复杂信息系统的草率与激进，其实不是生物工程（bioengineering），而是“生物黑客”（biohacking）；
六、即使不涉及过多的风险，转基因作物仍然不是解决世界食物需求的答案。由联合国机构与世界银行赞助的一项与农耕未来有关的主要研究，很清楚地做出转基因作物不是必需品的结论。许多非洲国家进行的多项研究结果，也证明了农业生态法的安全性与可持续性，远优于工业化的方法（即使在采用转基因有机体的情况下）。
向孟山都提出挑战
法利博士，你在几个月前寄了一封电子邮件给珍‧古道尔（Jane Goodall），答覆她在电视访谈中有关转基因食品的关键问题。你在信中附上孟山都的宣传手册，希望说服她相信这些食品不仅可以接受，而且令人满意。然而，你的希望落空了，因为她已经知道手册里的基本宣称是不正确的。何况证据也揭示了转基因食品其实是一个不可接受的选项。她把那封转寄给我，以便我在适当的时机做出回复。
你在电子邮件中表示：“我非常乐于提供你任何额外的信息。”现在是我接受这个好意的时候了，但我不想再收到孟山都那些以假乱真的宣告。反之，我想收到的是你不打算寄给我的信息。我要你把在书中找到的任何不正确内容提供给我。我要你和你的同事像我驳斥宣传手册上那两个主张一样，驳斥《篡改的基因‧扭曲的真相》的内容。
这是我向你提出的挑战──阅读这本书，把你从书中挑出来的错误列出一张表单寄给我，再附上你对错误陈述的说明，以及可资佐证的相关参考资料。
我要澄清的是，我所说的错误陈述是指与具体事实有关的简单主张──能够被不可辩驳的证据证明为虚假的简单主张。例如，你们在宣传手册上所做的错误陈述：“每一个检验过证据的高声望的组织”都做出转基因食品与天然产物同样安全的结论：并未发生有记录的安全议题。
我指的不是我在书中从主要事实得到的广泛结论，例如：
（a）转基因食品投机长期以来始终仰赖欺骗手法；
（b）转基因投机的产物具有不可接受的风险，应该加以禁止。
我十分期望你会不同意这些结论，但我有信心绝大多数知情的有识之士都会同意这些结论。
我也要邀请产业界和学术界其他拥护转基因食品的人，协助孟山都一起检验这本书，并且把他们检验后的结果寄给你。如此一来，孟山都提交出来的回应，就能代表生物技术业与支持者的集体意见了。
更重要的是，我在书中提出的任何一个有事实根据的主张，都无法藉由引述一个或一群科学家的相反意见而失去效力（除非书中被质疑的陈述曲解了他们的意思，你以引述的方式加以纠正）。否则，他们就必须提出不容辩驳的证据。
同理，由于本书有系统地驳斥了转基因食品拥护者的标准宣称，仅凭着把原来的宣称丟回来并无法反驳本书。这么做只会证明孟山都（或任何一个这么做的人），没有能力驳斥本书的关键主张。
虽然转基因食品的推动者一贯地攻击那些对转基因食品提出质疑的人，但这些攻击完全影响不了这本书的确凿性，反而会坐实那些攻击者的黔驴技穷，以及缺乏透过法律途径打击本书信誉的能力。
如果你和你的盟友们无法在7月20日以前，依照上述条件驳斥《篡改的基金‧扭曲的真相》的正确性，世人就有权利像审查本书的专家一样，假设这些事实已经获得了确认，并做出转基因食品具有不可接受的风险，而且必须加以禁止的结论。
我会在（个别的文件中）寄上一个住址，作为你回复这一封挑战信的收件处。你的回复除了会发表在本书的网站及脸书以外，也会在生物整体性联盟的官网上发表。
我会及时地（在上述网站）承认你指正出来的任何错误，并在本书的下一版中更正。同时，我也期望孟山都真的会像它所声称的那样，秉持对科学精神的承诺，立即公开承认并撤回这份文件指出的错误主张，进而诚恳地纠正这些错误。
请把证据寄给我，让我知道孟山都已经这么做了。此外，你会在书中看到孟山都许多不正确的宣传，我要求你以同样的态度，公开承认并纠正这些错误。
众所皆知的是，虽然人人都有发表意见的权利，但没有人有捏造事实的权利。显然孟山都和它的盟友们正在宣传一套不同于《篡改的基因‧扭曲的真相》中描述的事实。但这两种版本不可能都正确；人民有权利知道两者的真假与虚实。我提出这个挑战的目的，就是要以清楚和决断的方式提供这个问题的答案。
因此，你也要针对本书用来支持上述主张和证明的所有事实，提出你的看法，而且至少要确立几个关键事实是错误的。如果你做不到，读者就会同意本书根据这些事实做出来的结论，也会同意转基因食品违反联邦法持续在美国上市的结论。
英文原文
In this challenge, which was delivered to Monsanto’s headquarters on May 20, 2015, American public interest attorney Steven Druker calls on that corporation to find any inaccurate statements of fact in his new book, Altered Genes, Twisted Truth – How the Venture to Genetically Engineer Our Food Has Subverted Science, Corrupted Government, and Systematically Deceived the Public. This acclaimed book thoroughly exposes the substantial risks of genetically engineered foods (also called GM foods and GMOs) and the multiple misrepresentations that have enabled them to permeate world markets. Druker asserts that if Monsanto cannot prove that his book is essentially erroneous, the world will have a right to regard these controversial foods as unacceptably risky – and to promptly ban them.
May 19, 2015
Dear Dr. Fraley,
Although Monsanto and other proponents of genetically engineered foods (also known as genetically modified foods and GMOs) have been able to instill the widespread impression that these novel products are not only safe but necessary to meet the nutritional needs of the developing world, this impression is in fact an illusion; and it is based on disinformation.
Some prime examples of this disinformation are contained in a brochure published in 2013 by Monsanto titled “The Safety & Benefits of Biotech Plants Used in Agriculture.” For instance, the document declares that genetically engineered foods (GE foods) are just as safe as natural ones, and it cites an assertion by the board of directors of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) that “every respected organization that has examined the evidence” has reached this conclusion. But the authors of that assertion appear to have overlooked, or intentionally obfuscated, the fact that several respected organizations have examined the evidence and concluded otherwise. Among them are the British Medical Association, the Public Health Association of Australia, and the Royal Society of Canada.
Further, the reports issued by these organizations provide cause for concern. For example, the one issued by the Royal Society of Canada declares (a) that it is “scientifically unjustifiable” to presume that GE foods are safe and (b) that the “default presumption” for every GE food should be that the genetic alteration has induced unintended and potentially harmful side effects.1 In describing the report’s criticism of the current approach to regulating GE foods, the Toronto Star stated: “The experts say this approach is fatally flawed . . . and exposes Canadians to several potential health risks, including toxicity and allergic reactions.”2 Moreover, as described in the British Medical Journal, a report by the British Medical Association asserted that “more research is needed to show that genetically modified (GM) food crops and ingredients are safe for people and the environment and that they offer real benefits over traditionally grown foods.”
Monsanto’s brochure also proclaims: “Since farmers first planted GM crops in 1996, there have been no documented safety issues.” But in reality, a substantial number of well-conducted research studies have clearly documented safety issues with such crops by detecting statistically significant instances of harm to the laboratory animals that were consigned to consume them. These studies have been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals, and several are described in a recently released book that I wrote:
Furthermore, Monsanto’s bogus boast about the absence of safety issues is doubly deceptive, because it also misrepresents the date when commercialized GE crops were initially planted. This is significant because the first such crop (the Flavr Savr™ tomato), which came to market in 1994, also entailed a documented safety issue. As the aforementioned book reveals, through memos pried from the files of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) via a lawsuit that I initiated, the scientists in the agency’s Pathology Branch (along with other specialists) who examined the data from the animal feeding studies conducted with this altered tomato concluded that they raised a safety issue that was never satisfactorily resolved. However, that did not deter FDA administrators (who have acknowledged that the agency has an agenda “to foster” the biotechnology industry5) from falsely claiming that all safety issues had been resolved.
The book further reveals that the very first ingestible product of genetic engineering (a food supplement of the essential amino acid L-tryptophan) entailed the biggest documented safety issue of all, because in 1989 it induced an epidemic that killed dozens of Americans and seriously sickened thousands, permanently disabling many of them. Moreover, contrary to the claims of biotech proponents, the evidence points to the genetic engineering employed in the production process as the most likely cause of the unusual contamination that rendered the supplement toxic – which, as the book explains, is additional indication that genetic engineering is in itself a risk-laden procedure and that the foods it produces pose greater risks than their conventional counterparts.
Furthermore, not only does my book refute Monsanto’s claims about the existence of expert consensus and the utter absence of documented safety issues, it refutes the other major claims made by that brochure (and by the proponents of GE foods) as well. And it does so decisively.
In her foreword, Jane Goodall hails it as “without doubt one of the most important books of the last 50 years”; and several other scientists have also attested its importance and its soundness. For instance:
˙David Schubert, a Professor and Head of Cellular Neurobiology at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies, has praised it as “incisive, insightful, and truly outstanding” – and noted that it’s “well-reasoned and scientifically solid.”
˙Joseph Cummins, Professor Emeritus of Genetics at Western University in London, Ontario, has called it “a landmark” that should be required reading in every university biology course.
˙John Ikerd, Professor Emeritus of Agricultural and Applied Economics at the University of Missouri, has called it a “great book” and stated: “The evidence is comprehensive and irrefutable; the reasoning is clear and compelling. No one has documented other cases of irresponsible behavior by government regulators and the scientific establishment nearly as well as Druker documents this one. His book should be widely read and thoroughly heeded.”
˙Philip Regal, Professor Emeritus of Biology at the University of Minnesota, has commended it as “exceptionally well-researched and well-written” and declared: “I am very impressed with the book as a whole – and expect that a large number of other scientists will be too.”
˙The biochemist Stephen Naylor, who during his ten years as a professor at the Mayo Clinic extensively investigated the epidemic caused by the toxic GE tryptophan supplement, has described the book’s discussion of that tragic event as “the most comprehensive, evenly-balanced and accurate account that I have read.”
˙Belinda Martineau, a molecular biologist who was a co-developer of the Flavr Savr™ tomato, has described the book as “thorough, logical and thought-provoking” and declared that she “strongly” recommends it.
In all, the book demonstrates that:
1. The genetic engineering process is inherently risky, and the foods it creates entail abnormal risks.
2. The risks have been systematically misrepresented by the products’ proponents.
3. The key misrepresentations have been made by eminent scientists and scientific institutions – and some of the most pivotal deceptions have been perpetrated by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
4. Besides deceiving the public about the risks of GE foods, the FDA allowed them to enter the US market in blatant violation of federal food safety law – and they continue to be on the market illegally.
5. Not only is the GE food venture unsound from the perspective of biological science, it is unsound – and outright reckless – when examined in light of computer science; and compared to the careful manner in which software engineers revise life-critical information systems, the rash and radical way in which biotechnicians alter complex cellular information systems is not really “bioengineering” but biohacking.
6. Even if GE crops didn’t entail excessive risks, they would still not be the solution for meeting the world’s prospective food needs, which is clear from a major study on the future of farming sponsored by four United Nations agencies and the World Bank that concluded they are not necessary7– and also from numerous studies in a variety of African nations demonstrating that safe and sustainable agroecological methods can outperform industrialized approaches (even when GMOs are employed).
MY CHALLENGE TO MONSANTO
Dr. Fraley, several months ago you sent Jane Goodall an email in response to a statement she made in a television interview that was critical of GE foods. You included the Monsanto brochure noted above in the hopes it would convince her that these foods are not merely acceptable, but desirable. However, your hopes were misplaced, because she recognized that the basic claims in the document are inaccurate – and that the evidence actually reveals that GE foods are not an acceptable option. Further, she passed that email on to me so that I could reply as I see fit.
In that email, you stated: “I would be very pleased to provide you with any additional information.” The time has come to take you up on that offer. But I do not want to receive more of Monsanto’s misleading pronouncements that are passed off as genuine facts. Instead, I’m requesting some information that you had not planned to send. I want you to inform me of any inaccuracies you can find in my book. I want you and your colleagues to attempt to refute Altered Genes, Twisted Truth in the same manner this letter has refuted two of the main assertions in the brochure you submitted. Moreover, I challenge you to do so. I challenge you to read the book and send me a specific list of any inaccurate statements of fact that you detect in it, accompanied by an explanation of why the statement is erroneous and a reference to the evidence that conclusively corroborates your claim.
To clarify, I am referring to simple assertions about concrete facts that can be decisively falsified by incontestable evidence, such as the erroneous statements in your brochure that “every respected organization that has examined the evidence” has concluded that GE foods are as safe as naturally produced ones and that “there have been no documented safety issues.” I am not referring to the broader conclusions the book draws from the primary facts, such as the conclusions (a) that the GE food venture has been chronically and crucially reliant on deception and (b) that its products are unacceptably risky and should be banned.9 I fully expect that you will disagree with these conclusions, but I am confident that the vast majority of fair-minded men and women who become aware of the basic facts will agree with them.
I also invite the other proponents of GE foods within industry and academia to assist Monsanto by scrutinizing the book and sending you their input. In that way, the response that Monsanto submits will represent the best collective effort of the biotech industry and its supporters.
It’s important to emphasize that none of the factual assertions in my book can be invalidated merely by citing a contrary opinion by a particular scientist or group of scientists (unless the statement in question has misrepresented the opinion of that individual or group and the citation is offered to restore accuracy). Instead, incontestable evidence must be presented. Similarly, because the book has systematically refuted the standard claims made by the proponents of GE foods, it cannot be refuted merely by hurling those claims back at it – and any attempts to do so will demonstrate that Monsanto (or whoever has done so) is incapable of actually refuting the book’s key assertions. Further, although promoters of GE foods have routinely launched personal attacks against anyone bringing out evidence that puts their safety in question, such attacks will do nothing to undermine the book’s solidity and will only demonstrate the desperation of those who perpetrate them – and their inability to discredit the book through legitimate means.
If by July 20th you and your allies have not been able to refute the essential factual accuracy of Altered Genes, Twisted Truth according to the terms set forth above, the world will have a right to assume that it is as sound as the experts who reviewed it have affirmed – and to conclude that GE foods are unacceptably risky and must be banned.
I will send you (in a separate document) the address to which your response to this challenge should be submitted. That response will be posted on the book’s website and Facebook page and also on the website of the Alliance for Bio-Integrity.
Further, I will readily acknowledge (on the above sites) any genuine errors you point out and will correct them in the next printing of the book. Concomitantly, I expect that, if Monsanto is as committed to the scientific spirit as it professes to be, there will be a prompt public acknowledgement and retraction of the erroneous assertions this document has pointed out along with an honest attempt to set the record straight. Please send me the evidence that this has occurred. Moreover, as you read the book, you will discern many other inaccuracies that Monsanto has propagated, and I request that you likewise publicly acknowledge and correct them.
It is well-recognized that although we’re all entitled to our own opinions, no one is entitled to his or her own set of facts. And it is obvious that Monsanto and its allies have been propagating a distinctly different set of facts than are delineated in Altered Genes, Twisted Truth. Both versions of reality cannot be correct, and people have a right to know which one is valid and which is fictitious. The purpose of this challenge is to clearly and conclusively provide the answer.
So you will need to address all the specific allegations of fact that the book employs to support the above-noted assertions and demonstrations, and you will have to establish that at least some of the crucial ones are false. If you cannot, people will be justified in concurring with the conclusions the book has drawn from these facts – and in regarding GE foods as having continuously been on the US market in violation of federal law.
