光明网卫生时评：丹麦转基因毒性研究意义重大
2012-05-14 09:32:07 来源：光明网卫生频道 沈阳
丹麦转基因毒性研究意义重大
一、自相矛盾的转基因食品谎言
转基因是上世纪70年代开始研究，转基因食品是上世纪90年代开始产业化。近20年来，转基因已经成了全球绝大多数畜禽饲料农作物品种、绝大多数 土豆、大豆，食用油的成分。在生物分类学上，转基因农作物品种属于一个新品种，但是，垄断全球转基因农作物品种的跨国种子公司一直在讲二个互相矛 盾的观点："新物种"与"实质等同"。即：
在资本市场，每一种转基因植物被首次大规模用于动物饲料时，这时大多数人被转基因公司忽悠，简单地认为它是一种"新生命形式"，转基因公司鼓励大 家投资、购买他们公司的股票。
而在科学界一再要求，对这种"新生命形式"转 基因饲料、食品在用于饲喂动物和进入大众餐桌前，必须按照全球食品安全标准作认证时，这些转基因跨国种子公司就提出了另一种技术逻辑，所谓转基因生物"实 质等同"和"一般公认安全（GRAS）"原则，即用营养学（吃了之后仍然有营养价值）代替毒理学（判定毒性依据）试验。借用转基因食品在中国代言 人的通俗 表述是："重要的是转什么基因"。
二、一位丹麦养猪场主成全球新闻焦点人物
2012年4月初，全球养猪技术水平最高的丹麦，一位叫做彼特森(Pedersen)的养猪场场主，在丹麦全国农业最高级别的专家会议上作了一个 别开生面主题发言，介绍自己猪场饲喂转基因大豆饲料后出现猪群严重疾病的现象，再改回喂非转基因大豆饲料后出现猪群健康变化的准确临床材料。4月 13日丹麦最知名的农业报纸把这位先生的问题作了系统报道，在丹麦全国引起了轰动。
而最引人注目的还是，丹麦国家养猪研究中心在这次会上当即表态要做跟进研究，丹麦养猪研究中心还在4月2日发表了新闻公告，其中这么写道：
来自美国的数据证明：含有农药草甘膦的转基因大豆确实对猪只胃部健康有不良作用。养猪生产中心主任尼尔.佐治.凯尔森(Niels Jorgen Kjeldsen)说：
"为动物健康着想，丹麦一定要就转基因大豆对牲畜健康的不确定性相关开展研究。通过研究实验组和对照组动物比较，我们希望能得到非转基因和转基因 大豆这两类大豆是否影响动物胃部健康的确切证据。"试验将在2012年下半年开始。
彼特森先生成了全球第一位了不起的农民：用临床数据促使本国最高科研机构出手展开转基因安全调查，这确实具有划时代意义。
三、丹麦转基因大豆饲料毒性研究意义重大
首先，它 将是全球第一个由本国最高科研机构展开转基因安全调查的国家。正如一直关注转基因问题的美国普渡大学植物病理学教授、著名土壤学专家胡伯(Don Huber)教授所说："我们不会因为在土地上喷洒这么多化学物而被时代铭记，但可能会为了孩子们而牺牲一些跨国公司利益而流芳千古。"
其次，业 内一个公开的秘密是---转基因产业已经成为美国农业工会和政府监管机构无诚信标识，因为正是他们串通起来，才令畜禽饲喂了转基因饲料，特别是大豆快30 年了，美国养猪业从未见到一份转基因饲料对畜禽健康影响的研究报告出现。更不要说会出现转基因食品对人体健康影响的研究报告出现。丹麦的行动，无 疑是打破 了这个僵局。
第三，当转基因食品在中国己经无处不在，例如，转基因大豆油（调和油）早己成为亿万中国大众餐桌上食物。希望那些一年进口数以千万吨计到中国的转 基因食品的机构，你们是否也应该学习一下丹麦科学家的科学精神，在中国展开转基因饲料、食品的毒性研究。
最后，中国的农业和进出口检疫机构、卫生部牵头的国家食品安全管理机构，也应该跟踪一下丹麦国家养猪研究中心的试验报告对自已工作的影响。
因为，如果等到丹麦国家养猪研究中心的试验报告出来，证明存在转基因饲料对畜禽健康造成严重损害影响时，你们一定是对中国公众健康问题犯下严重的 牍职罪！
（作者是光明网卫生事业部总监）
http://vet.gmw.cn/2012-05/13/content_4138585.htm
综述：丹麦展开转基因对猪健康损害问题研究（一）
2012-05-13 15:25:22 来源：光明网兽医频道
作者：[英国] Brian John博士 翻译：贾志光（执业兽医师） 校对：沈阳
[ 译校者注 ] 这是我们近二年见到的有关转基因问题新闻报道中，就大豆对猪群健康影响问题最严谨且涉及研究面最广的一篇新闻综述报告。虽然这篇报告的作者写道：
我们为本文档中由于语言差异问题造成的翻译误差表示歉意。本文不是科学文献，它只是报道了农民彼特森(Pedersen)先生养猪场里的新发现现 象过程并阐述其意义，以供大家进一步开展科学探讨参考之用。我们感谢彼特森(Pedersen)和克里斯滕森(Christensen)在采访过 程中给我们大量的帮助。
请读者对本文进行批评和更正，详见全无转基因威尔士(GM-Free Cymru)网站。
本文在彼特森(Ib Borup Pedersen)先生帮助下，由全无转基因威尔士网站在2012年4月27日所发布。本文允许非商业目的使用，转载请注明出处。
彼 特森(Pedersen)先生在自已猪场
前言
2012年4月13日，丹麦一份农 业报纸,用大幅版面报道养猪农户彼特森先生有关用转基因大豆饲养的家畜造成养殖经济效益损害的现象，已引发起不小的轰动。
在当天这份报纸首页头条下方的报道标 题是《农民用转基因大豆养猪新发现》。这篇报道中提到了彼特森先生的观点：
"农药敌敌畏（DDT）和药品'反应停'对人畜健康安全危害，同转基因生物和农药草甘膦的危害问题相比，简直是小儿科！"
报纸在第2页还发了评论认为：如果当局忽视、甚至嘲笑农民在用转基因大豆养猪过程发现的问题，都是一种极不负责任的行为。该文还感谢丹麦政府委托专业权威 机构所做的一项新检测研究的设计流程，用于测定猪的胃部及其他器官病变是否与喂食转基因大豆带来的影响有关。
这项研究使用了两个对照组，一组100头测试猪饲喂非转基因大豆，另一组用同等数量测试猪饲喂转基因大豆。
报纸的第6-7页登载了由安. 沃尔夫柏格(Anne Wolfenberg)写的一文，她是一位很了解丹麦养猪业资深记者。这篇文章的草稿提前被外泄，并被译成英文后在各种网站上广为流传。无转基因威尔士网 站也将它翻译成英文在转基因观察(GM Watch)网站公布最终译本，大家都认为：作者和报纸会很高兴看到文章能在英语读者群中传阅、引用，而并得到充分肯定。可是，由于我们忽略了草稿中的一 两处小错误，而收到了作者对此部分的投诉，我们在最后的印刷版中已予以纠正。我们为此过失表示歉意，并已经从转基因观察(GM Watch)网站中删除文章。同时，也按照作者的意愿，我们还要求使用此文的美国网站立即撤下此文。按安. 沃尔夫柏格要求，本综述不把她的文章作任何介绍。
经过我们请求，彼特森先生允许我们使 用他PPT中的内容、直接引用他的陈述观点和照片。这就是本文第一部分内容。
本文第二部分，我们研究了一些关键 点，这些关 键点贯穿在报道整个事件的丹麦农业报纸《 Effektivt Landbrug 》中。我们衷心感谢那些记者与编辑,他们做了整个事件中很有说服力的新闻调查和相关研究，特别是他们将此事公布出来的勇气，尽管此文势必激怒一些人的情 绪。我们也很感谢彼特森先生，感谢他为了维护公众利益，把仔细保存的记录公之于众。
本文第三部分，我们译了丹麦一个新研 究项目新 闻稿，此项目将研究转基因大豆对30公斤重至达到110公斤重屠宰期止的猪只增重影响。此项研究即将开始，不过，我们仍然担心在28天龄(7 公斤重)乳猪 至30公斤重断奶期间，由于仔猪的喂养了饲料有可能掩盖了转基因所起作用，从而影响研究报告结果的可信度。
这份新闻稿的观点是：如果这类试验不 被信任或者实验结论将来被证明欺诈的话，任何人都得不到好处。
全无转基因威尔士网站的布瑞恩约翰 (Brian John)博士对此观点表示认可：
"我们一直关注同转基因有关的十多项 问题，并 且已知道了一些结果。在不顾一切推广转基因的美国，转基因作物已占美国农业的大部分种植面积。因此，我们怀疑：丹麦记者和报纸正承受来自种植 业工会、农业 化肥公司等方面的巨大压力。其实他们很蠢，不顾动物福利和人类食品安全的话，种植业工会、农业化肥公司的利益可能会消失，甚至归零。" 布瑞恩约翰博士如是说。
本文第四部分，是采访另一位丹麦猪场 农民的报道，这位丹麦猪场农民经历了用转基因大豆喂饲猪只到用非转基因大豆喂饲猪只的经历,这跟彼特森先生提供的经验非常相似。
Danish Whistleblowers reveal links between GM soy, Roundup and health damage in pig herdsNew revelations have undermined the myth that GM soy and Roundup residues are essentially harmless components in the European animal feed supply chain.
A farming newspaper (Effektivt Landbrug) has caused a storm of controversy in Denmark by publishing (1) an extended analysis of the connections made by pig farmer Ib Borup Pedersen between GM soy and health problems in his herd of breeding sows. In an interview for the newspaper, Mr Pedersen contended that there was also a link between Roundup herbicide residues and stillbirths and malformations in pig litters. But most interestingly of all, he explained that since switching the feed in his breeding sow house to non-GM soy, health problems and medical costs have declined dramatically, to the point where the extra costs involved in purchasing non-GM soy feed are more than offset by reduced medication costs. The bottom line is that his farming operation is now more profitable than it was under the GM-soy feeding regime.
It is a long-held belief across most of the livestock farming community in Europe that farmers MUST use GM soy in animal diets in order to operate profitably -- but Mr Pedersen says that that is just not true, and that farmers have simply been reluctant to face up to the real costs of their operations, by failing properly to account for medication costs and even by turning a blind eye to animal deaths and ailments. In an Editorial comment the newspaper urged Danish pig farmers not to close ranks but to open up an honest debate on the animal welfare, health and financial implications of the current dependence upon GM soy and Roundup herbicide.
Not surprisingly, the publication of the feature and Editorial has caused a storm of protest within Denmark, partly from vested interests including feed suppliers and agrichemical merchants and partly from those who feel that it is somehow disloyal for anybody -- least of all a farming newspaper -- to suggest that there might be something amiss in the Danish pig farming industry, which prides itself on high standards and a pristine "brand image."
Following the publication of the newspaper article in Denmark, the Welsh group GM-Free Cymru has conducted extended interviews with Mr Ib Borup Pedersen, and also with a second farmer -- Mr Sigurd Christensen -- and has obtained a good deal of previously unpublished information. This is contained in a "Denmark Dossier" which can be accessed via this press release.
Speaking for GM-Free Cymru, Dr Brian John says: "These revelations come as no surprise to us. For years we have been picking up on information which suggests that GM crops and Roundup herbicide formulations are linked to animal deaths and health problems. This is supported by experimental evidence from independent research teams -- but the GM industry, the European animal feed industry, and the farming community across Europe has been involved in an on-going cover-up which could not possibly be maintained ad infinitum. The EC and the GM regulatory bodies are also implicated in the cover-up, since they have systematically ignored "evidence of harm" brought to their attention over many years.
"We suspect that in many European countries, the pig farming industry is in a state of denial about the health of the animals fed on GM soy and subjected to Roundup residues in the feed chain and in litter; we wonder, for example, how many dead and malformed animals are simply disposed of, with no vets informed and no records kept?
"We now demand that the EU reassesses all of the GM soy consents already given, and puts an immediate halt on any assessments in the pipeline. This is not just an animal welfare issue; we are quite convinced that unless GM soy and Roundup are removed entirely from the animal feed chain, the health of the people of Europe will be seriously compromised."
http://vet.gmw.cn/2012-05/13/content_4138588.htm
综述：丹麦展开转基因对猪健康损害问题研究（二）
2012-05-13 15:26:36 来源：光明网兽医之窗
作者：[英国] Brian John博士 翻译：贾志光（执业兽医师） 校对：沈阳
第1部分 丹麦一个小镇出现的现象
(一)动物健康福利问题
彼特森(Pedersen)先生在自已猪场产房
丹麦养猪农户彼特森先生在自家猪场中用非转基因大豆替代转基因大豆喂饲后，他很快观察到母猪群出现明显健康转变。他曾在媒体中谈到这个现象，并且 被丹麦主流农业报纸---Effektivt Landbrug编辑用大幅版面加认介绍。彼特森先生可能并不是一个有机饲料饲养猪只的农户。但是，丹麦全国的其他猪农都是用相同集约化技术来养猪。彼特森先生的猪场在丹麦一个叫 Hvidsten 的Pilegaarden小镇上，靠近叫Jylland的Randers小镇。
丹麦养猪业是全球公认生产力水平最高的国家之一，每头母猪一年平均可产近30头断奶仔猪。丹麦出产的猪肉每公斤使用抗生素低于50毫克（除斯堪的 纳维亚岛以外，其他国家大多数为此用量的2-4倍），这令丹麦养猪业在全球养猪业中成为不是国际标准的 "世界冠军"事实标准。在丹麦, 所有使用抗生素的过程都必须被记录在案，职业兽医师严格控制使用抗生素，抗生素确保养猪农民经营富裕起来。
此外，丹麦现行的养猪技术大田试验和科学试验都得到世界广泛接受。丹麦养猪技术研究设施是由政府职业兽医师监控，养猪农户都积极配合执行。换句话 说，养猪设施环境影响同转基因饲料的影响相比，远远低于许多其他国家。
（1）猪场疾患关联性
专家同彼特森先生详细讨论以下疾患关联性：
1、在产房内，经过每天用"博克"(Borgal)注射50-100毫升，2天之内腹泻症状全部消失。 （译者注：Borgal是一种广谱抗生素。Borgal的商品名是"博克"，其生产厂商是利达公司）
2、在试验之前两年内，每个月最少1头因胃部疾病死亡，共有36头母猪死亡。试验以后，母猪群中再未出现胃部膨胀或因溃疡而死亡的现象。
3、在试验之前一年,有2头母猪因食欲不振而死亡，试验以后没有母猪相同疾患死亡记录。
4、在试验之前, 如果产房不进行冲洗的话，就会出现很多腹泻病例。试验以后即使不冲刷产房，腹泻症也不会出现。
5、猪场此前一直努力防治初产母猪腹泻症状，但试验后己不再担心这个问题出现。
6、试验两年前,当腹泻严重时，产房中的仔猪死亡率接近30%。母猪基本不照顾仔猪。
7、试验前,一头母猪很少能有13只断奶仔猪，10.5％母猪产下仔猪需要换母猪喂奶。现在;试验后,每头母猪平均12头断奶仔猪，达到14头断 奶仔猪可以见到。很少再需要转换母猪喂奶，因为母猪产后的奶汁又好又多。
8、试验前7个月，猪场平均产活仔数量为14.9头和死产仔猪数量为1.6头。试验后,母猪产仔数量明显变好，每头母猪平均产活仔数量比前增加超 过0.3头，这个指标中的0.2头是由于产死仔数量减少。
9、试验后,断奶仔猪更强壮和大小更均匀。
10、试验后,猪场工人每月工时减少了20-30小时，部分原因为产房冲洗工作减少，产房内护理工作减轻了。
"在试验中，我们用鱼粉和非转基因大豆饲喂断奶仔猪，取代了之前的转基因HP200（纯化的转基因大豆）和市售普通的转基因大豆。仔猪看上去更加 活跃。我们只用此方法喂养了三个月，所以数据并不确切。自仔猪15公斤起，我们停止使用转基因大豆。我们还不能确定其中的因果关系，但药物的用量 已经下降到此前的一半"。
彼特森先生接着说："近5年来，我们一直聘用同一批饲养员照顾450头母猪，猪场的管理水平不变。显然，这不是由于我们的生产管理水平波动造成产 仔母猪的产量变化。
从2011年4月1日起，我们猪场开始改变喂饲非转基因大豆时，我事先并没有告诉猪场的饲养员，但是他们却很快就注意到了产仔情况的变化。
'你改变了饲料吧？！'在使用非转基因大豆饲喂的几天后，饲养员问我来。'嗯，现在怎么样？'我反问道。
经过了解，这是近几个月来第一次猪场产房不需要给猪只用注射大量"博克"治疗仔猪腹泻。这种好势头一直保持至今，并一直保持到2011年底。而我 们猪场药费节省的开支足以补偿花在了非转基因大豆的价差费用。"
（2）畸形和死产仔 猪情况
右 上：颅骨畸形仔猪 左上：脊柱畸形仔猪 左下：连体双胞胎仔猪
所有使用转基因大豆喂饲的猪场都同样出现找不出何种原因的死产和畸形仔猪现象。彼特森先生深信：这种现象同转基因是使用农药草甘膦而有残留量有 关。在欧盟，在饲料用玉米和大豆中的草甘膦残留量法定允许值应低于20 ppm。彼特森先生说豆类饲料中检测到的残留量为17 ppm，而且这一水平已成为转基因产业达成的共识。
在阿根廷，农民每生产1吨转基因大豆，需要喷洒孟山都公司出产的"农达"（一种除草剂农药）4升。通常情况下，转基因作物整个生长季节需要喷洒2 次"农达"。阿根廷是欧洲市场中转基因大豆的主要供应商。彼特森先生说："丹麦猪场在处理这些阿根廷产的干燥饲料原料时，它们所含的草甘膦浓度已 相当高，因为最后一次喷洒农药"农达"距离收割时间只有10-14天，80%的草甘膦仍然残留在植物果实中；农药一部分会被代谢掉，但是大部分则 仍然残留在植物体内，特别是形成果实的部位上。"
脊 柱畸形的仔猪相片
彼特森先生说："我们的粮仓中15％ 的饲料是 带着'农达'一起干燥。此外，还要给母猪买大麦，这样，40％的饲料都属于喷洒过了'农达'。从文献介绍材料看，'农达'引起某些动物胎儿畸 形浓度只需要 0.2ppm，'农达'引起人体内分泌紊乱浓度只需要0.5 ppm，'农达'浓度达到10ppm便会引起人体细胞全部死亡。
在过去的九个月，我们猪场只产出13 头畸形仔猪（比例是约700头中有1头），这些畸形仔猪大多数出生时还是活的。我们在试验中发现：草甘膦破坏了约70％被饲喂猪只的头骨和脊 椎。我由此确信---'农达'会造成人体和猪只严重的先天缺陷疾患，尤其是头部和脊椎损害。"
彼特森先生还列举了阿根廷农村地区草甘膦、农达药物扩散对人群的影响。在YouTube短片中可见，农药对猪和对孩子的损害影响还不太一样。Pedersen先生补充 说：
"独立第三方研究人员已经证明：'农达'是一种强大的、非选择性杀菌剂，并且干扰内分泌，导致先天畸形、流产和癌症。并改变哺乳动物的肠道菌群，这使肉毒 梭菌（译者注：转基因片段载体）在食物链中污染成为一个严重公共卫生问题。这也是牛慢性肉毒杆菌病产生的直接原因，我们猪场的母猪腹泻和水肿 症状也是肉毒 梭状芽胞杆菌造成的，因为改变饲料后症状消失了。"
提到下一步如何打算问题，彼特森先生说："我确信，当丹麦农民知道转基因大豆对动物和人类的有害影响后，将停止在动物的饲料中使用它。与转基因作物喷洒的 '农达'相比，DDT（敌敌畏）和'反应停'的影响只是小巫见大巫。
如果全球今后'农达'使用量还增加的话，对人类健康负面效应也将大大增加。在国际社会呼吁停止使用对这种有依赖除草剂，而且己证实它在动物饲料中的残留量 有毒之前，很难想象转基因作物将会出现多么严重的情况。 " 彼特森先生还引用了相关研究人员的观点，这些研究人员倡仪公众少用直至淘汰'农达'。
最后，彼特森先生引用了美国普渡大学植物病理学教授、著名土壤学专家胡伯(Don Huber)教授的话说："我们不会因为在土地上喷洒这么多化学物而被时代铭记，但可能会若为了孩子们而牺牲一些跨国公司利益而流芳千古。"
（二）经济问题
彼特森先生已经分析母猪改用非转基因 大豆饲料在围产期至产房时的经济效益变化，并确信这有助于增加猪场的收益。他是这样评估的：
"我们发现：转换成工时的话，工作效 率正在上升，因为猪只变得更健壮更健康。每头母猪可增加超过1.8头断奶仔猪，即由改用非转基因大豆饲喂前的28.1头升到现在的 29.9头。另一种折算方式是，每1.8头断奶仔猪可转换成22.5万丹麦克朗。
另一个收益是，猪场每年死于胃部疾病 的母猪少于12头，可折算为2.4万丹麦克朗，母猪群节省下来的2/3药物可转换为3万丹麦克朗。
非转基因大豆含有更多的营养，蛋白质 和能量，每百公斤大豆中仅蛋白质和能量的增加价值就是17丹麦克朗，每年就可转换为12,750丹麦克朗。"
猪场换了非转基因饲料，经济成本有所 增加，以用75吨非转基因饲料计算，每100公斤增加55丹麦克朗，总计要额外支出多41250丹麦克朗。
上 图显示了从转基因大豆改为非转基因大豆饲喂的12个月里，彼特森先生的农场中母猪产房中抗生素使用情况。纵轴显示了农场产房每百头猪每日 累计用量。淡蓝色 虚线显示12个月的地区平均水平。深蓝色虚线显示了12个月的全国平均水平。橙色线显示了彼特森先生的农场母猪产房中12个月平均抗生素 使用水平。已经低 于国家和地区的平均用量的50％。
扩展到24个月的曲线。这条曲线是相同的参考水平，但图中显示了 2011年4月之前母猪产房的用药水平超过了国家和地区的平均水平，这段时期中转基因大豆被用在饲料中而且出现母猪腹胀和仔猪腹泻的问 题。
这些额外费用相当于450头母猪一年 共要多支出28500丹麦克朗，或平均每头母猪要多支出63.34丹麦克朗。
综合考虑增收和减支、额外多支出三方 面的成本 变化，彼特森先生的结论是："仅从节省药物费用就能够冲抵购买非转基因大豆所产生的额外开销。总体计算一下，我们猪场的经济效益总共增加了 25万丹麦克 朗、或者是每头母猪增加了550丹麦克朗。我们的猪只欢快成长又健康，我们猪场的利润随之增加。因此，选择换用非转基因饲料喂饲猪只，这是我 们做的非常正 确的一件事！"
（三）在美国,转基因作物产量仍然快速增加
不同种类作物的数据，包括HT和Bt性状转基因 品种
来源：Fernandez-Cornejo和McBride（2002）从1996年至1999年的 数据
表1-3为美国转基因作物2000-10ERS产品数据
（四）其他地方的转 基因现状
欧洲每年有3200至3600万吨进 口大豆用 于动物饲料,它们主要产地来自美国、阿根廷和巴西。这些大豆大部分是转基因的，因为其中只有约700万吨是非转基因大豆。法国、德国和西班牙 是转基因大豆 最大进口国，丹麦转基因大豆和饲料进口产地主要是阿根廷。据了解，2011年丹麦用于动物饲料加工的进口转基因大豆约170万吨。
我们已经掌握了大量证据，证明除丹麦 以外,其 他使用转基因大豆饲料的国家，在生猪养殖场中存在母猪围产期死产、畸形胎儿等危害健康问题的事实。遗憾的是，这些证据大多是零散，没有在兽医 同行认可的专 业文献中被记录在案。更没有人进一步开展深入研究，而蒙蔽着养殖行业从业者。
我们认为这是一种耻辱！
关于猪群健康问题同喂食转基因大豆之 间的关系，以及转基因饲料如何影响动物健康问题的全球范围研究应该立即展开。
用美国同行的话说："据我们所知，关 于这个问 题恐怕任何美国官方或机构都不会有记录。转基因大豆被首次大规模用于动物饲料时，这个发达国家（美国）的大多数人简单地把它当做一种'新生命 形式'，出于 转基因生物'实质等同'和'一般公认安全'（GRAS）的谎言，很少有人会去发现问题。我们已经知道有几个关于转基因玉米和大豆产品问题的案 例，但那些始 于1997年的记录数据，都是来自畜牧场管理方而非官方实体。"
转基因产业已经成为美国农业工会和政 府监管机构无诚信永久耻辱：他们串通起来，令有关转基因大豆饲料对美国养猪业影响的研究无法有效展开。
这是一项紧切需要研究的问题，丹麦和 其他欧盟国家马上展开这类研究还为时不晚。转基因饲料对禽畜健康问题的研究不是一个简单的动物福利问题，而是事关威胁整个欧洲消费者健康的大 问题。我们一再提醒公众：人体的消化系统跟彼特森先生农场里猪只的消化系统结构非常相似。
注释：丹 麦的养猪业对欧洲经济非常重要，我们并不想打击它。如上所述，丹麦对养殖业监管非常严格：例如,猪群用药量低于欧洲其他国家。如果用药量高于 规定量的话，猪农将会受到严厉制裁。
事实上，正是有这种一直持之以恒的公 开性政策 和透明性的严格监管制度，以及兽药监察制度要求保存猪场记录，彼特森先生才能够有上述统计信息公布。这一点在欧盟其他国家的大多数都是不可 能。在这方面， 丹麦公众是幸运的，我们也希望彼特森先生的经验可以在其他地方发现。如果养猪业能针对转基因大豆问题采取行动，并能够切实提高国家猪群的健康 水平的话，整 个国家在市场中将获得更强大竞争优势。
http://vet.gmw.cn/2012-05/13/content_4138591.htm
综述：丹麦展开转基因对猪健康损害问题研究（三）
2012-05-13 15:26:47 来源：光明网兽医之窗
作者：[英国] Brian John博士 翻译：贾志光（执业兽医师） 校对：沈阳
第2部分：对丹麦新闻报道的评估
（一）猪农从转基因大豆中得到的启示
彼特森(Pedersen)先生
2012年4月13日，丹麦知名的农业报纸EFFEKTIVT LANDBRUG在头版内容引起了丹麦农业业界不小的轰动。这份报纸头版内容是由安. 沃尔夫柏格(Anne Wolfenberg)和雅各布. 隆德拉森(Jacob Lund-Larsen) 合写的一文，此文简要报道彼特森先生的发现：猪场停用转基因饲料、改用非转基因饲饲喂猪群之后经济效益出现"显著改善"效果。用彼特森先生的话说："最明显是仔猪群腹泻问题在一天天地改 善。"在改用非转基因大豆饲料之后，彼特森先生发现了很多改善，包括：母猪难产减少、母猪奶汁量增多，仔猪死亡率降低、断奶仔猪个体大小更加均 匀、使用药物减少、收益率提高（每胎产仔数略高于14头的产仔量）。
经济效益折合成现金的话，猪群改用非转基因饲料饲喂之后健康水平的提高所增加的额外费用，完全足够补偿比用转基因饲料多支付的成本。彼特森先生 说："我在药物方面节省的费用，完全可以支付购买非转基因大豆产生的额外成本支出。"
报道中,提到了彼特森先生很关注转基因大豆问题，因为他认为：转基因大豆是在大量使用草甘膦农药环境下生长的。彼特森先生深信，如果同行们知道了 转基因大豆对动物和人体健康存在有害影响的话，大家都将不再使用转基因饲料喂养畜禽。
文章还报道丹麦养猪研究中心刚刚做出的一个决定：检测喂养转基因和喂养非转基因大豆的猪肠胃健康状况变化。
这一天的这份报纸头版侧栏上还有一文，标题为："可能会很吓人吗？"，并提出一个问题："转基因作物和'农达'对动物和人体同样有害吗？农药敌敌 畏（DDT）和药品'反应停'问题与转基因作物和'农达'相比，只是小儿科问题吗？"
这个问题在第2页以"编辑评论"的方式作了探讨。我们注意到，彼特森先生在这一天的这份报纸头版文章中提出了很多可怕的假想，他希望丹麦农民能意 识到转基因作物和草甘膦的危害作用。
沃尔夫柏格和隆德拉森在文中这么写道："可能会有很多人会认为，今天报纸上这篇报道提到的养猪场产品问题只是乡间村夫的危言耸听。 不管这是否是彼特森先生的炒作，事实是彼特森先生作为一个普通民众，与世界各地的专家和研究人员一样也投入大量的时间和精力，都是为了彻查此事的真相。我 们认为彼特森先生有着追求真理与正义的灵魂。读者自己可以判断彼特森先生的动机。"文中说，最重要的问题是："猪农从他们的养殖经验中得到的结论 是否是正确的？农药敌敌畏（DDT）和药品'反应停'问题相比，转基因作物和农药草甘膦是否真的只是小儿科问题？转基因作物和农药草甘膦对动物和 人体健康是否是致命的？抑或这些都是谬论？"
"但是，假如转基因饲料真的对动物健康有害呢？"报道指出："现在猪农很难获得非转基因大豆。丹麦其他农民能做到吗？更不用说欧洲其他国家以及美 国。报道认为，如果使用非转基因大豆作为饲料的价值不能获得认可，'豆类可能会改变整个世界。'"
文章的作者说，一个敢于站出来陈述发现的人、面对有争议现象总会被大家所揣测，更何况其他人也会有不同意见。然而，在这份报道出来的两个月前，彼 特森先生，这个普通农民己成功地参加丹麦最高级别的农业专家会议，就在这个会议上，丹麦国家养猪研究中心宣布：2012年秋天开始，展开转基因、 非转基因大豆对畜禽健康影响的正式试验研究。
丹麦这份知名的农业报纸认为：在转基因对畜禽健康影响这个欲速则不达的研究领域里，丹麦国家养猪研究中心冒着打持久战的风险这么快就宣布启动这项 新的研究，这是一件值得丹麦公众庆贺的喜事。 报道说"面对转基因饲料存在这么危险的风险，若不能用有效的方法展开深入研究，就不能找到最好解决办法。然而，至少丹麦的猪农们可以理直气壮的说：我们在 做事情而非浪费纳税人的钱。报道作者希望：研究者不仅仅只对试验主题展开研究探索，而是还能够通过改进试验设计的水平，去提高试验的可靠性。"
（二）略去的文章内容
在2012年4月13日，丹麦知名农业报纸EFFEKTIVT LANDBRUG报纸的6、7页上,还有一篇由安. 沃尔夫柏格(Anne Wolfenberg)写的关联文章，标题是《关注猪只：非转基因大豆能提高猪场生产水平》。我们尊重作者意愿，不在此处提及、翻译或归纳这篇文章，有兴 趣的人可以方便地从网上找到丹麦语版本原文。本文第一部分的总结也已做了约略介绍，感谢彼特森先生对此的归纳。
第3部分：新研究项目：转基因大豆是否威协猪的健康？
丹麦养猪研究中心(The Danish Pig Research Centre)已公布说，在展开一项研究，目的是测定非转基因大豆和转基因大豆对猪只健康的影响。研究结论会找出确认转基因大豆是否可能影响猪只胃部的健 康。
（一）丹麦养猪研究中心2012年4月2日新闻稿
转基因大豆已经获得欧盟批准，认为作为牲畜饲料使用是安全的。但是一些经验，尤其是来自美国的猪场报道，认为使用转基因大豆饲喂的猪群确实存在健 康问题。在美国，关于转基因饲料使用的一些调查观察正在展开中，但还没有明确的科学证据、能够证明转基因大豆对牲畜健康生长存有危险。
来自美国的数据证明：含有农药草甘膦的转基因大豆确实对猪只胃部健康有不良作用。养猪生产中心主任尼尔.佐治.凯尔森(Niels Jorgen Kjeldsen)说："为动物健康着想，丹麦一定要对转基因大豆对牲畜健康的不确定性相关开展研究。通过研究比较实验组和对照组动物，我们希望 能得到非转基因大豆和转基因大豆这两类大豆是否影响动物胃部健康的确切证据。"
丹麦猪研究中心的研究计划是：尝试确定喂饲转基因大豆饲料的丹麦猪只胃部的变化，并确定一系列如何才能减少胃部病变试验设计。从现有的材料看，猪 只胃肠道的病变变化是可以减少但不能消除。这个研究计划将与喂饲非转基因大豆猪只相比较，这样去阐述转基因大豆对猪只胃粘膜的作用将是有趣的。
试验将安排在丹麦猪研究中心叫Gronhoj的实验站中展开，试验猪只共有100头，饲喂有含草甘膦的转基因大豆和玉米符合标准饲料。这些试验仔 猪会与饲喂不含草甘膦的非转基因大豆和玉米猪对照组猪只相比较。试验猪对照组猪只都从体重30公斤开始饲喂，一直持续到110公斤屠宰体重结束。 试验将对比饲喂不同饲料，非转基因和转基因大豆和玉米猪只的胃部变化。试验将在2012年下半年开始。
（二）全无转基因威尔士网站评论
鉴于目前丹麦政府财政紧张现状，由于公众已经公始关注转基因大豆对猪只健康危害这件事，丹麦猪研究中心研究小组希望尽快启动这项研究并尽快得出结 论。
然而，我们建议这项研究试验不是从猪只28天龄（体重约7公斤）开始，因为两个试验组猪只体重在7公斤和30公斤的增重期间都同样饲喂转基因饲 料，转基因的毒性作用可能会被掩蔽。当试验猪只被剖检时，原来设定好的试验因素可能会受到影响。
我们还认为：如果这100头喂饲转基因大豆饲料实验猪只、同也曾经喂饲过转基因大豆饲料的100头对照组实验猪只作为对比,是作为寻找转基因大豆 饲料慢性毒性作用试验目的试验设计不科学。
我们希望丹麦的研究小组还需要再考虑一下以下问题：
（1）在试验饲养过程中是否使用抗生素？因为这可能影响试验所要发现的问题。
（2）如果实验猪只不是从 28天的断奶期才开始研究，那实验猪只最早从哪个阶段开始饲喂才合适呢？如果饲料中已经包含有转基因成分，实验结果将受到影响。
（3）实验猪只的饲料日粮如何设计？如果猪只全部饲喂转基因大豆或全部饲喂非转基因大豆，试验结果可能有偏差。
（4）两个实验组中公猪和母猪搭配比例平衡吗？这也可能会影响试验的结果。
（5）研究人员可以保证非转基因组的大豆不被草甘膦污染吗？我们建议应该使用有机的非转基因大豆。
还有一些别的问题，但以上这些问题是针对作为本专业的专家和有经验猪场的。
我们明白，丹麦研究小组将是公示这项研究结果，因此希望能主动邀请专家并听取各方的建议。
http://vet.gmw.cn/2012-05/13/content_4138594.htm
综述：丹麦展开转基因对猪健康损害问题研究（四）
2012-05-13 15:26:57 来源：光明网兽医之窗
作者：[英国] Brian John博士 翻译：贾志光（执业兽医师） 校对：沈阳
第4部分：彼特森先生经历无独有偶
在整理本材料的过程中，我们还采访了丹麦的另一位农场主克里斯滕森 (Sigurd Christensen), 他的农场位于南日兰德(southern Jylland)的Burkal。他的农场饲养有奶牛和猪群。
他告诉我们：在给牛群饲喂转基因大豆前，从来没有死过牛只，但自在2007年使用转基因大豆后，产奶牛群的死亡率逐年上升，2011年死了10头 奶牛（占产奶奶牛的10％），死因难定。为解决这个问题，在4个月前，克里斯滕森给牛群接种疫苗并使用非转基因大豆饲喂。自那以后，就再也没有出 现过死亡牛只，牛群的用药成本因此也大幅度下降。
克里斯滕森说，自家的500头猪场曾出现母猪死亡和仔猪腹泻的严重问题。自从在2011年12月改用非转基因大豆饲喂后。克里斯滕森注意到，饲喂 了非转基因大豆不久，猪群的健康问题就有了明显改善，生殖系统疾病问题减少，使用药物数量下降。每头母猪的产仔量从27头升到了33.7头，产仔 数量有了明显的提升，远远高于丹麦全国平均水平。
我们还不知道在丹麦（甚至其他欧盟国家），还有多少农民有使用转基因大豆饲喂动物的类似经历？造成出现譬如猪群、牛群的疾病，造成抗生素使用量增 加和死产、畸形胎的生殖问题增多。这些问题到底是数以百计、还是数以千万计呢？
我们曾经采访过一位英国猪农，他告诉我们：农民们遇到这类问题时多数宁愿选择沉默，，没有人愿意承认这样的问题存在，因为他们必须应对的是激烈的 行业竞争。官方兽医当然知道这是怎么回事，但他们要遵守保密原则。
许多欧洲国家关于某一区域或整个国家的记录都存在漏洞。而且对于转基因动物饲料的因果关系调查数据一直没有进行集中统计。在这一点上我们的观点希 望是错误的：政府农业部门或许知道，在牧场中，动物福利和人类健康正受到威胁，政府决策应该怎么办。
在同猪农交流中也明白，农民都非常务实。他们的经济效益（在市场能承受的价格范围内）一直都是考虑问题第一位，而且能越大越好，并尽可能降低对动 物环境的不良影响，获得最高的投资回报。
在此，我们希望彼特森先生和克里斯滕森先生的经历能够提醒成千上万的其他农民，他们正在使用的转基因大豆动物饲料，是有潜在危害的产品，转基因大 豆动物饲料有损动物福利，会导致家畜出现健康问题。而且有损经济效益，这才是他们关注的最重要问题。
附注：
关于转基因大豆的种植和使用对环境和健康影响的证据，我们的收集工作已经开展了10以上。主要研究成果也已多次提交给欧洲食品安全局（EFSA） 和欧盟（EC），但他们却视而不见。
与此同时，研究转基因作物对动物危害的科学家，却不断受到转基因产业帮凶有组织有预谋的诋毁。
本文作者 Brian John博士联络电话（丹麦）: 01239-820470
英文原文出处：GM soy linked to health damage in pigs - a Danish Dossier
本文英文综述： Danish Whistleblowers reveal links between GM soy, Roundup and health damage in pig herds
英文原文：
GM soy linked to health damage in pigs - a Danish Dossier
Introduction
A Danish farming newspaper has caused quite a stir by devoting a sizeable part of its 13 April edition to the discoveries by pig farmer lb Borup Pedersen that GM soy has a damaging effect both on his animals and on his farming profitability. On the front page of the paper there was a lead story under the headline "Pig farmer reaps gains from GMO-free soy". On a sidebar the paper referred to Mr Pedersen's contention that DDT and Thalidomide were minor problems when set alongside GMOs and Glyphosate. In an Editorial Comment on page 2, the paper argued that it would be grossly irresponsible for the authorities to ignore or ridicule the discoveries made by the farmer in his pig farming operations, and it congratulated the authorities for commissioning a new study designed to determine whether stomach lesions and other effects might be associated with GM soy; in the study 100 animals will be fed with non-GM soy and 100 with GM soy in their diets.
On pages 6 and 7 of the paper there was a big article written by Anne Wolfenberg, who is a very experienced journalist who knows the Danish pig farming industry well. This article was leaked in draft form, translated into English and widely circulated, appearing on various web sites. GM-Free Cymru helped with that translation, in the belief that this was the final published version and that the farmer, the writer and the newspaper would be happy to see it circulated to an English-speaking readership. Full acknowledgement and citation were made. However, we did not realise that there were one or two small errors in the draft which were corrected in the final printed version; and partly on that basis we received a complaint from the author. We apologised for the misunderstanding, and the article was immediately removed from the GM Watch web site. We also asked an American web site which had used the article to take it down, in line with the journalist's wishes. This was also done.
In deference to the concerns of Anne Wolfenberg, we are not including any translation of her article here. Instead, we have spoken to Mr Pedersen, and he has kindly given us permission to use content from his Powerpoint presentation, to use direct statements made by him, and to use his photographs. On that basis we have assembled the first part of this dossier.
In the second part of the dossier, we examine the key points arising from the coverage of this issue in the Danish farming newspaper Effektivt Landbrug. We congratulate the editor and the journalists involved on a very effective and well-researched piece of investigative journalism, and for having the courage to publish it in spite of the anger it was bound to provoke! We also congratulate Mr lb Pedersen for his very careful record keeping and for making the decision to place it in the public domain, in the public interest.
In the third part of this dossier we have translated a press release relating to the new Danish research project which will examine the effects of GM soy on pigs during the period of weight gain from 30 kg to slaughter at c 110 kg. While we applaud the fact that this research will be conducted, we are concerned that the feeding of the weaned animals from 7 kg (28 days) up to the 30 kg weight will potentially mask GM effects and compromise the results. As the newspaper suggests, it will be in nobody's best interests if these trials are mistrusted or later found to be fraudulent. Dr Brian John from GM-Free Cymru agrees, and says: "We have been involved in GM issues for more than a decade, and we know the score. We can take it as read that there are large sections of the GM industry, and maybe large parts of the farming community, especially in the United States, who will move heaven and earth to prevent anything damaging to the GM cause from seeing the light of day. We suspect that huge pressure has already been put on the Danish journalist and her newspaper by certain interested parties, including farming unions, agrichemical companies and so forth. That is plain stupid of them; their interests are served least of all if real animal welfare and food safety issues are brushed under the carpet."
In the fourth part of the dossier we report on an interview with another Danish farmer whose experiences relating to a shift from GM soy animal feed to non-GM soy feed appear to match very closely the experiences of Mr Pedersen.
Part 1. The Pilegaarden Findings
Animal Health and Welfare
When Danish pig farmer lb Borup Pedersen replaced GM soy with non-GM soy in the feeding schedules on his farm, he immediately observed positive changes in the health of the sow herd. He has spoken to a mainstream Danish farming newspaper (Effektivt Landbrug) about this, and the editor has devoted much space to the issue – presumably on the basis that Mr Pedersen is not an organic farmer, but a regular farmer using the same intensive techniques to raise pigs as many other farmers across the country. He farms at Pilegaarden, Hvidsten, near Randers on Jylland.
Danish pig production is recognised worldwide for having a the highest level of productivity, with an average of almost 30 weaned pigs per sow per year. Combined with the an antibiotic use of less than 50 mg per kg of produced pork (most other countries except the other Scandinavian states use 2-4 times that amount), that makes them the unofficial "world champions" of swine production. The fact that all use of antibiotics is recorded and strictly controlled by veterinary officers makes statements from the Danish farmer strong, and both field trials and scientific trials made in Denmark are widely accepted all over the world. Research facilities in Denmark are controlled by the farmers themselves or they are governmental, which means the influence of the GMO industry is far less than in many other countries.
In his discussions with GM-Free Cymru Mr Pedersen itemised the following effects:
◦Within 2 days diarrhoea virtually disappeared in the farrowing house, whereas before we had used 50-100 ml Borgal / day.
◦Since switching, we have not experienced death from bloat in sows or death by ulcers, as opposed to minimum 1 per month previously. (36 sows died due to stomach related sickness over the last two years before switching)
◦No sows have died through loss of appetite, whereas 2 sows died from this cause last year.
◦Even without washing between farrowings, diarrhoea does not now reappear. Previously when we failed to wash between sows, we noticed more diarrhoea.
◦Previously we have struggled with diarrhoea in first layer sows, we do not have this problem any more!
◦Two years ago when the diarrhoea was as its worst, we had months with nearly 30% dead in the farrowing house. At that time it was impossible to find sows that could nurse piglets.
◦Before it was unusual to have a sow with 13 piglets weaned. The average was about 10.5 per sow plus spare mothers. Now we are getting over 12 piglets on average weaned and 14 piglets weaned per sow is common. We have fewer nursing sows, simply because the sows are milking better and eating more.
◦Sows farrow better and we have 0.3 more live births per sow, of which 0.2 is gained from fewer stillborn. Now we have 14.9 liveborn and 1.6 stillborn, averaged over the past 7 months.
◦The piglets weaned are stronger and more evenly sized.
◦Man-hours are reduced by 20-30 hours per month, partly by washing less and because everything is easier.
"We switched to fishmeal and non-GMO soya in the weaning house, instead of GMO HP 200 (purified GMO soya) and GMO soya. The piglets seem more active. We have only fed them on this for three months, so there is no secure data. From 15 Kg we have just stopped using GMO soya; we are still not certain about cause and effect, but medicine usage already appears to have fallen to near half of what it was."
Mr Pedersen says: "I have been looking after my 450 sows with the same worker for 5 years, and our management of the animals is unchanged. That is clearly not the reason for our improved results. When I switched to non-GMO soy in April 2011,1 chose not to tell my employee, but he was nevertheless quick to notice a difference. "You've changed the diet," he said to me a few days after the switch to GM-free soya feed. "Well, what's wrong now?" I asked, but it turned out that for the first time in many months there had not been any animals needing to be injected with Borgal against piglet diarrhoea. The positive trend has remained ever since and has indeed been further enhanced over the last year. Just the savings I have accomplished in medicine expenses have paid for the extra cost of the GMO-free soy."
Deformed and Stillborn Piglets
For whatever reason, dead and deformed piglets are a problem in all pig farming situations where GM soy is used in the diet. Mr Pedersen is convinced that this is connected to the residues of glyphosate that are allowed in feed within the EU – 20 ppm in corn and soybean. He says that residues have been measured at 17 ppm in soybean meal, and that the permitted level of tolerance has been fixed at the behest of the GM industry. In Argentina, he says, farmers typically spray 4 litres of Roundup in growing 1 tonne of GM soybeans. GMO crops are typically sprayed 2 times with Roundup in the growing season. Argentina is a major supplier of GM soy into the European market. He says: "When growers in Denmark dry out cereals and oilseed rape, the content of glyphosate in the harvested crop is quite high, since spraying takes place just 10-14 days before harvest. You know that 80% of the glyphosate remains in the plant; some is degraded and the rest stays in the plant and condenses in the growing points, which are at that stage the seeds."
Piglet with a spinal deformity
He says: "In my grain silo 15% of the grain is dried out with Roundup and I buy barley for the sows, so 40% of the feed could be sprayed with Roundup. From my study of the literature, it appears that malformations in foetuses in certain animal species start at 0.2 ppm, and that endocrine disruption starts in humans at concentrations of 0.5 ppm. Total death of human cells occurs at 10 ppm. We have had 13 malformed piglets (about one in 700) born over the last nine months, most of them liveborn. We know from experiments that glyphosate damages the cranium and spine in approximately 70% of test animals. I am convinced that Roundup causes serious birth defects especially of the head and spine in foetuses of both humans and animals." He cites information from Argentina concerning the effects on human beings of glyphosate / Roundup spraying in rural areas affected by spray drift. Some of his pigs had the same type of damage as the children in this YouTube film.
Mr Pedersen adds: "Independent researchers have shown Roundup to be both a powerful and non-selective biocide and an endocrine disruptor, leading to birth deformities, abortion, cancer and changes in microflora in the gut of mammals, so that Clostridia becomes a problem. This, I think, is the direct reason for chronic botulism in cattle. I know that the diarrhoea and bloated sow problems which we had – and which disappeared with the changed diet – were due to Clostridia bacteria."
Looking to the future, he says: "I am sure that Danish farmers would stop using GM soy in the feed for their animals if they knew the harmful effects it is having on animals and humans. I believe that the effects of DDT and Thalidomide can be described as trivial compared to the effects we are now seeing from the use of GMO crops that are sprayed with Roundup. Those negative human health effects will greatly increase in the future as Roundup consumption increases worldwide. I dread to think how serious the situation might become before the world community calls a halt to this dependence on a harmful animal feed supply contaminated with herbicides." He cites researchers who urge the application of the the precautionary principle and who call for Roundup to be phased out.
Finally he quotes from Professor Don Huber: "We will not in future be remembered for being the generation that shed so many tons of chemicals on our fields, but as the generation who willingly sacrificed our children for a few multinational companies' profits."
Economic Realities
Mr Pedersen has analysed the effects of converting to the use of non-GM soy in his farrowing house, and is convinced that his actions have resulted in increased farm profitability. This is how he assesses the situation: "We find that efficiency – measured in terms of man-hours required in the shed – is rising, since the animals are more contented and more healthy. Now we have 1.8 more piglets weaned per sow – 29.9 as opposed to 28.1 before the change to non-GM soy. Moreover, 1.8 more piglets weaned translates into 225,000 DKr. Another statistic is that 12 sows less per year die due to stomach problems; that translates into 24,000 DKr. Two thirds of the medicines saved in the sow herd translates into 30,000 DKr. Non- GMO soya contains more nutrition, protein and energy. The added value of protein and energy alone is 17 DKr. per 100 kg, translating into 12,750 DKr per year."
On the negative side of the equation, he refers to the extra cost of 75 tonnes of non-GMO as 55 DKr per 100 kg, giving a total of 41,250 DKr.
His total extra costs are equivalent to 28,500 DKr. for 450 sows, or 63.34 DKr. per sow.
Putting the positive and negative cost factors together, the farmer concludes: "The savings in medicine alone pay for the extra cost incurred by the purchase of non-GMO soya. In total, I am looking at an increased profit of 250,000 DKr. or 550 kr. per sow. My animals are happier and healthier, and my profit margins have increased. So I must be doing something right!"
The Situation Elsewhere
Between 32 and 36 million tonnes of soy is imported into Europe every year (mostly from Brazil, Argentina and USA) for use in the animal feed supply chain. Most of that is GM soy -- only about 7 million tonnes per year are classified as non-GM. The biggest importers of GM soy are France, Germany, and Spain, but Denmark is heavily dependent upon GM soy beans and meal imported from Argentina. We understand that about 1.7 million tonnes of processed GM soy for animal feed was imported into Denmark in 2011.
We have picked up on substantial evidence of health problems, stillbirths and malformed foetuses in pig farming operations in countries other than Denmark where GMO soy is used in feed supplies. Sadly, much of this evidence is anecdotal and it is not recorded properly in the peer-reviewed literature. There is, not to put too fine a point on it, a cover-up within the farming industry. This is an outrage, and research worldwide should be directed immediately at this question of cause and effect relating to pig herd health and GM soy. In the words of an American colleague: "To my knowledge I am afraid that there will not be records kept by any official entity or agency in the USA on this subject. Because of the lie of GMOs being "substantially equivalent" and "generally recognized as safe" (GRAS), there were very few people looking for a problem when GM soy was first introduced on a large scale into animal diets, and when one developed most people simply referred to it as "a new norm". I know of several individual cases where problems were anecdotally demonstrated with GMO corn and soy products, but the records were all from farming operations and not from official entities. To my knowledge these instances started in 1997."
To their eternal shame, the GM industry, the farming unions and the US regulators have conspired together to ensure that it has become effectively impossible to undertake proper research in the American pig farming industry into the effects of GM soy feedstuffs; it is not too late for such research to be undertaken in Denmark and other EU countries, as a matter of urgency. This is not simply an animal welfare issue; the health of European consumers is at stake too. We should not need to remind anybody that human beings have digestive systems that are very similar to those of Mr Pedersen's pigs.
Note: It is not our intention here to do anything to harm the Danish pig industry, which is of great importance in the economy of Europe. As indicated above, Denmark has a very highly regulated industry, including a lower use of medication in pig herds than in most other EU countries. Strict sanctions are applied to pig farmers if medication use rises above an agreed threshold. Indeed, it is because of this tight regulation, with a long tradition of openness and transparency, and the requirements for record keeping and veterinary surveillance, that Mr Pedersen has been able to assemble his information in the form described above. This would have been impossible in most EU countries. Denmark is to be congratulated in this respect, and it is our hope that if Mr Pedersen's experiences are replicated elsewhere, and if the industry takes action on the issue of GM soy, and improves the health of the national pig herd as a consequence, the country will obtain a strong competitive advantage in the market place.
Part 2: Assessment of the Danish Press Coverage
Pig farmer reaps gains from GMO-free soy
The journal EFFEKTIVT LANDBRUG published a front page piece on 13 April 2012 which appears to have caused quite a stir in Danish farming circles. The main headline article was written by Anne Wolfenberg and Jacob Lund-Larsen, and it briefly described the "significant improvements" which farmer lb Borup Pedersen has seen in his herd after changing from GM-soy feed to GM-free soy. He was quoted as saying: "Most obvious was the fact that our massive problems with piglet diarrhoea disappeared from day one following the change." The journalists reported that after switching to GM-free soy, the farmer noted a number of improvements - including easier farrowing, sows with higher milk yield, fewer dead piglets, more uniform pigs at weaning, lower medication use, a higher farrowing rate and an increase in weaned pigs per pen, with many litters of 14 piglets.
The journalists reported that the many improvements in the health of the herd were – in cash terms – more than enough to cover the cost of the more expensive GM-free feed. The farmer was reported as saying: "The savings that I have accomplished in the medicine account have already paid for the extra cost of the GM-free soya."
The article reported that Mr Pedersen is also critical of GM soya because it is grown with a significant use of glyphosate on the fields. On that basis, he said he is convinced that his colleagues would drop GM forage crops if they were better informed about the harmful effects which hey have on animals and humans.
The article reported that the Danish Center for Pig Research has just decided to test the gastrointestinal health of pigs that are fed with GMO and non-GM soy.
On the front page of the paper, there was a Sidebar Feature with the heading: "A Frightening Possibility?" and posing this question: "Are the use of GMO-crops and Roundup equally fatal for animals and humans, and are DDT and Thalidomide really only minor problems compared to GMO and Glyphosate?"
This question was explored on page 2 of the newspaper, in what was presumably an Editorial comment. The writer noted that there are many frightening prospects that come up in the wake of reading the story on the front page about farmer lb Borup Pedersen, who wished to make other Danish farmers aware of the apparently harmful effects of GM crops and glyphosate. "There may be those who will regard this pig producer in today's paper as a dangerous village idiot or fanatic," said the writer. "Regardless of the hype which is attached to him, the facts are that he (the farmer) as a layman has put a huge amount of time and energy into personal contacts with experts and researchers all over the world, in order to get to the bottom of this matter. Therefore, one can also simply call him a soul burning with desire." The reader was invited to judge for himself what Mr Pedersen's motives may be. The writer said that the big questions are these: "Is the pig farmer correct in the conclusions he draws from his experience? Is the use of GM crops and glyphosate fatal to animals and humans, and are DDT and thalidomide really only trifles compared to GM and glyphosate? Or is he horribly mistaken?"
–but what if there is some truth in the claims about health damage to animals fed on GMO feedstuffs? It was pointed out that it is very difficult nowadays to obtain GMO free soya such as that used by the pig producer mentioned in the articles. So what, asked the writer, can the other Danish farmers do, not to mention farmers across the rest of Europe, and those in the U.S.A.? This, thought the writer of the piece, would mean creating a whole new world order on the soya bean front, before GM free supplies could be guaranteed.
The writer of the article said that many different labels could be put on a man who has the courage to come forward with such controversial findings, where others may have conflicting interests. However, it was noted that this ordinary farmer had managed, just two months ago, to get the top agricultural professionals into a meeting, as a consequence of which the Pig Research Centre announced that an experiment designed to test the effects of GMO and Non-GMO soya will be launched this autumn.
The newspaper congratulated the Pig Research Centre for initiating this new study so quickly, in a field that can have such serious consequences, with the proviso that sometimes more haste leads to more work in the long run. "Nobody can of course be best served," said the writer, "if a subject with such menacing perspectives is not explored in depth with quality methods. The least that Danish pig producers, however, may reasonably ask, is that their money is not wasted on a single pro forma trial for the sole purpose of being able to say that they were"doing something." On that basis the writer of the piece wished the researchers well with improved design and greater security in the setup of their experiment, which has thus far been described only in outline terms.
The Main Article
On pages 6 and 7 of the newspaper, there was a double spread feature article called "Pig Focus: GMO-free soya gave a boost in production, by Anne Wolfenberg. In deference to her, we will not reproduce, translate or try to summarise that article here, but the published Danish version is readily available on request. On the whole, it is less detailed that the summary published (with the kind assistance of Mr Pedersen himself) in Part One of this Dossier, above.
Part 3: New Research Project Does GMO soy compromise pig's health?
VSP (The Danish Pig Research Centre) is testing for the effects of non-GMO soy and GMO-based soybean on pig finishers. Statements indicate that GM soy may have an effect on the pig's stomach health. The uncertainty will now be addressed in a study in pigs.
2 April 2012 Press Release
GM soybeans have been approved in the EU system and are considered to be safe to use as feed for livestock. Certain experiences, especially from the United States, however, suggest that in some herds there are health problems which can be attributed to the use of GMO soybean meal. Several observations related to GMO use have been made in the USA, but there still no clear scientific evidence that GM soy is a real risk.
Statements from the USA suggest that the use of GM soya treated with glyphosate can have a negative effect on pigs' stomach health. "The uncertainty prompts us to undertake this study, for the sake of the animals. By following and comparing 100 pigs receiving feed containing GMOs with 100 pigs given non-GMsoya, we expect to get an indication on whether it is the soy type that affects stomach health,"says Niels Jorgen Kjeldsen, Head of the Centre for Pig Production.
The VSP study is planned to map the stomach changes in Danish pigs, and it has launched a series of investigations designed to clarify how the stomach changes in swine can be reduced. With the current knowledge, gastrointestinal changes can be reduced but not eliminated. It is therefore interesting to elucidate how the use ofGM soy compared with non-GMO soy may have an effect on gastric lesions in pigs.
On VSP's experimental station Gronhoj 100 pigs have been allocated feed consisting of standard feed containing GMsoya and corn, which may also be treated with glyphosate. These piglets are then compared with wopigs given feed containing non-GMO soya and cereals, which has not been treated with glyphosate. The pigs are fed from 30 kg bodyweight to slaughter at ca. 110 kg. The stomachs are then assessed for changes attributable to the feed.
The trial will begin in the latter half of 2012.
Comment from GM-Free Cymru: We are aware that the Danish research team, operating within very tight financial constraints, wishes to commence and conclude this research as rapidly as possible, in view of the great public interest already aroused. However, we are very concerned that the study is not starting at 28 days (approx 7 kg animal weight), since it is quite possible – and indeed likely – that during the weight gain period between 7 kg and 30 kg bodyweight, toxic effects will be triggered off by the use of GMO feed in both groups of animals. That would distort the findings when the animals are killed and examined – possibly leading to charges that the experimental protocols have been "fixed." We also gather that in the experiments the control group of animals will be the 100 pigs fed on the GM soy diet; if the intention of the experiment is to look for chronic toxic effects, that seems to us to be scientifically perverse.
There are other questions too, which we would like the Danish research team to consider.
(a) Are they going to use antibiotics during this feeding study? These could mask effects with the researchers purport to be looking for.
(b) If they do not begin the study from weaning at c 28 days, what feed stuffs will they use in the preliminary feeding period? If GM material is included in the ration, the results will be compromised.
(c) What will the ration be for the sows that the pigs are farrowed from? The experimental results could be biased in one direction or another if all of the sows are fed GM soy, or indeed if they are all fed on non-GM soy.
(d) What will be the male / female balance in the two groups? Again this could influence the test results.
(e) Can the researchers guarantee that the non-GM soy used for one group of animals will not have been contaminated with glyphosate residues? We recommend that it should be ORGANIC non-GM soy.
There are other questions as well, but these are for scientists and farmers who are expert in the field. But we appreciate the fact that by "going public" with this research proposal, the Danish research team is effectively inviting specialist comments and advice.
Part 4: Mr Pedersen is not alone
Since preparing this Dossier we have spoken with another Danish farmer, Sigurd Christensen, who farms at Burkal in southern Jylland. He farms with both dairy cattle and pigs. He told us that prior to his use of GM soy in the feed for the cattle herd, he experienced hardly any cattle deaths; but he said that when GM soya came into the diet around 2007 the death rate in his milking herd gradually rose to the point where last year ten cows (10% of milkers) died. The causes of these deaths were difficult to determine, but four months ago, he vaccinated his animals and then moved to the use of non-GM soy in the diet in at attempt to resolve the problem. Since then there have been no deaths, and medication costs for the cattle herd have dropped dramatically. In his pig herd of 500 sows, Mr Christensen reported that he had a history of major problems with sow health and piglet diarrhoea, and again decided to shift to the use of non-GMO soy in December 2011. It is still early days, but he has already noticed an improvement in the health of his pig herd, a reduction in reproductive problems, and a fall in medication use. Productivity has risen from 27 piglets per sow per year to 33.7 – well above the national average.
We wonder how many other farmers there are in Denmark (and indeed in the other EU countries) who have similar experiences with GM soy animal feed, ailments in pig and cattle herds, use of antibiotics, and stillbirths and live piglet malformations? Are they numbered in hundreds? Thousands? We have spoken to another pig farmer (in the UK) and he tells us that farmers are notoriously secretive when it comes to such matters, since they are in a competitive industry, and since nobody wants to admit to problems. Veterinary officers, who certainly know what is going on, tend to abide by a code of confidentiality. Record keeping at a regional and national level is inadequate in many EU countries, and there seems to be no central collation of statistics which will allow proper "cause and effect" investigations to be undertaken with respect to GM soy animal feed. We hope that we will be proved wrong on this, and that Government Departments of Agriculture do indeed know what is going on down on the farm – there are animal welfare and human health issues at stake too.
But our pig farmer contact also tells us that farmers are very pragmatic. Their priorities have always been – and always will be – to produce food at a price which the market can bear, as efficiently as possible, with the lowest possible negative impacts on animals and the environment, and with the best possible returns on investment. On that basis, we hope that the experiences of Mr Pedersen and Mr Christensen will alert thousands of other farmers to the fact that their ongoing use of a potentially harmful product (namely GM soy animal feed) has animal welfare implications, causes health problems that have to be addressed, and – perhaps most important of all from their point of view – damages profitability.
相关报道：
·英公众与科学家爆发"转基因冲突"·光明网卫生时评：丹麦转基因毒性研究意义重大
·转基因 人类的一场大赌局
喜欢这篇文章吗？欢迎发空信给 lihlii+subscribe@googlegroups.com 订阅《童言无忌》邮件组 发空信给 jrzl+subscribe@googlegroups.com 订阅《今日知录邮件组》。
没有评论:
发表评论