今天真熱鬧。塞拉利尼的論文被FCT撤稿了。中國的挺轉科學家和支持者，差一點笑背過氣、快要樂死了。但是，塞拉利尼團隊又一次發表嚴正聲明了。歐洲獨立科學委員會，即塞拉利尼團隊的支持者之一，CRIIGEN，也嚴正宣布：

　　如果FCT堅持只是撤下我們那篇論文的決定，CRIIGEN將訴諸法律以回擊，包括在美國采取行動，以補償此舉對我們的團隊所造成的巨大傷害。我們還要求，歐洲有關權威機構重審關于核準轉基因和殺蟲劑的每一項以往的研究，因為我們發現，所有對照組所用的材料（飼料）中已經含有GMO和其他污染物（因此實驗結果不可靠），連已經發表被援引作為根據的的研究文獻所涉及的研究，也存在相同的問題。

　　我倒是很想看看，挺轉的科學家們，你們的科學精神在哪里，你們的公平公正透明在哪里，你們的標準在哪里?我現在不會相信你們，我很清楚，我們是在打仗，刀來劍往，沒有什么稀奇。你們不講道理不是一天兩天了。你們已經忘記了怎樣才像一個真正的科學家，科學應該怎樣對待數據和事實，所以，我只是想向公眾說：為了自己，都來反對轉食品基因吧!

　　今天要提到的兩位泰山壓頂不屈服的科學家：塞拉利尼和Joël Spiroux 醫生

　　網名“種田農民_”的華中農業大學教授嚴建兵今天上午9點貼出博文：

　　【轉基因玉米致癌文章正式被《食品化學毒物學》撤稿》】 (2013-11-29 09:00:50)

　　http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_4abe58910102etb2.html#bsh-24-317565649

　　內容如下。

　　去年《食品化學毒物學》一篇關于轉基因玉米致癌的文章，鬧得滿城風雨，被反轉控當做至尊法寶到處傳播，在文章發表后不久就有無數科學家對此提出質疑，正式提出反對意見并被《食品化學毒物學》當做讀者來信發表的就有10多篇。具體見http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691512005637

　　我也發表了一篇博客"轉基因玉米致癌?--謊言總比事實傳播的快" http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_4abe58910102edqz.html 質疑該文章的致命缺陷是樣本大小不夠，沒有統計學意義。今天《食品化學毒物學》主編正式宣布在通過長時間的調查研究后，認為文章的數據不能支持結論，正式撤回該篇文章。http://www.elsevier.com/about/press-releases/research-and-journals/elsevier-announces-article-retraction-from-journal-food-and-chemical-toxicology

　　主編要求通訊作者提供了原始數據，并對原始數據進行了重新分析，最后認為，該文章在試驗材料的選擇(選擇的是易感鼠)，樣本太小等方面存在致命缺陷，對原始數據的分析并不能得出作者得出的結論，所以決定正式撤稿!

　　不知道爭相搶報轉基因玉米致癌的媒體是否會報道這個撤稿消息。

　　下面是截止17:00時188轉發68評論的一部分，按時間順序排列，只選擇了挺轉的內容。

　　土摩托：當時對這篇爛文章轉發得那么起勁的中國媒體們，考驗你們的時候到了。 (今天 09:21)

　　蒜妞兒：撤回原文http://t.cn/8kUkkuw (今天 09:24)【多次發此貼與鏈接】

　　偉大的費德勒：國內那些沒科學理性的媒體和反轉控們對此絕對會視而不見。 (今天 09:30)

　　似是而非的大螞蟻：無良媒體每次被打臉后都會選擇不做聲，好像別人看不到他臉上的手印似得。 (今天 09:46)

　　bbjmmj：我寫個轉基因贊歌投過去，肯定不會發表，這能證明轉基因很爛? 不難證明轉基因玉米致癌，喂食老鼠，然后解剖淋巴，淋巴里有毒性啟動子就可以斷定轉基因致癌，我琢磨法醫就能做這個檢測。 (今天 09:47)

　　vieuxcheval：國外期刊不得不愛惜聲譽。這樣的垃圾文章不撤，在別人眼里就變成垃圾期刊了。作為教授，實驗室負責人，做出這樣水準低劣的工作，也該免職了，不過法國現行體制下可能性不大。//@土摩托: 當時對這篇爛文章轉發得那么起勁的中國媒體們，考驗你們的時候到了。 (今天 09:54)

　　混吃騙喝五岳謊人：崔抑郁說：“肯定被轉基因集團收買了，利益集團太強大了” (今天 09:57)

　　精銳菜花蟲：中國媒體要有腦子當初也不會這樣子了，土摩托的期待還是圖樣圖森破。 (今天 09:57)

　　上海西邊雨：《食品化學毒物學》如果在國內，也就是五類或者六類期刊，影響面太小，被引用的次數極少。//@小愛打聽: 微博里要自宮的人過來排隊//@偉大的費德勒:國內那些沒科學理性的媒體和反轉控們對此絕對會視而不見。 //@西西福廝:這可是反轉基因義和團們的圣經啊， (今天 09:58)

　　syppeng：放心吧，不會有媒體報道的。//@土摩托: 當時對這篇爛文章轉發得那么起勁的中國媒體們，考驗你們的時候到了。 (今天 11:25)

　　dirwdirw：反轉控的唯一寶典被撤稿?寶典沒了還有謠言。 (今天 11:26)

　　黃豆莢：反轉基因的人會假裝沒看到撤稿，還接著引用轉基因玉米致癌文章，來妖魔化轉基因滴。 (今天 12:26)

　　dogsdad2013：看@陳一文顧問@顧秀林的微博@金微 等人如何響應。 (今天 12:26)

　　我找到Elsevier的撤稿公告，做了一點歸納：

　　1. 你是否自己撤回論文?若你不撤，我這兒就撤了。

　　2. 您的論文一發表，編輯部就收到許多讀者來信，要求撤掉你的文章。理由有：研究的發現不能成立，實驗動物的運用不恰當，等。甚至有人指控你們作假。

　　3. 原始數據審查：做過了。

　　4. 主編審查，沒有發現作假和不正當解釋數據的行為。

　　5. 有道理的指責是這兩個：每一組的動物數量不足，動物品系選擇不當。實驗動物數量(不足)的問題在同行評審時就被提出了，作為一個不足之處，但認為研究仍然具有價值，

　　6. 進一步審查認為，因動物數量不足而不能對于NK603/草甘膦對于腫瘤發生和死亡比率等達到確定的結論。

　　7. 實驗組觀察到的較高的死亡率不能排除SD大鼠易患腫瘤的原因和正常的(個體間)差異。

　　8. 最終，論文報告的結果(并非不正確)是不完整的、沒有達到確定的結論(inconclusive),

　　因此本文夠不上本刊發表的標準。同行評審雖然很有用，也不是完美無缺【主編的意思是：即使發表前通過了同行評審、程序正確，沒有走后門，現在也得撤】。

　　后面的文字在一定程度上是套話，但可讀：

　　本刊恪守的原則是堅持公平，完整，及時和同行評審。“有時為了追求完整可能要犧牲一些變通性。公平對于作者和讀者來說，都需要很多的時間，同樣，編輯部收到的來信，不論是支持還是反對，都不妨作為‘發表后同行評審’來對待。讀者和作者之間的交流，在科學對話中占有一席之地，不僅有用而且有益。”

　　【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..】

　　主編再次建議，通訊作者以開放的態度參與對話。撤稿只是基于本論文的結論沒有達到決定性結論(inconclusive)。 本刊將繼續奉行接受有爭議稿件的做法，而不論爭議有多激烈。本編輯部當以此例激勵自身，今后把同行評審做得更好，當嘔心瀝血不負眾望。【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.】

　　撤稿公告出處：

　　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

　　http://www.elsevier.com/about/press-releases/research-and-journals/elsevier-announces-article-retraction-from-journal-food-and-chemical-toxicology

　　我其實昨天晚上就收到了這消息。不僅僅有撤稿公告，還有塞拉利尼團隊的回應， CRIIGEN 的聲明。這些事，嚴建兵教授，袁越先生，你們知道還是不知道?作為科學的辯論，需要提及，還是不需要提及對方的回應?科學家，手里應該只拿一個標準，還是見人下菜碟?人前是人，人后是鬼?

　　第一節的譯文如下。（全文稍后再貼出）塞拉利尼團隊的聲明

　　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).

　　我們是FCT一年多前發表的論文的作者，關于農達和耐受農達的轉基因生物（塞拉利尼等2012），我們已經在同一個刊物回應過同樣的質疑（塞拉利尼等，2013），即：作為正常的科學辯論，僅僅由于實驗鼠品系的選擇和數量的原因，就判定研究結果“結論不完整”，這是不能接受的。我們堅持我們的結論。我們早已公布了對相同的質疑所做的回應，但至今沒有見到對我們的回答（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 modi?ed maize and to a Roundup herbicide. Food and Chem. Tox. 53:461-468

　　CRIIGEN PRESS RELEASE NOVEMBER 28, 2013 歐洲獨立科學委員會的新聞發布11-28

　　國際食品與化學毒理學雜志(FCT)要求我們撤回一年多以前發布的研究結果，農達除草劑與耐受農達的轉基因玉米的長期毒性。在分析了我們提供的全部原始數據后，主編認為，論文沒有作假，沒有操作數據，也沒有對數據做不正當的表達。但是他仍然提出，數據不完整，原因是老鼠品系的選擇和實驗用的老鼠數量有問題。

　　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.

　　我們不能接受這個指責。這些問題早已在辯論中回應過，一年前就發布在同一家雜志上(Séralini & al., 2013, Answers to critics: why there is a long term toxicity due to NK603 Roundup-tolerant genetically modi?ed 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 modi?ed maize and to a Roundup herbicide. Food and Chem. Tox. 53:461-468).

　　這些指責是在孟山都公司指使下刊登在媒體上的。在我們的論文發表后，該公司的一位主管加入(滲透)到FCT的編輯部，負責生物技術論文。撤稿一事，將不會得到(COPE)即國際學術倫理標準的認可，FCT自己也是接受該標準的雜志，因為我們既沒有出錯又沒有作假。

　　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，同時同期發表的孟山都公司一篇以短時研究為基礎的、試圖證明它的產品安全的論文，內容有錯誤，或者做了假，卻沒有導致任何爭議。那個研究用了和我們相同的老鼠品系和同樣的數量，但是它的對照組是假的，對照所用飼料受到轉基因污染的程度和實驗組的飼料不相上下。這也關系到癌癥相關項目的實驗需要大量動物的問題。采用雙重標準和主觀標準的做法，是不能容忍的，這樣做，會危害科學，也危害公眾健康。

　　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.

　　我們要求FCT撤下孟山都公司對同一個轉基因作物(HK603轉基因玉米)的研究論文，那論文已經被用做批準(應用)的根據。如果FCT堅持只是撤下我們那篇論文的決定，CRIIGEN將訴諸法律以回擊，包括在美國采取行動，要求經濟賠償以補償此舉對我們的團隊所造成的巨大傷害。我們還要求，歐洲有關權威機構重審關于核準轉基因和殺蟲劑的每一項以往的研究，因為對照組所用的材料(飼料)中已經含有GMO和其他污染物，可援引的研究文獻所涉及的研究也有相同的問題。

　　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.

　　聯系人：Contact : Dr Joël Spiroux : tél 02 32 38 57 71/ 06 10 81 00 36; [email protected]

　　CRIIGEN PRESS RELEASE NOVEMBER 28, 2013

　　【下面是塞拉利尼團隊聲明中英對照本。2013-11-28。請嚴建兵教授袁越先生以及差一點樂得發瘋的對手們來一個真正的科學批判。烏云遮天難持久，科學騙人難善終。轉基因用于農業之邪惡，我們大家心里其實都明明白白。】

　　我們是FCT一年多前發表的論文的作者，關于農達和耐受農達的轉基因生物的事（塞拉利尼等2012）。對于同樣的質疑，我們已經在同一個刊物上回應過（塞拉利尼等，2013），即：作為正常的科學辯論，僅僅由于實驗鼠品系的選擇和數量的原因，就判定研究結果“結論不完整”，這是不能接受的。我們堅持我們的結論。我們早已公布了對相同的質疑所做的回答，但至今沒有見到對我們的任何回應（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).

　　關于實驗大鼠品系

　　同一個大鼠品系，被用在研究致癌性和慢性化學毒理學的美國國家毒理學項目中(King-Herbert et al., 2010)。SD大鼠是常規性用于毒理和致癌效果實驗中的動物，其中有孟山都公司的90天實驗，被當做批準NK603轉基因玉米應用的依據，其他轉基因農作物也是這樣做的(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).

　　這里有一個簡明的初步的文獻清單，表明在同行評審的雜志上SD大鼠被用在36個月的實驗如(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).，其中有一些文章就發表在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

　　實驗動物數量與OECD實驗規范

　　OECD 實驗規范：第408條，關于90天實驗，第452條關于慢性毒性試驗，第453條關于綜合致癌性/慢性毒性試驗，都要求用20只動物為一組(1981和2009的規定都這樣要求)，盡管可以用10只動物的實驗就能取得生物化學參數。我們做的是長期毒性研究而不是致癌性研究，從一開始就不是這樣設想的。根據常規10只動物一組已經足夠在生物化學水平上進行研究，我們測量的參數數量是非常大的。

　　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!

　　在我們的實驗中，性激素干擾的參數以及其它參數對于解釋一年之后的嚴重后果是充分的。我們采用的OPLS-DA統計方法是最適宜的。關于腫瘤和動物死亡，時間效果以及每只動物的平均腫瘤數量都必須被納入分析。在風險研究中出現的每一個跡象，都必須被充分重視。孟山都公司的研究用了同樣的大鼠品系，每組僅10只衡量20個參數，就得出同一種NK603轉基因玉米“安全”的結論，而且他們的實驗只做了3個月 (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

　　統計分析不應該先做歷史數據，用這個方法做比較研究是錯誤的，用每組50只動物做研究是無意義。

　　采納歷史數據會把健康風險評估變成研究造假，因為食譜中的材料已經受到化學污染(by dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans (Schecter et al., 1996)和汞污染(Weiss et al., 2005)，鎘污染，鉻污染等，污染的程度足以改變動物肝臟和肺臟的基因表達，足以擾亂基因分析(Kozul et al., 2008)。以往的食料中還發現農藥和增塑劑污染，污染來自箱籠或者水(Howdeshell et al., 2003)。歷史數據也有來自可能食用了轉基因的動物，很多地方的鼠糧中的確發現了轉基因成分。這一切都與污染水平相關，我們已經在實驗大鼠和對照組大鼠中檢測到這些問題。

　　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.

　　在歷史數據中，2年SD雌性大鼠罹患乳腺纖維瘤的為13%~62%(Giknis, 2004)，但在我們的實驗中對照組的發病率要低得多，這才是真正的對照，而我們的實驗鼠發病率比對照組高很多，這使得我們的研究結果有顯著性。動物的死亡率也是這樣。

　　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 雙重標準

　　遵循同一個邏輯把塞拉利尼的實驗和孟山都公司的實驗做一對一的比較，如果前者被認為不足以顯示危害，那么后者也不能認為證明了安全。

　　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.

　　以往的研究發現凡是顯示轉基因農作物有負面效果的，都會被監管者從實驗到統計方法做嚴格的重審，凡是聲稱轉基因農作物安全的研究，都被照單接受。只要是沒有報告負面效果的研究，都被接受為“安全”的證明，無論他們的研究方法有何種不足(被認為無關緊要)。

　　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.

　　來自(Snell et al., 2012) 的一份文獻概覽研究可以說明這個傾向。如作者在摘要中這樣說，“在這里的24項研究的結果都不建議存在任何健康危害問題…”即所有被審閱的研究都被按“票面價值”被接受和通過了。然而在文章中卻指出，研究報告的作者們留下了無數缺陷，同他們指責塞拉利尼論文的問題類似，或者更嚴重。例如24篇中16篇(67%)文章沒有交代對照組飼料是否與實驗用的飼料屬于同基因品種(他們的解釋只是“沒有采用”)。許多篇文章連討論所用的方法都沒有介紹。此外還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應該把Hammond 等人關于耐受農達轉基因玉米的那些論文全都撤回。那些論文貌似都是真正的科學討論，發表它們只是為了給孟山都提供權威證據。

　　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 參考文獻

　　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 modi?ed 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.

× 烏有之鄉 WYZXWK.COM

您的打賞將用于網站日常運行與維護。
幫助我們辦好網站，宣傳紅色文化！

歡迎掃描下方二維碼，訂閱烏有之鄉網刊微信公眾號