作物永續發展協會說明基改食品安全性

本中心於2018年10月20日刊登查核報告【錯誤】網傳政府同意向美國進口16.5億美元的大豆，都是基因改造大豆，美國人都不吃，牛馬羊牲畜吃的，賣給我們吃？，10月29日收到作物永續發展協會來函，針對基改食品的安全問題說明如下：

一、關於爭議點四、第二項說明: 台灣大學郭華仁教授指出，2012年法國有份非常嚴謹研究報告發現食用兩年基改玉米之老鼠器官病變大幅提高，此研究報告連結亦附於事實查核報告中。然此篇論文已被Food and Chemical Toxicology期刊撤銷，撤銷原因為樣本數不足、試驗設計及使用之測試動物(史－道二氏大鼠)無法於此論文導出有效結論。建議 貴中心勿引用已被科學期刊撤銷之論文為「嚴謹的研究報告」。

二、2016年6月29日，138位諾貝爾得主聯合發表聲明，指出世界各地的科學研究與政府機構多次而且不斷地確認，經由基因改造技術所改良過的作物和食物跟經由其他方法育種的作物和食物一樣安全，甚至可能更為安全。世界上也沒有任何一例因食用基改食品而造成健康危害的確證案例，不論在人或動物身上都沒有。建議 貴中心將此篇聲明納入事實查核報告中。

三、根據歐盟委員會支持之「基因改造產品風險評估及證據溝通專案，GRACE: GMO Risk Assessment and Communication of Evidence 」兩篇研究論文指出，大鼠經餵食九十天和一年兩種不同品系的基因改造玉米，且基因改造玉米占總攝食量33%，於實驗時間結束後，實驗之雄性、雌性大鼠均無因飲食產生不良反應。此研究結果亦被歐盟食品安全局(EFSA)科學委員會報和經濟合作暨發展組織(OECD)試驗方針452條登錄。建議 貴中心將此兩篇研究報告結果納入事實查核報告中。

附件一、Food and Chemical Toxicology 撤銷「Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize」聲明稿

The journal Food and Chemical Toxicology retracts the article “Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize,” which was published in this journal in November 2012. This retraction comes after a thorough and time-consuming analysis of the published article and the data it reports, along with an investigation into the peer-review behind the article. The Editor in-Chief deferred making any public statements regarding this article until this investigation was complete, and the authors were notified of the findings.

Very shortly after the publication of this article, the journal received Letters to the Editor expressing concerns about the validity of the findings it described, the proper use of animals, and even allegations of fraud. Many of these letters called upon the editors of the journal to retract the paper. According to the journal’s standard practice, these letters, as well as the letters in support of the findings, were published along with a response from the authors.1Due to the nature of the concerns raised about this paper, the Editor-in-Chief examined all aspects of the peer review process and requested permission from the corresponding author to review the raw data. The request to view raw data is not often made; however, it is in accordance with the journal’s policy that authors of submitted manuscripts must be willing to provide the original data if so requested.2 The corresponding author agreed and supplied all material that was requested by the Editor-in-Chief. The Editor-in-Chief wishes to acknowledge the co-operation of the corresponding author in this matter, and commends him for his commitment to the scientific process.

Unequivocally, the Editor-in-Chief found no evidence of fraud or intentional misrepresentation of the data. However, there is a legitimate cause for concern regarding both the number of animals in each study group and the particular strain selected. The low number of animals had been identified as a cause for concern during the initial review process, but the peer review decision ultimately weighed that the work still had merit despite this limitation. A more in-depth look at the raw data revealed that no definitive conclusions can be reached with this small sample size regarding the role of either NK603 or glyphosate in regards to overall mortality or tumor incidence. Given the known high incidence of tumors in the Sprague–Dawley rat, normal variability cannot be excluded as the cause of the higher mortality and incidence observed in the treated groups.

Ultimately, the results presented (while not incorrect) are inconclusive, and therefore do not reach the threshold of publication for Food and Chemical Toxicology. The peer review process is not perfect, but it does work. The journal is committed to getting the peer-review process right, and at times, expediency might be sacrificed for being 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 peer-review. The back and forth between the readers and the author has a useful and valuable place in our scientific dialog.

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.

附件二、138位諾貝爾得主支持基改科技幫助人類聲明稿

To the Leaders of Greenpeace, the United Nations and Governments around the world

The United Nations Food & Agriculture Program has noted that global production of food, feed and fiber will need approximately to double by 2050 to meet the demands of a growing global population. Organizations opposed to modern plant breeding, with Greenpeace at their lead, have repeatedly denied these facts and opposed biotechnological innovations in agriculture. They have misrepresented their risks, benefits, and impacts, and supported the criminal destruction of approved field trials and research projects.

We urge Greenpeace and its supporters to re-examine the experience of farmers and consumers worldwide with crops and foods improved through biotechnology, recognize the findings of authoritative scientific bodies and regulatory agencies, and abandon their campaign against "GMOs" in general and Golden Rice in particular.

Scientific and regulatory agencies around the world have repeatedly and consistently found crops and foods improved through biotechnology to be as safe as, if not safer than those derived from any other method of production. There has never been a single confirmed case of a negative health outcome for humans or animals from their consumption. Their environmental impacts have been shown repeatedly to be less damaging to the environment, and a boon to global biodiversity. 

Greenpeace has spearheaded opposition to Golden Rice, which has the potential to reduce or eliminate much of the death and disease caused by a vitamin A deficiency (VAD), which has the greatest impact on the poorest people in Africa and Southeast Asia.

The World Health Organization estimates that 250 million people, suffer from VAD, including 40 percent of the children under five in the developing world. Based on UNICEF statistics, a total of one to two million preventable deaths occur annually as a result of VAD, because it compromises the immune system, putting babies and children at great risk. VAD itself is the leading cause of childhood blindness globally affecting 250,000 - 500,000 children each year. Half die within 12 months of losing their eyesight. 

WE CALL UPON GREENPEACE to cease and desist in its campaign against Golden Rice specifically, and crops and foods improved through biotechnology in general;

WE CALL UPON GOVERNMENTS OF THE WORLD to reject Greenpeace's campaign against Golden Rice specifically, and crops and foods improved through biotechnology in general; and to do everything in their power to oppose Greenpeace's actions and accelerate the access of farmers to all the tools of modern biology, especially seeds improved through biotechnology. Opposition based on emotion and dogma contradicted by data must be stopped.

How many poor people in the world must die before we consider this a "crime against humanity"?

Sincerely,