原文是什么呢？

http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?docid=189351&doclang=EN

導言3中講得很明白，預防原則跟34條的關係是本案重點，

I.      Introduction

1.        Mr Fidenato and others (‘the Applicants’) were prosecuted for having grown genetically modified maize MON 810 in breach of a decree prohibiting its cultivation on the Italian territory. That decree was taken as an emergency measure under Article 34 of Regulation No 1829/2003 on genetically modified food or feed. (2)

2.        In the context of criminal proceedings against the Applicants, the Tribunale di Udine (District Court, Udine, Italy) referred a number of questions to the Court. One of the questions posed by the referring court concerns the relationship between Article 34 of Regulation No 1829/2003 and the precautionary principle. Are the conditions for the adoption of emergency measures listed in Article 34 exhaustive? Or could that Article be supplemented or expanded by a parallel or even independent application of the precautionary principle?

3.        The Court has already provided some guidance on the interpretation of Article 34 of Regulation No 1829/2003 inMonsanto. (3) The relationship between the precautionary principle and that Article, which was left unexplored by the Court in Monsanto, is the focus of this Opinion.

V.      Conclusion

86.      In the light of the aforementioned considerations, I propose that the Court of Justice answer the third question posed by the Tribunale di Udine (District Court, Udine, Italy) as follows:

–        Article 34 of Regulation (EC) N° 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on genetically modified food and feed, interpreted in the light of the precautionary principle, allows Member States to adopt emergency measures if and only if they can establish, in addition to urgency, the existence of a situation which is likely to constitute a clear and serious risk to human health, animal health or the environment. The precautionary principle does not, however, modify the criteria listed in Article 34 of that regulation.

结论是: 根据预防原则，允许成员国发现对动物健康及环境构成严重风险时，可以采取紧急措施。从文法上，可以反着翻译，像挺转派玩的把戏一样，但前边有个“预防原则”，alow这个词就尤其重要。結論里強調瞭預防原則，顯然是對“禁止种植轉基因玉米MON810”之訴給瞭肯定結論。

而更可恶的是，挺轉工們曲解还不够，还要断章取义，把“基于预防原则”删掉了。伎俩太拙劣了吧？

呵呵，挺轉派還曝光瞭，造謠歪曲的還是AP。