博文
加州转基因食品强制标识37号提案请投yes票！
热度 1 ||
11月06日加州转基因食品强制标识“37号提案”请投票在即，友人发来一信说：
@海外美食作家冰清 和@松鼠云无心 用99%的真话（跟大家聊食品知识） 掩盖1% 的转基因食品推销，不像转基因毒食促销员方舟子那样容易识别。@海外美食作家冰清 还去加州华人电台（一定是孟山都付费赞助） 误导华人不要投37号提案的yes 票。
以孟山都公司为首的转基因毒食贩子非常邪恶。为剥夺消费者知情权、阻止转基因食品强制标识“37号提案”通过，已花费数千万美元大做广告和公关，使“37号提案”原本60%以上的支持率急速下降至50%以下，尽管仍稍高于反对37号提案者，却已难保“37号提案”铁定通过了。
为此，孟山都公司之流转基因“贩毒奸商”又勾结或买通《科学》杂志，发表了“AAAS”反对“37号提案”的声明（AAAS（美国科学促进会）发表的关于转基因食品标示的声明），声称“强行标示转基因食品没必要而且只会产生误导和错误地吓唬消费者”，声称“科学清楚表明用现代分子技术改进的作物是安全的”。
既然转基因食品是安全、健康的，强制标识以后怎么会“吓唬”到消费者？还不是因为孟山都公司之流奸商长期压制独立第三方超过“亚慢性毒性”动物试验，极力将对转基因食品的毒理学试验限制在“亚慢性毒性”动物试验的90天以内，以免180天以上动物试验暴露转基因食品致癌（法国小白鼠终生试验报告）乃至绝育（俄罗斯仓鼠三代试验报告）真相？
看看美国环保部华裔生命科学家刘实先生对AAAS发表于《科学》的邪恶声明的评论吧，千万不要上方舟子之流的当，受@海外美食作家冰清 和@松鼠云无心之流的骗，对加州转基因食品强制标识37号提案投yes票吧！
美国转基因食品标示决战在即，刘实整装亮相《科学》吹号冲锋
http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_502041670102ej8u.html
【求真网2012年11月5日晚电】超一流生命科学家刘实继2012年11月2日、3日和5日早分别在《科学》杂志“Scientists Spar Over Wisdom of California Ballot Effort to Require Labeling of Genetically Modified Foods”（科学家争论加州公投是否需要标示转基因食品）新闻下发表评论后，今日更是“整装”亮相《科学》吹号冲锋。
在刚发表的一篇评论里，刘实以专业暴露研究科学家、《逻辑生物学》杂志主编、《科学伦理》杂志主编和求真网络出版社总裁的多种身份“整装”亮相，从多方面概要说明标示转基因食品的必要性、“实质等同”的局限性、“自愿”测试的利益冲突、以及面对“推销员”所应具有的基本常识。
刘实相信具有“淘金避陷”的加州人一定会做出明智的决定。
As a professional exposure research scientist I consider the labeling of food content is a good practice because it will facilitate the scientific research on the effect of food on human health. It does not matter whether the effect is positive or negative when placement of a labeling system on the food is made before its effects are known.
As the editor-in-chief of Logical Biology I find using the
“substantial equivalence” in a
limited test for arguing the complete safety of GM crops/foods is
largely illogical. This is because the changes in GM crops may
include something that is totally unknown and thus narrowly
specified tests will not even show the effects of these
changes.
As the editor-in-chief of Scientific Ethics I believe that FDA’s
decision to rely on the “voluntary” tests of GM food manufacturers
for assuring public the safety of GM food products is flawed. How
can an athlete also be his/her own judge? How too avoid
the
conflict-of-interest in such a situation?
Finally, as the president of Truthfinding Cyberpress with just a basic instinct learnt from tough lessons in ordinary life, I think it would never be too stupid to have a little suspicion on a sales-man/woman who will not let you know the content of what the product that s/he is pushing you to buy. It would be even wise to ask myself such a question: should I be deprived my right to know any more just because I was misinformed before?
Let us see what the voting result of the Proposition 37 will be. I
think most Californians who have a good tradition of rushing for
gold but not falling into traps will make a wise
decision.
Good luck Californians! God bless America!
刘实雄居《科学》高地猛批挺转反标伪科
【求真网2012年11月3日电】继2012年11月2日刘实在《科学》杂志“Scientists Spar Over Wisdom of California Ballot Effort to Require Labeling of Genetically Modified Foods”（科学家争论加州公投是否需要标示转基因食品）新闻下发表第一篇评论后，超一流生命科学家刘实高人继续引领利用《科学》高地猛批挺转反标伪科的战斗。
目前，该《科学》）新闻下已发表发表11篇评论,其中3篇是刘实所发。刘实的评论不仅抨击了奥巴马在竞选美国总统和当了美国总统后的言行不一，还批评了顶尖杂志在报道“金米童试”和“法国转基粮毒试”中的偏颇。更揭露某些“科学家”对科学的不负责任。
刘实呼吁：尊重人民选择的自由，不要剥夺其知情权！
下面是这11篇评论的原文：
-
Shi V. Liu • a day ago
I have read the AAAS statement and found it truly disgusting.
In normal market practice, manufactures would not only intentionally identify their products but also spend big money to advertise their identified products when they think their products are good and thus would be liked by the consumers. Thus, it does not make any sense to not label GM foods if they are truly good products. It is even craze for the manufactures of GM foods to waste money on preventing their "good" products being "proudly" identified.
If GM foods are really "safe" as claimed to be so the actual safety test results that can prove their safety of long-term consumption which is the reality the consumers will face.
AAAS's statement is arrogant considering the fact that the world-first long-term safety test has reported some health risks with eating a kind of GM corn. Even though people can criticize the deficiency of this study it nevertheless expose the lack of much needed tests to confirm the safety claim made for GM foods.
When the real safety assurance of GM foods is indeed lacking, please give people a freedom for making their own choice. To achieve this goal it is essential to label the GM foods as they are. Such labeling practice should bring manufacturers benefits if their GM foods are truly good because they can perform some studies to prove at least the lack of health risks associated with consuming their identifiable products.
So, label GM good please! It will serve even (such as the exposure research) science only the good things.
-
-
Shi V. Liu • a minute agoA report stated that supporters of Prop 37 face stiff opposition from a powerful coalition of
the world’s leading pesticide and junk food manufacturers who have raised more than $44 million to defeat this grassroots initiative, including more than $8.1 million from Monsanto. I am amazed with the large amount of money spent on preventing identification of “very good” products. The “wisdom” for such a waste of money is that labeling GM foods will help consumers running away from GM foods because consumers are “misinformed”.Well, as far as I can see, the GM food manufactures have effectively controlled the mainstream media and published many positive stories about GM foods. However, GM foods are still disliked by majority of people at least in some areas.
Why?Two recent incidences may shed light into understanding of this interesting phenomenon.
Two months ago a study of “Golden Rice” using Chinese children was published and draw attentions world-wide. Upon questioning by the public about ethic issues and scientific problems of the paper, the corresponding author did not give any answer even up to now. Two months after being forced into making investigations on this controversial study the respective authorities still have not reached any conclusion. Top scientific journals showed very little interest in reporting this very significant case.
Meanwhile, a French study on safety of GM crop published a month ago has become a focus of top journals. They run many stories on the shortcomings of the study. However, this study, no matter how deficient it is accused to be, is in fact the world-first long-term study on the health effect of GM crops/foods. Can you believe this should be the case?
Supporters for the GM crops/foods often argue that public has been mislead and thus labeling GM foods would result in the even easier rejection of the GM foods. However, when GM food manufactures’ “voluntary” safety studies are short in time of the study duration and thus cannot answer the long-term concerns of the health impact, who should be blamed for this misinformation and thus lack of trust?
Why didn't the corresponding author of the “Golden Rice” study bravely answer criticisms just as the corresponding author of the French study on GMC safety did?Public laymen may not be as “wise” as those “scientists”. But they at least can make some rudimentary judgment on what is worth of believing and what should be treated with great care.
Respect people’s freedom in making their choice and do not deprive their right to know, please!
-
-
Tuyen Nguyen • 2 hours agoI don't understand why there's a growing trend against genetically modified food? Because of technology and science discoveries, we were able to feed the current population of 7 billions. That is a phenomenon accomplishment. Genetically modified food products are safe and strictly regulated. Yet, many people are misinformed by mass media, and they view GM food in a negative light. Science and technology have been making our lives better. They are our source of economic growth and development. Why then should we go against technology and science? Why should we be afraid of progress?
-
-
Edwin Kite • 4 hours agoI am a Caltech postdoc; this AAAS statement does not speak for me, nor many of my work colleagues.
The last sentence of the AAAS statement, "Legally mandating such a label can only serve to mislead and [....] alarm consumers," is false. Many people, including biologists, have ecological, ethical or religious objections to eating GM food.
-
-
Kazimiera J. Cottam • 9 hours agoI am appalled that so many people in California don't want labeling of GMOs. Why not? Why shouldn't the consumer know what they purchase and eat? Surely, they have heard that GMOs are highly controversial. Do they trust Monsanto, the chemical giant that has the most to lose if people reject GMOs? Up till now almost all the testing of GMOs has been done by the industry. However, a recent independent study on rats, exposed to GMOs for a sufficient period of time to make a difference, was immediately attacked by the industry. Monsanto doesn't want us to know what GMOs are really about and that ever greater amounts of pesticides are required to keep the huge weeds generated by GMOs under control. Why should North Americans be deprived of the democratic right to know what they purchase and eat while other democratic countries outside of North America do identify GMOs?
-
-
shivabeach • 10 hours agoI find it difficult to think that anyone would refuse our right to know what is in our food. GMO foods may be considered safe but at the same time the long term effects of changed content within the plants that affect our consumption and digestion of such is not known. a carrot that has certain vitamin characteristics that are known, are not necessarily known after the plan is changed. You may still be able to measure the amount of vitamin C, but is at the same vitamin C exactly that the carrot had prior to the change.
I think any food we eat must be labeled. How many people know the some of the vanilla that they buy is flavored by anal glands of a beaver? Our Congress has determined that you don't need to know that. And that is wrong. GMO foods are no different. We must retain the right to say no, we will not eat this
-
-
Shi V. Liu • 16 hours ago
This news used "wisdom" in its title.
I still remember Obama’s wisdom of supporting GMO labeling when he run for President in November 2007. However, i could not forget his "wisdom" of siding with Monsanto when he made GMO-relevant decisions after he became the President.
-
shore bird Shi V. Liu • 13 hours agoWhat this story leaves out is that 50 other countries around the world already implemented or mandated GMO labeling, as the US is falling further behind in food safety...Americans deserve the right to know what is in our food. Most man-made interventions have failed to deliver in quality and quantity, as will eventually be demonstrated in these crops. Also missing is GMO crops now require higher levels of herbicides and pesticides each year. The chemicals do not degrade (although promised as biodegradable), so glyphosate in Round-Up is now showing up in the urine of city dwellers. This is 16-year experiment that heretofore been hidden from most Americans, needs the clear light of day.
-
-
-
Job001 • 19 hours agoAssume labeling, a two tier supply becomes available with two prices. Initially GM may be priced lower and the people who choose to use it take the risk assumed voluntarily for the better price. This has the advantage that not all of mankind is subject to an involuntary gigantic experiment. Let the Free market decide who participates in the experiment.
Consider that farmers have been selecting for yield, flavor, shelf life and other traits throughout history. Often heritage lines must be bred back into favored crops when issues arise like allergies, virus susceptibility, shelf life, or nutrition needs are found. Consequently, it cannot be claimed that anything is totally safe, not even natural products.
Granted GM might be as safe as natural products for most people, some with allergies will react and it is completely common for safe drugs or foods to eventually be removed from the market because actual use uncovers serious problems. Labeling has less risk for humanity not just for this but for changes in natural products as well. Freedom requires choice, otherwise we have something else that is not freedom.
-
-
Voice from the Void • a day agoIt's sad that scientists didn't spar over the initial and fundamental question of whether or not it is grossly irresponsible to violate species barriers and genetically mutilate other life forms without their consent for profit, then release these DNA cocktails into the biosphere without any required mandatory testing and monitoring. Would they balk if someone wanted to genetically mutilate them witho
刘实在《科学》点名批驳挺转反标伪科饶毅
【求真网2012年11月5日电】继2012年11月2日和3日刘实在《科学》杂志“Scientists Spar Over Wisdom of California Ballot Effort to Require Labeling of Genetically Modified Foods”（科学家争论加州公投是否需要标示转基因食品）新闻下发表评论后，超一流生命科学家刘实高人继续引领利用《科学》高地猛批挺转反标伪科的战斗。今日更是将北大生科的饶毅点名批评。
-
Shi V. Liu
California's provision of an opportunity for citizens to vote on the issue of labeling GM foods shows a good example of respecting people's right to know and reflects the spirit of the U.S. government as by the people for the people.
In contrast, AAAS' statement reminds me of some kind of dictatorship. It is at least an outrageous arrogance to force people to believe the safety of GM foods when the much needed long-term tests are actually lacking.
Unfortunately, someone has taken advantage of AAAS' arrogant statement as a strong support for his argument that criticizing irresponsible push of converting main crops into transgenic crops is blocking progress of science and technology.
For example, the dean of the School of Life Science of Peking University, RAO yi, recently even labeled those critics as "cheaters". He also believed that only those molecular biologists are qualified to discuss GMO.
But such attitude of the so-called "wise scientists" is actually not scientific at all.
-
Shi V. Liu • 25 minutes ago
If "He L" want to put a GMO label on his/her head, s/he should be allowed to do so. However, s/he should not deprive others' right of knowing what they are eating by prohibiting honest labeling of the content of the foods.
-
【延伸阅读】
俄长期毒理试验证实转基因大豆使仓鼠三代绝种 http://t.cn/GytFa
不寒而栗：转基因毒食使台湾三成育龄人不孕
http://t.cn/SSGO2P
视频：加拿大遗传学家铃木揭穿转基因食品内幕
http://t.cn/Shw448
抵制转基因、揭露祸国贼博文专辑（持续更新） http://t.cn/adPxjY
非公众人物“方舟子妻”刘菊花是何许人？
http://t.cn/zOqRJrc
方舟子“女主子”老婆刘菊花论文抄袭丑闻
http://t.cn/S4bRsi
刘菊花硕士论文抄袭实例剖析(上)
http://t.cn/SJ3dOk
刘菊花硕士论文抄袭实例剖析(下) http://t.cn/SJ3rdA
新华社主任记者刘菊花秘档
http://t.cn/IDNUwo
方舟子最切齿的是哪些媒体的报道？
http://t.cn/zOV5Uqo
美国导演方舟子团伙毁华三大战役 http://t.cn/akixEz
边书坤棒打七寸，方舟子落荒而逃 http://t.cn/zOulOvP
美国科技黑打手方舟子专咬中国诺贝尔之星 http://t.cn/zOMtVMk
方舟子造假抄袭剽窃铁案专辑 http://t.cn/zWhr81p方舟子同党司马南反转基因毒食吗？ http://t.cn/zloEFYT
司马南诽谤解放军将领是何居心？ http://t.cn/zlam365
编剧赵华：博文网刊《绝顶阅世》第一至九期 http://t.cn/zO7Fvm6
免责声明：本文中使用的图片均由博主自行发布，与本网无关，如有侵权，请联系博主进行删除。
