主题：【原创】小崔，崔永元 -- 淡山客

第二段说得很明确，欧盟要求EFSA考虑两年实验，看看两年实验能够比起90天实验，能够补充多少关于转基因安全性方面的数据

EFSA接到了欧盟的明确的要求，但是EFSA采取什么样的方式让农产品企业证明自己的产品的安全性，这个方式记者就不太确定了，所以记者使用了may这个词（注意may是记者自己的判断,EFSA自己的立场应该查找其他文献来确定。）

也就是说，欧盟已经认识到了两年实验的重要性---这一点是确定的。

至于你说要反驳你的那些质疑塞拉利尼的东东，我早就在果壳网发过了，我把果壳网的所谓的谣言粉碎机给打得粉碎。

我把我在粉碎机上的发言转过来吧

以下是法国教授对于批评的部分回应：

These industry tests analyzed the blood and urine chemistry of the same number of animals that Séralini used. But the tests were much shorter – 90 days267– meaning that they had no power to detect long-term effects. Séralini’s team commented that the statistical power of the Monsanto test on NK603 maize2was “extremely low” to conclude safety.”3

这些工业测试同样只进行了与塞拉利昂实验同样多的动物，而且时间要短得多，只有90天，这些实验可以参见参考文献2,6,7

Those who dismiss Séralini’s experiment on grounds of statistical power must apply the same standards to the industry studies concluding safety for GMOs and show that these conclusions are reliable.

谁如果要求塞拉利昂团队的实验要具有更多统计力，那么对于得出转基因安全的实验也应该要一视同仁。

以下是参考文献

2：Hammond B, Dudek R, Lemen J, Nemeth M. Results of a 13 week safety assurance study with rats fed grain from glyphosate tolerant corn. Food Chem Toxicol.Jun 2004; 42(6): 1003-1014.

6：Hammond B, Lemen J, Dudek R, et al. Results of a 90-day safety assurance study with rats fed grain from corn rootworm-protected corn. Food Chem Toxicol.Feb 2006; 44(2): 147-160.

7：Hammond BG, Dudek R, Lemen JK, Nemeth MA. Results of a 90-day safety assurance study with rats fed grain from corn borer-protected corn. Food Chem Toxicol.Jul 2006; 44(7): 1092-1099.

3：Séralini GE, Mesnage R, Defarge N, et al. Answers to critics: Why there is a long term toxicity due to NK603 Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize and to a Roundup herbicide. Food and Chemical Toxicology.9 November 2012（这是回应各种对塞拉利昂实验的批评的一篇论文）

外链出处

Séralini used ten rats per sex per group – the same number of animals as Monsanto analyzed for blood and urine chemistry in its 90-day tests claiming to show that GM foods are safe. This is the same number that the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) recommends for a 90-day subchronic test of the type that Monsanto does on its GM foods, as well as for one of its chronic toxicity protocols. According to statistics experts, groups of this size are enough to show toxicity, but not enough to show safety. This means that industry toxicity studies on this number of rats that claim to show safety are inadequate.

OECD（经合组织）对90天实验的要求，同样也只要求每组10只

外链出处

另外以下是Prof Peter Saunders写的一篇支持塞拉利昂认为其数据站得住的一篇文章

关于这位教授的介绍

Prof. Peter Saunders is Emeritus Professor of Mathematics at King's College London and a leading expert in Mathematical Biology. His recent work has focused on modelling physiological control and finding the cause of Type II diabetes. He is a Vice-President of the UK Parliamentary and Scientific Committee.

彼得·扫恩德斯教授是伦敦国王学院数学方面的名誉退休教授，而且是生物数学领先的专家。他最近的工作专注于模拟生理学控制以及发现II型糖尿病的根源。他是英国议会科学委员会副主席。

外链出处

Excess Cancers and Deaths with GM Feed: the Stats Stand Up

这一篇文章我直接引用http://blog.ifeng.com/article/20761656.html的翻译

我文摘一部分：

As soon as the paper appeared, the GM lobby swung into action. In particular, the Science Media Centre (SMC), a London-based organisation partly funded by industry, quickly obtained quotes from a number of pro-GM scientists and distributed them to the media [4]. According to a report in Times Higher Education [5], the SMC succeeded in influencing the coverage of the story in theUKpress and largely kept it off the television news.

这篇论文刚刚发表，转基因游说团立即做出反应。尤其令人注意的是

“科学媒体中心”（SMC），部分资助来自产业界，很快从某些支持转基因科学家那里获得一些引言并立即分发给媒体[4]。依据《时代高等教育》的一个报告[5]，“科学媒体中心”成功对有关新闻在英国媒体的报道施加了影响并在很大承担上阻止电视对该方面新闻的报道。

The statistician Paul Deheuvels, a professor at the Universite Pierre et Marie Curie in Paris and a member of the French Academie des sciences, has now drawn attention to another serious error in the criticisms [7]: the complaint that Seralini used only 10 rats per group when the OECD guidelines [8] recommend 50 for investigations on carcinogenesis. Because the experiments did not follow the accepted protocol, their results, they argue, can be safely ignored.

法国统计学家保尔·德赫威尔斯（Paul Deheuvels），巴黎皮埃尔与玛丽居里大学教授以及法国科学院院士，现在指出对色拉里尼教授的批评中还存在另外一项严重错误[7]：抱怨色拉里尼教授对每组动物仅使用了10头鼠违反了“经济合作组织”（OECD）对致癌试验推荐的50头老鼠。他们提出，由于该项实验没有遵循普遍接受的规范，因此色拉里尼的结果可以安全地予以忽略。

In the first place, this was not a wilful disregard of the guidelines. The experiment was designed to test for toxicity, and for that the recommended group size is 10.

首先，色拉里尼教授团队的试验并非故意不理会该项指导原则。色拉里尼教授的试验当初涉及是进行毒性试验，而“经济合作组织”（OECD）对毒性试验推荐的动物组数量是10头。

但是德赫威尔斯教授（Prof. Deheuvels）指出，色拉里尼教授团队使用了比致癌试验推荐的动物组头数少使试验的结果更为可信，而不是更少可信。这是因为，使用较少数量的老鼠实际上使得观察到任何影响的难度更高。在尽管数量较少的动物上观察到这种影响的事实是试验的结果更为严重。

如果实验未能发现致癌性，那可能是因为实验组每组动物头鼠太少。然而，由于该项实验发现了致癌性，实验组每组动物头数较少不成为问题。

------引用粉碎机本人发言-----

请注意，前面提到了塞拉利尼用的老鼠SD鼠，是致癌研究的推荐用老鼠，因此鼠种选择没有问题。