曝光：撤回塞拉利尼研究的孟山都行动_风闻

作者：Claire Robinson；翻译：jrry86；原文发表时间：2017年8月2日；原文链接：http://gmwatch.org/en/news/latest-news/17764-uncovered-monsanto-campaign-to-get-seralini-study-retracted

图片说明：美国癌症诉讼中释放出的文件显示孟山都极力压制证明农达除草剂危害的研究，而撤回该研究的杂志编辑与孟山都有合约关系。Claire Robinson报道

主导美国癌症诉讼的律师释出的孟山都内部文件显示该公司发起了一致行动，迫使证明农达毒性效应的研究被撤回。文件还显示最初发表该研究的杂志的编辑，在“撤回行动”启动前不久，与孟山都签定了合同关系。

这项由塞拉利尼教授领衔的研究证明很低剂量的孟山都农达除草剂对大鼠有长期毒性效应，包括严重的肝肾损伤。还观察到实验组大鼠有较高的肿瘤发生率，需要更大规模的致癌性研究来确认。

新释出的文件显示，在整个撤回行动中，孟山都一直在努力掩盖它介入的痕迹。可是孟山都的科学家David Saltmiras承认他精心策划了一场“第三方专家”行动，让看起来是独立于孟山都的科学家用大量信件轰炸《食品与化学毒理学》杂志的主编A. Wallace Hayes，要求他撤回该研究。

使用“第三方专家”是烟草行业驾轻就熟的经典公关技巧，即利用被认为是“独立”专家的嘴来传达出对工业界有利的信息，因为人们不会相信工业界为自己产品所作的辩护。2012年时，“转基因观察”网站的奠基人Jonathan Matthews曝光了游说杂志编辑撤回塞拉利尼文章的所谓独立科学家与工业界的关系。现在我们有了孟山都直接介入的第一手证据。

在一份文件中，Saltmiras回顾了他在公司中的成就，夸耀说他“成功地促使无数第三方专家给编辑写信并获得发表，反映（该研究）无数的重要缺陷、糟糕的研究设计、偏颇的报告以及塞拉利尼使用有选择的统计。另外还与【孟山都雇员】Dan Goldstein和Bruce Hammond共同给编辑写了’孟山都来信’”。

Saltmiras进一步描述了他是如何在“整个2012年底塞拉利尼大鼠癌症研究的发表和媒体运动中，提升了我与发表该文章的杂志主编的关系。。。是孟山都与杂志之间的唯一接触通道”。

另一个孟山都雇员Eric Sachs也在电邮中描述了他在激励科学家写信的行动中所作的努力。他提到了Bruce Chassy，一个设立亲转的“学术评论”（Academics Review）网站的科学家。Sachs写道：“我与Bruce Chassy做了交谈，他会把信直接发给Wally Hayes，还会通知其他已经发信的科学家这样做。他了解其紧迫性。。。我还坚决要求不能表现出是孟山都提供了导致编辑撤回文章的批判性分析。”

作为对孟山都的请求的回应，Chassy力促Hayes撤回塞拉利尼的文章：“我的目的是促使你将时钟拨回，撤回文章，重启评议程序。”

Chassy也第一个签署了撤回塞拉利尼研究的申请，还与他人合作在“福布斯”上发表文章，指控塞拉利尼作假。Chassy从没在任何文件中申明他与孟山都的关系，但是在2016年他被曝出在少于两年的时间里从孟山都收受了5万7千美元用于旅行、写作以及为转基因帮腔。

Sachs专注于确保不让公众知晓孟山都在努力使文章撤回，即便这实实在在就是孟山都正在做的事情。Sachs给孟山都科学家William Heydens写道：“在维护科学、与介入一个正式撤回挑战我们产品安全性的文章的程序之间，有着本质的区别。我们不应该给塞拉利尼、转基因批评者和媒体提供可以指控孟山都运用其势力介入文章撤回的弹药。我们提供的信息清楚证明了该研究的缺陷，强烈说明它不该被同行评议认可。”

另一个孟山都试图掩盖其介入“撤回行动”的例子，出现在孟山都雇员Daniel Goldstein和Eric Sachs之间的电邮通信中。Goldstein说：“即便让股票持有者知道这LTE【“转基因观察”网注：大概是“给编辑的信”的缩写（Letters to the Editor）】的存在，都会让我感到不安。。。它暗示我们与此有关---否则我们怎么会知道呢？如果你们俩都认为可行的话，我可以加入一句’了解到来自14个国家的25名科学家给编辑写了多封信’。”Sachs回应到：“我们’有关联’但并没有写信或鼓励任何人签署。”

A. Wallace Hayes是由孟山都付钱的

释出文件中曝光的最令人吃惊的是《食品与化学毒理学》杂志的编辑A. Wallace Hayes在介入撤回塞拉利尼研究之前，刚刚与孟山都签定了顾问合约。很明显Hayes作为孟山都的顾问，与他作为撤回确定草甘膦毒性效应研究的杂志的编辑，这两者之间存在利益冲突。该研究发表于2012年9月19日，而Hayes与孟山都之间的顾问合约签订日期是2012年8月21日，并确定Hayes从2012年9月7日起开始提供服务。

文件还显示孟山都为Hayes的顾问服务提供的报酬是每小时400美元，作为回报，Hayes被期待“帮助在南美洲建立一个毒理学家、流行病学家和其他科学家的专家网络，并参与在该区域召开的初步会议。最关键的任务是为2013年的成立大会准备并作一个报告，讨论关于草甘膦毒理学的相关区域问题”。 

既然Hayes签订了合约，就应该回避，不再介入塞拉利尼的研究。但是他一直保持沉默，继续监督由未名人士对该研究所作的第二轮“评审”，而这些人士也未公开他们是否存在利益冲突---这最终导致Hayes决定撤回该研究，理由是一些结果“是不确定的”，这理由是史无前例的。

Hayes在一次采访中对《》的Danny Hakim说，在撤回时，他与孟山都没有合同关系，只是在他离开杂志后才接受孟山都薪酬。他还补充说“孟山都对撤回决定的作出没有发挥任何作用”。但是既然在由Hayes监督的耗时数月的第二次评审之后，杂志用了超过一年时间才撤回该研究，很清楚的是，从他与孟山都的合同生效起以及在评审程序中，他并没有公布所存在的利益冲突。看起来他在误导《》。

合约的时机也让人产生疑问，孟山都是否已经知道这项研究即将发表。果真如此的话，他们会很乐意及时与Hayes建立起这样的关系的。

一份孟山都的内部电邮证实了该公司与Hayes之间的亲密关系。关于最近发表的塞拉利尼研究，Saltmiras写道：“今天稍早时候，现任《食品与化学毒理学》的“视角与策略”部的主编Wally Hayes给我发了一个礼节性的电邮。希望我们俩可以很快讨论一下FCT的“视角和策略”部是否需要出面关注这篇通过同行评议程序的文章。”

在孟山都其他人员的电邮通信中，关于塞拉利尼的研究Daniel Goldstein写下了这样话：“撤回---Dan Jenkins（美国政府事务部门）和Harvey Glick基于同样的理由，都提出了撤回文章的必要性，文章的发表会提升其地位，让杂志上的其它文章受到质疑，使塞拉利尼获得更多操作的自由。我们所有人都知道只有杂志主编和管理层才能做最后的决定，也许我们根本没有机会撤回，但我觉得我们有必要强化这个请求。”

孟山都得逞了，虽然该文章随后又由另一个原则性更强、编委会与孟山都没有合约的杂志重新发表。

为什么孟山都必须除掉塞拉利尼的研究

很明显除掉塞拉利尼的研究是孟山都的利益所在。最直接的原因就是它报告了低剂量农达以及某个抗农达转基因玉米的危害，而从文件中透露出来的更重要的原因是如果承认该研究存在任何有效性，将给要求对转基因作物和相关联农药进行长期试验的管理机构和其他人打开方便之门。

Goldstein指出这给孟山都带来的一个相关风险是，“第三方可能会从政府机构或反转/反农药的金融机构获得经费来验证塞拉利尼的发现。”

文件显示孟山都主持了几个国际电话会议，来讨论如何预先阻止出现这种具有高度威胁性的局面。

作为对电话会议要点的总结，Daniel Goldstein写道“很遗憾的是”，三个“与长期试验有关的潜在问题浮现了出来，需要加以考虑，甚至需要某种形式（内部或外部）的白皮书”。这些潜在的要求包括：

* 转基因作物的两年大鼠长期致癌试验（可能还有生殖试验）

* 在目前管理者要求的对活性成分本身的研究之外，对农药配方的两年长期研究

* 农药配方作用在转基因作物上的两年大鼠长期试验

对第一点，Goldstein写道，塞拉利尼的研究“没有发现SD大鼠任何不同寻常的变化，因此没有任何理由怀疑EFSA最近的指导意见，即对实质等同的作物没有必要进行这样的研究”。在反对对转基因作物进行长期试验方面，孟山都得到EFSA的支持，这对“转基因观察”网的读者来说一点都不让人惊讶。

对第二点，Goldstein重申塞拉利尼的研究“实际上什么也没发现，所以没必要从中得出任何结论。但是理论上的问题已摆上了台面。我们需要准备好如何回应”。

对第三点，Goldstein无视转基因的本质，实用地而不是科学地辩解说，“这种提议意味着常规作物也存在同样的问题，每种配方都至少需要与每种作物一起进行长期研究，甚至是作物的每个品种（因为我们知道同种作物不同品种间的基因差异，比同种类的转基因与常规作物之间的差异更大），这可能会带来无穷无尽的检测。”但是他又补充，“关于这个问题，我们需要一个协调一致的观点。”

欧盟管理机构站队孟山都

对公众不利的是，某些管理机构代表孟山都而不是公众的利益、反对要求对转基因作物进行长期试验的观点。实际上欧盟甚至在考虑取消现有欧盟转基因管理条例要求的90天短期动物喂养试验，这在一定程度上是基于欧盟资助的“GRACE”动物喂养项目的结果，而后者一直受到诟病，因为它涉及到的一些科学家与工业界有关联，并且据说还修改了孟山都转基因玉米MON810大鼠喂养试验中发现的有害效应。

要求道歉

A. Wallace Hayes不再是FCT的主编，而是被命名为“荣誉编辑”。同样的，在塞拉利尼研究发表后不久被空降进杂志编委会的前孟山都雇员Richard E. Goodman也离开了该杂志。

但即使他们靠边站了或者是离开了，他们的遗留影响仍然以某种形式而存在，那就是该杂志的历史上出现了一个断片，在这断片处本应该是塞拉利尼的文章。

现在孟山都介入塞拉利尼文章的撤回已经大白于天下，FCT和Hayes应该体面行事，向塞拉利尼教授和他的团队正式道歉。FCT不可能也不应该重新发表该文章，因为它已经被另一个杂志发表了。但是它需要为这个可耻的事件划出道道来，承认它处理得很糟糕，宣布它提倡科学独立性和客观性。

英文原文如下：Uncovered: Monsanto campaign to get Séralini study retractedPublished: 02 August 2017http://gmwatch.org/en/news/latest-news/17764-uncovered-monsanto-campaign-to-get-seralini-study-retractedDocuments released in US cancer litigation show Monsanto’s desperate attempts to suppress a study that showed adverse effects of Roundup herbicide – and that the editor of the journal that retracted the study had a contractual relationship with the company. Claire Robinson reportsInternal Monsanto documents released by attorneys leading US cancer litigation show that the company launched a concerted campaign to force the retraction of a study that revealed toxic effects of Roundup. The documents also show that the editor of the journal that first published the study entered into a contract with Monsanto in the period shortly before the retraction campaign began.The study, led by Prof GE Séralini, showed that very low doses of Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide had toxic effects on rats over a long-term period, including serious liver and kidney damage. Additional observations of increased tumour rates in treated rats would need to be confirmed in a larger-scale carcinogenicity study.The newly released documents show that throughout the retraction campaign, Monsanto tried to cover its tracks to hide its involvement. Instead Monsanto scientist David Saltmiras admitted to orchestrating a “third party expert” campaign in which scientists who were apparently independent of Monsanto would bombard the editor-in-chief of the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology (FCT), A. Wallace Hayes, with letters demanding that he retract the study.Use of “third party experts” is a classic public relations tactic perfected by the tobacco industry. It consists of putting industry-friendly messages into the mouths of supposedly “independent” experts, since no one would believe industry attempts to defend its own products. Back in 2012, GMWatch founder Jonathan Matthews exposed the industry links of the supposedly independent scientists who lobbied the journal editor to retract the Séralini paper. Now we have first-hand proof of Monsanto’s direct involvement.In one document, Saltmiras reviews his own achievements within the company, boasting that he “Successfully facilitated numerous third party expert letters to the editor which were subsequently published, reflecting the numerous significant deficiencies, poor study design, biased reporting and selective statistics employed by Séralini. In addition, coauthored the Monsanto letter to the editor with [Monsanto employees] Dan Goldstein and Bruce Hammond.”Saltmiras further writes of how “Throughout the late 2012 Séralini rat cancer publication and media campaign, I leveraged my relationship [with] the Editor i[n] Chief of the publishing journal… and was the single point of contact between Monsanto and the Journal.”Another Monsanto employee, Eric Sachs, writes in an email about his efforts to galvanize scientists in the letter-writing campaign. Sachs refers to Bruce Chassy, a scientist who runs the pro-GMO Academics Review website. Sachs writes: “I talked to Bruce Chassy and he will send his letter to Wally Hayes directly and notify other scientists that have sent letters to do the same. He understands the urgency… I remain adamant that Monsanto must not be put in the position of providing the critical analysis that leads the editors to retract the paper.”In response to Monsanto’s request, Chassy urged Hayes to retract the Séralini paper: “My intent was to urge you to roll back the clock, retract the paper, and restart the review process.”Chassy was also the first signatory of a petition demanding the retraction of the Séralini study and the co-author of a Forbes article accusing Séralini of fraud. In neither document does Chassy declare any link with Monsanto. But in 2016 he was exposed as having taken over $57,000 over less than two years from Monsanto to travel, write and speak about GMOs.Sachs is keen to ensure that Monsanto is not publicly seen as attempting to get the paper retracted, even though that is precisely what it is doing. Sachs writes to Monsanto scientist William Heydens: “There is a difference between defending science and participating in a formal process to retract a publication that challenges the safety of our products. We should not provide ammunition for Séralini, GM critics and the media to charge that Monsanto used its might to get this paper retracted. The information that we provided clearly establishes the deficiencies in the study as reported and makes a strong case that the paper should not have passed peer review.”Another example of Monsanto trying to cover up its involvement in the retraction campaign emerges from email correspondence between Monsanto employees Daniel Goldstein and Eric Sachs. Goldstein states: “I was uncomfortable even letting shareholders know we are aware of this LTE [GMW: probably “Letter to the Editor”]…. It implies we had something to do with it – otherwise how do we have knowledge of it? I could add ‘Aware of multiple letters to editor including one signed by 25 scientists from 14 countries’ if you both think this is OK.” Sachs responds: “We are ‘connected’ but did not write the letter or encourage anyone to sign it.”A. Wallace Hayes was paid by MonsantoThe most shocking revelation of the disclosed documents is that the editor of Food and Chemical Toxicology, A. Wallace Hayes, entered into a consulting agreement with Monsanto in the period just before Hayes’s involvement in the retraction of the Séralini study. Clearly Hayes had a conflict of interest between his role as a consultant for Monsanto and his role as editor for a journal that retracted a study determining that glyphosate has toxic effects. The study was published on 19 September 2012; the consulting agreement between Hayes and Monsanto was dated 21 August 2012 and Hayes is contracted to provide his services beginning 7 September 2012.The documents also reveal that Monsanto paid Hayes $400 per hour for his services and that in return Hayes was expected to “Assist in establishment of an expert network of toxicologists, epidemiologists, and other scientists in South America and participate on the initial meeting held within the region. Preparation and delivery of a seminar addressing relevant regional issues pertaining to glyphosate toxicology is a key deliverable for the inaugural meeting in 2013.”Hayes should have recused himself from any involvement with the Séralini study from the time he signed this agreement. But he kept quiet. He went on to oversee a second “review” of the study by unnamed persons whose conflicts of interest, if any, were not declared – resulting in his decision to retract the study for the unprecedented reason that some of the results were “inconclusive”.Hayes told the New York Times’s Danny Hakim in an interview that he had not been under contract with Monsanto at the time of the retraction and was paid only after he left the journal. He added that “Monsanto played no role whatsoever in the decision that was made to retract.” But since it took the journal over a year to retract the study after the months-long second review, which Hayes oversaw, it’s clear that he had an undisclosed conflict of interest from the time he entered into the contract with Monsanto and during the review process. He appears to be misleading the New York Times.The timing of the contract also begs the question as to whether Monsanto knew the publication of the study was coming. If so, they may have been happy to initiate such a relationship with Hayes at just that time.A Monsanto internal email confirms the company’s intimate relationship with Hayes. Saltmiras writes about the recently published Séralini study: “Wally Hayes, now FCT Editor in Chief for Vision and Strategy, sent me a courtesy email early this morning. Hopefully the two of us will have a follow up discussion soon to touch on whether FCT Vision and Strategy were front and center for this one passing through the peer review process.”In other email correspondence between various Monsanto personnel, Daniel Goldstein writes the following with respect to the Séralini study: “Retraction – Both Dan Jenkins (US Government affairs) and Harvey Glick made a strong case for withdrawal of the paper if at all possible, both on the same basis – that publication will elevate the status of the paper, bring other papers in the journal into question, and allow Séralini much more freedom to operate. All of us are aware that the ultimate decision is up to the editor and the journal management, and that we may not have an opportunity for withdrawal in any event, but I felt it was worth reinforcing this request.”Monsanto got its way, though the paper was subsequently republished by another journal with higher principles – and, presumably, with an editorial board that wasn’t under contract with Monsanto.Why Monsanto had to kill the Séralini studyIt’s obvious that it was in Monsanto’s interests to kill the Séralini study. The immediate reason was that it reported harmful effects from low doses of Roundup and a GM maize engineered to tolerate it. But the wider reason that emerges from the documents is that to admit that the study had any validity whatsoever would be to open the doors for regulators and others to demand other long-term studies on GM crops and their associated pesticides.A related danger for Monsanto, pointed out by Goldstein, is that “a third party may procure funding to verify Séralini’s claims, either through a government agency or the anti-GMO/antl-pesticide financiers”.The documents show that Monsanto held a number of international teleconferences to discuss how to pre-empt such hugely threatening developments.Summing up the points from the teleconferences, Daniel Goldstein writes that “unfortunately”, three “potential issues regarding long term studies have now come up and will need some consideration and probably a white paper of some type (either internal or external)”. These are potential demands for•    2 year rat/long-term cancer (and possibly reproductive toxicity) on GM crops•    2 year/chronic studies on pesticide formulations, in addition to the studies on the active ingredient alone that are currently demanded by regulators, and•    2 year rat/chronic studies of pesticide formulations on the GM crop.In reply to the first point, Goldstein writes that the Séralini study “found nothing other than the usual variation in SD [Sprague-Dawley] rats, and as such there is no reason to question the recent EFSA guidance that such studies were not needed for substantially equivalent crops”. GMWatch readers will not be surprised to see Monsanto gaining support from EFSA in its opposition to carrying out long-term studies on GMOs.In answer to the second point, Goldstein reiterates that the Séralini study “actually finds nothing – so there is no need to draw any conclusions from it – but the theoretical issue has been placed on the table. We need to be prepared with a well considered response.”In answer to the third point, Goldstein ignores the radical nature of genetic engineering and argues pragmatically, if not scientifically, “This approach would suggest that the same issue arises for conventional crops and that every individual formulation would need a chronic study over every crop (at a minimum) and probably every variety of crop (since we know they have more genetic variation than GM vs conventional congener) and raises the possibility of an almost limitless number of tests.” But he adds, “We also need a coherent argument for this issue.”EU regulators side with MonsantoTo the public’s detriment, some regulatory bodies have backed Monsanto rather than the public interest and have backed off the notion that long-term studies should be required for GM crops. In fact, the EU is considering doing away with even the short 90-day animal feeding studies currently required under European GMO legislation. This will be based in part on the results of the EU-funded GRACE animal feeding project, which has come under fire for the industry links of some of the scientists involved and for its alleged manipulation of findings of adverse effects on rats fed Monsanto’s GM MON810 maize.Apology requiredA. Wallace Hayes is no longer the editor-in-chief of FCT but is named as an “emeritus editor”. Likewise, Richard E. Goodman, a former Monsanto employee who was parachuted onto the journal’s editorial board shortly after the publication of the Séralini study, is no longer at the journal.But although they are sidelined or gone, their legacy lives on in the form of a gap in the history of the journal where Séralini’s paper belongs.Now that Monsanto’s involvement in the retraction of the Séralini paper is out in the open, FCT and Hayes should do the decent thing and issue a formal apology to Prof Séralini and his team. FCT cannot and should not reinstate the paper, because it is now published by another journal. But it needs to draw a line under this shameful episode, admit that it handled it badly, and declare its support for scientific independence and objectivity.