直言了
看到新华社报道《成人因食用含三聚氰胺奶粉致肾结石的可能性较小》（新华网，2008年10月01日），说：“三聚氰胺的奶粉对成人健康影响风险较低”。具体文字原文：
北京协和医院肾内科教授李学旺近日接受记者专访时指出，与婴幼儿相比，成人肾功能完善，奶粉也不是主要食物，一般不会因食用含三聚氰胺的奶粉导致肾结石。……美国食品药物管理局对人体每天摄入三聚氰胺的安全限量评估结果是，每公斤体重摄入0.63毫克以下。这就是说，一个60公斤体重的成年人，每天摄入三聚氰胺在37.8毫克以下，即食用含有三聚氰胺15毫克／公斤的奶粉不超过2.5公斤；30公斤体重的儿童每天的摄入量在18.9毫克以下，即食用同样奶粉不超过1.2公斤，一般不会对人体泌尿系统造成危害。
连接：
http://news.xinhuanet.com/newsce ... ontent_10138591.htm 。
核对了美国食品药物管理局（FDA）的相关数据说明，发现那专家和新华社报道所说内容不属实。附后是FDA-有关数据说明的相关原文，请您参照对比看看。FDA-文件相关文字说的很清楚：
[1] 有关数据主要来自有限的动物试验，人类观察试验还没有完整的观察研究报告，相关观察研究还在进行之中。
[2] 有关数据仅仅是对鱼、鸡肉、鸡蛋和猪肉而言；奶类食品不包括在内。安全数值范围仅对一般饮食而言，没包括食用后对肾等器官功能的影响的临床观察。
[3] 动物实验发现，食用三聚氰胺造成肾损害，但直接关系还不清楚。
[4] 对三聚氰胺对人类的毒性（譬如对人类肾功能的毒性作用）要做临床研究后才能给出全面确切信息。有关数据和估计说明的有效水平为90th percentile，并非全部。
不必是医学专家，只要认真阅读了FDA-文件全文，那么，正常脑袋思维非但不能得出“成人因食用含三聚氰胺奶粉致肾结石的可能性较小”和“三聚氰胺的奶粉对成人健康影响风险较低”的结论，相反，结论是不确定的、甚至根本还没有确切的人类临床观察统计，即得到的是风险大大存在的结论。
正因为如此，得知中国三鹿奶粉毒害的消息后，FDA-立即颁布了警告公告，“要求各州政府官员与本管理局一起，协助去除商店货架上发现的任何中国制造婴儿配方食品，并且警告亚裔社区成员避免使用中国制造的婴儿配方食品”，“三聚氰胺会伪造牛奶内的蛋白质含量，从而导致诸如这些中国婴儿身上发现的肾结石病症”云云。详见：
FDA Issues Health Information Advisory on Infant Formula。
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE September 12, 2008。
连接：
http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/NEWS/2008/NEW01883.html 。
如果那专家和新华社报道所说属实，那么，FDA-根本没必要发布那么严厉的警告、也没必要采取那么严厉的全国措施了。换句话说，FDA-的警告和措施也能证明那报道违背事实。
在美国，以大活人为对象而做一次较大规模的食品安全临床试验观察统计，是很困难的；而做一次含有三聚氰胺那类明知有毒害和安全范围很窄的食品安全的规模临床试验，就更困难。就此而说，中国大陆发生的三鹿奶粉事件，等于是拿中国13亿人口和中国孩子的生命为美国等国家做了一次大规模的食品安全临床试验，且试验结果证明三聚氰胺对人类健康有巨大威胁。
再说，FDA-文件原文根本就没有“食用含有三聚氰胺15毫克／公斤的奶粉不超过2.5公斤；30公斤体重的儿童每天的摄入量在18.9毫克以下，即食用同样奶粉不超过1.2公斤，一般不会对人体泌尿系统造成危害”的内容！那纯属是那些专家和记者自己说的，然后把他们的话塞到FDA-嘴里、以FDA-名义忽悠读者社会。直白了说，那是搞篡改数据、伪造新闻和散布虚假信息。
简而言之，那专家和新华社报道所说的内容是违背事实的。到现在了，全国全球都在因三鹿奶粉毒害事件而提高警觉和采取措施防治污染食品的时候，那些专家媒体们还在寻找借口和编造故事为三鹿毒害做辩护。真不知道他们的脑袋是怎么长的和怎么想的。难道他们自己就没有子女、不为自己的孩子健康安全着想吗？
不管怎样，国家法规规定不得编制散布虚假信息，跟全民健康有关的信息更是不得弄虚作假。民以食为天，人命关天。食品安全是天下大事。但愿那些专家和媒体能有起码的责任心，就自己误导读者社会的行为做个检讨和道歉。
附：美国食品药物管理局（FDA）的相关数据及说明。
文件名称: Interim Melamine and Analogues Safety/Risk Assessment。
文件连接：
http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/melamra.html 。
相关文字：
Toxicological Profile
.....Studies of melamine have been conducted in rodents.1, 2 Only one oral long-term dog study has been reported. Apart from crystalluria (excretion of crystals in the urine) in that study, no toxic effects were observed in dogs fed 1200 mg/kg/day for one year.1, 3 No oral studies with cat or human subjects have been reported.
Brief histopathological reports from affected pets indicate that acute/subchronic kidney failure is the mechanism of toxicity. It is still unclear whether there is a direct relationship between the kidney failure and crystallization in the kidneys subsequent to purported melamine consumption, although crystals were found in the kidneys and urinary bladder (crystals are much smaller than stones and their presence does not necessarily result in tissue/organ pathology or dys).
High (4500 ppm or 263 mg/kg bw/day) and continuous (2 years) dietary exposure to melamine in controlled studies is associated with an increase in the production of bladder stones and an increased incidence of urinary bladder tumors in male rats.2, 4 The two incidences are highly associated with each other.5
The NOAEL for stone formation of melamine toxicity is 63 mg/kg bw/day in a 13-week rat study.2 This value is the lowest NOAEL noted in the published literature and is used with human exposure assessments below to provide an estimate of human safety/ risk.
Margins of Safety and Levels of Concern for Melamine Compounds
The point of departure (POD) is the NOAEL of 63 mg/kg/day from the rodent subchronic bioassay. This POD was then divided by two 10-fold safety/uncertainty factors (SF/UF) to account for inter- and intra-species sensitivity, for a total SF/UF of 100. The resulting Tolerable Daily Intake (TDI) is 0.63 mg/kg bw/day. The TDI is defined as the estimated maximum amount of an agent to which individuals in a population may be exposed daily over their lifetimes without an appreciable health risk with respect to the endpoint from which the NOAEL is calculated. 6
In considering all of the exposure estimates presented above, including the 90th percentile estimates from Scenario 1 (Table 3), all are well below the TDI of 0.63 mg/kg/day or 630 μg/kg bw/day and have large Margins of Safety (MOS). The MOS is defined as the TDI divided by the estimate of exposure. For Scenario 2, the MOS would be approximately double that for Scenario 1. Indeed the highest exposure estimate for the worst case scenario (Scenario 3) of 2.5 μg/kg bw/day is 252 times lower than the TDI.
Table 3: Margins of Safety (MOS) for Scenario 1 Food Type 90th percentile intake (μg/kg bw/day) MOS
Catfish 0.34 μg/kg-bw/d 1853
Chicken (breast, leg, drum, thigh, wing) 0.21 μg/kg-bw/d 3000
Eggs 0.16 μg/kg-bw/d 3938
Pork (chops, steaks, cutlets, ham, roasts) 0.17 μg/kg-bw/d 3706
Combined Catfish, Chicken, Eggs and Pork 0.24 μg/kg-bw/d 2625
When considering what concentrations of MCs might be of concern in food, it is important to take into account the amount of a given food product that is eaten by an individual per day. Table 4 shows the "Level of Concern" (LOC) calculated for pork, poultry, eggs and catfish. The LOC takes into account the consumption of each product (based on CSFII data) and the TDI of melamine. These LOCs represent levels of MCs in the products below which there is no appreciable risk. The following table contains LOCs for animal-derived foods. Each value is derived on the basis of a consumption amount and the TDI according to the following formula where the body weight used to derive these values is 60 kg:
LOC = TDI (0.63 mg/kg/day) x 60 kg/ 90th percentile consumption level
Table 4: Levels of Concern (LOC) for Total MCs
Food Consumpiton* 90th level g/person/day LOC μg/g
Pork 98 386
Poultry 117 323
Eggs 84 450
Catfish 195 194
* Food consumption levels used for the food types from Table 1 used to derive LOCs.
In light of the calculation that the highest estimate of exposure (i.e., 2.5 μg/ kg bw/day for a 60 kg individual) is more than two orders of magnitude lower than the TDI (0.63 mg.kg.day), which are based on reasonable assumptions and a 100-fold safety factor, the consumption of pork, poultry, eggs and domestic fish is very unlikely to pose a human health risk.
提醒：这里仅仅是用文件中的一个例子说明那专家媒体报道不属实。欲知FDA-文件详情，还是请根据上述连接去参考阅读原文全文。
###
根据网友介绍，做了简单查询，看到，
不少报刊媒体转载了那专家和新华记者的报道，以至于正在形成“成人食用三聚无风险”的舆论。
如此篡改FDA-文件和误导社会和欺骗读者的新闻言论还在蔓延。
希望编辑部把此文做个推荐，让更多读者和媒体看到。
这建议不是为本人如何，而是为中国全国民众的食品安全，为消除该专家和媒体的严重误导。
