中國農業部轉基因大豆安全獨立第三方證明竟抄襲美國孟山都報告!方舟子快來打個大假!
今早看到顧秀林博客報告她們查詢中國農業部轉基因大豆安全證明文件的情況(見
http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_6188d2520102dz2x.html及http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_6188d2520102dz4f.html)。里面提到農業部批準美國孟山都公司轉基因大豆的根據之一就是中方獨立進行的第三方檢測。這個中方檢測報告由中國疾病控制中心營養與食品安全所于2003年12月出具,名為“CP4 40-3-2 產品食品安全性評價報告”。
然而,看到這份重要文件的人發現,該報告是個既無人簽字也無機構蓋章的“兩無”報告。更令人震驚的是,這份應是“中方獨立進行的第三方檢測”轉基因大豆安全的報告的動物實驗結果全部來自一份外文文獻:Hammond BG, Vincini JL, Hartnell GF, et al., The feeding value of soybeans fed to rats, chicken, catfish and dairy cattle is not altered by genetic incorporation of glyphosate tolerance. J. Nutr, 1996, 126:717-727.
也就是說,應作為第三方的中國疾病控制中心營養與食品安全所不僅沒進行獨立的實驗,而且還與時俱退地不顧國際上后來已發現的轉基因大豆不安全問題而非常有選擇性地抄襲了提供轉基糧的第一方孟山都的過時不靠譜的報告給接受轉基糧的第二方中國農業部。
因此,我認為中國疾病控制中心營養與食品安全所不僅違反了學術道德,也違反了法律規定,有關方面應當追究相關責任。
而作為“上當受騙”的第二方中國農業部也應當有責任揭露對其進行了“欺詐”的第三方中國疾病控制中心營養與食品安全所,并有義務向其主管部們(國務院)報告“被騙”情況并向其所管人民報告所謂的轉基因大豆有“安全證明”的真實情況。
而作為論文“被抄襲”的第一方孟山都應對抄襲者第三方中國疾病控制中心營養與食品安全所的學術不端進行指責,并有義務說明后來被發現的轉基因大豆的不安全發現。因為,作為發表“被抄襲”論文的通訊作者的雇主,孟山都應當明白這份所謂的轉基因大豆安全的報告到底是怎么回事!
本人工作繁忙,而且家務事多。但即便如此,也還萬忙之中閱讀了孟山都的科研人員發表在Journal of Nutrition(《營養學雜志》)上的這篇過時不靠譜的轉基因大豆“安全”論文。結果發現,這篇論文根本沒有涉及到轉基因大豆的安全問題,因為它只是一個“營養學”的實驗報告,而非毒理學的實驗報告!
不信的話,大家請看該文可被免費閱讀的摘要:
Journal of Nutrition 126:717-727, 1996
The Feeding Value of Soybeans Fed to Rats, Chickens, Catfish and Dairy Cattle Is Not Altered by Genetic Incorporation of Glyphosate Tolerance
BRUCE C. HAMMOND,3 JOHN L VICINI, CARY F. HARTNELL, MARK W. NAYLOR,
CHRISTOPHER D. KNIGHT,* EDWIN H. ROBINSON,' ROY L. FUCHS AND
STEPHEN R. PADGETTE
Monsanto Company, St. Louis, MO 63167; *NOVUS International Inc., St. Charles, MO 63304;
and rDelta Research and Extension Center, Mississippi State university, Stoneuille, MS 38776
ABSTRACT
Animal feeding studies were conducted
with rats, broiler chickens, catfish and dairy cows as
part of a safety assessment program for a soybean
variety genetically modified to tolerate in-season appli
cation of glyphosate. These studies were designed to
compare the feeding value (wholesomeness) of two
lines of glyphosate-tolerant soybeans (GTS) to the
feeding value of the parental cultivar from which they
were derived. Processed GTS meal was incorporated
into the diets at the same concentrations as used com
mercially; dairy cows were fed 10 g/100 g cracked
soybeans in the diet, a level that is on the high end of
what is normally fed commercially. Ina separate study,
laboratory rats were fed 5 and 10 g unprocessed soy
bean meal 100 g diet. The study durations were 4 wk
(rats and dairy cows), 6 wk (broilers) and 10 wk (cat
fish). Growth, feed conversion (rats, catfish, broilers),
fillet composition (catfish), and breast muscle and fat
pad weights (broilers) were compared for animals fed
the parental and GTS lines. Milk production, milk com
position, rumen fermentation and nitrogen digestability
were also compared for dairy cows. In all studies,
measured variables were similar for animals fed both
GTS lines and the parental line, indicating that the
feeding value of the two GTS lines is comparable to
that of the parental line. These studies support detailed
compositional analysis of the GTS seeds, which
showed no meaningful differences between the paren
tal and GTS lines in the concentrations of important
nutrients and antinutrients. They also confirmed the
results of other studies that demonstrated the safety
of the introduced protein, a bacterial 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-
3-phosphate synthase from Agrobacterium sp.strain CP4.
而如要看全文,可點擊下面的鏈接:
http://jn.nutrition.org/content/126/3/717.full.pdf+html?sid=5264d57c-b52c-4417-9db2-532b0a59a192
該報告主要是從食用轉基因大豆動物的體重,一些臟器和組織的重量,以及消化器官里被降解食物的化學成份來判斷轉基因大豆與非轉基因大豆的營養“等同性”。這與轉基因大豆與非轉基因大豆的毒理等同性風馬牛不相及!打個比方,如果有人說加有三聚氰胺的奶粉含氮量更高,并能把孩子吃得更胖,因此就說三聚氰胺奶粉不僅有營養而且還安全,你信嗎?
然而,這樣一篇牛頭不對馬嘴的不靠譜還過時的第一方孟山都的廣告性論文,竟被進行第三方檢測的中國疾病控制中心營養與食品安全所抄襲進其獨立的轉基因大豆安全報告!而且還“騙”過了對人民生命安全非常負責的第二方中國農業部。這不是天大的笑話!
因此,我要求有關機構對這起關系國計民生的重大學術造假、玩忽職守和商業欺詐事件進行嚴格調查。如果沒有為人民服務的機構愿意進行這一打假事業,那么就請不為人民服務的打(中國之)假皇帝方舟子出手。
但已是孟山都轉基因推手的方舟子敢打或愿打這個大假嗎?
腦中有科學,心中有道義?
方舟子,見證你打假是真還是假的時刻到了!