中国农业部转基因大豆安全独立第三方证明竟抄袭美国孟山都报告！方舟子快来打个大假！
今早看到顾秀林博客报告她们查询中国农业部转基因大豆安全证明文件的情况（见
http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_6188d2520102dz2x.html及http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_6188d2520102dz4f.html）。里面提到农业部批准美国孟山都公司转基因大豆的根据之一就是中方独立进行的第三方检测。这个中方检测报告由中国疾病控制中心营养与食品安全所于2003年12月出具，名为“CP4 40-3-2 产品食品安全性评价报告”。
然而，看到这份重要文件的人发现，该报告是个既无人签字也无机构盖章的“两无”报告。更令人震惊的是，这份应是“中方独立进行的第三方检测”转基因大豆安全的报告的动物实验结果全部来自一份外文文献：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.
也就是说，应作为第三方的中国疾病控制中心营养与食品安全所不仅没进行独立的实验，而且还与时俱退地不顾国际上后来已发现的转基因大豆不安全问题而非常有选择性地抄袭了提供转基粮的第一方孟山都的过时不靠谱的报告给接受转基粮的第二方中国农业部。
因此，我认为中国疾病控制中心营养与食品安全所不仅违反了学术道德，也违反了法律规定，有关方面应当追究相关责任。
而作为“上当受骗”的第二方中国农业部也应当有责任揭露对其进行了“欺诈”的第三方中国疾病控制中心营养与食品安全所，并有义务向其主管部们（国务院）报告“被骗”情况并向其所管人民报告所谓的转基因大豆有“安全证明”的真实情况。
而作为论文“被抄袭”的第一方孟山都应对抄袭者第三方中国疾病控制中心营养与食品安全所的学术不端进行指责，并有义务说明后来被发现的转基因大豆的不安全发现。因为，作为发表“被抄袭”论文的通讯的雇主，孟山都应当明白这份所谓的转基因大豆安全的报告到底是怎么回事！
本人工作繁忙，而且家务事多。但即便如此，也还万忙之中阅读了孟山都的科研人员发表在Journal of Nutrition（《营养学杂志》）上的这篇过时不靠谱的转基因大豆“安全”论文。结果发现，这篇论文根本没有涉及到转基因大豆的安全问题，因为它只是一个“营养学”的实验报告，而非毒理学的实验报告！
不信的话，大家请看该文可被免费阅读的摘要：
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，可点击下面的链接：
http://jn.nutrition.org/content/126/3/717.full.pdf+html?sid=5264d57c-b52c-4417-9db2-532b0a59a192
该报告主要是从食用转基因大豆动物的体重，一些脏器和组织的重量，以及消化器官里被降解食物的化学成份来判断转基因大豆与非转基因大豆的营养“等同性”。这与转基因大豆与非转基因大豆的毒理等同性风马牛不相及！打个比方，如果有人说加有三聚氰胺的奶粉含氮量更高，并能把孩子吃得更胖，因此就说三聚氰胺奶粉不仅有营养而且还安全，你信吗？
然而，这样一篇牛头不对马嘴的不靠谱还过时的第一方孟山都的广告性论文，竟被进行第三方检测的中国疾病控制中心营养与食品安全所抄袭进其独立的转基因大豆安全报告！而且还“骗”过了对人民生命安全非常负责的第二方中国农业部。这不是天大的笑话！
因此，我要求有关机构对这起关系国计民生的重大学术造假、玩忽职守和商业欺诈事件进行严格调查。如果没有为人民服务的机构愿意进行这一打假事业，那么就请不为人民服务的打（中国之）假皇帝方舟子出手。
但已是孟山都转基因推手的方舟子敢打或愿打这个大假吗？
脑中有科学，心中有道义？
方舟子，见证你打假是真还是假的时刻到了！
转载▼
WYZXWK.COM
