How Subchronic and Chronic Health Effects can be Neglected for GMOs,
Pesticides or Chemicals, Gilles-Eric Seralini and 7 experts, Int J Biol
Sci 2009.06.17 -- evidence re Monsanto's GMO corn toxicity in human food:
Rich Murray 2009.07.18
http://rmforall.blogspot.com/2009_07_01_archive.htm
Saturday, July 18, 2009
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1580
_____________________________________________________


"For instance, the Seralini et al. [5] analysis showed evidence of
a significant increase in blood glucose of 10% in GM-fed females,
in triglycerides of 24-40%, overweight livers
and enhanced liver/brain ratios (7%),
small but significant body weight gain (3.7%),
and disturbed kidney parameters."

"Generally speaking it seems to us unbelievable
that a risk assessment carried out only on forty rats of each sex
receiving GM rich diets for 90 days
(yielding results often at the limits of significance)
have not been repeated and prolonged independently."


http://www.biolsci.org/v05p0438.htm free full text

Int J Biol Sci 2009; 5: 438-443 ©Ivyspring International Publisher

Review
How Subchronic and Chronic Health Effects can be Neglected for
GMOs, Pesticides or Chemicals
Gilles-Eric Seralini 1,2 criigen@...;
Joel Spiroux de Vendomois 2, jmspiroux@...;
Dominique Cellier 2,3, Dominique.Cellier@...;
Charles Sultan 2,4, c-sultan@...;
Marcello Buiatti 2,5, marcello.buiatti@...;
Lou Gallagher 6, lou.gallagher@...;
Michael Antoniou 7, michael.antoniou@...;
Krishna R. Dronamraju 8 kdronamraj@...;
1. University of Caen, Institute of Biology, Biochemistry,
Esplanade de la Paix 14032 Caen Cedex France.
2. CRIIGEN, 40 rue Monceau, 75008 Paris France
3. University of Rouen, LITIS EA 4108,
76821 Mont Saint-Aignan, France
4. University of Montpellier, School of Medicine,
IGH, CNRS, France
5. University of Firenze, Italy
6. Institute for Environmental Science and Research, Ltd,
Crown Research Institute, Porirua, New Zealand
7. King's College London School of Medicine,
Dept. Medical and Molecular Genetics, London, United Kingdom
8. Foundation for Genetic Research, Houston, USA
Author contact
Correspondence to: Prof. Gilles-Eric Seralini, PhD,
Institute of Biology and CRIIGEN, University of Caen,
Esplanade de la Paix, 14032 Caen Cedex, France.
Tel +33 2 31 56 56 84; Fax +33 2 56 53 20; criigen@...

How to cite this article:
Seralini GE, de Vendomois JS, Cellier D, Sultan C, Buiatti M,
Gallagher L, Antoniou M, Dronamraju KR.
How Subchronic and Chronic Health Effects can be Neglected
for GMOs, Pesticides or Chemicals.
Int J Biol Sci 2009; 5: 438-443.
Available from http://www.biolsci.org/v05p0438.htm

Abstract
[GMO = Genetically Modified Organism ]

Chronic health effects are increasing in the world, such as cancers,
hormonal, reproductive, nervous, or immune diseases, even in
young people.

During regulatory toxicological subchronic tests to prevent these
[effects] on mammalian health [from] prior commercialization of
chemicals, including pesticides and drugs, or GMOs,
some statistically significant findings may be revealed.

This discussion is about the need to investigate the relevant criteria
to consider those [findings] as biologically significant.

The sex differences and the non linear dose or time related effects
should be considered in contrast to the claims of a
Monsanto-supported expert panel about a [specific] GMO,
the MON 863 Bt maize, but also for pesticides or drugs
[in general], in particular to reveal hormone-dependent diseases
and [the] first signs of toxicities.

Keywords: Pesticides, GMO, MON 863, side effects,
toxicological tests.

[ Rich Murray: This plain text omits figures and includes minor
additions of commas and spacing of all lines for increased readibility
for the general reader.]

Introduction

Some contaminations or pollutions by pesticides [1] and other
chemical residues [2-4] affect human and animal health, together
with biodiversity.

Thus it is important to study potential mid and long-term
toxicological effects during regulatory tests prior to
commercialization of chemicals, and not to test only short-term
or subchronic effects.

This question has also been raised for GMOs [5], especially those
containing pesticides, either because they tolerate
(such as Roundup Ready soya)
or produce (such as Bt maize)
these molecules (99 % of commercially cultivated GMOs).

This subject has been reviewed recently by Dronamraju [6].

Introduction
Objectives
The protocol used to test GMOs...
Sex-related and non-linear signs...
Conclusion
Acknowledgements
References

Objectives

Here we shall discuss more particularly the existing data on possible
toxic effects of a GMO on mammals, with putative relevance to
humans, and with the aim of commenting on current procedures
and experimental protocols in mammalian feeding experiments
(Fig. 1).

Doull et al. [7] indicated their general criteria needed to classify as
biologically relevant the observed significant effects during 90d
toxicological tests on mammals.

The example taken was for a GMO, a Bt maize called MON 863,
producing in its cells a new kind of modified insecticide Cry3Bb1,
known as a toxin for coleopterans.

But these authors claim to apply the same criteria to other products
such as pesticides and drugs.

The history of the debate on the biosafety of this GMO is
paradigmatic, and it raises a series of general questions on risk
assessment of commercial transgenic crops and of pesticides or
chemicals.

These considerations are crucial, since public health is concerned
and their discussion may critically influence the decision to release
in particular some agricultural GMOs or not, and also to another
extent the economic feasibility of this kind of project.

Figure 1
Comparison of regulatory toxicity tests generally performed in vivo
on mammals, for instance with rats, the most used model,
before commercialization of various products.
These are GMOs used for food or feed, pesticides, drugs,
or the best tested chemicals.
The choice of how to apply standards is made by scientific
commissions of regulatory instances.
This figure does not include reproductive, developmental or
trans-generational tests that are not requested for commercialized
GMOs for food or feed.
Nutritional tests are not represented either because they do not
require blood analyses, which are very informative on health
secondary effects.
Some mammalian nutritional tests are performed with pigs or
cows, for instance for GMOs, and may last longer with fewer
animals.
Subchronic toxicity tests are in the last case performed, if any,
only with rats for most GMOs.
Then it is only with 10 animals fully assessed on 20 for each of
two doses, and per sex.
There are 3 mammalian species used for other products.
This is to measure short-term effects.

The so-called chronic tests (lasting more than 3 months) give more
chances to reveal metabolic, nervous, immune, hormonal or cancer
diseases.

They are widely performed for pesticides and drugs and for some
chemicals over a certain production, but not for actual
commercialized GMOs released in the environment (1995-2009).

This is a matter of debate, since 99.9% of those are genetically
modified to contain new pesticide residues that they tolerate
(ex. Roundup Ready soya) or that they produce
(ex. insecticides Bt in maize, that are newly modified proteic toxins).

The protocol used to test GMOs in regulatory in vivo tests with
mammals

Recently, Doull et al. [7] offered a new contradictory analysis of
Seralini et al. [5].

It was about the interpretation of the only crude data available from
the longest toxicity test (90 days) on a mammal that had been fed
with MON 863.

The original feeding experiment was performed by Covance and
Monsanto [8], with a great experience of this kind of tests, always
designed in a similar manner.

They measured the effect of feed containing only two doses
(11 and 33% GM in the equilibrated diet)
and for only two periods of exposure (5 and 14 weeks).

The goal is a debate on standards to be set to interpret admitted
significant effects [7] between treated groups versus controls
as biologically relevant or not in toxicological tests in general.

There are several preliminary unsolved questions at stake to be
answered such as whether to prolong tests before commercial
release, for instance up to two years for GMOs, as is done for
some pesticides or drugs, in order to assess chronic effects not
visible in short periods.

There are also questions regarding the appropriate number of
concentrations of the putative toxic agent to be tested etc., and
critical experimental criteria such as number of animals to be used
per dose or concentration to increase their resolution power to
obtain homogeneous and reliable significance levels in outcome
measurement data.

However, the crude data on MON 863 were obtained by
Monsanto for only one mammalian species (instead of the three
used for evaluations of pesticides or drugs) and first classified
as confidential by the Company which obtained it (2002).

The data was then used to obtain commercial release agreements
all over the world.

After heated discussions in Europe concerning the possible
physiological effects provoked by this GMO, a decision in the
German Appeal Court allowed public access to the crude data
(2005).

Monsanto then published its own interpretation of the data [8]
in which it was concluded that the MON 863 was safe to eat.

After careful analysis of the crude data, Seralini et al. [5] applied
appropriate statistical methodology to test the effects of the Bt
maize on mammalian health.

First, GM fed rats were compared to their closest isogenic controls,
and then to the six reference groups who were fed various other
maize-based diets that Monsanto added in the study.

Data were compiled by organ, dose and timing of dietary exposure.

In addition, the effects on the rat metabolism of the diet composition
without GM maize was studied, comparing only control and
reference groups between them to avoid systematically linking
these effects to the GM diet.

In the first instance Monsanto did not do such a statistical study
([8] and in commercial request file) but only took into account
effects between the GM fed rats at the highest dose and all other
groups.

It is important to note that in order to isolate the effect of the GM
transformation process from other variables it is only valid to
compare the GMO (in this case MON 863) with its isogenic
non-GM equivalent.

Therefore, the inclusion in the analysis of unrelated feeding groups
serves to confuse rather than clarify the effect of the MON 863
event.

The goal of the statistical analysis is to decide whether the
consumption of GMOs can be considered to have no effect
(null hypothesis H0 true)
or to have an effect (H0 false) on the health of the rats.

This analysis cannot be reduced in the computation of a collection
of p-values.

Statistical rejection of the null hypothesis H0 does not imply
that the effect is biologically significant.

In the same way, failure to reject H0 does not mean
that it is true.

Therefore, the power of the hypothesis test must be assessed.

The power of a statistical test depends on the sample size
(and therefore the experimental design), the significance level
of the test and the effect size (which can be considered as
biologically significant).

This most important issue is totally overlooked in the experimental
design and the statistical report made by Monsanto on MON 863.

Moreover, any hypothesis which is not statistically significant with
their reductive method is always excluded.

This disturbing oversight runs false negative results and a risk of
health consequences for millions of people and animals.

Sex-related and non-linear signs of toxicity

In the MON 863 study, Séralini et al. [5] were also concerned by
false positive results, but concluded that there were enough signs
of toxicity to prolong the feeding experiments.

This is mostly because significant effects were concentrated in
livers and kidneys as main detoxification organs reacting in cases
of food / chemical contamination; there were at these levels some
worrying physiological profiles.

Moreover, the effects of the MON 863 insecticide toxin itself are
not experimentally documented on mammalian cells.

Furthermore, it remains a possibility that there would be side effects
due to insertional mutagenesis during the GM transformation.

For instance, the Seralini et al. [5] analysis showed evidence of
a significant increase in blood glucose of 10% in GM-fed females,
in triglycerides of 24-40%, overweight livers
and enhanced liver/brain ratios (7%),
small but significant body weight gain (3.7%),
and disturbed kidney parameters.

When comparing females eating GMOs to their closest controls
eating the isogenic line, there were signs of a possible pre-diabetic
profile.

In both sexes and periods the profiles were different
but it concerned liver and kidney parameters.

From that, Doull et al. [6] concluded that any effects with no clear
dose-response relationship (which should increase with dose)
or with time are unrelated to the GM diet.

We consider that first of all, to a scientific point of view, choosing
a priori 2 doses and 2 periods does not allow the assessment
of a linear dose- or period-related effect [9-11].

Our hypothesis was to question the possibility of subchronic or
chronic health effects that were not or only partially revealed by
short-term tests.

Several hormonal disrupting effects do not linearly increase with
time or dose, but present non-linear peaks in the shape of U or J
curves [12-14] at some periods or some ranges of doses,
depending on the age and exposure period of the test animals
[15-17].

Secondly, a clear histopathological study should be published and
studied in parallel to the biochemical effects found by Monsanto
or the Monsanto-supported expert panel [7].

It is possible that metabolic changes precede, within 90 days,
histopathological lesions that could appear afterwards.

This is another reason to prolong the experiments
and may also solve the problem of reproducibility.

Simultaneously, the occurrence of similar effects in both sexes is an
important criterion of toxicity for Doull et al. [7], which is not for us.

Sex-dependent differences in chronic diseases resulting from
chemical intoxication are well established [18, 19].

The liver is itself a sex-differentiated organ; for example
chemical sensitivity is different in males and females [20].

In Monsanto's data for these 3 month rat tests with Bt maize
MON 863, for all rats including the six times bigger group of
normal control and reference animals eating non GM diets,
there were confirmed sex-differentiated effects
in liver and kidneys parameters (Fig.2A and B).

Doull et al. [7] also considered a normal range of variations in
undefined historical data, or compiled the closest isogenic control
with other reference groups that have diets different in salt or
sugars.

This is not scientifically precise.

Figure 2

A. Principal Component Analysis for liver parameters in all rats
of the MON 863 experiment.
It was performed according to Hotelling [29] in order to study
the scattering of the different factors.
The scheme obtained for parameters at week 14 explains 42.42%
of the total data variability (inertia) expressed on 2 axes
(32.01% for factor 1; 10.41% for factor 2), scale d=2.
This demonstrates the clear separation of parameters values
according to sex.

B. Principal Component Analysis for kidney parameters in all rats
of the MON 863 experiment.
The scheme obtained for parameters at week 14 explains 47.73%
of the total data variability (inertia) expressed on 2 axes
(26.95% for factor 1; 20.78% for factor 2), scale d=5.
This demonstrates the clear separation of parameters values
according to sex.

Conclusion

We assume that Séralini et al. [5] methodology can discriminate
potential false positive and GM-linked effects, avoiding to some
extent false negative ones, in the best way we can do for this
discussed and too limited protocol already in use for
commercialized GMOs.

These GM-linked effects are then considered as signs of toxicity
in the 90 days, not proofs of toxicity.

The biological plausibility of a subchronic or chronic side effect
of the GM diet, linked to the new toxin in the mammalian regimen,
or due to the mutagenesis effect of the genetic modification itself,
is thus non negligible.

Finally it should be stressed that statistically significant effects
of GM diets, or of residues of pesticides that are contained by
GMOs, have also been observed in other instances [21-25],
but not in all studies [26, 27], enlightening the necessity of a
case-by-case approach, and that the real toxicological studies
are quite limited up to date for that [28].

All these observations taken together in our opinions do not
allow a clear statement of toxic effects, but to suggest them as
such, because they are clearly undeniable.

Now, to any good researcher similar results would mean that
there is much to be improved in the planning of experimental
design; and thus to increase their resolution power to obtain
unequivocal statements, for instance increasing the duration
and/or the number of rats tested.

Generally speaking it seems to us unbelievable
that a risk assessment carried out only on forty rats of each sex
receiving GM rich diets for 90 days
(yielding results often at the limits of significance)
have not been repeated and prolonged independently.

We should overall take into account the fact that the analysed
GM product could be fed long-term to people and animals
of various ages and sexes, and with various pathologies.

We call for more serious standardized tests such as those used for
pesticides or drugs, on at least three mammalian species
tested for at least three months employing larger sample sizes,
and up to one and two years before commercialization, for GM
food or feed specifically modified to contain pesticide residues.

We also call for a serious scientific debate about the criteria for
testing significant adverse health effects for pesticides or chemicals,
but overall for GM food or feed products, such as MON 863.

Acknowledgements

We thank François Roullier for Fig. 2 and statistical studies.

Conflict of Interest

The authors have declared that no conflict of interest exists.

References

1. Daston GP, Cook JC, Kavlock RJ.
Uncertainties for endocrine disrupters: our view on progress.
Toxicol Sci. 2003;74:245-52

2. Toppari J, Larsen JC, Christiansen P. et al.
Male reproductive health and environmental xenoestrogens.
Environ Health Perspect. 1996;104:741-803

3. Paris F, Jeandel C, Servant N. et al.
Increased serum estrogenic bioactivity in three male newborns with
ambiguous genitalia: a potential consequence of prenatal exposure
to environmental endocrine disruptors.
Environ Res. 2006;100:39-43

4. Belpomme D, Irigaray P, Hardell L. et al.
The multitude and diversity of environmental carcinogens.
Environ Res. 2007;105:414-29

5. Seralini GE, Cellier D, Spiroux de Vendomois J.
New analysis of a rat feeding study with a genetically modified maize
reveals signs of hepatorenal toxicity.
Arch Environ Contam Toxicol. 2007;52:596-602

6. Dronamraju K.R.
Emerging Consequences of Biotechnology.
New Jersey, USA: World Scientific Publishing Co. 2008

7. Doull J, Gaylor D, Greim HA. et al.
Report of an expert panel on the reanalysis by Seralini et al. (2007)
of a 90-day study conducted by Monsanto in support of the safety
of a genetically modified corn variety (MON 863).
Food Chem Toxicol. 2007;45:2073-2085

8. 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. 2006;44:147-160

9. Green S.
Toxicology and regulatory process.
New York, USA: Taylor and Francis Group. 2006

10. Nielsen E, Ostergaard G, Larsen JC.
Toxicological Risk Assessment of Chemicals - A Practical Guide
New York, USA: Taylor and Francis Group. 2008

11. Gaylor D, Chen J, Kodell R.
Experimental Bioassays for Screening and Low Dose Extrapolation.
Risk Analysis. 1985;5:9-16

12. Andersen ME, Barton HA.
Biological regulation of receptor-hormone complex concentrations
in relation to dose-response assessments for endocrine-active
compounds.
Toxicol Sci. 1999;48:38-50

13. Bencko V.
Human exposure to endocrine disrupters:
carcinogenic risk assessment.
Folia Histochem Cytobiol. 2001;39(Suppl 2):24-5

14. Melnick R, Lucier G, Wolfe M. et al.
Summary of the National Toxicology Program's report of the
endocrine disruptors low-dose peer review.
Environ Health Perspect. 2002;110:427-31

15. Karanth S, Pope C.
Carboxylesterase and A-esterase activities during maturation and
aging: relationship to the toxicity of chlorpyrifos and parathion in rats.
Toxicol Sci. 2000;58:282-9

16. Howard MD, Mirajkar N, Karanth S. et al.
Comparative effects of oral chlorpyrifos exposure on
cholinesterase activity and muscarinic receptor binding
in neonatal and adult rat heart.
Toxicology. 2007;238:157-65

17. Benbrahim-Tallaa L, Siddeek B, Bozec A. et al.
Alterations of Sertoli cell activity in the long-term testicular
germ cell death process induced by fetal androgen disruption.
J Endocrinol. 2008;196:21-31

18. Lu SC, Kuhlenkamp J, Garcia-Ruiz C. et al.
Hormone-mediated down-regulation of hepatic glutathione synthesis
in the rat.
J Clin Invest. 1991;88:206-269

19. Sissung TM, Price DK, Sparreboom A. et al.
Pharmacogenetics and regulation of human cytochrome P450 1B1:
Implications in hormone-mediated tumor metabolisme
and a novel target for therapeutic intervention.
Mol Cancer Res. 2006;4:135-150

20. Kobliakov V, Popova N, Rossi L.
Regulation of the expression of the sex-specific isoforms of
cytochrome P-450 in rat liver.
Eur J Biochem. 1991;195:585-91

21. Malatesta M, Caporaloni C, Gavaudon S. et al.
Ultrastructural morphometrical and immunocytochemical analyses
of hepatocyte nuclei from mice fed on genetically modified soybean.
Cell Struct Function. 2002;27:173-180

22. Malatesta M, Biggiogera M, Manuali E. et al.
Fine structural analyses of pancreatic acinar cell nuclei from mice
fed on genetically modified soybean.
Eur J Histochem. 2003;47:385-388

23. Vecchio L, Cisterna B, Malatesta M. et al.
Ultrastructural analysis of testes from mice fed on genetically
modified soybean.
Eur J Histochem. 2004;48:449-454

24. Trabalza-Marinucci M, Brandi G, Rondini C. et al.
A three-year longitudinal study on the effects of a diet containing
genetically modified Bt176 maize on the health status and
performance of sheep.
Livestock Sci. 2008;113:178-190

25. Benachour N, Sipahutar H, Moslemi S. et al.
Time- and dose-dependent effects of roundup on
human embryonic and placental cells.
Arch Environ Contam Toxicol. 2007;53:126-133

26. Brake DG, Evenson DP.
A generational study of glyphosate-tolerant soybeans on
mouse fetal, postnatal, pubertal and adult testicular development.
Food Chem Toxicol. 2004;42:29-36

27. Brake DG, Thaler R, Evenson DP.
Evaluation of Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) corn on mouse testicular
development by dual parameter flow cytometry.
J Agric Food Chem. 2004;52:2097-2102

28. Domingo JL.
Toxicity studies of genetically modified plants:
A review of the published literature.
Crit Rev Food Sci Nut. 2007;47:721-733

29. Hotelling H.
Analysis of a complex of statistical variables
into principal components.
J Educ Psychol. 1933;24:417-441

Received 2009-2-26
Accepted 2009-6-16
Published 2009-6-17

Copyright ©2009 Ivyspring International Publisher.
All rights reserved.
_____________________________________________________


potent unexamined cofactors in diabetes, Alzheimer's, NASH, and
Parkinson's research include formaldehyde and formic acid from
methanol in alcohol drinks, tobacco and wood smoke, aspartame,
and many other sources: Rich Murray 2009.07.07
http://rmforall.blogspot.com/2009_07_01_archive.htm
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1579

formaldehyde in FEMA trailers and other sources (aspartame,
dark wines and liquors, tobacco smoke): Murray 2008.01.30:
BM Kapur -- folic acid protects most people from conversion of
methanol into formaldehyde and then formic acid 2009.07.01
http://rmforall.blogspot.com/2008_01_01_archive.htm
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1508

The FEMA trailers give about the same amount of formaldehyde
daily as from a quart of dark wine or liquor, or two quarts
(6 12-oz cans) of aspartame diet soda, from their over 1 tenth
gram methanol impurity (one part in 10,000),
which the body quickly makes into formaldehyde -- enough
to be the major cause of "morning after" alcohol hangovers.

Methanol and formaldehyde also result from many fruits and
vegetables, tobacco and wood smoke, heater and vehicle exhaust,
household chemicals and cleaners, cosmetics, and new cars,
drapes, carpets, furniture, particleboard, mobile homes, buildings,
leather ... so all these sources add up and interact with many other
toxic chemicals.


folic acid prevents neurotoxicity from formic acid, made by body
from methanol impurity in alcohol drinks [ also 11 % of aspartame ],
BM Kapur, PL Carlen, DC Lehotay, AC Vandenbroucke,
Y Adamchik, U. of Toronto, 2007 Dec., Alcoholism Cl. Exp. Res.:
Murray 2007.11.27
http://rmforall.blogspot.com/2007_11_01_archive.htm
Wednesday, November 27, 2007
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1495


formaldehyde, aspartame, and migraines, the first case series,
Sharon E Jacob-Soo, Sarah A Stechschulte, UCSD, Dermatitis
2008 May: Rich Murray 2008.07.18
http://rmforall.blogspot.com/2008_07_01_archive.htm
Friday, July 18, 2008
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1553

Dermatitis. 2008 May-Jun; 19(3): E10-1.
Formaldehyde, aspartame, and migraines: a possible connection.
Jacob SE, Stechschulte S.
Department of Dermatology and Cutaneous Surgery,
University of Miami, Miami, FL, USA.

Aspartame is a widely used artificial sweetener that has been
linked to pediatric and adolescent migraines.

Upon ingestion, aspartame is broken, converted, and oxidized into
formaldehyde in various tissues.

We present the first case series of aspartame-associated migraines
related to clinically relevant positive reactions to formaldehyde on
patch testing. PMID: 18627677


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1143
methanol (formaldehyde, formic acid) disposition:
Bouchard M et al, full plain text, 2001:
substantial sources are degradation of fruit pectins,
liquors, aspartame, smoke: Murray 2005.04.02

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1490
details on 6 epidemiological studies since 2004 on diet soda (mainly
aspartame) correlations, as well as 14 other mainstream studies
on aspartame toxicity since summer 2005: Murray 2007.11.27

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1340
aspartame groups and books:
updated research review of 2004.07.16: Murray 2006.05.11


opportunities re BA Magnuson, GA Burdock et al., Aspartame
Safety Evaluation 2007 Sept., Critical Reviews in Toxicology:
Rich Murray 2008.07.11
http://rmforall.blogspot.com/2008_07_01_archive.htm
Friday, July 11, 2008
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1550

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1070
critique of aspartame review, French Food Safety Agency AFSSA
2002.05.07 aspartamgb.pdf (18 pages, in English), Martin Hirsch:
Murray 2004.04.13

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/957
safety of aspartame Part 1/2 12.4.2: EC HCPD-G SCF:
Murray 2003.01.12 EU Scientific Committee on Food, a whitewash

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1045
http://www.holisticmed.com/aspartame/scf2002-response.htm
Mark Gold exhaustively critiques European Commission Scientific
Committee on Food re aspartame ( 2002.12.04 ):
59 pages, 230 references

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1068
critique of aspartame review by American Dietetic Association
Feb 2004, Valerie B. Duffy & Madeleine J. Sigman-Grant:
Murray 2004.05.14

http://www.dorway.com/upipart1.txt
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/262
aspartame expose 96K Oct 1987 Part 1/3: Gregory Gordon,
UPI reporter: Murray 2000.07.10

http://www.dorway.com/enclosur.html
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/53
aspartame history Part 1/4 1964-1976: Gold: Murray 1999.11.06

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/857
www.dorway.com: original documents and long reviews of flaws in
aspartame toxicity research: Murray 2002.07.31

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/858
Samuels: Strong: Roberts: Gold: flaws in double-blind studies re
aspartame and MSG toxicity: Murray 2002.08.01

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/928
revolving door, Monsanto, FDA, EPA: NGIN: Murray 2002.12.23

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/841
RTM: Merisant Co., MSD Capital, Dell Computer Corp.,
NutraSweet Co., JW Childs Assc.:
aspartame-neotame toxicity 2002.07.10

Donald Rumsfeld CEO 1977-85 G.D. Searle & Co., got new
President Reagan to prohibit FDA opposition to aspartame
1981.01.25, history by lawyer James S. Turner:
Murray 2007.10.29
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1483

industry scientists praise aspartame safety and benefits in Paris on
2006.05.30, Herve Nordmann, Andrew G. Renwick,
Carlo La Vecchia, Tommy Visscher, Jaap Seidell, France Bellisle,
Adam Drewnowski, Margaret Ashwell, Anne de la Hunty,
Sigrid A. Gibson, Alan R. Boobis: Murray 2007.11.18
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1491
____________________________________________________


"Of course, everyone chooses, as a natural priority, to enjoy
peace, joy, and love by helping to find, quickly share, and positively
act upon evidence about healthy and safe food, drink, and
environment."

Rich Murray, MA Room For All rmforall@...
505-501-2298 1943 Otowi Road, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505

http://RMForAll.blogspot.com new primary archive

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/messages
group with 140 members, 1,580 posts in a public archive

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartame/messages
group with 1204 members, 23,676 posts in a public archive
_____________________________________________________


Joël Spiroux de Vendômois 2, jmspiroux@...;

http://www.ecep2009.com/documents/cv_joel_spiroux_anglais.pdf

ACTIVITIES : - 1981 Beginning of General Practice
- Since 1985 : General Secretary of SML 27 (Union of Private
Physicians)
- 1996 to 2000 : Member of the "Permanent On Call Health Care"
Commission at URML HN (Union of Regional Private Physicians of
Normandy)
- 2000 to 2006 : Re-elected as Founder President of URML First
Health Care-Environment Commission of URML HN.
Commission actions include :
-Medical profession information on biotechnologies and GMOs
-Participation to PNNS (National Plan in Nutrition-Health Care)
-Partnership with local education authorities for cannabis prevention
-Introduction of an original "prickly cutting waste" collection system
for individuals and private physicians, free of charge, financed by
Regional Councils.
-Organization of the First National Congress on Environmental
Pathologies, October 2005 .
-Participation to the first "Private Unit on Public Health" in
partnership with DRASS, aiming at involving private physicians in
public health, especially in Environmental Health

2006 : In charge of trainers training on "National Pandemic Flu
Program" of Normandy regional medical profession
January 2007 : Appointed Environmental Health Expert of
URLM HN.
September 2007 : Appointed Environmental Health Expert at
CODERST (Departmental Council on Environment and Health Care
and Technological Risks) of Seine Maritime by the Region Prefect.
December 2007 : Appointed by Mr. Jean-Louis Borloo to "GMOs
Temporary Higher Authority".
January 2008 : Appointed "Environment Health" Expert at MACIF
(mutual insurance company).
May 2008 : Initiator and promoter of a survey on medication
residues in teaching hospital effluents, as well as in Henri Becquerel
Center (cancer treatment center) of Rouen.
With the participation of Prs. Lacroix, Goublé and Guerbet,
of Rouen and Le Havre universities.
Study funded by GRPS (Regional Public Health Group).

June 2008 : Organizer for URLM
and Member of the Scientific Council of the
"First European Congress on Environmental Pathologies"
which will be held in Rouen, on October 9 and 10, 2009.

Concerning biotechnologies :
Member of CRIIGEN Scientific Committee (Independent Research
and Information Commitee on Genetic Engineering) chaired by Ms.
Corinne Lepage, since its creation in 1998.
-Research for CRIIGEN on GMO assessment of potential impact
on both environment and health.
01/2007 - answer entitled: "Criticisms and Improvement" with Prs
Séralini and Cellier, at the public consultation launched by EFSA on
tests on animals fed with GMOs.
-Publication with MM. Cellier and Séralini of the counter-study on
MON 863 corn, in "Archives of Environmental Contamination and
Toxicology" magazine, Ref :
Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxico. 52, 596-602 (2007).
-Appointed by Minister Jean-Louis Borloo, in December 2007, to
the Committee prior to the Higher Authority on GMOs.
The Committee gave a ruling on the MON 810 corn safeguard
clause.

Publications:
-April 2007 : "Environmental Pathologies", Josette Lyon publication.
-April 2007 : "Survey on MON 863 corn"
Environmental Toxicology Archives.
-April 2008 : "Nosocomial Infections" with Mrs. Claude Rambaud,
Josette Lyon publication.


http://assets.cambridge.org/052182/0669/frontmatter/0521820669_frontmatter.htm

Cambridge University Press
0521820669 - Infectious Disease and Host-Pathogen Evolution -
Edited by Krishna R. Dronamraju

It has long been recognized that an important factor in human
evolution is the struggle against infectious disease, and more recently,
it has been revealed that complex genetic polymorphisms are the
direct result of that struggle. As molecular biological techniques
become more sophisticated, a number of breakthroughs in the area
of host-pathogen evolution have led to an increased interest in this
field.

From the historical beginnings of J. B. S. Haldane's original
hypothesis to current research, this book strives to evaluate
infectious diseases from an evolutionary perspective. It provides
a survey of the latest information regarding host-pathogen
evolution related to major infectious diseases and parasitic
infections, including malaria, influenza, and leishmaniasis.

Written by leading authorities in the field, and edited by a
former pupil of Haldane,
Infectious Disease and Host-Pathogen Evolution
will be a valuable reference for those working in related areas of
microbiology, parasitology, immunology, and infectious disease
medicine, as well as genetics, evolutionary biology, and
epidemiology.

Krishna R. Dronamraju is currently the President of the
Foundation for Genetic Research in Houston, Texas.
He has authored or edited 13 books and has authored over 200
research papers in the field of genetics. A former student of
J. B. S. Haldane, whose pioneering work in epidemiologic
research he cites as the basis for this book, Dronamraju holds
several distinguished honorary positions in both the United States
and Europe.

http://www.foundationforgeneticresearch.com
Foundation for Genetic Research
4212 San Felipe Street
Houston, TX 77227 (713) 667-5106

Dr. Krishna R Dronamraju
Foundation for Genetic Research
P.O. Box 27701-0, Houston, Texas 77227, USA.
For Express Mail or by Courier,
4212 San Felipe Street, Houston, Texas 77027, USA.
Phone: (713) 816-3681, Fax: (713) 667-5881, and
Email: kdronamraj@...
_____________________________________________________