Thursday, April 30, 2015

Replicating Designs found in Nature (Biomimetics) should be what defines the Biotech Industry

Unfortunately, recent News from the Biotech Industry itself says that we live in a world without purpose, therefore GMOs are necessary. Seriously folks, this is exactly what motivates & justifies their actions
I wasn't going to make anymore mention on this topic, but I had this draft post for some time now and haven't done anything with it. However, with the recent revelation from the Biotech Industry that our natural world has no purpose and the collective intellect of Geneticists & Biologists employed by the Biotech Industry know how to correct this problem, well, who could resist. I've changed the title because some fascinating things have been discovered in the natural world that have important practical application in maintaining the Earth can be made and helping serve mankind in general. However, often times the only roadblock in such wonderful amazing discoveries is reasoning like this, "Yeah, sounds great. But can we make money with it ?" What I'll do is highlight two of the most spectacular biomimicry news reports lately out of the 100s which seem to be coming through the science news feeds lately and make comparison to what else is needed with regards balancing many of Earth's ecosystems. Keep in mind, there is no one fix-it-pill cure all for what ails our planet.
Opossum-Based Antidote Provides New Route For Treating Deadly Snake Bites
"Researchers from San Jose State University recently presented the findings of a new study at the 249th National Meeting & Exposition of the American Chemical Society, in Denver. Lead investigator Dr. Claire Komives explained the initial research into the opossum’s immunity was done in the 1940s, but since then the data has remained mostly stagnant. With new evidence that a certain peptide can be utilized in an antidote, fatal snake bites could one day be a thing of the past."

Im-possum-ble! (Credit: Thinkstock)

Previously last year, I reported on the research work done by the Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies who found that Opossums are quite literally tick magnetics. Of what importance is this ? Opossums are meticulous in keeping themselves clean, despite their notorious habit of digging in rubbish bins for food. Sadly their other claim to fame is often roadkill. But the researchers found that because of both being a magnet for ticks and their fanatic hygiene grooming allows for a  large part of their diet to include eating ticks as this was discovered in their feces. This revealed an extremely important reason for their purpose within any ecosystem. Now it appears that Opossums are a super source of antivenom: Medical Daily reported that “Opossum-based antidote to venom from snake bites could save thousands of lives.” Sure enough, it does appear that the opossums are immune to some forms of snake venom. They make a peptide that binds to the venom protein, rendering it harmless. This could lead to antivenoms that are easier to produce and have no side effects. Dr Claire Komives said that the Mice she injected with the peptide showed no signs of being sick. Below is a 17 minute video of a conference earlier this month in Colorado with the American Chemical Society. I'll let her talk more on what they have found, but I'll have a further comment about the usual critics who no doubt are jealous of both the discovery and results. 
Video: "Opossum-based antidote to poisonous snake bites could save thousands of lives"

Common weed (Cattails - Typha dmingensis) revealed to diminish water pollution
"Francisco Delgado Vargas, from the Autonomous University of Sinaloa (UAS), researches the use of the plant Typha domingensis in reducing bacterial contamination of water for agricultural use. This plant helps to reduce up to 98 percent of pollution by enterobacteria (usually found in the intestines of mammals) involved in the development of disease."
Cattail, Bulrush, Corn Dog Grass, Cumbungi (Typha domingensis)

image: Gerry Ellis
This report revealed that a common weed that most people globally are very familiar with can reduce water pollution. The plant, which they mistakenly are labeling a weed is the common Cattail or Bulrush or Typha domingensis which already grows in polluted waterways.  “This plant helps to reduce up to 98 percent of pollution by enterobacteria (usually found in the intestines of mammals) involved in the development of disease,” the Mexican researcher found. No doubt somewhere out there, we have other so-called weeds we should learn to love not only for their uniqueness when under control, but the beneficial roles they play in nature. Of course we are also aware that under the right circumstances, this plant can become weedy and choke vast waterways, but this is mostly due to human caused pollution which creates excessive nutrients for which the plant responds by excessive multiplying. While they are great at removing nutrients, there must also be strategies for removal as a means of harvesting the biomass for other intended purposes. Here are a couple more quick paragraphs from the article.
"Vargas Delgado indicates that mankind has an impact on the drains, "most pollution comes from fecal waste; this indicates that there is other bacteria that can affect health." He adds that Typha domingensis is considered a pest in the drains, and is therefore removed; however, proper management helps the ecosystem. "We are invading the places where these plants develop, removing them, and don't see the great ecological benefits that they provide." 
"Properly designing drains so that there is space for plants to help reduce pollution without affecting the free flow of water would allow the agricultural drains to play their role in the evacuation of excess water from the mainland and also lessen the impact of pollutants that are thrown into these channels.

Dwarf Cattail (Typha minima)
Most people are probably unaware that there is a cute mini-variety of Cattail which can be used for small ponds in your urban landscape to keep was nutrients in check. Aside from the fact that unlike it's large standard relative, it won't invade and overwhelm the pond. This Dwarf cattail [Typha minima] - (also miniature cattail or least cattail) is native to marshes and wetlands here in Europe and Asia. So great for colder climates. As with most all cattails, their root tubers over winter very well. This is the smallest of the cattails, typically growing to only 18” to 24” tall. Its dwarf size makes it an ideal marginal aquatic perennial for smaller water gardens, natural swimming pools and tubs. It features narrow, upright, grass-like, linear, mostly basal, green leaves and a stiff, unbranched central flower stalk. You know, so much biodiversity has been lost where large animals are concerned. I am continually pondering over and over in my mind just what has been lost from a vegetation maintenance perspective where large herbivores have been removed from certain ecosystems, just what the impact has been on overgrowth of many plants, especially aquatic environments. What was lost by the removal of the Grizzly and other bears, not only as far as a chaparral scenario, but also an aquatic one. Bears love the Cattail tubers, which as also edible for human consumption. But as many studies warn, stay away from the polluted environments when harvesting.

image: Robert Weselmann

These are just two excellent examples of where biomimetics not only promise to improve human life and health, but also improve biology around the Earth overall. The inspiration for biomimicry requires focusing on the plants and animals to understand them better even when some may often viewed in a negative light. That almost guarantees vast improvement with science education, updated & improved textbooks, and inspiring a new generation to enter biology. On the other hand, the present biotechnology needs a massive overhaul and clearly there should be laws or rules on the books requiring the employment of several full time staffed bioethicists in each Industrial Biotech company. Below are just a couple of examples of things probably most people do not know have happened in the past with GMO experiments or have been forgotten with these horrible biotech failures [which thankfully did not hit the markets] and one wonders, how many other things haven't even seen the light of day ?
The earliest known public GMO which turned out to be more of a bio-hazard was unleashed on mankind around 1990. A Japanese Biotech company named Showa Denko genetically engineered an amino acid Tryptophan which is used as a food supplement. The process of using GMO technology was to cut corners and time on the fermentation process. This product was actually placed on the market in the late 80's, and within three months, 37 people died and 1500 were permanently disabled from using this product. A Lawyer named William E Crist took up the cause of investigation. Another Lawyer is Steven Druker has also written about this incident in history. Recently there was an GMO proponent named Wes Neilson of Onalaska Washington whom I had a discussion with on this very thing. He demanded that lawyers were inadequate to test safety and that only molecular biologists were qualified to examine possible problems. Here are his exact recorded words on the Missouri Organic Association's page:
"Wouldn't a molecular biologist have provided far more insight into GMO crops than a lawyer like Steven Druker who has no scientific background?"

Well, there is a huge hole in Mr Nielson's religious belief on this. The Geneticists and Biologists at Showa Denko deliberately destroyed any and all evidence that could have been used to determine scientifically the actual cause of the problem. They destroyed the genetically engineered bacterial stock samples, along with any potentially surviving specks that investigators might have recovered from the walls or on the equipment in their facilities. Clearly these molecular biologists and geneticists were less than honest. I don't have any doubts that they also may have been ordered to destroy such materials by their superiors at the Biotech Lab. I once wrote a piece of how important such negative data and research which generally never sees the light of day, could in fact be beneficial to other researchers so as not to make the same mistakes. But low and behold there was more to this story. They concocted and fabricated some ridiculous story of the hazard being nothing more than a bad filtration problem with their new coal filters. However, the attorney William Crist actually demonstrated that this argument was totally false, because he found that hundreds of cases of eosonophil myalgia syndrome (EMS) occurred before reduced filtration was introduced. See here, it took an actual Attorney and not a Biotech Biologist or Geneticist to uncover the truth. And the so-called scientific consensus experts and Media wonder why people don't have faith in science [or rather their version of it]. So much for science being self-correcting. Clearly what goes on is not so much a correction as it is cover up. That's all I'll say on this, but this is not a remote unique example of lab experiments gone wrong with Biotechnology and I'll post some at the bottom of this article.

There have been other incidents of gmo experiments gone terribly wrong, but fortunately these as far as we know of never saw the light of day in that they were mass produced and sold to the public. There was a past decade long genetic engineering project for developing a superior Pea with a transgene that would produce a toxin that would kill a common Weevil (Bruchus pisorum) pest in peas. This was a decade long project which revealed the same exact dangerous trend as the Tryptophan fermenting process with the GM Bacteria by Showa Denko. However, this experiment with the peas and the transgene insertion was abandoned after tests showed it caused an allergic reaction in mice with lung damage. Like other tests and studies done with experiments in toxicity of a certain protein extract from say, Organism A [in this case a bean], it had zero toxic effect on mice or humans. However, once this same protein producing gene is expressed within the context of Organism B [the Pea], it had just the opposite effect. In fact there were structural changes within the protein which did indeed cause certain allergic reactions. 
"The researchers - at Australia's national research organisation, CSIRO - took the gene for a protein capable of killing pea weevil pests from the common bean and transferred it into the pea. When extracted from the bean, this protein does not cause an allergic reaction in mice or people." 
 "But the team found that when the protein is expressed in the pea, its structure is subtly different to the original in the bean. They think this structural change could be to blame for the unexpected immune effects seen in mice."
Then there is also the case of Dr Árpád Pusztai, a Hungarian-born biochemist and nutritionist who spent 36 years at the Rowett Research Institute in Aberdeen, Scotland, who bucked the Scientific Orthodoxy and came out against GMO Potatoes in his own developmental research on them. He discovered through identical experimentation that when he isolated the lectin from the Snow Drop which was to kill Aphids on potatoes, that no harm at all came from animals eating the purer toxin, but once inserted into the potato context, structural changes clearly took place within the genes newer genetic context. For revealing his team's findings and exposing the flaws of the technology, he was fired and black balled from working anywhere else. Some of his research team members were likewise treated the same. But there was one statement in the Guardian's interview with him that stands out identical to the two statements in the other pea study I quoted above:
"The results that Pusztai had hinted at in his interview were a comparison of rats fed ordinary potatoes and potatoes that had been genetically modified with a lectin from snowdrops. The rats on the GM diet grew less well and had immune problems even though the lectin itself caused no adverse effects at high concentrations. His conclusion was that the GM process had somehow made the potatoes less nutritious. The GM potatoes were not a commercial variety and were never intended for human consumption, but the lectin modification - which made them poisonous to insects - was an experimental model for other GM varieties."
(Source: The Guardian)

Clearly, the informational content of the Lectin producing gene of the Snowdrop was expressed entirely different within the context of the information contained within the potato. What many geneticists are discovering is that much of the non-coding genes within DNA which do not contain known instructions for the manufacturing of a specific protein, do however contain blueprinted instructions for guidance, regulation and purpose for which that protein under any certain specific situation or circumstances are to be used and directed. What apparently happens is that certain genetic switches are either turned on or off by the mere simple act of inserting the new gene. The trouble is knowing what those other genes are, what their switches turned on or off, do or don't do. The new field of Genetics, called Epigenetics, is revealing how far more complex DNA of living organisms really are. But Scientific discovery and moving forward in the field of genetics has been horribly held back because a handful of religiously driven ideologues within the prevailing scientific orthodoxy have in the past insisted that this non-coding DNA must be labeled Junk DNA because geneticists decades ago found no function or purpose for it's existence within DNA. For no other reason than their own human ignorance and admitting they had no clue as to what exactly that function was it was given the label Junk DNA and was proof positive of being worthless evolutionary holdover from times past. Hence, one wonders how such religiously driven dogma has actually hindered rather than helped the Biotech industry who have used this as an excuse for taking shortcuts in the production, manufacture, packaging and labeling of a product to be sold on the global market as quickly as possible. There was another interesting quote at the end of that article. It was from Greenpeace Australia's campaigner on genetic engineering, Jeremy Tager. He said:

"It is rare for an investigation of the potential health effects of a GM product to be published in a peer-reviewed journal, he adds. "If it had been a private company doing this, it might never have seen the light of day"

Jeremy is absolutely correct. Had this Pea Research been some internal study & experiment conducted inside of a Monsanto, Bayer, Syrgenta Lab, as opposed to a publicly funded organization like Australia's Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), none of the paperwork and other research papers would have ever seen the light of day. None of us would have known about the failures of such a technology and it's unintended consequences or inconvenient truth for that matter. This is not Biomimetics which replicates nature based on an actual understanding of knowledge based on facts of how nature operates by means of observation. This is Sci-Fi stuff based on a flawed belief that Biological information within DNA is not really true  information as understood by humans. Now, how does that dogma go again ? Oh yeah, Biological information within DNA can be compared to rocks in a landslide or pebbles strewn along a beach or patterns of a snowflake. This information is not true intelligent information as we humans understand & know it, it's actually nothing more than meaningless patterns. As long as there are people like this in of power, obsessed with the pursuit of wealth and acquiring a global food monopoly at any cost, the entire planet will always be in serious danger. They are correct about one thing, DNA is NOT real information as humans know and understand it. In actual fact it is far more complex and sophisticated than all the collective thinking and understanding of things humans have ever invented or devised from the beginning, irrespective of what anybody with an opinion believes that happened. 
Detour Towards Epigenetic Switches 

For those with a further deeper interest in the subject of Epigenetics, I'll provide a couple of interesting links to videos which will illustrate and highlight what the Biotechs refuse to admit. The first is a documentary produced by Horizon referencing British Geneticist Marcus Pembry and Swedish Geneticist Dr Lars Olof Byrgen, who are considered heretics in the field, but found by accident how epigenetics switches can be triggered by environmental cues to turn on or off with the resulting effects being the different expression of the genetic information contained within a sequence of DNA. In fact the the documentary even reveals an example of where the mere act of placing a mouse embryo in a Lab  dish actually caused two switches in that embryo to be turned off. Why ? Who knows. No one really understands why. Does the same happen in humans within the procedure of In Vitro Fertilization which is the process of fertilization by manually combining an egg and sperm in a laboratory dish, and then transferring the embryo to the uterus. Is there also potential for switches here to be either turned on or off and if so what genes and what do they do when switched on or off ? Is such information important to understand ? Who knows. Does anyone really care ? Again who knows. Remember, this is also another big business model within the Biotech Industry. With that said, here is the BBC documentary and you may wish to bookmark it for later as it is 48 minutes long, but well worth the watch. 
BBC Horizon: "The Ghost in Your Genes"
SciShow: "Epigenetics"
Here are a couple of entertaining short videos illustrating the recent research work of the team of Scientists at ENCODE who have discovered that non-coding DNA does actually have function and purpose after all. Much to the religious outrage of the prevailing orthodoxy which claims to represent science today. Junk DNA is a dogma that will NOT go away any time soon. 
So 98% of your DNA is Junk ?
The Secret of your "Junk DNA" Revealed!   
 What the Encode project tells us about the human genome and 'junk DNA'
So the next time the Biotech Industry puts out another publicity P.R. stunt by either themselves or any of their Rent-A-Scientists and anonymous sock puppet trolls who will name call you an anti-science Luddite, you need to first remember who the anti-science people really are.
Important Illustrative Update May 8, 2015
 Here is an important update which was published by the University of Buffalo Scientists who are working on Stem Cell research. What they basically have stumbled upon is that there is a hierarchical structural arrangement within genomes and they have found a protein they have labeled as, nFGFR1, which is a protein that regulates the regulators. Wow, who would have thought ? But who or what are these Regulators ? Basically they are the non-coding genes within the genome are those genes which did not code for the manufacturing of a specific protein, hence the term non-coding. However they do contain codes for regulation, instructions tec for other functions like what happens with those manufactured proteins by other gees. Actually, it's far more complex than that. But the fact that they didn't code for proteins, researchers mistakenly stamped the label - "non-coding". Rather than admit that science new nothing of their purpose within any genome and let the public aware they they were still going to research, study, experiment and find out what tasks these genes do perform within the genome, they took it upon themselves to provide these Genes with the label, "Junk DNA". Why ? Because it was religiously assumed that these genes must be useless evolutionary experimental mistakes which they called leftovers from some mystic historical past.  for no other reason than a powerful collection of powerful influential religiously driven Scientists couldn't find any function or purpose to it's existence. Hence it was just leftover evolutionary baggage. As I stated, the only respected genes traditionally have been those genes that they know of which code for the manufacture of proteins as a necessary product for life and MOSTLY, these are the genes with which the Biotech industry are interested in identifying and inserting from one organism into the genome of an entire foreign organism. Yet further discoveries are proving that there is a hierarchical organization made up of the more important regulatory parts and lesser parts which code for the proteins. These protein coding genes are at the bottom of the hierarchy. Layered on top are those extremely important regulatory or control genes. This is where the Biotechs have blundered in their disrespect of the instructional components within the entire context of the gene when they place emphasis and importance only on the coding protein manufacturing genes, such as the BT Cry gene which manufactures the BT Toxin protein for killing insect pests inserted into Maize and Soybean which had an entirely different set of regulatory instruction than the bacteria from which the trans gene was taken. This is likely what went terribly wrong with the three experimental examples I referenced above. Below are some partial quotes and a link to the entire article:
Opening Summary:
"New research shows how a single growth factor receptor protein programs the entire genome. The study provides evidence that it all begins with a single "master" growth factor receptor that regulates the entire genome."
" Now we think we have discovered what may be the most important player, which organizes this cacophony of genes into a symphony of biological development with logical pathways and circuits."
"We found that this protein works as a kind of ‘orchestration factor,’ preferably targeting certain gene promoters and enhancers. The idea that a single protein could bind thousands of genes and then organize them into a hierarchy, that was unknown. Nobody predicted it."
Science Daily: "Master orchestrator of the genome is discovered, stem cell scientists report"

Below was an article from PBS website from 2010 where previous discoveries were just revealing how ignorant that Junk DNA dogma real was. They had one fantastic illustration which stood out to me and here it is along with the link:

“It’s like a recipe book,” Wray said. “It tells you how to make the meal. You need to know the amounts. You need to know the order. The noncoding DNA tells you how much to make, when to make it and under what circumstances.” 
PBS: "Mysterious Noncoding DNA: ‘Junk’ or Genetic Power Player?"
So how do such new science revelations expose the glaring  flaws within the Biotech Industry's technology ?
 So how does one make sense of the subject of just how genes work and function within any genome to an otherwise uninformed public ? It's not the public's fault really. Traditionally Scientists have never been the best communicators to the common people they view and label as "Layman", which is also a term used by religious leaders for the people who make up their so-called flocks who they view as ignorant of the more important matters that only they are capable of grasping. This is why I often make comparison between religion and science because in so many ways their behaviour and actions are identical, despite the promoted differences espoused by both. This is also why this world's massive Biotech and  Pharmaceutical Corporations, Academic Institutions, etc use Public Relations firms and journalists to take up the scientific data from the research and serve it up as a tasty meal for the average person to hopefully enjoy and benefit from. Unfortunately Journalists and PR Firms are prejudiced and biased too. Like other human beings with flaws and imperfections, these journalists and PR Firms are often shackled and committed to the business goals and aspirations of the business interests who employ them. 

So now, how exactly do this world's intellectuals go about explaining how genes work and function to the common man and woman on the street who are otherwise viewed as an ignorant "Layman" public ? The art of teaching here doesn't come easy for an intellectual. First, you should understand that most people who come off as intellectual are not geniuses in the communication game. The problem is when attempts are actually made to justify why GMOs are so simple and safe, the kooky explanations given are the result of the Biotech scientists believing that the public in general are idiots. Take Biotech Scientists, Monsanto's Chief Science Officer, Rob Fraley and UC Davis' Alison Van Eenennaam. Remember the opening statements made at that silly "Intelligence Square Debate" back on December 4th, 2014 (HERE) ? It was the, "Hey folks, Legos are just Legos and Tinker Toys are just Tinker Toys" justication argument. We are simply taking a lego block from Red Lego Man and inserting it in with the other white blocks of Lego Man. It's just that simple, except it's not that simple. So please folks, don't be so stupid. If you'll recall, Ms Van Eenennaam insisted GMOs were no big deal and there was nothing for anybody to worry about. 
"We're just talking about genes, genes are genes, you take one gene from one thing and you put it with some other genes" 
That was nothing more than one of those typical lazy "Just Add Water" quips to an audience they believed were basically morons and yet, from the voting at the end of that debate, who's to argue they were wrong in their appraisal of people in any audience. This was identical to what Geneticist David Suzuki said about his fellow geneticist colleagues, remember ?
"In discussions I've had with my fellow Geneticists, they say, Listen Suzuki, we're just talking about DNA. DNA is DNA [Alison Van Eenennaam - "Genes are just Genes"], what difference does it make what organism it comes from. We pull DNA from one organism and put it into another organism, it's just DNA."
Now these geneticists employed by Biotechs are either totally ignorant [which I doubt] or they are holding back because there is so much at stake financially [which is stupid]. The revelation in the recent finds I just posted expose everything they are doing as nothing but a money making scheme which does nothing but cause consequences which the rest of mankind and the natural pay for. When it comes to the common person's understanding of a gene, couple with the cupcake explanation Fraley, Van Eenennaam, Folta, Wager, Entine and others are feeding them, it's no wonder that the average person thinks of a single gene as no more than downloading a simple App for insertion into your iPad. But it's not. Genes work and operate within a context of information as that article on May 8th revealed. Genes are NOT just Genes and DNA is not just DNA, it's all about informational content. Clearly the average person have heard of genes, but they generally have no idea how they work. Most organisms have 1000s of genes with  some of them having more or less than others. But apparently all these genes can have the ability to code for different proteins, especially when working within a context. The idea the biotechs are pimping to the public is that the gene inserted is just making a simple protein toxin to kill the bad evil bugs, it's as simple as that. But that is dead wrong as the three examples I gave above that we are aware of clearly illustrate how things go dangerously wrong. When proteins are manufactured, they are done so from several different stretches of many different genes within DNA, not just a single gene. In other words, our genes are often a collection of smaller segments that are separated within our DNA. Think about your own body, how many different kinds of proteins do you suppose there  are for constructing the various of components which make you ? Different proteins make up different parts. Proteins for heart cells, lung cells, brain cells, muscle cells, live cells, kidney cells, bone cells, blood cells, etc, etc, etc. See, like DNA and Genes, proteins are not just proteins. I love illustrations. I use them all the time. I find them more effective in teaching than all the "intellect speak" used in most scientific papers for teaching people. So let me illustrate what is happening when *cough-cough* consensus science backs the less than intelligent bio-technology behind Genetically Modified Organisms:

Let's imagine for a moment that a single Cell is like a Skyscaper building. Many many buildings represent all the cells which make up a living organism. Buildings of course need building materials and the intelligent instructions from skilled organizational teams. Let's say that factories which manufacture raw materials for the construction of a skyscaper are like protein coding genes. Let's also say that all of the general laborers, crane operators, concrete masons, steel workers, welders, carpenters, electricians, plumbers, insulation installers, sub-contractors, foreman, supervisors, inspectors, Architects, Engineers, etc, etc, etc all represent "non-coding genes" [Junk DNA] Now in a real world construction project there is a vast array of intelligent educated people with specific trade skills and experience which which are necessary to cooperate in a sequence of of skilled specific timing in constructing various stages of this building project. It is the same in the real world of microbiology. There really is no such thing as non-coding DNA, let alone "Junk DNA". Nevertheless, this is what we are all force fed as truth. But in reality it's religious dogma.

We also need to keep in mind that all materials for building are not equal. Steel, bolts, nails, concrete, grades of lumber, brands of electrical, plumbing, etc, etc, etc  components are not equal. There is a lot of input of ideas, experience and understanding which comes from the people from various background assignments involved with the building project. Their input as to the actual grade and quality of materials is imperative or there could be disaster later on. The collective leadership of this building project may even require a factory to create special specific formulation of the concrete or steel to be used for this particular architectural design to actually succeed. After, they are following rules and regulations of building codes and other safety laws which are also legally required by the hierarchy which demands strict adherence to these rules. This is also what goes on with non-coding genes where regulation, guidance, strict direction of the exact type of specific protein to be contracted all must be obey or the project is abandoned. 

Now lets say that the the projects main building contractor [a Donald Trump type guy] who is also the owner of the property wants to cut corners with regard costs and speeding up the project to a finish so he can start making money off long term lease tenants and any other services he'll offer to Joe/Jane Q-Public. So he insists that expensive high quality structural bolts and Rivets are not necessary for fitting together the building's horizontal and vertical steel I-Beams which make of the strong skeleton of this building. Instead he insists upon the construction workers utilizing wooden pegs. He reasons that if it was good enough for wooden post and beam barn construction in the old days, than it's good enough for his project. I know it sounds ridiculous and asinine, but roll with me here. This Donald Trump building contractor represents the Biotech Corporations and their aspirations for having a monopoly on the food industry. Can you imagine the disarray and organizational collapse of all the construction workers, sub-contractors, supervisors, foreman, inspectors, architects, engineers, code enforcement officers etc, etc, etc, if this Biotech Donald Trump is allowed to move forward with his irresponsible plans ?

This is the same chaos which actually did happen within the organizational collapse of the three examples [Tryptophan, Peas & Potatoes] experiments I referred to above. And science really doesn't understand what truly went wrong with any of them in any intricate detail, although they do have a general idea. And that's what stinks, they know full well the potential of consequences, but a good public relations sugar coating smoke screen can just seem to make it all blow away, even if it's convincing their own minds. The Biotechnology being used is like taking a collection of tradesmen and those of oversight from a 3rd world developing country whose experience is in Bamboo Construction and asking them to build Trump's Tower. There never has been any such thing as Junk DNA and the term "non-coding DNA" is a lousy label for those amazing sophisticated genes which code for regulation, guidance, direction, and ultimately when brought together with the protein coding genes, create an incredible blueprint schematics for any beautiful organism in our natural world. The Biotech world has no respect whatsoever for a natural world where everything has purpose and function. Seriously, this is true as I have referenced below an article  by some Belgian Philosophers and Biotechnologists where they adamantly admit their flawed worldview of the natural world being nothing more than a mistake ridden bundle of compromises and make fun of every anti-gmo person who doesn't accept their technology because they supposedly are all right-wing Fundies. Hardly. You know they are losing ground when they come up with rubbish like this. Everybody who purchases any and all of the Junk Foods which contain GMOs and those proponents who will go to their dying breath defending them are allowing this taxpayer publicly funded religious cult to release onto our natural world a degenerate blueprint which eventually given enough time will collapse the perfection out there in the natural world which up until now has lasted for countless thousands of years. The video below beautifully illustrates just exactly what it is they are offering us as our future.

Stay tuned, I'll continue to add to this
 Why Biomimetics or Biomimicry are more important than ever Now!
As far as Biomimicry goes, there is some hope if it is done correctly. First, there is the hopeful antivenom from Opossums. There are of course a few hurdles to overcome such as corporate competition with competing researchers. This is true of the Pharmaceutical industry and exposes why they are so closely wedded to the biotech industry. There was a similar article in the National Geographic which was more skeptical. The National Geographic article referred to supposed snake expert, Jack Zoltan, who slammed Dr Claire Komives on several points he considered pertinent, all of which she actually addressed in that video conference interview in Colorado. Despite the criticism [which I generally chalk up to celebrity envy and jealousy], Dr Claire Komives and other researchers actually stand by their findings. 
"It was like a miracle, that this peptide really has this activity"
She also may have upset another apple cart as you may well understand. In that video, she revealed what most corporate exces would consider privileged insider information and that of course was the subject of Patents and the low cost for production. As she stated, cost of production per 1 gram would be about $1:00. But of course the Biotechs and Pharmaceuticals are definitely kool with that, but that is not generally information they like the public to be privileged in knowing. In their warped worldview, the public is only entitled to understand the retail costs of the wares they produce and sell. Go figure! These corporate giants and the research people who work for them are not really interested in finding cures to help people or feed them as their public relations departments feed the media. Their very nature is not doing something purely out of the goodness of their dear sweet hearts. The other issue as I stated above is that people need to understand that these researchers and other scientists are shackled to the same failings of jealousy, covetousness and adolescent pride as every other human being, despite the promotion that they as a group are above all that. 

And there are issues too with the Cattail as a solution for cleaning up water pollution. Humans cannot keep doing what they are doing as far as dumping filth into waterways and agriculture is the worst offender. As with most Eco-Green Solutions being promoted for cleaning up the environment, often times these solutions don't require a change of behaviour with regards industrial filth output or average world citizen consumption changes. Frankly I understand why because there ultimately is no profit in it. Humans excel at creating massive amounts of filth and contaminants on Earth and no amount of ideas for ridding the Earth of this filth is ever given which also at the same time requires for provisions in lessening the pollutants to begin with. With newer improved greener technology should also come responsibility of Joe/Jane citizen to also clean up their act.

Biotech Public Relations strikes again: Update April 24, 2015
Defending the Business Model by Bluffing#1: Definition Shell Games continue to mutate

Recently an article came out from the Ghent University, or should I say last year on October 13, 2014, but only now are we really hearing about this in many of the well known Science journals like Science Daily. It's curious that it should come out now, especially with the negative climate surrounding GMO Technology and the Biotechs behind them. In a nutshell, they are attempting to assert that Sweet Potatoes which contain DNA from what they have termed Agrobacterium which they assume, assert and speculate proves GMOs are natural. There is absolutely nothing to quote, but you may read the article from the link I post below. Clearly it is an attempt by the Biotech industry to normalize their less than clean technology. Frankly, from these lame attempts at looking for  justification arguments being invented for GMO Technology, all other examples in nature which can be infected with Agrobacterium like Oak Galls are apparently to be also considered natural gmos. This is further definition shell gaming at it's lowest. I guess the fact that humans have gut bacteria with foreign DNA would qualify humans as natural gmos. Or perhaps the photograph above of a human suffering from the infection of foreign DNA from a parasite which causes "elephantiasis" of the leg tissues would qualify this poor soul as a natural GMO according to the new warped definition we are all now to be force fed ? Oddly enough the bacterium symbiosis referenced in the article below is common in nature, but as I provided above, this has zero to do with their obscene profiteering business model that is attempting to monopolize the food supply around the globe. Here is the link:
Science Daily: "Horizonal gene transfer: Sweet potato naturally 'genetically modified'"
Bluff Defense #2: The Religious Component Argument

So why ? you ask, am I seeing a picture of Richard Dawkins and his famous quote ? Because the Biotechs are now using his religious affirmation here to justify genetic modification and to fabricate a lie as to why anti-gmo people are against GMOs. The same team of Belgium researchers apparently believe that MOST ALL anti-GMO people around the world [especially Americans] must be religious folks who have a belief that nature is something sacred and has a purpose that must not be messed with in any way. Take a look at these researcher's imaginary findings below:

“Anti-GMO arguments tap into our intuitions that all organisms have an unobservable immutable core, an essence, and that things in the natural world exist or happen for a purpose,” Blancke explains 
 “This reasoning of course conflicts with evolutionary theory–the idea that in evolution one species can change into another. It also makes us very susceptible to the idea that nature is a force that has a purpose or even intentions that we shouldn’t’ meddle with.”
Now I find this odd that they would make such a desperate argument utilizing religion to blame for the opposition against GMOs, but I'll address this at the bottom here. First, it illustrates  just how much the official Scientific view of Nature has been warped by these Secular celebrity icons and their obsession with changing worldviews. Frankly, I could care less what anyone believes as to origins of the incredible complex sophisticated mutualistic components found within any ecosystem which allows life to fire on all pistons as a well oiled machine. The fact is irrespective of how one believes Nature became that fine tuned piece of machinery in the first place, the fact is that is exactly what Nature is. The fact that this disturbs some secular religious ideologues out there is not my problem. Richard Dawkins and others of his kind are by the way, staunch Biotech supporters for no one reason than it sounds sciencey and must therefore be correct. In fact his warped view of nature is well illustrated in a conversation he had with an American Medical Physician and Evolutionary Biologist, Professor Randolph Nesse, who actually said this about what was holding back in his view, true progress in medical research:
Nesse says that progress is being hampered by the fact that many medics still think of the body as a machine designed by an engineer, when in fact it is a "bundle of compromises ... designed to maximise reproduction, not health".
Unbelievable! Seriously, what kind of medical doctor would you choose to work on you ? You know, in my profession of market research with well known giant pharmaceutical companies where we have projects for collecting data on side effects of various drugs for any assortment of medical conditions where I interview Doctors, Specialists and Scientists, I have run a cross a majority who unconsciously use Dice Theory when prescribing drugs. I had one doctor who switched a patient over 8 times. He just randomly selected a different type of drug for no other reason [knowledge of the drug had zero to do with decision to prescribe] than to see what it would do in correctly what ailed the patient. Sounds like the kind of Doc Professor Nesse and Richard Dawkins would approve of. But there is more behind this philosophy than things medical for Professor Nesse. Here he laments that most medical doctors and researcher just aren't getting his religious philosophical take on the matter when it comes to utilizing evolutionary philosophy when doing research and how damaging this is in guiding politicians who regulate and pass laws:
"There is no question about the importance of applied evolution. The trouble is, if biologists themselves are only just waking up to how relevant and crucial evolution can be, what hope is there of educating  influencing the leaders and policy makers who need to understand and act upon this research? Not much, I fear."
Source - New Scientist: " Putting evolutionary theory into practice" 
Can you see the similarity between these ideologues and the purpose of Biotechs ripping pages out of their religious playbook to get what they want ? This has nothing to do with science. This is an obsession with power and wealth of Corporations under the cloak of "Science" and challenging anyone who dares go against them and their product as anti-science religiously driven Luddites and that is just a flat out lie. The anti-GMO stance is about people who actually do respect science, but want it conducted responsibly. The fact is, far from an anti-science Luddite problem, this is a moral problem. But wait, there is more from Ghent University:
"While religious beliefs, particularly those that hold a romantic view of nature, have been accused of generating some of the negativity around GMOs, Blancke and his co-authors argue that there's more to the story. Using ideas from the cognitive sciences, evolutionary psychology, and cultural attraction theory, they propose that it is more a matter of messages competing for attention--in which environmental groups are simply much better at influencing people's gut feelings about GMOs than the scientific community."
(Source: Science Daily: "Psychology of the appeal of being anti-GMO")
There were a number of misleading and actually bizarre statements made by suspect sources being used to champion this Business model. Take a look:
 "A team of philosophers and plant biotechnologists have turned to cognitive science to explain why opposition to genetically modified organisms (GMOs) has become so widespread, despite positive contributions GM crops have made to sustainable agriculture"
"A team of Philosophers" ??? I understand the presence of Biotechnologists being there marketing their Wares, but what do philosophers have to do with ecological, biological and psychological issues ??? The Biotechs are clearly casting their fishing lines around hoping to hook other kinds of so-called expert opinion on the matter aside from the usual suspected "rent-a-scientists" they are most often known to employ. Maybe we should be also asking some famous poets and well known fiction novelist [hey how about Steven King?] to chime in with their take on GMOs and why most people dislike them so much. Then there was this quote in that same paragraph:
"despite positive contributions GM crops have made to sustainable agriculture"
Seriously ??? The genetically modified crops and the chemicals created by Industrial Agri-Business for them may have allowed for a time higher yields for nothing more than monoculture commodity crops for brokers on the Global Stock Markets to play price war games with, but at what cost environmentally ??? There is nothing sustainable agriculturally or ecologically about their Industrial business model. The main strategy being used here by the Biotech industry and their largely ignorant supporters is to muddle things up and make the educational landscape nothing more than a gray area. For example, have you noticed something largely bizarre about their labeling of all anti-GMO people as religious nut cases ? Let's just take the United States and those who are on the side of Biotechs like Monsanto. Does anyone realize that most of Monsanto's support comes from the pro-business rightwing side of politics who represent the very nut cases they are making fun of ? The God & Country flag waving GMO Farmers and those religious folks who support them ? A good majority of these pro-GMO gang who in reality have a strong scientific disconnect because they  either don't believe in climate change or if they do, they also believe it has zero to do with any type of human activities ? So again, why the religious component being used here ? Because there appears to be two types of opposing factions here who both support GMOs. There is the rightwing pro-business side I just mentioned and there is the Sciencey side that feels an obligation to defend Biotechnology because after all, it's Science. Now under normal circumstances, these two side absolutely hate each other, but for some strange reason come to bed with each other on the subject of GMOs. The other thing I find peculiar and at the same time interesting, is that the Sciencey types are also the "Occupy Wall Street" people who protested big evil corporate America and yet the very institutions they hate, are what they support when it comes to Industrial Agriculture who are a large part of what is wrong with business and politics. Again, strange bed fellows here.  But why this article now ? For the simple reason that it was created by ideologically driven European secular minded researchers whose concept of all Americans is that they are mostly all religious anti-science Luddites. This will backfire big time because the anti-GMO crowd comes from ALL global backgrounds and do indeed have a healthy respect for nature, something the Biotechnology industry lacks big time. Just one more important bit of news before I sign off here. The Biotech Industry utilizes a number of misinformation websites to propagandize and pimp their products.

One of these is the Genetic Literacy Project website which I sarcastically refer to the "Genetic Illiteracy Project" because it's true purpose is to attack and dumb down, not teach real science. It is run by a collection of Rent-a-Scientists and a gaggle of sycophantic internet sock-puppets who dare not dispute the ignorant rantings of the Biotech authors for fear of being excommunicated from the collective. Most have zero experience in observing and understanding how the natural world is put together and operates smoothly. They don't understand that all commercial farm ventures should be put together and maintained like any other ecosystem on Earth and maintained as such through responsible and sustainable practices. Unfortunately, this completely ruins the profiteering business model of Biotechs & Industrial Agrichemical companies. Hence the vicious opposition against their opposers. It's these attacks which will never convince the people against their business model that they are legit and the reason is the low quality caliber of the proponents involved. Most are incapable of civil discourse. It would seem the new way to promote and champion science now days is to be as fouled mouthed, derogatory and insulting as possible. Can anyone reading help me out to understand how this degenerate behaviour is suppose to help the cause of Science ?

But there is something even more insidious and hidden here about that "Genetic Illiteracy Project" that most people don't know unless they actually research their archived articles and recent articles on a subject called "Eugenics". Originally, Eugenics was created and promoted as an obscene scientific practice starting in the early 1900s, was further perfected by the Nazis from the late 1920s to 1945 and even further perfected by the Allies after WWII. Of course the degenerate motivation behind this is the ideological religious belief that certain flawed human beings do not deserve to pass on their DNA to future humankind and in the past were gas & murdered or later forced sterilized. But we now have the modern Eugenics movement which champions an even kinder and friendlier version of eugenics, thanks to the modern biotech industry who still believes in the original purpose of eugenicists of the past that in order to save the planet, we need to reduce human numbers, especially in the developing third world countries where birth rates are highest. This is where GMOs, which in some experiments have been found to reduce birth rates in lab mice or even sterilize, are a gentler method and solution to reverse the climbing birth rate trends globally. Hence this would make some sense of the reasons behind the strategy of giving out free samples of GMOs to those countries who don't actually have the funds to invest in them. This is a business strategy more commonly known to be employed by drug pushers who give out free samples at the neighbourhood elementary schools hoping to cultivate future clients. In turn they most likely learned their trade from the British Empire who gave out free opium samples from farmed Poppies in Pakistan and India to potential Chinese markets. Once an addicted clientele was established, the British could save their gold and silver and trade drugs for Chinese goods. This is what was behind the well known Boxer Rebellion for those who know their history. Isn't it incredible how people in positions of power and authority over mankind can manipulate the wealth for a small select few ? Ultimately when it comes to GMOs, I am against them not only because of the great ignorance which still exists within the geneticists world which promotes itself as otherwise, but also mainly because GMOs were never necessary in the first place. Biotechs have never attempted to biomimic our planet's ecosystem functions on a commercial scale. Every thing hinges on massive amounts of chemical sales. Irrespective of it being herbicides, insecticides, fungicides or fertilizers. Their entire concept is based on profiteering by off killing something. Not once have they considered looking for balance and working with nature instead of against it. To sum up, it's all about public relations, propaganda and misinformation being parroted over and over until they think their gamble has paid off by an ignorant public finally accepting them. It's all been done before, so why fix it.

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”Joseph Goebbels

Was Beethoven was a Biomimeticist ?
"Beethoven’s journals and letters reveal his love of nature, as when he wrote in 1810, “How delighted I will be to ramble for awhile through the bushes, woods, under trees, through grass, and around rocks. No one can love the country as much as I do. For surely woods, trees, and rocks produce the echo that man desires to hear.” Recognizing and appreciating the natural world was a cornerstone of the Romantic sensibility, as espoused by Enlightenment thinkers such as Rousseau. With the Sixth Symphony, Beethoven joined a common thread in music, art, and literature of the early nineteenth century that rhapsodized on the beauty and grandeur of the natural world, with a reverence that was in no small part spiritual."
Ludwig van Beethoven: Symphony No. 6, Pastoral
In an odd twist, at the end of the 1972 film, Soylent Green, there is a moving death scene, Sol Roth (Edward G. Robinson in his final film role) final wishes of experiencing a painless and suicidal death in a euthanasia clinic's bed. He was put to rest in the assisted-suicide facility (within Madison Square Garden) with orange-hued lighting, classical music playing (Tchaikovsky's "Pathetique" Symphony No. 6, Beethoven's "Pastoral" Symphony No. 6, and segments of Grieg's "Peer Gynt Suite") and projected video of a peaceful and "beautiful" green Earth ages ago when animal and plant life thrived and there was no pollution. It's also a fitting end in describing where this world is headed without biomimicry's having any influence whatsoever on the consensus science.

Important Reading References
Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies: "Opossums - Killers of Ticks"
Medical Daily: "Opossum-Based Antidote Provides New Route For Treating Deadly Snake Bites"
American Chemical Society video: "Opossum-based antidote to poisonous snake bites could save thousands of lives"
PhysOrg: "Common weed revealed diminish pollution"
Cattail farming could help save troubled lake
Cattail Cutting Machines
Showa Denko KK - Tryptophan & GMO Peas
Summary of the Tryptophan Toxicity Incident, by John B. Fagan, Ph.D. Professor of Molecular Biology, Maharishi University of Management
Physicians and Scientists for Responsible Application of Science and Technology: "The Showa Denko Tryptophan disaster reevaluated New evidence indicates that genetic engineering was the cause"

Monday, March 30, 2015

Lobbyist defending Monsanto insists Roundup Is safe to drink, but refuses to drink it

Dr. Patrick Moore speaks to CANAL+ (image screen grab)

You've probably seen this man's image in the headlines recently. His name is Dr Patrick Moore who is a major lobbyist & defender of Monsanto. But it seems he is all the rage in discussion these days because he made the outrageous claim that Roundup was safe to drink, but then refused to drink it when offered it by the French interviewer. He made this statement after insisting that the major ingredient in Roundup was not responsible for any of the increases in cancer rates in the country of Argentina. Here is a transcript of what was stated between the interviewer and Dr Moore:
¤ Moore: “You can drink a whole quart of it and it won’t hurt you.”
¤ Interviewer: “You want to drink some? We have some here.” 
¤ Moore: “I’d be happy to, actually. Not really. But I know it wouldn’t hurt me.”
¤ Interviewer: “If you say so, I have some.”
¤ Moore:  “I’m not stupid.”
 ¤ Interviewer: “So, it’s dangerous?” 
¤ Moore: “People try to commit suicide by drinking it, and they fail regularly.” 
¤ Interviewer: “Tell the truth, it’s dangerous” 
¤ Moore: “No, it’s not. It’s not dangerous to humans”
¤ Interviewer: “So, are you ready to drink one glass?” 
¤ Moore: “No, I’m not an idiot”- “Interview me about golden rice, that’s what I’m talking about.”  -  At that point, Moore declares that the “interview is finished”
¤ Interviewer: "That's a good way to solve things"
¤ Moore: "Jerk"
 I would also like to point out that as a scientist he also believes Global Warming is a natural phenomenon, similar to how Yosemite was once under ice during the ice age. He denies humans are causing any harm to the global climate. This interestingly seems to be a common stand of those who back and promote the Industrial Ag business model
Dr Patrick Moore: "Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout" 
This post is not really about about Dr Patrick Moore in particular, but what often happens when people for whatever reasons defend any product they have an emotional or even financial attachment to. I have often found the same to be true regarding people who distribute many health products. They have a tendency to go well beyond the manufacturer's recommendations and make unprovable claims which cannot be verified when attempting to contact with the manufacturer. I'm definitely no fan of the manufacturer of Roundup, but I have confidence that they do not recommend their product be used for human consumption, even if their distributors and promoters are trying to defend their business model and it's products through exaggeration. The scary thing though is that many people do take these arguments seriously and somewhere down the road may be careless when using the Roundup product by neglecting safety concerns and precautions as recommended by the actual label on the container. Many a manufacturer of health items have gotten themselves into lawsuit legal problems for not reigning in their people. This eventually could be the case for Monsanto. The outrageous claims about drinking Roundup are not specific to Dr Patrick Moore. Long before this News Report, I have personally seen in print, numerous defenders on the Net make that same exact claim while also challenging others. Many of these types of people  are anonymous commenters utilizing various "Sockpuppets" in defending Monsanto with the same exact claim as Dr Moore long before his interview. But what is more serious is that many of the champions [Farmers] of GMOs and Monsanto pesticides who are well written about in various Media outlets like Huffington Post and others are held up as fine examples on a few of the GMO Apologetics websites like the infamous , & websites. Articles written by many of these Farm family individuals are featured on those websites, but they probably are unaware of some of the incredible claims made by these champions of GMO technology and the pesticides they use. In particular, the same almost exact word for word claims Dr Patrick Moore made, but well before his interview.

The danger of course is when people who are used by corporations as outstanding examples of success, they are in great position of influencing others, can make outrageous claims for which those who admire & follow them and hang onto every word uttered from their mouth so to speak, can potentially cause great harm. I first followed this case with one Farmer's wife last year who is from a small town in North Dakota where she and her farmer husband raise wheat. The article that Jenny Dewey Rohrich wrote in her own blog, ,was about the usage of Glyphosate on Wheat. It's true, Glyphosate is used on wheat as a desiccant to dry out the wheat crop into harvest quicker. Even Monsanto has a recommendation for this on their own website Monsanto Roundup - Preharvest Staging Guide . But as she truthfully stated, the Glyphosate is mostly used by far northern hemisphere farmers because they have such a short growing season. But many other Wheat Farmers do not because they have a longer growing season which allows wheat to harden off or dry out naturally for harvest. She also mentioned that this is not used to spray on wheat for weeds as other Roundup Ready crops. This is also true as wheat is not a GMO crop. If wheat gets wet before harvest, it could lower the quality of the crop and downgrade it's value on the market, potentially to a lower livestock grade feed standard if the human consumption standard is not met. Where she made her error however was in the comments section where she stated almost the same identical thing Dr Patrick Moore said:
"It is all about the dose. While vinegar and salt are indeed chemicals we can cook with, glyphosate isn’t labeled to be cooked with. But yes, you could more than likely drink it and be perfectly okay. 
As I said in the post, you are more than welcome to disagree with me and purchase certified organic wheat. That is your choice and thank goodness for choice in our food system!" (Made on November 17, 2014) 
The other farmer's wife who lives in Wheatland County of Alberta Canada is Sarah Schultz who writes a blog on her own website called, where she posts articles and takes comments about her championing the modern day biotechnology. She likewise wrote an article back in November 16, 2014, about Glyphosate and Wheat, but she wrote an interesting take on Glyphosate being safer to ingest than vinegar or Caffeine. What was odd about what she wrote on this comparison, I had seen it somewhere before and others who were Pro-Biotech-Chemicals had also used the same exact wording as she did:
"Health Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) sets and monitors maximum residue levels (MRLs) using scientific methodology far below the amount that could produce health problems. It is a very safe herbicide to use, even safer than vinegar as a herbicide. Caffeine is ten times more toxic than glyphosate! If accidentally consumed, glyphosate is excreted mostly unchanged in feces and urine, so it doesn’t stay in the body and accumulate. There have been no legitimate studies linking glyphosate to any human health ailments."
So where in the world did she get her info from ? Commenters called her on the carpet for claiming it was safer to drink Glyphosate than caffeine or vinegar, which she denied, yet her argument was mostly about dilution in making the comparisons to the caffeine, vinegar and salt arguments and that was what gave people the impression of drinking safety. Her main point had been that the chemical alone, Glyphosate, is not at all harmful in low doses and that it runs through the human body in feces and urine unchange. And yet I had heard or read this somewhere before. That last part in her paragraph was key and I did in fact remember where I had seen this before. 

It was an article I read almost exactly a year ago which was written by XiaoZhi Lim who is a graduate student of the Boston University Science Journalism on the Genetic Literacy Project site, but this was back further around April 2014. So she wasn't a scientist, but rather a science journalist. She listed references, but many were old references from the early 1990s from Cornell University and even their paper had references as far back as the early 1980s. It'll get clearer in a moment. She wrote several paragraphs in that post which made it obvious where these people [Farmer's wives & Dr Patrick Moore & various assorted internet trolls] today were getting their debate material from. The same exact wording in this piece is being used all over the internet with the same stupid challenging by Pro-GMO types who said they would drink the Roundup stuff with no reservations. 
"Let’s take a closer look at glyphosate. Glyphosate is derived from an amino acid, glycine. It acts against plants by suppressing an essential biochemical mechanism commonly found in plants, but not in animals. According to the Extension Toxicology Network, a joint pesticide information project by Cornell University, Michigan State University, Oregon State University and University of California at Davis, and funded by US Department of Agriculture, glyphosate is non-volatile, minimizing exposure through inhalation, and undergoes little metabolism in the human body. If accidentally consumed, glyphosate is excreted mostly unchanged in feces and urine, so it doesn’t stay in the body and accumulate."
Recognize the same exact words used elsewhere around the Internet ? So as I stated, she is citing a study put together by the people at Cornell University back in May of 1994. Now what's funny about the information from that 1994 Cornell summary on the potential for toxicity of  Glyphosate is it's date. And as I stated before, you could scroll down and view the Cornell paper's references and where & when the Cornell researchers got their own informational references and they date back from 1984, 85, 87, 89, 91 & 92. But even those papers got their own references farther back than that. Here's my point. When the Cornell Glyphosate safety study was published, did they know that Monsanto's Roundup was NOT biodegradable at that time ? Well I would have to assume they did not or otherwise they were lying. Do you think if they had today's information on Roundup, that they would have published the same results ? Of course not. In 2009, a French court found Monsanto guilty of lying; falsely advertising its Roundup herbicide as "biodegradable," "environmentally friendly" and claiming it "left the soil clean." Seriously, that's exactly what it said when I was using it. New York's attorney general back in 1996 sued Monsanto over the company's use of "false and misleading advertising" of it's produt Roundup. That case ended with Monsanto agreeing to stop calling Roundup "biodegradable," and to pull ads claiming that Roundup was "safer than table salt" and "practically nontoxic." As one such advertisement put it, "Roundup can be used where kids and pets play." (Lawsuit Info Source) BTW, both ladies I referenced above also brought up the "Table Salt" argument as did the defenders of the Roundup in the Genetic Literacy Project article in the comments section. Still, 1996 is two+ years away from the May 1994 Cornell report. The question is, why are the Genetic Literacy Project authors still pimping these old archaic antiquated flawed arguments ? Because they figure no one will do their homework and mostly they are correct on that. 
"Caffeine is over ten times more toxic than glyphosate. Is this cause for concern? Should we stop drinking coffee? No, the main reason being that a typical dosage of caffeine is not high enough to cause toxicity. Let’s look at the numbers. With LD50 of 192 mg/kg, it would take 12192 mg of caffeine to kill an average 140 lb human being. A typical 8 oz cup of coffee only contains 95 mg of caffeine, much lower than the dose required for acute toxicity. The same reasoning applies to glyphosate. Following the same calculations, it would take 12.5 oz of glyphosate to kill an average 140 lb human being. That means drinking about three gallons of Roundup Original."
Source: "Genetic Literacy Project - "Is glyphosate, used with some GM crops, dangerously toxic to humans?"
"Glyphosate is poorly absorbed from the digestive tract and is largely excreted unchanged by mammals. Ten days after treatment there were only minute amounts in the tissues of rats fed glyphosate for three weeks"
(Source: Cornell University - Glyphosate Toxicology Report 
Sound familiar ? That was not only the wording of the May 1994 Cornell Report, but also the words of Genetic Literacy Project's journalist, Xiao Zhi Lim, the Farmer's wives referenced above and no doubt Dr Patrick Moore. Why didn't any of them do their homework first ? Especially a graduate student like Science Journalist Xiao Zhi Lim ? There is clearly no excuse for that, especially on a supposedly intellectual information promotion website like "Genetic Literacy Project" who promote themselves above all of this disinformation & propaganda mission ? Further below here in another paragraph, Ms Xiao, after referencing the potency of caffeine sarcastically asks the readers: 
"Caffeine is over ten times more toxic than glyphosate. Is this cause for concern? Should we stop drinking coffee? No, the main reason being that a typical dosage of caffeine is not high enough to cause toxicity. Let’s look at the numbers. With LD50 of 192 mg/kg, it would take 12192 mg of caffeine to kill an average 140 lb human being. A typical 8 oz cup of coffee only contains 95 mg of caffeine, much lower than the dose required for acute toxicity. The same reasoning applies to glyphosate. Following the same calculations, it would take 12.5 oz of glyphosate to kill an average 140 lb human being. That means drinking about three gallons of Roundup Original.
In the comments section, one opponent of the use of Glyphosate takes up the challenge from the article. The individual, who unlike many of the pro-gmo proponents who cowardly hide behind sockpuppets in the comment section uses his own name to answer the challenge. Tito Castillo says this:
"I'm curious, if it is so safe, safer than coffee as this paper suggests, then how about we conduct a test with two live subjects. I volunteer to drink the coffee... the other, preferably a chemical company scientist hired to defend their industry, can drink a cup of roundup and lets see what happens?"
Then one of the most notorious sockpuppets of them all ['Hyperzombie' with over 15,000+ posts on just the GMO topic alone] who also claims to be a Hockey playing Farmer from Alberta Canada accepts Mr Castillo's challenge, but with the usual derogatory style snarkiness for which is the only way he apparently can discuss a science topic. Seriously, the quote below is one of the cleanest I can post of his.
"It says that it is safer than CAFFEINE, not coffee. You drink a cup of pure caffeine (equivalent to 190 cups of coffee), and I will drink a cup of roundup. I will call the ambulance for you after i finish rinsing out my mouth (tastes like weird soap). You will most likely be very ill or die, i will be fine.  Only about 8% of people that try to commit suicide with glyphosate actually die, baby aspirin is more effective."
This Disqus user with the sockpuppet, "Hyperzombie" then proceeded to provide a link which supposedly provides proof that Glyphosate was safe to drink because of how most people who tried to commit suicide by drinking Roundup failed, although some did die (HERE) . This was supposed to be proof positive that Roundup could be drank and a person wouldn't die. I've seen the same link given over and over by other Biotech proponents in justifying why it would be safe to drink Roundup. It's a stupid stunt to win a dumb argument, but it is what it is. So for all those with eyes glued to the Dr Patrick Moore debacle, there is a deeper dirtier history to this than you can imagine. Dr Moore, the two Farm Ladies and the Science journalist Xian Zhi Lim just didn't do their homework. Oh, BTW, the other argument made was that Glyphosate leaves no residues in human or mammal tissues. Even the Cornell 1994 paper admitted there were trace amounts in tissues detected back then. Here is a link to the recent residual studies in human and animals which they said never happened: - "Detection of Glyphosate Residues in Animals and Humans"
In Conclusion
I have to say that, while I abhor the adolescent behaviour of the GMO proponents and have mostly left off reading and following the comment sections, I also don't agree with the behaviour of some of these Organic folks who are equally insulting, foul mouthed, derogatory and making false accusations. The two ladies I referenced were pummeled by the idiots on the Organic side. There was no reason for that and while I may not agree with their position on industrial Ag because of my experience with learning and observing how nature actually works and making practical application by means of biomimicry, those two ladies do appear pleasant and respectful with the guests on their pages. This post of mine was never about GMOs, but rather the disingenuous arguments given on Roundup safety. There also appears to be some safety concerns regarding the surfactants used in blending and emulsifying the glyphosate with water [otherwise it floats on the surface in oil beads]. This actually adds to the toxicity of Roundup, especially for aquatic environments. I'm also very much still blown away by the people being used to promote Monsanto's interests. Many are a sorry lot and have been used and abused by a hideous organization for corporate profit and don't even know it. Why didn't  any of them do their own homework on whether or not these outrageous claims were true ? Instead of blindly accepting old outdated research material and fraudulent labeling and advertisement talking points meant to sell massive amounts of product that Monsanto was actually sued for as fraud back in the 1990s. It's a beautiful set up. Monsanto get's the same selling points and at the same time disconnects and disavows themselves of any false advertising because it was other Sheople who said such things. The two nice ladies I mentioned, Dr Moore, Science Journalist Xaio and a plethora of Sockpuupets are the latest instantiation of the old fables and myths from Monsanto's fraudulent labeling and advertising schemes of the 1990s. They are being used and abused and are not even aware of it.
Some final interesting stats and facts on many on many of the internet Biotech proponents out there
One final point on the same commenters often seen always posting on these articles. Many of them have 10,000-20,000 [one individual has over 40,000+] posts and mainly on this topic. Tracing many, they also post as climate change deniers on other sites as well. When I've pointed this out, many have blocked access to their own posting history in the Public Profile section page. No problem, just Google the sockpuppet's username and the subject you are looking to connect them with. If you know how to research, you will find that many of the ones with sockpuppets or abbreviated names are actually utilized on the Monsanto, the, and the website as shining examples and/or authors as article contributor in promoting GMOs. All of these internet sites are industrial agriculture backed and it would seem many of the ones who have been called Trolls or Shills by others do have some type of vested interests in the Biotech industry. One interesting gal is Mary M. who always appears to somehow show up at the right time when new articles come out. I seriously don't know where any of these people get the time for all of this posting. Don't they have some kind of farmimg chores to do ? She is Mary Mertz of . She and her husband Robert Mertz along their extended family run a large corporate Beef & grain farming operation in the state of Kansas. Here is their website:
However just for fun, here is another interesting thing you can research. Find out where all the government subsidies these farmers receive go. I first found this out from researching my own family back in Iowa who also make a substantial amount with subsidies which makes them a living as grain farmers. Many, not all, but many need those US Gov subsidies to survive or at least break even. You may have read recently in the well known Forbes magazine journal how many of the well known U.S. Billionaires who just happen to own industrial farms also receive substantial payouts. Nevertheless, look up this link and see the history of payouts to the various Mertz family members who all have various ownership percentage of River Creek Farms Inc. It's all publicly  recorded and available, nothing secret. But remember, you can Google any of these folks and find out their history regarding government entitlements. To be honest, Mary Mertz has for the most part been mostly respectful, though very determined and dogmatic in her beliefs.
BTW, just for fun again, here is that Forbes list of Billionaire farmers being subsidized by taxpayers from the same exact website above. FAT CATS COLLECT TAXPAYER-FUNDED FARM SUBSIDIES: FORBES 400 SUBSIDY RECIPIENTS (1995 – 2012)

 You should also know that most Organic Wheat Farmers do not qualify for Farm Subsidies. That's because they actually make a profit.
"Ideology prevents wheat growers from converting to more profitable methods, new study shows"
References on authors mentioned above on corporate sponsored Pro-Biotech sites
Genetic Literacy Project: - Jenny Dewey Rohrich - "Farmers say they do not feel ‘forced’ to buy GM seeds" - Jenny Dewey Rohrich (New York sues Monsanto)
Other extremely important & revealing references regarding the Biotech Public Relations strategies
Pro-Biotech Industry Authors at News Media Journals
The online journal "The Guardian" has several authors tied to Biotech Industries. Over the past couple years, there have been articles by various science groups pointing out the strong scientific disconnect between Pro-GMO Farmers and Anthropological Global Climate Change. In an effort to twist this embarrassing revelation around, pro-gmo "The Guardian" authors, Nina Federoff, Peter Raven & Phillip Sharp on March 9, 2015, wrote a co-authored article to turn the tables on the anti-gmo groups and deflecting attention away from their own client's science disconnect issues: - "The anti-GM lobby appears to be taking a page out of the Climategate playbook" 
Incredibly, today March 31, 2015, the organization "U.S. Right to Know" just published information on just who all three of these authors are beholding to. They clearly have a vested interesting in disseminating misinformation: