# Vegetarian/vegan tarantulas



## vickywild (Jan 31, 2012)

Ha. Random I know but we are currently discussing cat and dog food and vegetarians/vegans trying to turn their dogs/cats the same and it got me thinking about tarantulas.

Has anyone ever heard of a vegetarian spider? Would it even be POSSIBLE?


----------



## Hobo (Jan 31, 2012)

vickywild said:


> vegetarians/vegans trying to turn their dogs/cats the same


My blood... it BOILS.


Apparently, there have been reports of tarantulas eating things like grapes in captivity, BUT The fact remains that they are carnivores.
Please don't make your carnivorous pet a vegetarian/vegan at the cost of their health. No, they don't want to be vegetarian/vegan. They don't even know what that is. 
Bother your friends and family instead!

Oh, and here's an article on a recently found spider that feeds on acacia buds.
It's not a tarantula though.


----------



## jbm150 (Jan 31, 2012)

There's a spider, I believe a jumping spider, that has adapted to feeding on flowers or buds...my memory is hazy.  Check the Trues forum, I think it's been talked about there


----------



## vickywild (Jan 31, 2012)

@Hobo oh dont worry I would never do that. I'm a vegetarian myself, but I've even discussed with my fiancee the fact that when we have children they wont be automatic veggies aha. 
The crap thats in vegetarian dog food is ridiculous.


----------



## Anonymity82 (Jan 31, 2012)

Hehe, Futurama speaks the truth: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRSLQu-d6ZQ


----------



## Anonymity82 (Jan 31, 2012)

No offense to Vegetarians/Vegans. To each his own. Just don't stop feeding your pets food they should be eating because of your own views. If you can't feed you pets what they should eat because your views then give your pet to someone who will take care of your pet properly. If you think the meat is bad for them, then buy organic, grain fed meats/dog foods to feed your pet


----------



## Chris_Skeleton (Jan 31, 2012)

I guess you guys don't own a B. vegans.

Reactions: Like 7


----------



## Thobby1982 (Jan 31, 2012)

Hobo said:


> My blood... it BOILS.
> 
> 
> Apparently, there have been reports of tarantulas eating things like grapes in captivity, BUT The fact remains that they are carnivores.
> ...


Tarantulas are insectivores, NOT carnivores!

Actually if you want to get technical, they omnivores. They will eat vertabretes and invertabretes alike.


----------



## Hobo (Jan 31, 2012)

Thobby1982 said:


> Tarantulas are insectivores, NOT carnivores!
> 
> Actually if you want to get technical, they omnivores. They will eat vertabretes and invertabretes alike.


No.
They are carnivores.

That's like saying a B. smithi is a tarantula but not a spider.
I purposely left it that way since they eat vertebrate prey as well.

AND, if you want to get technical, they are NOT omnivores, since they don't take non animal food (aside from the odd grape or moistened fish pellet in captivity).

So THERE. *smug*

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## jayefbe (Jan 31, 2012)

Thobby1982 said:


> Tarantulas are insectivores, NOT carnivores!
> 
> Actually if you want to get technical, they omnivores. They will eat vertabretes and invertabretes alike.


Insectivores are a type of carnivore, so they are carnivores. And tarantulas are not omnivores (omni = all), technically, as they don't eat plant material.

EDIT - must type faster!


----------



## Shrike (Jan 31, 2012)

Thobby1982 said:


> Tarantulas are insectivores, NOT carnivores!
> 
> Actually if you want to get technical, they omnivores. They will eat vertabretes and invertabretes alike.


As Hobo and Jayefbe already pointed out, you're wrong on both counts.

Since we're getting technical here:

vertebrates

invertebrates

The red line underneath the word means you didn't spell it correctly.


----------



## Louise E. Rothstein (Jan 31, 2012)

The talk about "vegetarian" spiders is ridiculous too.
Although these creatures do take some acacia buds they eat a probably significant number of arboreal ant larvae.


----------



## Jquack530 (Feb 1, 2012)

LoL! Hopefully if there was to ever be a vegan tarantula that it wouldn't preach at the other tarantulas for eating crickets. :sarcasm:

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Rob1985 (Feb 1, 2012)

:wall::wall::wall:

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## 8leggedloverlassie (Feb 1, 2012)

Well,sometimes I feed my crix with herbs and then I take a gutloaded one (you can see th green food in it!) and feed it to my t's. Does that mean that th t eats veggies too?? Or is that totally different??


----------



## Metlock (Feb 1, 2012)

lol not, the T isnt eating it separately and I dont think it would choose to eat the veggies without them being ingested by the cricket :biggrin:


----------



## LV-426 (Feb 1, 2012)

Thobby1982 said:


> Tarantulas are insectivores, NOT carnivores!
> 
> Actually if you want to get technical, they omnivores. They will eat vertabretes and invertabretes alike.


Meat is meat


----------



## Bill S (Feb 1, 2012)

Hobo said:


> Oh, and here's an article on a recently found spider that feeds on acacia buds.
> It's not a tarantula though.


Well, as long as everyone is correcting terminology - the spider in the article does not eat acacia buds, despite the error in the article that claims they do.  They feed on something called Beltian bodies - an exudate on the acacia leaves.  Still vegetable matter though.  However, since the spider also eats insects it can't honestly be called a vegetarian.


----------



## paassatt (Feb 1, 2012)

Bill S said:


> However, since the spider also eats insects it can't honestly be called a vegetarian.


An article was incorrect regarding information about a spider? I'm completely taken aback... :sarcasm:


----------



## jakykong (Feb 1, 2012)

8leggedloverlassie said:


> Well,sometimes I feed my crix with herbs and then I take a gutloaded one (you can see th green food in it!) and feed it to my t's. Does that mean that th t eats veggies too?? Or is that totally different??


I'm not sure whether the stomach contents of the cricket are eaten or not. I think it might depend on the contents: although the tarantula clearly processes the gut (it's certainly not intact in the bolus), they won't consume anything that their digestive fluids can't dissolve to sub-micron particles. In other words, I suspect that the gut-loaded contents are in the food bolus, not in the tarantula. 

I would have to search for the thread again, but I was reading on this not too long ago here... gut loading is more or less a carry-over from the herp hobby, where it might actually be useful.


----------



## Thobby1982 (Feb 3, 2012)

Shrike said:


> As Hobo and Jayefbe already pointed out, you're wrong on both counts.
> 
> Since we're getting technical here:
> 
> ...



You're right about my spelling, but your wrong about the red line. It does not pop up on my device. I also would like to apologize, I did not know that this forum was also an English/grammar forum. I was under the impression that this was a forum about arachnids and other exotics.


----------



## jayefbe (Feb 3, 2012)

Thobby1982 said:


> You're right about my spelling, but your wrong about the red line. It does not pop up on my device. I also would like to apologize, I did not know that this forum was also an English/grammar forum. I was under the impression that this was a forum about arachnids and other exotics.


You were the one that started the whole "english/grammar" thing by "correcting" everyone else about their definition of carnivore, you just happened to be wrong.


----------



## Anonymity82 (Feb 4, 2012)

My crickets definitely get the orange carrots squeezed out of them when being consumed by my T, or the green if I give them spinach. I like to believe my Rose appreciates the healthy selection of foods I feed my crickets

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## jim777 (Feb 4, 2012)

Chris_Skeleton said:


> I guess you guys don't own a B. vegans.


Too perfect not to resurrect


----------



## pnshmntMMA (Feb 4, 2012)

For every animal a vegetarian doesn't eat, I will eat THREE. It's medically proven that people who eat meat in moderation are healthier than people who don't. We as humans are meant to do so.


----------



## Bill S (Feb 4, 2012)

paassatt said:


> An article was incorrect regarding information about a spider? I'm completely taken aback... :sarcasm:


Frightening, isn't it.  Next we'll be told that Wikipedia makes mistakes - then what will become of civilization?

But in this case, the "vegetarian" spider has been observed in Costa Rica where its diet appears to consist of about 60% Beltian bodies from the acacia and about 40% insects.  If 40% of someone's diet is meat, can they really be called vegetarian?


----------



## Rob1985 (Feb 4, 2012)

pnshmntMMA said:


> For every animal a vegetarian doesn't eat, I will eat THREE. It's medically proven that people who eat meat in moderation are healthier than people who don't. We as humans are meant to do so.


 actually all the human body needs is the basic nutrients that come from meat products, which includes proteins, zinc and iron to name a few. Many vegans take vitamins or get these from other places.

The muscle tissues itself serves no value, it doesn't matter how the body get's its nutrients as long as it does. And the fat inside meat is mostly saturated.


----------



## Shrike (Feb 4, 2012)

Rob1985 said:


> actually all the human body needs is the basic nutrients that come from meat products, which includes proteins, zinc and iron to name a few. Many vegans take vitamins or get these from other places.
> 
> The muscle tissues itself serves no value, it doesn't matter how the body get's its nutrients as long as it does. And the fat inside meat is mostly saturated.


I'm not sure I understand the concept of muscle tissue itself having no value.  The benefits of the nutrients you listed are derived directly from the consumption of the meat.  The very cells of the tissue being eaten contain the needed protein and nutrients.  Therein lies the value.  Regardless, evolution has decreed that we are omnivores and are designed to eat both plants and animals.  Of course, this is just my personal opinion.


----------



## Rob1985 (Feb 4, 2012)

Shrike said:


> I'm not sure I understand the concept of muscle tissue itself having no value.  The benefits of the nutrients you listed are derived directly from the consumption of the meat.  The very cells of the tissue being eaten contain the needed protein and nutrients.  Therein lies the value.  Regardless, evolution has decreed that we are omnivores and are designed to eat both plants and animals.  Of course, this is just my personal opinion.


 it means, the meat itself isn't what you need, it's the nutrients. You could put it in a milkshake and get the same results.


----------



## Anonymity82 (Feb 4, 2012)

Rob1985 said:


> it means, the meat itself isn't what you need, it's the nutrients. You could put it in a milkshake and get the same results.


Where would these nutrients come from? Would they be synthetically made? That's worse than eating the meat, granted the meat is lean meat that is properly fed natural foods and not filled with hormones/antibiotics etc... 
I liked to see the bowel movements of a tiger fed synthetic or plant derived meat milkshakes. It would be like a Gallagher show!


----------



## hamhock 74 (Feb 4, 2012)

This off topic but wasn't there a thread in the watering hole awhile ago about a scientist trying to genetically modify a big cat (forgot if it was a lion or a tiger) so that it could absorb nutrients from plants and thus becoming a vegetarian? I think I'm thinking the whole thing out of context but that's basically what they were trying to do.


----------



## Ultum4Spiderz (Feb 4, 2012)

genetic modification = playing god... and never ends in good results.. 
Tigers have large teeth for eating meat... plants would be a bad choice even if this were possible
Gene's can however be modified in plants so they survive harsh conditions.."though possibly being less Organic (healthy)"


----------



## Shrike (Feb 4, 2012)

Rob1985 said:


> it means, the meat itself isn't what you need, it's the nutrients. You could put it in a milkshake and get the same results.


You can't separate the two unless you go to an alternative source for obtaining the nutrients.  If you eat meat, then yes, the meat is what you need.  Protein and nutrients come included.


----------



## jakykong (Feb 4, 2012)

Ultum4Spiderz said:


> genetic modification = playing god... and never ends in good results..
> Tigers have large teeth for eating meat... plants would be a bad choice even if this were possible
> Gene's can however be modified in plants so they survive harsh conditions.."though possibly being less Organic (healthy)"


Humans have been modifying genes since millenia before we even knew genes existed (selective breeding) - that's why we have corn instead of maize, and white rice, and dogs, and everything else we've domesticated. Just because we can now do it faster and more selectively, why is it any different?

... And frequently, the modified genes not only increase crop yield, it can also make the foods MORE healthy. As an example, yellow rice is rich in beta carotene, so it is being spread to third-world countries as much as possible to help with vision problems. Or, strains of corn which, as a result of genetic modification, repel insects - avoiding or reducing the need for pesticides.

It's popular in Europe (and a growing trend here) to distrust GMO foods, but it is an excellent tool in our arsenal to keep 6 billion people fed.


----------



## jayefbe (Feb 4, 2012)

Great post jaykong. Informative and accurate. 

Ultum - genetic engineering of food crops has been wildly successful, a far cry from your statement that it "never ends in good results".


----------



## jbm150 (Feb 4, 2012)

Ultum4Spiderz said:


> genetic modification = playing god... and never ends in good results..


I've seen a ton of movies where this is true.  Do we really want dinosaurs running amok???  

Gene manipulation = germs, monsters, and dinosaurs; advanced robots = terminators.  We're screwed as a species

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Robotponys (Feb 23, 2012)

pnshmntMMA said:


> For every animal a vegetarian doesn't eat, I will eat THREE. It's medically proven that people who eat meat in moderation are healthier than people who don't. We as humans are meant to do so.


Ok, no. Just no. It has been proven in Forks over Knives and other articles that meat activates cancer cells and is unnecessary. 



jakykong said:


> Humans have been modifying genes since millenia before we even knew genes existed (selective breeding) - that's why we have corn instead of maize, and white rice, and dogs, and everything else we've domesticated. Just because we can now do it faster and more selectively, why is it any different?
> 
> ... And frequently, the modified genes not only increase crop yield, it can also make the foods MORE healthy. As an example, yellow rice is rich in beta carotene, so it is being spread to third-world countries as much as possible to help with vision problems. Or, strains of corn which, as a result of genetic modification, repel insects - avoiding or reducing the need for pesticides.
> 
> It's popular in Europe (and a growing trend here) to distrust GMO foods, but it is an excellent tool in our arsenal to keep 6 billion people fed.


True, but corn is completely out of control. The whole food industry is. All of you need to watch King Corn, Fast Food Nation, etc.  And read The Omnivore's Dilemma. I'm not going to explain, just watch some stuff on Netflix or/and read some articles and books.


----------



## HoboAustin (Feb 23, 2012)

jakykong said:


> it is an excellent tool in our arsenal to keep 6 billion people fed.


That's the way I see it. Sometimes it's necessary.


----------



## jayefbe (Feb 23, 2012)

Robotponys said:


> True, but corn is completely out of control. The whole food industry is. All of you need to watch King Corn, Fast Food Nation, etc.  And read The Omnivore's Dilemma. I'm not going to explain, just watch some stuff on Netflix or/and read some articles and books.


Corn isn't out of control because of GMO foods. It's always been out of control, since long before GMO foods were developed. That said, there are MANY aspects of the GMO world that I despise, Monsanto for one. But that's not inherent to GMO foods, it's due to a greedy corporation taking advantage of farmers. Your argument is a perfectly valid one, but it's only tangentially related to GMO foods. Rather, the argument is about the problem with America's food system in general.


----------



## Quazgar (Feb 23, 2012)

Well this thread has taken an unexpected detour...

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Shrike (Feb 23, 2012)

Robotponys said:


> Ok, no. Just no. It has been proven in Forks over Knives and other articles that meat activates cancer cells and is unnecessary.
> 
> 
> 
> True, but corn is completely out of control. The whole food industry is. All of you need to watch King Corn, Fast Food Nation, etc.  And read The Omnivore's Dilemma. I'm not going to explain, just watch some stuff on Netflix or/and read some articles and books.


I've read and enjoyed some of the material that you referenced, in particular, Fast Food Nation and the Omnivore's Dilemma.  However, I wouldn't reference these sources as the gospel truth.  These aren't scholarly or scientific articles, they are popular media.  They may be well researched, entertaining, and raise interesting questions, but you can't simply say to somebody 'your position is wrong!  Michael Pollan says so!'  I have a feeling that we would probably agree on many issues regarding the food industry.  My problem isn't so much the position you're taking, but the fact that  you lean heavily on these sources without considering their agenda or the opposing side of the issue.


----------



## Tarac (Feb 23, 2012)

Quazgar said:


> Well this thread has taken an unexpected detour...


You didn't see this coming by the title of the thread?  lol

---------- Post added 02-23-2012 at 09:57 AM ----------




Shrike said:


> I've read and enjoyed some of the material that you referenced, in particular, Fast Food Nation and the Omnivore's Dilemma.  However, I wouldn't reference these sources as the gospel truth.  These aren't scholarly or scientific articles, they are popular media.  They may be well researched, entertaining, and raise interesting questions, but you can't simply say to somebody 'your position is wrong!  Michael Pollan says so!'  I have a feeling that we would probably agree on many issues regarding the food industry.  My problem isn't so much the position you're taking, but the fact that  you lean heavily on these sources without considering their agenda or the opposing side of the issue.


Exactly.  They never weigh the benefits against the cost from the other side.  Can you imagine what would happen to the earth if we all reverted to local farming, agrarian-style societies?  Can you say "water crisis?"  There wouldn't be a spit of forested land left anywhere, as evidenced by places like Haiti, India, much of Latin America and Africa, China, etc, etc.  There are positives to having highly efficient, smaller foot-print food production installations.  Not saying it's done perfectly, but the pop media garbage doesn't help the issue by playing on people's emotional response to a slaughter house without showing pictures of the devastating deforestation and so on happening in places that can't factory farm.  There's more to consider in those stories.  I agree we need to work on things significantly (starting with getting rid of Mansanto), but not by swinging the pendulum as hard as we can in the complete opposite direction.

---------- Post added 02-23-2012 at 10:12 AM ----------




Robotponys said:


> Ok, no. Just no. It has been proven in Forks over Knives and other articles that meat activates cancer cells and is unnecessary


A perfect example of manipulating a few scientific findings to imply something more than you really can support.  Did you know that Silica is also a carcinogen?  Many alkaloids in plants that we consume regularly also are carcinogens.  There is a higher rate of colon cancer in many vegetarian populations, it is not known why yet.  Meat is not the only thing that can cause cancer and there isn't any direct evidence that eating meat or not eating meat has any relationship to whether or not you get cancer, these are people trying to further their agenda not presenting a sound scientific finding.  Anything foreign to your body could cause cancer.  I think this is where the old adage "don't believe everything you see on TV" comes from.  Neither has any benefit in terms of avoiding cancers, longer life expectancy, and so on.  It's really nothing more than a personal decision based on how you feel but there are no medically significant benefits to going to either extreme (which assumes that you have taken the proper precautions to supplement those things you are missing by making your diet counter to what your physiology has adapted to utilize over the past 100K years, if not there are clear medically significant costs).

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Robotponys (Feb 23, 2012)

All true points. I just get a bit excited about these things and type without much thought.  I agree, GMO seeds are very useful, but some points, such as basically forcing everyone to use it and the bad effects on nature. Plus we have such excess it ends up being not so good.


----------



## Bill S (Feb 23, 2012)

Shrike said:


> You can't separate the two unless you go to an alternative source for obtaining the nutrients.  If you eat meat, then yes, the meat is what you need.  Protein and nutrients come included.


I think the point being made is that muscle tissue is just the package in which the nutrients are delivered.  There's nothing that requires you to accept the nutrients in that particular package, as long as there are other "packages" in which the nutrient can be delivered.

That said - I still prefer meat in my diet.  Taste and texture are part of my appreciation of my world.  Veggie burgers have not yet attained that level.


----------



## Bjamin (Feb 23, 2012)

I have to disagree with this geneticly modified foods are in my opinion no good at all and I do every thing I can to aviod them as well as meats pumped full of hormones. Watch the world acording to monsanto and do some reaserch on the results of comsuming gmo's. Look at the conection to all the cancers and other disorders that are so much more prevelent in the past 30 years.


jayefbe said:


> Great post jaykong. Informative and accurate.
> 
> Ultum - genetic engineering of food crops has been wildly successful, a far cry from your statement that it "never ends in good results".


----------



## Robotponys (Feb 23, 2012)

Yup. IMO it actually isn't necessary for most foods. Corn is in such excess we are feeding it to all our meat, which cows don't appreciate.  I eat organic as much as possible.

Oh, and we really should slow our meat intake a bit. Just maybe eat meat 3 times a week instead of daily.  The animals suffer A LOT and so does the planet. Not forgo you to be a vegetarian, just reducing will help, or eating organic mainly. 

This thread is so off topic... Let's end this, there is no real conclusion, it's your choice (just DO NOT EAT FASTFOOD, not even veggies. Everybody knows fastfood tastes bad compared to normal food and it is incredibly unhealthy. Oh, there is an interesting TED talk about obesity and kids. It's disgusting.


----------



## jbm150 (Feb 23, 2012)

Robotponys said:


> meat activates cancer cells and is unnecessary


Meat, even red meat and even in large quantities, is not harmful to humans in and of itself.  Our bodies are built to handle it just fine.  It's when you have excess meat paired with a garbage high carbohydrate, poor fat (mono/polyunsat & sat) ratio, high salt diet with little exercise (among other things) that problems like heart disease, cancer, diabetes, etc become a problem, especially on a population scale

Corn sucks for a lot of reasons; there are way better grains out there.


----------



## Tarac (Feb 23, 2012)

Bjamin said:


> I have to disagree with this geneticly modified foods are in my opinion no good at all and I do every thing I can to aviod them as well as meats pumped full of hormones. Watch the world acording to monsanto and do some reaserch on the results of comsuming gmo's. Look at the conection to all the cancers and other disorders that are so much more prevelent in the past 30 years.


So you don't eat anything with corn, wheat, beef products, pig products (you are new world, we don't have boars here, only feral swine which is GMO through selective breeding)?  I think you misunderstand what GMO foods are.  Look up Zea mexicana to see what corn looked like before we GMO'd it.  You could never eat that, saying you avoid GMO is saying you avoid most agricultural products period, meat and plant-based alike.  We don't eat wild apples, our raspberries and blueberries are bred to be tastier and bigger, etc. etc.  Whenever you are eating anything with a cultivar name, like "Icerberg" or "Romaine" you are eating GMO food.  So if you want to try to avoid eating whenever you can because you consider it "bad," I wonder first what you are eating at all and second why think "watching" anything really constitutes research.  Really, you should do some research.  There is very little connection that can be made between cancer and any diet, that's the one thing all credible researchers will tell you.  Physiology is far too complicated.  The prevalence of cancer in the modern era can't be concluded to have anything to do with diet specifically because LOTS of other things have changed too, inlcuding but not limited to pesticides, life style changes, new materials in all our homes, extremely long life expectancy, etc. etc.  The GMO we call the banana changed humanity forever.  I think you are trying to say that certain kinds of GMO are bad, which is true.  Terminal wheat is extremely dangerous and exploitative.  But to say that GMOS are no good at all, well that's just plain old uninformed about your own diet and life-style unless you are living in the woods somewhere eating squirrels (and in BC, btw all your squirrels are GMO too sent to you by our national zoo a long time ago since the original wild native inhabitant went extinct lol) and acorns and living in a cabin you made from trees you chopped out of a virgin forest (see why we need efficient farms?  if we all cut down virgin forest for our house to avoid GMO trees used for lumber... that's right, trees that are GMO to grow larger faster through selective cultivation).  There is no animal called Bos taurus anymore, only Bos domesticus.  Even your eggs come from a bird that isn't the Indian Jungle Fowl, probably a Barred Rock or  Rhode Island Red and that includes 100% free roaming, hormone-free, completely organic eggs.


----------



## Anonymity82 (Feb 23, 2012)

Bill S said:


> That said - I still prefer meat in my diet.  Taste and texture are part of my appreciation of my world.  Veggie burgers have not yet attained that level.


Than you my friend, have not tried Morning Star's spicy black bean burgers.


----------



## Bill S (Feb 23, 2012)

njnolan1 said:


> Than you my friend, have not tried Morning Star's spicy black bean burgers.


True, but I'll bet they do not taste like steak.  I'm not saying that vegetarian foods can't taste good - just saying that none that I've tried would really fool anyone into thinking they are real meat.  I have enjoyed many vegetarian dishes, but I also appreciate a good steak once in a while and sushi probably twice as often.  (Sashimi-type, not just vegetable type)  I agree that most people ingest far more red meat than they should, and get far less exercise than they should.  I eat smaller quantities of meat than many people I know, and get plenty of excercise - but have not felt inspired to give meat up altogether.  

On another point - yes, people evolved as omnivores and meat is a natural part of their diet.  But the quantities of meat that our early ancestors ate was much less than modern people do.  Vegetables (including starchy root crops) comprised a major portion of the diet, and meat tended to be only a periodic treat. Modern agriculture and commerce radically changed human diets, and modern diets and lifestyles are neither traditional, natural nor healthy.

There seems to be some confusion in the past discussion as to what exactly GMO foods are.  Hybrids do not really qualify - the genetic codes were not tampered with.  The real GMOs are ones in which specific genetic material has been spliced into the plants, such as incorporating natural insecticides into the genetic code.  This is not done through breeding, and the effects are to some degree still unpredictable.  At this point, I'm pretty much neutral on the topic of genetic modification.  The alarmists out there don't really have all the evidence they need to support some of the accusations being tossed around.  But the proponents don't have the proof that there won't be long term effects either.  For now we'll just have to wait and watch.

Now - in the feable hope of bringing this back into the realm of tarantulas - When we keep tarantulas in captivity we are feeding them relatively unnatural diets.  The issues brought up in the previous messages regarding healthy human feeding could be applied to tarantulas as well.  The crickets and roaches so many of us use have been selectively bred in captivity for hundreds of generations and fed on all kinds of artificial foods.  Food we may sometimes make available to tarantulas (vertebrate prey comes to mind) might have all the food value and hazards as the junk food and fast food that we inflict upon ourselves.  Anyone care to take the conversation further in that direction?


----------



## jayefbe (Feb 23, 2012)

Bill S said:


> There seems to be some confusion in the past discussion as to what exactly GMO foods are.  Hybrids do not really qualify - the genetic codes were not tampered with.  The real GMOs are ones in which specific genetic material has been spliced into the plants, such as incorporating natural insecticides into the genetic code.  This is not done through breeding, and the effects are to some degree still unpredictable.  At this point, I'm pretty much neutral on the topic of genetic modification.  The alarmists out there don't really have all the evidence they need to support some of the accusations being tossed around.  But the proponents don't have the proof that there won't be long term effects either.  For now we'll just have to wait and watch.


I'm glad you brought this up. GMO are referring to transgenic organisms. Selective breeding and hybridization will effect the genomic structure of an organism, but it is not the same thing as using recombinant DNA techniques to insert a DNA sequence from one organism into another. Also, adding hormones to livestock is not the same thing as creating a GMO.


----------



## Bjamin (Feb 23, 2012)

There is a big differnce between selective breading and genetic modification done in a lab just because I didn't have the time or inclination to go into more detail in my post does not mean I havent done more research on the subject than simply watching a show. I asures you that I am not the type to believe every thing I see or read. I do not buy my meat from the geocery store I coop with friends on an organic farm we raise hormone free pork chicken and eggs yes from pigs and chickens that have been selectivly breed but I dont concider that on the same playing field as modifying them in a lab. I also hunt and fish and have large vegitable beds. As I said I try to avoid gmos I understand how wide spread a problem they are and how hard it would be to compleatly cut them out of our lifes. 


QUOTE=Tarac;1998787]So you don't eat anything with corn, wheat, beef products, pig products (you are new world, we don't have boars here, only feral swine which is GMO through selective breeding)?  I think you misunderstand what GMO foods are.  Look up Zea mexicana to see what corn looked like before we GMO'd it.  You could never eat that, saying you avoid GMO is saying you avoid most agricultural products period, meat and plant-based alike.  We don't eat wild apples, our raspberries and blueberries are bred to be tastier and bigger, etc. etc.  Whenever you are eating anything with a cultivar name, like "Icerberg" or "Romaine" you are eating GMO food.  So if you want to try to avoid eating whenever you can because you consider it "bad," I wonder first what you are eating at all and second why think "watching" anything really constitutes research.  Really, you should do some research.  There is very little connection that can be made between cancer and any diet, that's the one thing all credible researchers will tell you.  Physiology is far too complicated.  The prevalence of cancer in the modern era can't be concluded to have anything to do with diet specifically because LOTS of other things have changed too, inlcuding but not limited to pesticides, life style changes, new materials in all our homes, extremely long life expectancy, etc. etc.  The GMO we call the banana changed humanity forever.  I think you are trying to say that certain kinds of GMO are bad, which is true.  Terminal wheat is extremely dangerous and exploitative.  But to say that GMOS are no good at all, well that's just plain old uninformed about your own diet and life-style unless you are living in the woods somewhere eating squirrels (and in BC, btw all your squirrels are GMO too sent to you by our national zoo a long time ago since the original wild native inhabitant went extinct lol) and acorns and living in a cabin you made from trees you chopped out of a virgin forest (see why we need efficient farms?  if we all cut down virgin forest for our house to avoid GMO trees used for lumber... that's right, trees that are GMO to grow larger faster through selective cultivation).  There is no animal called Bos taurus anymore, only Bos domesticus.  Even your eggs come from a bird that isn't the Indian Jungle Fowl, probably a Barred Rock or  Rhode Island Red and that includes 100% free roaming, hormone-free, completely organic eggs.[/QUOTE]


----------



## crawltech (Feb 24, 2012)

what was this thread about again????????......

anyhoo, check out paleo diet, or caveman diet...this is apparently how we are supposed to eat.


----------



## Tarac (Feb 24, 2012)

jayefbe said:


> I'm glad you brought this up. GMO are referring to transgenic organisms. Selective breeding and hybridization will effect the genomic structure of an organism, but it is not the same thing as using recombinant DNA techniques to insert a DNA sequence from one organism into another. Also, adding hormones to livestock is not the same thing as creating a GMO.


No, that is completely wrong.  GMO is genetically modified, through whatever process both laboratory and the old fashioned selective breeding method.  GEO, genetically engineered organism, is what you are trying to describe, transgenically altered foods.  They are not the same, one is a blanket term and the other is specifically transgenic.  But ultimately they _usually_ have the same effect- gene you want is there, other one is suppressed or bred out.  That said, being suspicious of GEO is not at all unwarranted but GMOs and even most GEO are generally safe and are much more ubiquitous than I think most people assume.

Don't forget if you know anyone who is diabetic, for example, and uses insulin, they literally owe their life to GEOs.  Lots of things fall into this category, just need to pay more attention.  There is a big difference between terminal wheat and insulin because of the intent, but the difference in intent causes people to have these highly emotional responses in a black and white fashion without really considering what they are saying.  It's just as bad as telling everyone that coops are evil because they put too much demand on local resources.  That's true in some environments, but not all.  You have to be pretty discerning before you make a blanket statement like "I avoid GMOs, there bad and nothing good ever comes from them."

---------- Post added 02-24-2012 at 01:34 PM ----------




Bjamin said:


> There is a big differnce between selective breading and genetic modification done in a lab just because I didn't have the time or inclination to go into more detail in my post does not mean I havent done more research on the subject than simply watching a show. I asures you that I am not the type to believe every thing I see or read. I do not buy my meat from the geocery store I coop with friends on an organic farm we raise hormone free pork chicken and eggs yes from pigs and chickens that have been selectivly breed but I dont concider that on the same playing field as modifying them in a lab. I also hunt and fish and have large vegitable beds. As I said I try to avoid gmos I understand how wide spread a problem they are and how hard it would be to compleatly cut them out of our lifes.


Mis-characterizing the difference, or not actually, indicates you don't fully understand, that's what I'm getting at.  You don't consider it the same because you don't understand the genetics, but ultimately it is almost always the same.  Not a single GMO (intended for consumption) has any direct negative affect on human health to date, according to many major groups including the California Academy of Sciences, etc. etc.  If you want only gene A and you select for it by breeding, it really isn't in practice different than just inserting gene A directly.  You end up with an organism that has gene A, just like you wanted.  The only place you ever find people claiming ill effects on human health as a result of consuming a GMO is from organic watchdog groups, which is like asking PETA if it's ok to test a vaccine on a mouse before you start giving it babies.


----------



## paassatt (Feb 24, 2012)

Look into Norman Borlaug. He saved millions of people who otherwise would've died in Africa with genetically modified wheat.


----------



## Tarac (Feb 24, 2012)

For anyone interested in a decent, non-propaganda treatment of genetically modified foods in an easily digested format there is a good program with lots interviews with experts, policy makers, etc. etc. produced by PBS.  It is title "Harvest of Fear" and here is the link:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/harvest/

It's a fair treatment, considers both the ethical and the pragmatic ends of GMOs.  It does a better job at finessing the pitfalls and victories of GMOs than the overly evocative and biased programs cited previously.  Those other shows are for people who have already made up their minds and aren't interested in considering the possibility that they might not be getting the whole story, this one is not so alarmist and gives counter-arguments from people that aren't already vested in organic/non-GMO food's success.  Less feeling, more thinking.


----------



## paassatt (Feb 24, 2012)

I'll just point out that it's pretty easy to criticize genetically modified food with a full belly and no worries about when and from where your next meal is coming.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## jakykong (Feb 24, 2012)

Bjamin said:


> I have to disagree with this geneticly modified foods are in my opinion no good at all and I do every thing I can to aviod them as well as meats pumped full of hormones. Watch the world acording to monsanto and do some reaserch on the results of comsuming gmo's. Look at the conection to all the cancers and other disorders that are so much more prevelent in the past 30 years.


The statistical correlation between cancer and GMO food is tenuous at best. The problem is that there are confounding variables - improved diagnostic methods, unhealthful lifestyles (sedentary, obese, etc.), and exposure to other pathogens (smog, for example), among others, render the correlation meaningless.

I have also seen very little or no evidence that GMO foods are genuinely harmful. Clinical studies are few and far between, and either inconclusive or favorable. As noted above, the statistical studies are worthless unless the variables can be quantified. The converse is also true - Clinical studies showing positive effects are also few and far between. Therefore, the best we can say empirically is "We don't know whether GMO has harmful effects." In reality, it almost certainly depends on which genes you're splicing - a few will cause harmful effects, a few will cause beneficial effects, and most will do neither.

But bear in mind that popular media and the food market has a powerful economic incentive to sell "natural" and "organic" foods, because they cost more! I work at a grocery store, and we earn a significantly larger margin on organic sales than normal produce, in addition to increased sales on products labeled "organic". Popular media doesn't have an obligation to present both sides or argue their case with scientific rigidity, therefore, works written for the layman should be read with skepticism, and are often skewed by an agenda.

Nobody so far has presented citations for their facts, myself included, except for popular media. Therefore, although this discussion is quite entertaining, everything here is anecdote, so of course, nobody is going to chance anyone else's mind! So, let's just disagree amicably and enjoy the debate. :coffee:


----------



## jayefbe (Feb 24, 2012)

Tarac said:


> No, that is completely wrong.  GMO is genetically modified, through whatever process both laboratory and the old fashioned selective breeding method.  GEO, genetically engineered organism, is what you are trying to describe, transgenically altered foods.  They are not the same, one is a blanket term and the other is specifically transgenic.  But ultimately they _usually_ have the same effect- gene you want is there, other one is suppressed or bred out.  That said, being suspicious of GEO is not at all unwarranted but GMOs and even most GEO are generally safe and are much more ubiquitous than I think most people assume.


For all intents and purposes, GMO is basically interchangeable with GEO. I understand the point you are trying to make, but GMOs are under regulation. That regulation does NOT include selectively bred crops. Under your definition, they would be.


----------



## Bill S (Feb 24, 2012)

paassatt said:


> I'll just point out that it's pretty easy to criticize genetically modified food with a full belly and no worries about when and from where your next meal is coming.


You got that right.  In the big picture, almost all foods have some beneficial aspects and some negative ones.  And determining the overall effect may vary a lot depending on the situation and context.


----------



## CleanSweep (Feb 27, 2012)

My B. Smithi is trying to eat this succulent.  Photographic proof of a vegetarian T.  :laugh:  
I was watering the succulent when the smithi attacked and sank its fangs into it.  It would not leave the succulent alone when I was watering it.  I finally gave up and gave her a roach so she would chill out.


----------



## HoboAustin (Feb 27, 2012)

CleanSweep said:


> My B. Smithi is trying to eat this succulent.  Photographic proof of a vegetarian T.  :laugh:
> I was watering the succulent when the smithi attacked and sank its fangs into it.  It would not leave the succulent alone when I was watering it.  I finally gave up and gave her a roach so she would chill out.


Woah, that's pretty cool. I like that plant!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Tarac (Feb 29, 2012)

jayefbe said:


> For all intents and purposes, GMO is basically interchangeable with GEO. I understand the point you are trying to make, but GMOs are under regulation. That regulation does NOT include selectively bred crops. Under your definition, they would be.


They are not regulated.  Recombinant organisms, regardless of what the application is, are regulated except for purposes of genetic amplification at which point they are exempt.  Almost all GM products *in the USA* are considered exempt and do not as such receive any label at all.  A few, such as the hot button products like roundup ready soy and corn that produces it's own pesticides, are because of the chemical end- they are checked to ensure that the pesticide they are producing or being sprayed with isn't somehow accumulating and causing deleterious effects on people or the environment.  But that is true of any pesticide, whether they are the product of genetic engineering or not.  However most "improved" foods are not regulated at all so long as they aren't producing something considered potentially harmful, i.e. something outside an "enhanced" native condition.  Unless it is producing something outside the normal realm it is evaluated the exact same way any other food product is evaluated, the exact same guidelines are applied, even if it is produced using recombinant techniques.  It is either safe for consumption or not.  So really neither term is technically correct if we want to start talking about the terms of regulation because the law has adopted neither officially- they are concerned strictly with recombinant (which science calls genetically engineered- genetically modified, in science, includes GEO and artificial selection) products, this is the language of the regulatory laws if that is what matters.

The laws do not at all regulate genetically modified organisms with any criterion other than IF they use recombinant genetic material then they are required to be registered at the NIH.  But they are not called GMO or GEO then, they are called recombinant organisms and that is the technical term used in the legislation.  A type of knockout, for example, does not qualify despite being manipulated.  They do not split hairs over the application, it's the technique which qualifies them for regulation and even in those cases the vast majority of agricultural end products are ultimately deemed "exempt" from further investigation unless they are doing something considered out of the ordinary- modified insulin, milk, apples all are exempt to date.  A vaccine for flu is the same as a roundup ready soy bean along those lines but a tomato is just a tomato until it starts making something normal tomatos don't, regardless of whether it was genetically "enhanced" or not.

I don't mean to be beating a dead horse here but these kinds of discussions trickle into popular perception and eventually you end up with people trying to tell you that a measles vaccine caused your kid to become autistic.  That effects funding for things that we do all benefit from.  It's not very responsible telling people that all GMO, loose of a term as it is, end up doing something bad or that nothing good comes from them since we all benefit greatly from said organisms and it's important to keep research supported if we want to continue to have things like vaccines.  The public perception of something really does effect whether or not it gets funded and that ultimately effects our quality of life.  If you don't believe me, ask the parents of kids with childhood leukemia that died of a simple measles infection because they couldn't have the vaccine and someone perfectly healthy in their classroom DIDN'T get the vaccine because of an ignorant mistrust of modern biotechnology.  It's a small and dramatic example (but sadly, true), but it demonstrates very pointedly why we really have to be careful what kinds of rumors we want to be proponents of.

I understand completely where the counter-argument comes from.  I'm just trying to emphasize that it isn't black and white at all so using black and white language to categorically refute GMOs is as ridiculous as saying they are all safe, perfect improvements on whatever it was we started with.


---------- Post added 02-29-2012 at 10:05 AM ----------




jakykong said:


> Nobody so far has presented citations for their facts, myself included, except for popular media. Therefore, although this discussion is quite entertaining, everything here is anecdote, so of course, nobody is going to chance anyone else's mind! So, let's just disagree amicably and enjoy the debate. :coffee:


Here you go, official US gov:

http://fpc.state.gov/6176.htm

And here's one for the cancer issue, which is just as you say- statistically impossible to parse through because these types of studies are virtually impossible to control for:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedh...-13-processed-meat-linked-to-pancreas-cancer/

---------- Post added 02-29-2012 at 10:08 AM ----------




CleanSweep said:


> My B. Smithi is trying to eat this succulent.  Photographic proof of a vegetarian T.  :laugh:
> I was watering the succulent when the smithi attacked and sank its fangs into it.  It would not leave the succulent alone when I was watering it.  I finally gave up and gave her a roach so she would chill out.


Does it ever return, as though perhaps it now knows that there is water in there?  Really interesting if it could be shown to be more than a mis-placed bite.  Thanks for sharing, nice image and T.  I'd be interested to know if there was any follow investigation of that plant or if it was just a fluke.


----------



## jakykong (Feb 29, 2012)

Tarac said:


> They are not regulated.  Recombinant organisms, regardless of what the application is, are regulated except for purposes of genetic amplification at which point they are exempt.  Almost all GM products *in the USA* are considered exempt and do not as such receive any label at all.  A few, such as the hot button products like roundup ready soy and corn that produces it's own pesticides, are because of the chemical end- they are checked to ensure that the pesticide they are producing or being sprayed with isn't somehow accumulating and causing deleterious effects on people or the environment.  But that is true of any pesticide, whether they are the product of genetic engineering or not.  However most "improved" foods are not regulated at all so long as they aren't producing something considered potentially harmful, i.e. something outside an "enhanced" native condition.  Unless it is producing something outside the normal realm it is evaluated the exact same way any other food product is evaluated, the exact same guidelines are applied, even if it is produced using recombinant techniques.  It is either safe for consumption or not.  So really neither term is technically correct if we want to start talking about the terms of regulation because the law has adopted neither officially- they are concerned strictly with recombinant (which science calls genetically engineered- genetically modified, in science, includes GEO and artificial selection) products, this is the language of the regulatory laws if that is what matters.
> 
> The laws do not at all regulate genetically modified organisms with any criterion other than IF they use recombinant genetic material then they are required to be registered at the NIH.  But they are not called GMO or GEO then, they are called recombinant organisms and that is the technical term used in the legislation.  A type of knockout, for example, does not qualify despite being manipulated.  They do not split hairs over the application, it's the technique which qualifies them for regulation and even in those cases the vast majority of agricultural end products are ultimately deemed "exempt" from further investigation unless they are doing something considered out of the ordinary- modified insulin, milk, apples all are exempt to date.  A vaccine for flu is the same as a roundup ready soy bean along those lines but a tomato is just a tomato until it starts making something normal tomatos don't, regardless of whether it was genetically "enhanced" or not.


Interesting stuff. It's sensible to me to evaluate the results - is it safe to eat? - rather than argue about how those results were obtained. Which it sounds like is basically what's going on at the moment.



> I don't mean to be beating a dead horse here but these kinds of discussions trickle into popular perception and eventually you end up with people trying to tell you that a measles vaccine caused your kid to become autistic.  That effects funding for things that we do all benefit from.  It's not very responsible telling people that all GMO, loose of a term as it is, end up doing something bad or that nothing good comes from them since we all benefit greatly from said organisms and it's important to keep research supported if we want to continue to have things like vaccines.  The public perception of something really does effect whether or not it gets funded and that ultimately effects our quality of life.  If you don't believe me, ask the parents of kids with childhood leukemia that died of a simple measles infection because they couldn't have the vaccine and someone perfectly healthy in their classroom DIDN'T get the vaccine because of an ignorant mistrust of modern biotechnology.  It's a small and dramatic example (but sadly, true), but it demonstrates very pointedly why we really have to be careful what kinds of rumors we want to be proponents of.


+1, however, I should point out that in this case, (other than your references below) popular media is the *source*, so the damage has apparently already been done. I haven't researched the topic in anywhere near as much depth as you have, clearly! But if there were serious safety concerns, I do trust the FDA to deal with that. That's not to say they don't have their problems, but allowing dangerous foods onto the market isn't one of them (so far ).

And anti-vaccine advocates are ignorant and, frankly, it should not be legal. But that's a debate for another day!




> I understand completely where the counter-argument comes from.  I'm just trying to emphasize that it isn't black and white at all so using black and white language to categorically refute GMOs is as ridiculous as saying they are all safe, perfect improvements on whatever it was we started with.
> Here you go, official US gov:
> 
> http://fpc.state.gov/6176.htm
> ...




Interesting links. I'll have to read them in more depth. I appreciate having reliable sources to debate with, although given the board on which this discussion is occurring, I decided it wasn't worth the time to search for them.


----------

