Vegetarian/vegan tarantulas

[CleanSweep]

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]

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!

 

[Tarac]

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 ----------

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 ----------

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]

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

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/

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.