FINCHforum

I'm kind of a health food nut, so I do a lot of research on the things I put into my body. One of the things that came up in the last couple of years is the use of GMO's (Genetically Modified Organism) in various food products. You guys can do your own research into GMO's to see what the issues are, but in a nutshell - GMO foods are made with crops grown from seeds that have been genetically modified to contain herbicides and pesticides within the seed. Therefore the plant has the herbicide/pesticide in it. When a bug begins to eat the plant, it dies a quick, horrible death. The problem is that extensive research has shown that the herbicide/pesticide also makes its way into the fruit of the plant (corn, soybean, etc.) and eventually into us when we consume the food.

I was doing some research on food for my finches and found that a product listed as "highly nutritious" is coated with Canola oil, which is one of the most highly controversial GMO products. If the stuff will harm me, I certainly don't want to be feeding it to my finches, whose bodies are much smaller and more susceptible to pesticides.

Has anyone else encountered this with finch food and supplies? Any thoughts?

Thanks,
Damon

I do think about pesticides but other than giving everything a good wash, don't pay too much extra attention to the issue. To my knowledge, none of my birds have ever suffered any ill effects from anything they've eaten - fresh or prepared. I don't have lots of birds, but rarely if ever have birds die on me to anything other than old age. I do believe that today's pesticides are geared to do what they are supposed to do - kill insect pests. Most of the really harsh stuff was taken off the market several years ago. Corn-on-the-cob has long been a staple in chick raising for both my canaries and my java finches. Nearly all of the Florida grown corn-on-the-cob is said to be GMO'd. JMO. Bob

30 Seconds to Bob wrote: I do believe that today's pesticides are geared to do what they are supposed to do - kill insect pests. Most of the really harsh stuff was taken off the market several years ago.

I would encourage you to do some research on GMO's and their effects on our health, as well as their effects on livestock and poultry. GMO's are bad enough that several countries (Canada, Germany, etc.) now require explanatory labeling for all food products (processed or fresh) that contain GMO's, and Japan has completely outlawed the use of GMO seeds and food products.

The nasty stuff is still out there and unfortunatley it isn't just in the bottles on the pest control aisle at Home Depot anymore. In fact, I would bet that a lot of folks on this forum stir some of it into their coffee each morning.

I'm not trying to cause a panic. But I know what lab and university tests have proven GMO's to do, so there is no way I will let anything with GMO's go anywhere near me, my family, nor any of my pets. You're welcome to call me a nut, but like I suggested, do some research before assuming everything is safe and closing the book on the topic.

Damon

Damon,
You need to do some further research, also. Your understanding of what GMO means and does is not quite right. There are reasons to be cautious of them, and other reasons that are widely talked about but completely inaccurate. Such as:

but in a nutshell - GMO foods are made with crops grown from seeds that have been genetically modified to contain herbicides and pesticides within the seed. Therefore the plant has the herbicide/pesticide in it.

No, not right, even when condensed down to the "nutshell" version. I am not going to go into the extensive genetics lessons necessary to correct this. The closest and quickest summary would be that the plants/products may, MAY contain more pesticides because the plant has been modified to TOLERATE application of more or different pesticides. Others may have had genes added so that they now include natural compounds found in (as in naturally made by) other plants that discourage or protect against pests. There are other versions of what a GMO may involve, those are just two of the common ones. GMOs have been with us for millenia--it just used to require whole-plant or animal breeding to obtain the changes desired, now it can be done quickly, minutely (specific genes only), and over a much wider variety of organisms, and therein lies the problem--too much, too fast, and not necessarily in the direction we would like (such as enabling the farmers to use more pesticides than they used to.)

Throwing out the baby with the bathwater to just label them all bad.
Please read further and find sources that are not anti-GMO to get the whole picture.

And even before GMOs, the chemical analysis of a cup of coffee reads like a toxic waste dump. Doubt the presence of some GMOs make it significantly worse.

(Spoken from a background of three degrees, in Biology, Botany, Chemistry, focusing on genetics, cytogenetics, plants, environmental issues...raising children, animals....health issues and unusual sensitivies....I see and live the issues from multiple sides of the story.)

Nerien wrote: GMOs have been with us for millenia--it just used to require whole-plant or animal breeding to obtain the changes desired, now it can be done quickly, minutely (specific genes only), and over a much wider variety of organisms, and therein lies the problem--too much, too fast, and not necessarily in the direction we would like (such as enabling the farmers to use more pesticides than they used to.)

You are correct that cross-pollination, hybridization, and selective breeding have been around as long as plants and animals have existed, but those are not GMO's (not by the current scientific definition of the term). None of those require manipulation at the genetic code level. Meaning, the cross breeding of a Golden Lab and a Poodle to arrive at a Labradoodle does not introduce non-canine genetic material into either parent or the pups. The hybridization of a Brandywine and a Black Krim tomato would result in a hybrid variety that would not produce reliable offspring if the seeds were collected, but there is still nothing forgien in the hybrid tomatoes - it's still all 'tomato' genes. And, considering that DNA wasn't discovered until 1953, it would be impossible for GMO's to be with us "for millenia".

I'm specifically referring to the manipulation/insertion/deletion of genes, at the molecular level, in a plant. Inserting pesticides into the DNA of a plant to create a "naturally resistant" plant is not cross-pollination or hybridization - it is the addition of forgien genetic material into the plant and has only been around for about 30 years.

Like I said, I'm not trying to cause a panic, nor am I "throwing out the baby with the bathwater". I was simply curious if anyone else on here was concerned that what appears to be a highly reputible website is selling finch foods and supplements that contain the types of GMO's that many countries now view as unhealthy, or at the very least, detrimental to human and animal health. That's all.

Everyone seems very concerned about the health of their birds around here, so it seemed like a pretty simple question. Sorry if I ruffled any feathers (no pun intended).

And for what it's worth, I wasn't referring to the coffee itself. Every person I know that has done a little research and found out what sucralose actually is has stopped using it.

(Spoken from a background of three degrees, in Biology, Botany, Chemistry, focusing on genetics, cytogenetics, plants, environmental issues...raising children, animals....health issues and unusual sensitivies....I see and live the issues from multiple sides of the story.)

Impressive resume . I am amazed at all of the "amazing" people I have met on this forum. I may be bothering you during our FAA meetings for more than just advice on finches . Wouldn't it be fun to all meet up somewhere some day??? I would love that...

I'm not trying to cause a panic. But I know what lab and university tests have proven GMO's to do, so there is no way I will let anything with GMO's go anywhere near me, my family, nor any of my pets. You're welcome to call me a nut, but like I suggested, do some research before assuming everything is safe and closing the book on the topic

I don't judge and you're certainly welcome to your opinion - I just don't worry about stuff like that. My dad is 92 and my mom.....81. They don't either. Most people think that I'm much younger than my actual age and my multitudes of animals are all doing well, also. Stay healthy my friend. Bob

Inserting pesticides into the DNA of a plant to create a "naturally resistant" plant is not cross-pollination or hybridization - it is the addition of forgien genetic material into the plant

Pesticides are not DNA. DNA is not a pesticide. Pesticides are not inserted into the DNA, pesticides are not foreign genetic material. If I write the instructions for how to make soap in this post, I have NOT inserted soap into my writing. The "pesticides" coded for by DNA, whether in the original plant or produced by another into whom the genes for that product have been added, are NOT the same kinds of things produced in a huge chemical plant or coming out of your can of RAID.
GMO is Genetically Modified Organism. It has become a buzzword for a specific technique now. Any scientist knows there is much more to it than the current media and social connotations. Selectively cross breeding species, genera, or even just subspecies or varieties in order to select for and/or transfer in a specific trait is a bit more complicated than just crossing two breeds of dogs. The idea is not a simple hybrid, it is adding a certain trait, and therefore the DNA for that trait, without altering the rest of the traits of the organism. It HAS been done for thousands of years, but by manipulation of the whole organism, not in a lab and precisely, immediately, easily. Yes, that part of it is relatively new. But just because DNA was not identified as the source of genetic inheritance until 1953, does not mean it was not in existence, nor not being manipulated, prior to that. Nearly a hundred years before, Gregor Mendel was figuring out how patterns of inheritance worked, in a formalized, careful, documented, scientific study. Long, long before that, people worked with what they knew, what they saw, what they experienced.

Wheat, common wheat that we make our flour from, is an allohexaploid plant, its chromosomes come from at least three different species. It was domesticated by humans MANY thousands of years ago. It is not just this tomato plus that tomato gives a little bit different tomato, or poodle plus lab gives labradoodle. It is more like dog plus bear plus fox, and someone, long long ago, figured out how to make it happen and how to make it stable and how to reproduce it reliably. Foreign DNA manipulated and combined for a desired result. Not single genes, lots and lots of them, which actually gives more chance of getting something you might not want mixed in with that which you do.

We are just better and quicker and more precise and more capable of mixing genetic material now. Which does indeed have potential problems--if a gene from peanuts can help a corn crop grow more successfully, but you are allergic to peanuts and the gene now in the corn expresses the very protein from peanuts that you are allergic to, when you eat that corn, you are going to have the allergic reaction to peanuts even tho you didn't eat any peanuts. If the new gene means that the farmer can now dump more pesticides on his crop without harming the crop, so he gets a better yield, he may do so even tho it increases the residue in our food, which is not something WE want. Two simple examples.

But your presentation of what is going on with GMOs is not just flawed, it is significantly incorrect ("inserting pesticides into the DNA..."). You need to do further study to gain an understanding of the basics of the biology and chemistry about which you are speaking before spreading information that is not right.

And sucralose is nothing compared to some of the naturally occurring chemicals in coffee. Over 1000 of them. But you can put a name and media attention on sucralose.

Instead of Canola oil, does anyone have any suggestions?

Damon: Instead of asking us to do the research perhaps you could provide some references. I don't mean references to health food editorials but to peer reviewed scientific journals.
There is too much non-science opinion masquerading as hard science.

Not single genes, lots and lots of them, which actually gives more chance of getting something you might not want mixed in with that which you do.

Which does indeed have potential problems--if a gene from peanuts can help a corn crop grow more successfully, but you are allergic to peanuts and the gene now in the corn expresses the very protein from peanuts that you are allergic to, when you eat that corn, you are going to have the allergic reaction to peanuts even tho you didn't eat any peanuts.

And this is our problem, we no longer have any idea what it is we are eating. My son has PKU so he must stay away from certain foods high in protein, how do you do that when you have no idea whats in what anymore

Nerien wrote:

Inserting pesticides into the DNA of a plant to create a "naturally resistant" plant is not cross-pollination or hybridization - it is the addition of forgien genetic material into the plant

Pesticides are not DNA. DNA is not a pesticide. Pesticides are not inserted into the DNA, pesticides are not foreign genetic material.

(portions omitted)

But your presentation of what is going on with GMOs is not just flawed, it is significantly incorrect ("inserting pesticides into the DNA..."). You need to do further study to gain an understanding of the basics of the biology and chemistry about which you are speaking before spreading information that is not right.

From the Monsanto website:

Biotechnology, or genetic engineering, is the process of inserting a gene from one species, like a plant or a bacterium, into the gene's of another species.

What is inserted? Bacillus thuringiensis, more commonly known as Bt. What is Bt? Again, from Monsanto's website:

Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) is an insecticide with unusual properties that make it useful for pest control in certain situations.

Bt is a insecticide/pesticide. Monsanto explains, in detail, how they take this soil born bacterium that is commonly used as a commercial pesticide and insert it into the DNA of a plant, confusing the plant, making it think the bacterium is supposed to be there. When a bug eats the plant, they die. Why? Because they have unwittingly ingested a pesticide that lives within the plant that causes their digestive system to shut down. Monsanto has done the same thing with their 'Roundup Ready Crops', but with a herbicide, Agrobacterium tumefaciens, which renders the plant immune to glyphosate, the main ingredient in Round Up weed killer.

Sorry, but my uneducated explanation is spot on. That isn't based on something I read on an anti-GMO website or blog; it's straight from Monsanto, who happen to be the people that invented the technology. Read it for yourself - Monsanto website

paul-inAZ wrote:

Damon: Instead of asking us to do the research perhaps you could provide some references. I don't mean references to health food editorials but to peer reviewed scientific journals.

One reason I haven't provided references is because of something I've already been accused of - citing anti-GMO websites/blogs/etc. and giving a slanted view of the topic. A Google search of "what is a GMO" will return just under 41 million results. It's pretty simple to get a ton of info on GMO's, and I agree that it is better for folks to do their own reserach and make up their own minds. To answer your specific request - the best info I've found is in this YouTube video. It isn't a bunch of anti-GMO hippies spouting off about the danger to Mother Earth; it's doctors, scientists and professors that have done extensive research on GMO's, how they are made and what they do.

Genetic Roulette Video.

Again, the only reason I asked about it is because so many folks here seem to be very concerned with the health of their birds. It amazes me that a simple question gets so controversial this quickly. I have no idea why people have to hop on their soapbox and start telling people they are wrong, ignorant, uneducated, etc. just to make their point. I've studied and researched GMO's for 15+ years - I know what I'm talking about. But I have no dillusions that someone should take my word for it. I'm only asking about it because, as Debbie276 pointed out, folks most likely have no idea what they are actualy feeding their birds. I know I didn't, until I checked the labels and product info on the website where they are selling it.

To the Mods - sorry for creating a heated thread. If you feel the need to lock this, I completely understand.

Damon

Damon,
I have a son with Autism, and have become an "organic snob" (according to my husband) in an effort to keep any and all impurities out of his body. I am careful to not purchase anything that has been genetically modified (from seedless watermelon to canola oil). As for my finches...I try my best to feed them healthy greens, egg food and seed. But I am really breaking the bank on grass-fed beef and milk for my human family, so I let the inferior seed products slide. That being said...my cats eat organic because one of them has an auto-immune disease. Breaking the bank there too. But if you do locate an organic seed product for your birds, I will most likely purchase it as well. As for added oils...I haven't done that yet (as I'm a newbie) and would be interested in hearing about a product you like.
You don't have to feel judged on the forum. Many people feel passionate about things here, but we all respect one another. My husband and I cant have a simple conversation about "fraking" in my house, without things getting heated. So we agree to disagree. You will learn a lot of amazing things about birds and their care on the forum. And I'm sure we will learn many things from you too.
Ginene

DamonIRB wrote: Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) is an insecticide with unusual properties that make it useful for pest control in certain situations.

Bt is a insecticide/pesticide. Monsanto explains, in detail, how they take this soil born bacterium that is commonly used as a commercial pesticide and insert it into the DNA of a plant, confusing the plant, making it think the bacterium is supposed to be there. When a bug eats the plant, they die. Why? Because they have unwittingly ingested a pesticide that lives within the plant that causes their digestive system to shut down. Monsanto has done the same thing with their 'Roundup Ready Crops', but with a herbicide, Agrobacterium tumefaciens, which renders the plant immune to glyphosate, the main ingredient in Round Up weed killer.

Exactly where in there website is this? Can you please give the exact link, because I am not finding it. I have found where they describe using Bt to transfer in the genes that are then used by the plant cell to produce the compound that is toxic to the insects, causing them to die when they consume the plant.

I found this:
http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pages/glossary.aspx

Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) - A naturally occurring bacterium present in soil and used successfully by home gardeners and organic farmers to control certain insects for more than 40 years. When ingested by a target insect, the protein produced by Bt destroys the insect by disturbing the digestive system. The Bt protein is harmless to other insects, people and animals.

Bt crops - Crops that are genetically engineered to carry a gene from the soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt). The bacterium produces proteins that are toxic to target pests but non-toxic to humans and other mammals. Crops containing the Bt gene are able to produce this toxin, thereby providing protection for the plant.

Insect-resistant crops - Plants with the ability to withstand, deter or repel insects and thereby prevent them from feeding on the plant. The traits (genes) determining resistance may be selected by plant breeders through cross-pollination with other varieties of this crop or through the introduction of novel genes such as Bt genes through genetic engineering.

Glyphosate tolerant (Roundup Ready) crops – A common herbicide-tolerant crop, which provide tolerance to glyphosate, an herbicide effective on many species of grasses, broadleaf weeds and sedges. Roundup Ready crops (cotton, corn, soybeans, and canola) contain the Roundup Ready gene, which allows glyphosate to be applied to the crop to provide effective weed control without damaging the crop itself.
Herbicide - A substance used to kill plants, especially weeds.

Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) – Plants or animals that have had their genetic makeup altered to exhibit traits that are not naturally theirs. In general, genes are taken (copied) from one organism that shows a desired trait and transferred into the genetic code of another organism.

Gene - A specific segment of DNA in a chromosome that produces a specific product or has an assigned

And many more.
Science is a language all its own. Scientific terms mean very specific things, and are not freely interchangeable with other terms that are used within a general topic. Terms such as bacteria, genes, herbicide, pesticide, DNA, are NOT interchangeable. A "biopesticide" and a pesticide are not necessarily the same thing. If you know the science, know the terms, use them correctly, then what is said makes sense. Your last statement about "a herbicide, Agrobacterium tumefaciens, which renders the plant immune to glyphosate, the main ingredient in Round Up weed killer." demonstrates this exactly.
A. tumefaciens is a bacteria. An herbicide is a plant killer. So you are saying that Monsanto put a plant killer in their plants to make them immune to plant killer. Wrong. Monsanto used a bacterium to transfer the genes that give a plant immunity against a chemical plant killer found in their weed killer. That way, the weed killer (Round Up) can be applied to the crops, which are now resistant to the weed killer (do not die from it), so that the weeds die and the crop grows. How does the weed killer work? The chemical(s) in it interfere with the metabolism of the plant, so it cannot maintain its life. The original weed killers, the kind you use on your lawn to kill the dandelions but leave the grass alone, were designed on the naturally occuring situation that broadleaf plants (dicotyledonous plants) have a different metabolic pathway than grasses (monocotylendous plants). Killing weed grasses versus crop grasses like wheat and corn did not used to be possible, until someone found a way to change the metabolic pathways; this time it was man-made. Given a hundred or a thousand or ten thousand years, it might have occurred anyway. Science sped it up. And there are both good and potentially bad aspects to that. But why worry about killing the weeds anyway? Less weeds means better growing crops means more food from the field, means lower cost for that food, and more available. Which might not matter to you, but to many, and much of the world, that is a big concern. Hence, man messing with plants to try to make them better. Now using new and potentially scary methods, the unknown, the new frontiers, are always a bit scary.

Your descriptions are NOT spot on. Your use of the scientific language shows it is not a language you are fluent in. I was going to ignore this when I saw your first post, but you pushed it when there wasn't the obvious outcry you wanted or expected. There are reasons to be concerned about GMOs in some cases, but misinformation should not be the source.


Bacillus thuringiensis (or Bt) is a Gram-positive, soil-dwelling bacterium, commonly used as a biological pesticide; alternatively, the Cry toxin may be extracted and used as a pesticide. B. thuringiensis also occurs naturally in the gut of caterpillars of various types of moths and butterflies, as well on leaf surfaces, aquatic environments, animal feces, insect rich environments, flour mills and grain storage facilities.[1][2]
This is from Wikipedia, and the references are listed there as well. Follow the links for "biological pesticide" etc. You can learn a lot from going back to the basics.

Could it be that Damion's posts are some sort of April Fool's Day item?
Seriously, using a taped lecture by an 'institute' that is anti-GMO is not even close to hard scientific data.
On a non-peer reviewed site like youtube yet!
But, one of the joys of this country is that one is free to believe whatever conspiracy theory you want.