Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Genetically Modified, Caffeine-Free Coffee

Posted by timothy on from the think-rabbits-in-australia dept.

pyrrho writes: "Coffee, Genetic Modifications... perfect for Slashdot. Kona Coffee Growers want to ban GM Coffee from the "Big Island". If you think your are for GM coffee... keep in mind they are trying to grow a type of coffee without caffeine! So, think again(tm). It might be different if they were trying to double the caffeine."

87 comments

  1. There are some things by acceleriter · · Score: 1

    best left as nature intended. Coffee is one of those things. During those times that I've had to give up caffeine, I switched to herbal teas. Almost as good, without having to worry about growing a third eye.

    --

    CEE5210S The signal SIGHUP was received.

    1. Re:There are some things by spike+hay · · Score: 2

      Genetically modified caffeine free coffee is the same as regular coffee. It just has the gene that produces the protein caffeine deleted. GM foods cannot change your body's DNA. That is a completely unfounded myth.

      GM foods are completely safe unless a poison is introduced (NEW!! Nightshade enhanced brocolli!!!) or an allergen is introduced. DNA codes for proteins. That's all it does. Now, scientists usualy know what protein the gene they are splicing in codes for. So GM foods are very safe.

      --
      If you don't understand any of my sayings, come to me in private and I shall take you in my German mouth.
    2. Re:There are some things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that knowing what a gene codes in source organism may not be enough do know whether it does the same thing in target plant, as coding the protein may depend on its position, or other genes. Or it may work as hoped, but new protein changes something in the way plant works or ...

      Thus introducing an allergen or a toxing is indeed possible. Not that it makes GM foods any less safe, if they are tested properly for chemicals that are not supposed to be there.

  2. Why the big concern over GM by nelsonal · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If someone wants to try to grow GM coffee without caffeine, go for it. Why is it ok to make fairly exotic hybrids to do what we want a plant to do but not go about it using the source? If its labeled properly, so consumers can choose between GM and non GM (or irradiated/non irradiated etc) what is the big problem? Seems like the Kona coffee company is concerned about competition.

    I understand that the caffeine that is removed from decaf goes into other products, so this removes a potential revenue source. However, I don't know if the cost of removal is higher or lower than the value of the caffeine.

    --
    Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
    1. Re:Why the big concern over GM by ndanger · · Score: 4, Insightful

      GM doesn't just make crops more plentiful or disease resistant, it introduces a new species. This can cause all sorts of problems. GM plants can destroy biodiversity, become unkillable mutant superweeds, and give corporations more IP power. As an example, I believe there was an old Slashdot story (I searched but couldn't find it) about a Canadian farmer who was being sued because genetically modified seed blew off of passing trucks and cross-fertilized his field.

      This doesn't mean that GM is bad, or that Kona coffee growers aren't more concerned with the purity of their brand than their crop, just that we should proceed with care.

    2. Re:Why the big concern over GM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks you made excellent rational points. I didn't realize that they were diffeent species. Kudos!

    3. Re:Why the big concern over GM by JBv · · Score: 1

      My only concern with GM foods is that the technology is not acessible to 3rd world countries, which typically depend on the export of agricultural goods to survive.

      Making agriculture dependent on GM food is to make 3rd world countries even more dependent on the bottom line of multinational biotech companies.

      Apart from this, I welcome GM food. For example, it should be much more healthy to drink no caffeine GM cofee than to extract the caffeine of coffee using all sorts of organic, potencially hazardous, solvents.

      Increased pruductions with desisese and weather resistant plants should also produce less agricultural polution for the same crop yield.

    4. Re:Why the big concern over GM by SEE · · Score: 2

      Ahem.

      1) The Canadian farmer had investigated Roundup-Ready crops, and decided that they cost too much.

      2) The Canadian farmer planted a field, and used Roundup as his sole means of weed control, which would have killed any non-Roundup-Ready plants. He still managed to bring in a full crop, which means that his entire field was Roundup-Ready and, because only a total moron would spray something that would kill his crop, the farmer knew it was Roundup-Ready.

      3) The farmer used seeds from the crop to plant the next year's crop, and used Roundup alone again.

      4) Monsanto sued him

      5) The Canadian farmer claimed in court that he didn't acquire the seed illegally, but that it must have been seed that fell off the truck.

      6) The Canadian courts ruled that even in the incredibly unlikely event that the farmer's entire field was accidentally planted with Roundup-Ready seed, #2 proved he knew he was growing a Roundup-Ready crop and #1 established that he knew that he was violating Monsanto's patent when he planted the seed the next year.

      In short, the farmer was lying through his teeth, the court knew it, and the court smacked him down.

    5. Re:Why the big concern over GM by Sgt+York · · Score: 1

      Two organisms are different species if they cannot produce viable offspring. A GM coffee plant crossed with a non-GM coffee plant will produce viable coffee plants. In this case, the offspring will appear either normal or "half-caff", depending on the status of the gene affected in the modification. Therefore, these two plants are not different species. GM does not produce a new species by any current definition of the term "species"

      --

      There is a reason for everything. Sometimes that reason just sucks.

    6. Re:Why the big concern over GM by acceleriter · · Score: 1

      OTOH, this doesn't change the fact that patents of any kind on foodstuffs and the growing thereof are an evil indicating the degree of corruption in world governments.

      --

      CEE5210S The signal SIGHUP was received.

    7. Re:Why the big concern over GM by Tackhead · · Score: 2
      > GM doesn't just make crops more plentiful or disease resistant, it introduces a new species. This can cause all sorts of problems. GM plants can destroy biodiversity [...]

      HuH? Either the GM-hacked coffee cross-pollinates with unmodded coffee, or it doesn't.

      If there's no cross-pollination, then there's no risk of the GM-hacked coffee making it into the wild.

      If there is cross-pollination, aren't you contradicting yourself? How can introducing new genes into the pool "destroy biodiversity"? The very definition of "biodiversity" makes it an inherent contradiction.

      (The real question about GMing coffee not to produce caffeine is "Why bother? What self-respecting geek drinks decaf anyways? Maybe if they can make g3n3-h4x0r3d c0ff33 with more caffeine, I'll be interested.")

    8. Re:Why the big concern over GM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, but it and that very statement proove that you are a *fucking* moron!

    9. Re:Why the big concern over GM by ndanger · · Score: 1

      If there is cross-pollination, aren't you contradicting yourself? How can introducing new genes into the pool "destroy biodiversity"? The very definition of "biodiversity" makes it an inherent contradiction.

      The threat to biodiversity the article referred to the "squeezing out" of other organisms--the threat is that the GMed plants will multiply quickly and rob nutrients from other organisms. Where there used to be a balance of power, GMed crops might create a monopoly; instead of having a field with lots of plants, you've got a poop-load of mutant corn.

      That's not automatically a bad thing. But saying "sure, release whatever you want into the environment and let consumers decide!" seems more than shortsighted.

      PS> It doesn't matter to me, I don't like coffee. I drink tea: the anti-h4xor beverage.

    10. Re:Why the big concern over GM by juhaz · · Score: 1

      GM plants are usually modified with aspects that make them better from viewpoint of humans, or companies. That may not give them any edge over natural plants when it's about survival of the fittest.

      Some properties (disease or bug resistance for example) may or may not offer enough benefits to outweight the disadvantages (plant growing Bt may, for example, use bit less energy to do so, when natural version doesn't, and not do so well against it when it's not given fertilizers any more).

      In this case, it's clearly even more unlikely, caffeine production hasn't evolved into caffee plants by change, or it would've disappeared already, thus decaf'd plants are not as competitive as existing ones, and can not threaten other organisms.

    11. Re:Why the big concern over GM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Check out:
      http://cat.org.au/~predator/mol.html#coffee

      for the little rant I did concerning unforseen
      circumstances of modification to coffee plant genes for caffeine synthesis.

      I reckon if people want coffee plants with no caffeine then the way to ge them is traditional
      plant husbandry. But the gene pool for this plant is pretty restricted so it might take a while.

  3. Preserving consumer choice by sting3r · · Score: 0, Troll
    One need to look no father than the GMO debate to see what an authoritarian society we live in. No longer is free enterprise a basic right of a producer; indeed, the government tends to want to ban anything it doesn't understand or doesn't consider to be "savory." What we need the most on this issue is a little common sense: live and let live. The government has no business regulating genetically modified coffee until it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be a threat to public safety. Likewise, forcing manufacturers of such products to disclose against their will the secret processes involved in the creation of their products is a ridiculous intrusion on their First Amendment rights (yes, that includes the right not to speak - see the Florida citrus growers' lawsuit for precedent). Producers should be free to label their products as they see fit, provided that they do not make inaccurate or unprovable claims.

    It is unfortunate that the zealots in the population choose to encourage the passage of laws that ban provably safe activities, such as genetic food modification and nuclear power. Indeed, these people need to find a way to make their own lives sufficiently interesting that they won't have time to try to ruin everybody else's.

    1. Re:Preserving consumer choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And here I was thinking that rather than the government trying to ban things it didn't understand, the multinational corporations were trying to force things on the public they don't understand, or particularly want.

    2. Re:Preserving consumer choice by IndependentVik · · Score: 1

      The government has no business regulating genetically modified coffee until it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be a threat to public safety.

      And maybe pharmaceutical companies should be able to release their drugs into the marketplace without government intervention until said drugs are proven to be harmful?

      I want assurances of safety before this product is sold to the public, thank you very much.

      --
      I'd suggest you don't use Slashdot as your only news source, or you will suffer permanent brain damage.
    3. Re:Preserving consumer choice by scaryman · · Score: 0

      the people using GMO have no right to force these GMO onto people that don't want them. pollonation does not just happen within the boundaries of a single farm, ever heard of wind, flying insects, birds, animals, these things all spread pollon over large distances, causing contamination of nearby farms.

      If I own a farm and have gone through several years of hardship whilst trying to convert my farm to organic, what gives you the right to stop me from gaining organic certifaction by contaminating my crops with your GM pollon. do you have the right to bankrupt me in this way?

    4. Re:Preserving consumer choice by Out4Blood · · Score: 1

      No. I'd rather everything be available and let SMART consumers make their own decisions. In an information-poor environment, I'll tend to buy products that have the "UL-listed" equivalent seal of approval. But I want the OPTION to buy what I want. This is the basis of a free market. Right now the government enforces an externality on the market that restricts supply - severely raising prices. Of course, you should still punish companies that lie, selling products that claim to have the "good-housekeeping" seal, but really don't.

      --
      - Consult the dictionary frequently to avoid mispelling
    5. Re:Preserving consumer choice by Sgt+York · · Score: 1

      You mean like they already do with herbal remedies?

      --

      There is a reason for everything. Sometimes that reason just sucks.

  4. Yeah... by tswinzig · · Score: 5, Funny

    Right! And someday they'll create BEER without ALCOHOL in it!! Sheesh!

    --

    "And like that ... he's gone."
    1. Re:Yeah... by "Zow" · · Score: 2

      That's funny - I was just thinking:

      Homer: Caffeine free coffee?!? We aren't going to stand for that, are we boys?

      Lennie & Carl: No!

      Homer: Let's go get them! Ouu! Pengiun Mints...

    2. Re:Yeah... by f64 · · Score: 0

      homer: mmmm, caffeine - a bitter white alkaloid, C8H10N4O2, often derived from tea or coffee and used in medicine chiefly as a mild stimulant and to treat certain kinds of headache.

  5. Well - by RaboKrabekian · · Score: 2, Funny

    I'll get excited when they can genetically engineer crack in to coffee. That should help with those 48 hour benders...

    --
    "Moderate drinking can help prevent amputated limbs" -- Abigail Zuger, NYTimes, 12/31/02
    1. Re:Well - by a3d0a3m · · Score: 0

      Actually, the crack high lasts about 30 minutes, at the most. If you were going to go on a 48 hour bender you would need 96 cups of the stuff. Furthermore, crack is designed to be smoked, not drank, it would be more logical to genetically engineer cocaine into coffee. I can see it now, little packets of sugar, sweet n low, equal and cocaine next to the creamer.

      adam

    2. Re:Well - by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ahem, crack is cocaine :)

    3. Re:Well - by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ahem, no it's not.

      It's made from cocaine, but it's not the same.

    4. Re:Well - by Tackhead · · Score: 1
      > Actually, the crack high lasts about 30 minutes, at the most. If you were going to go on a 48 hour bender you would need 96 cups of the stuff.

      Hey, you say that like drinking 96 cups of coffee in 48 hours would be a bad thing ;-)

    5. Re:Well - by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In fact Crack IS freebase cocaine and it's made by mixing cocaine hydrochloride with sodium hydrogen carbonate. So, Ahem, yes it is. Why don't you just check your facts a bit before posting m'kay?

    6. Re:Well - by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hehehe, nope sorry, *freebase* is made by using a solvent like ether.. when you do kitchen chem and microwave coke with baking powder or some such it is not without a base, its just that the carbonate conjugate raises the combustion point above the boiling point alowing you to stick it in your pipe .. but there are allsorts of crap byproducts when its heated up which are really bad for your lungs, unlike the freebase form which sublimes .. and only does damage to your dopaminergic braincells ;)

    7. Re:Well - by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "hehehe, nope sorry, *freebase* is made by using a solvent like ether"

      Not really... Freebase is made by using a base to neutralise the acid and liberate (or "free") the cocaine base. Ether is used to extract the liberated base because of it's low boiling point which makes it easy to remove afterwards leaving pure cocaine freebase.

      Crack is made by dissolving cocaine hydrochloride and sodium hydrogen carbonate in water and boiling until the crack precipitates. The sodium bicarbonate, being a weak base, neutralises the acid and liberates the cocaine base which precipitates because it becomes insoluable in water.

      This is how it works...

      C17H21NO4.HCl + NaHCO3 => C17H21NO4 + NaCl + H2O + CO2

      The resulting freebase is a lot less pure than an ether extracted one because some sodium bicarbonate remains trapped in the rocks.

      If you don't believe me, go ask Rhod :)

  6. Useless brown water by Scaba · · Score: 3, Funny

    Decaffeinated coffee:

    "It's useless warm brown water."
    "Say goodbye to your will to live."
    "It's what they're drinking in hell."

    Apologies to David Letterman

    1. Re:Useless brown water by josepha48 · · Score: 2
      Well some people do actually like the taste of coffee and they drink it not for the cafene, but the taste. Just like some people like beer for the taste and not the effect.

      Also you'd be able to drink a cup of coffee before going to bed which many cannot do and still get to sleep.

      Lastly there are some people who have acid reflux and should not have caffene, but this would give them caffene free coffee... oh and decafe coffee does have some caffene, it is just much less than regular coffee....

      --

      Only 'flamers' flame!

    2. Re:Useless brown water by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well some people do actually like the taste of coffee and they drink it not for the cafene, but the taste. Just like some people like beer for the taste and not the effect.

      I see three possibilities here.

      Such people are:

      A) Stupid

      OR

      B) Liars

      OR

      C) Stupid Liars

  7. Louisa's Bakery & Cafe in Seattle by smoondog · · Score: 5, Funny

    Louisa's Bakery and Cafe in Seattle (on eastlake) call a double tall non-fat decaf latte a "why bother." I love hearing them yell orders, single short mocha, double tall non-fat and two "why bothers" to go.

    Best damn omelettes anywhere, IMO, too....

    -Sean

  8. Hey! by orangesquid · · Score: 2

    'ey! I *like* my morning decaf! It wakes me up but doesn't keep me from sleeping through morning meetings like normal coffee does!

    --
    --TheOrangeSquid Is it any wonder things seem so awry? We swim in a sea of confusion and don't have to think to survive
  9. Yawn... by Squiffy · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Need I say more?

    Lameness filter: abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz

  10. Caffeine Free Coffee by Bouncings · · Score: 5, Funny
    A caffeine free cup of coffee just isn't right. It's kind of like combustion-free motor oil, scandal-free whitehouse, defect-free Windows, or troll-free slashdot.

    It's just not natural.

    --
    -- Ken Kinder ken@_nospam_kenkinder.com http://kenkinder.com/
    1. Re:Caffeine Free Coffee by Scaba · · Score: 1

      Or pleasure-free sex.

    2. Re:Caffeine Free Coffee by Smelly+Jeffrey · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's kind of like combustion-free motor oil...

      Yep, if the oil in your engine is burning, you have got a serious problem. I don't think what's left over after that sort of fire would lubricate very well at all. Don't get me wrong, motor oil does burn, but it shouldn't be combusting in your engine. Gasoline combusts in my engine.

    3. Re:Caffeine Free Coffee by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... unless the oil is diesel oil, in which case..

    4. Re:Caffeine Free Coffee by FunkMonkey#9 · · Score: 1
      Don't get me wrong, motor oil does burn, but it shouldn't be combusting in your engine. Gasoline combusts in my engine.

      Oil combusts in my engine, as it should.

      --

      -- The One and Only NotMike.

  11. If this ends up like maize in Mexico... by schmaltz · · Score: 5, Interesting

    it could wipe out caffeinated coffee.

    Before you flame or down-mod me as being anti-GM or anti-futurist, review the facts and double-check the counter claims and rebuttals.

    --
    Big Daddy, Johnny, Burp, Aunt Zelda, Scott, Slurp, Big Momma ... where's Siggy?
    1. Re:If this ends up like maize in Mexico... by desolation+angel · · Score: 1

      But of course if a low-caffeinated coffee was bred from natural sources, and then contaminated the germplasm that would be OK?

      --
      This time I could be arsed.
    2. Re:If this ends up like maize in Mexico... by Sgt+York · · Score: 1

      That would assume that removal of caffeine from the beans gives a selective benefit. Most likely, caffeine evolved to be in coffee beans for a reason, and gives some benefit. IOW, caffiene increases your Darwinian fitness!

      --

      There is a reason for everything. Sometimes that reason just sucks.

    3. Re:If this ends up like maize in Mexico... by schmaltz · · Score: 2

      Well, that's an interesting point... up to a point. The assumption I sense in your message -which is the message also put out by the biotech industry- is that genetic modifications to organisms is no different from wild cross pollination *or* selective crossbreeding in a hothouse or lab.

      But is that true? The purpose of genetic engineering is to add new sequences which result in the expression of new features (proteins, hormones, &c) not previously found in that organism -are we agreed on this point, at least?

      With crossbreeding, wild or selective, the species of the pollen/sperm/germ plasm sources need to be pretty closely related to the species which will bear the seed/fruit/offspring -otherwise it just won't take. Still with me? So, new characteristics will come about when crosses are from already related species -my understanding, anyway.

      GM does an end-run around the related species "requirement" of crossbreeding, by employing techniques which splice, inject, shotgun or otherwise introduce a new sequence into the recipient species' genome. Correct? Now, from what I've read, many of the sources for the new sequences come from species that are not related to the recipient species. They sometimes don't belong to even the same phylum or order.

      A quick example is the now-demised Flavr-Savr tomato -genes from the flounder fish and a bacteria species were inserted, to add shelf life and toughen the overall structure of the fruit.

      Would evolution bring these specific additions about on its own, or could you obtain those sequences through crosspollinations? Doesn't seem so -it seems that if they could have, they would have. The tomato plant and the flounder would have to spend another hundred million years evolving or more before the possibility of them becoming compatible enough to exchange genetic material on their own.

      So to answer your original question, it doesn't matter to me as I don't drink coffee! But the interesting thing is, whether crosspollinated or engineered, genes do escape into the wild, and the cousin species do pick up the new characteristics -even from the GM plants. That's pretty scary.

      --
      Big Daddy, Johnny, Burp, Aunt Zelda, Scott, Slurp, Big Momma ... where's Siggy?
    4. Re:If this ends up like maize in Mexico... by Tackhead · · Score: 2
      > But the interesting thing is, whether crosspollinated or engineered, genes do escape into the wild, and the cousin species do pick up the new characteristics -even from the GM plants. That's pretty scary.

      How so? Evolution takes care of its own.

      For instance, I happen to think that decaf is an abomination unto my sight. Were I in the business of running a coffee plantation, and GM-hacked decaf beans started showing up, I'd (a) be pissed, (b) rip out the decaf plants, and (c) probably sue the inventors of decaf beans for the cost of replanting. The gene for decaf stops at the border of my field because I select against it.

      Suppose I'm wrong, and most people prefer decaf. I can either (a) go out of business, or (b) grow decaf or less-caffeinated beans. The gene for decaf propagates, but it propagates because I choose to stay in business and select for it.

      Suppose everyone's wrong, and human civilization stops. Then we're back to natural selection.

      Caffeine is bitter stuff, and toxic to some insects. That may be why it evolved in coffee beans. Within a few dozen generations, predators will take advantage of the decaf beans - low-caffeine plants will have their beans eaten more often, thereby producing fewer offspring, and things will return to normal.

      In the case of the Flavr-Savr tomato, the same thing applies -- I'd expect that a tomato with a tough skin and long shelf life, in the absence of human intervention, would sit on the ground and act as a tasty morsel for predators for longer periods of time than unmodded tomatoes.

      Meantime, unmodded tomatoes that rot after a day or two - get their seeds into the ground faster, have their offspring germinate sooner, and have more nutrients (from the soil created after the fruit rots away) - than the Flavr-Savrs.

      Farmers planting GM foods are no different than farmers who select crops for desirable traits. In neither case are farmers selecting traits that are advantageous to the food plants -- they're selecting for traits that are advantageous to humans.

      And if you think that's somehow wrong or immoral, I suggest you research how we've directed the evolution of corn over the past 1500 years.

    5. Re:If this ends up like maize in Mexico... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, genes are constantly being transferred from bacteria, viruses, animals, and plants. Not to mention the fact that genetic homology is absolutely huge between species. To reference my work, IPP (isopentenyldiphosphate) isomerase is present in yeast, mammals, vascular plants, E. Coli, etc. So genes being introduced into GM crops often aren't as "unnatural" as the anti-GM crowd thinks. Or doesn't think, believes.

  12. Whats the point? by Innomi · · Score: 2, Funny

    Removing caffeine from anything is WRONG. You're supposed to ADD caffeine, not remove it!

  13. Optimistically, a good thing by tchdab1 · · Score: 1

    If they can figure out how to take the coffee out genetically, they will not be far from knowing how to increase the caffeine dose.

    ---"I'll have a half decaf, half double-expresso with half non-fat and half half-and-half".

  14. GM Coffee is okay but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From the article:
    "Cross - pollination could contaminate our entire Kona crop if GM plants are allowed here [KEALAKEKUA, Hawaii]"

    I say good for you council past president Merle Wood keep that Kona pure as nature intended. I say Kona is one of our world heritage treasures and a modern day `nectar of the gods'! I personally will picket tirelessly to support this cause (especially if you'll give me a free supply of Kona blend dark roast).

  15. Coffee without caffeine? by Zestius · · Score: 1

    That's just plain WRONG! Nature wanted us to have caffeine in our coffee, so why not let it continue to give that to us? Caffeine is the lubricant that runs our society -- where would programmers be today if it weren't for coffee? Probably in bed, contemplating the next killer game to top tetris and breakout. Adding decaffeinated coffee to the mix makes no sense whatsoever.

  16. Remember your first drink of coffee? by Observer · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Did you like the taste? If you're like myself and most of my acquaintances from Uni time, probably not. A nasty, bitter taste - not just because for most of us our first experience was with the instant variety which was pretty vile in those days. After a while I got to tolerate it, now I like it, but I'm pretty sure it's a learned response from the caffeine jolt. (Ditto tea, BTW - I'm a Brit but couldn't stand that brew either till I reached Uni.)

    Coffee without caffeine seems somehow pointless.

    1. Re:Remember your first drink of coffee? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Euwwwwwwww!

      Gods below man! Never touch that instant stuff!

      It's not coffee!

      Heh. Where I went for awhile, coffee pots were outlawed in rooms unless they had an automatic shutoff switch. I've never *seen* a pot with automatic shutoff. :p

      I proudly had my pot on the top of me fridge, brewing constantly. *chuckle* My room was like a freakin' Star Bucks, except the coffee was coffee and not sugary drek. Man, though, brewed is the only way to go. Whether it's drip or perc, it's all better than.. instant.

      Tea, though, I hear ya. I used to drink crappy tea. Left my mouth dry and uncomfortable. Then I started shelling out actual money for decent tea.

      Great stuff. ;)

    2. Re:Remember your first drink of coffee? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you use nitrous in your car? All the time? Didn't think so. Likewise, I don't use caffeine. The effect for me is about the same. My weekly intake of caffeine is less than 50mg. I have no tolerance. So, a single cup of regular coffee makes me go through the roof. It doesn't matter if it helps me to stay awake. I'm so wired I can't do anything productive anyway. I can't sit still. I can't stop talking. And then I crash and feel like crap, but I still can't sleep. I hate caffeine. It messes me up.

      As for staying awake, once you are addicted, does it even work? I know people who can drink a cup of coffee and then go to sleep. It's so much better to not be addicted.

      But, I do drink decaf coffee. Of course I didn't like my first cup of coffee. It was crappy folgers. Stuff that you buy preground in those huge cans from a grocery store is just nasty. For good coffee you need to buy whole beans from a real coffee shop. Grind them right before you make it, and make it thick. The only problem is that decaf tastes worse. I think it would be great of they could grow coffee with no caffeine. It would taste just as good, but wouldn't mess me up.

      Good coffee is like good beer. You pay more for it and drink it for the taste. What? You don't drink beer because it tastes good? Then why not drink vodka? Why subject yourself to many mouthfuls of crappy Miller Lite when you could take a single shot of vodka and get it over with? Why subject yourself to a crappy cup of coffee when you can enjoy a yummy Mello Yello?

  17. Re:Preserving consumer choice? by f64 · · Score: 1

    No longer is free enterprise a basic right of a producer; indeed, the government tends to want to ban anything it doesn't understand or doesn't consider to be "savory." What we need the most on this issue is a little common sense: live and let live.


    yup. we live in authoritarian societies; namely within the corporate authoritarian society, which government server as much as it think it can get away with.

    free enterprise shouldn't be the 'basic right' of a producer unless proven his/her intended products are harmless (and no, GMO's are not proven harmless); the way we do it today is regulations through government that supposedly protects us.

    yeah. live and let live. the day we all live in the fluffy neo-liberal heaven where all are equal and have equal chance to succeed in a competing marketplace of free rational agents - drop me a note.

    companies are not people; that they have protection under the first amendment tells more about the intentions on the creators of that amendment than about the actual moral rights of enteties such as companies. and since this is /., isn't the idea to share knowledge, thereby putting it to scrutiny and improving upon it?

    uhm. yeah. 'provable safe activities' such as gm & nuke power. i'll abstain to comment.

    and insofar as me trying to 'ruin everybody elses' lives, well, i'd like others not trying to jeopardize the planet, our lives and our kids lives by the short term gains (which all corporations are driven by, you punter).

    imho, of course : f64

  18. caffeine by f64 · · Score: 1

    ode to caffeine:

    oh caffeine, oh caffeine
    i love your fuzzy buzz
    the shakes, the shivers
    the drool upon my chin.

    oh caffeine, oh caffeine
    without you i cannot be
    i do not breathe nor see
    nor write in proper english

    oh caffeine, oh caffeine
    you will be my swift death
    i pray that when my heart giveth up
    my brain still buzzeth


    : four 100mg caffeine pills a day
    : better life through chemistry

  19. corollary forces rethink by Martin+Spamer · · Score: 2


    I can't help think about a strong corollary, where the geek sympathis are like to be reversed.

    Hypothetically if somebody where to suggest GM tabacco with low/no nicotine, the established tabacco producers would likly follow a similar path and oppose, probably stating similar reasons. GM is bad, taste, choice, et. all.

    Geeks would probably be sympathetic/support a GM change 'for the geater public good', after all nicotine is a dangerous addictive drug.

    In this case I think many Geeks would follow pyrrho's lead and oppose the GM, since Caffine is also a rather dangerous addictive drug.

    1. Re:corollary forces rethink by Deagol · · Score: 2

      You're wasting your breath, man. Every caffeine-related thread I point out that caffeine isn't the safest substance in the world. And every time I'm either (mostly) ignored or flamed. Many posts I can get an "Informative" or "Insightful" but not when you question a vice of the majority of /. readers.

      --
      Method of processing duck feet
    2. Re:corollary forces rethink by Webmonger · · Score: 2

      Nicotine-free tobacco would be completely boneheaded. Non-smokers still wouldn't smoke it, because it'd still be bad for you. Smokers wouldn't smoke it, becase the nicotine's what they're addicted to. (Non-chemically-addicted smokers might smoke it.)

    3. Re:corollary forces rethink by orev · · Score: 1

      Yeah, no kidding. When I read stuff from all these caffeinated kids it makes me cringe. It's exactly the "I need X more cups of coffee in the morning than you" type pissing contest that gets me the most.

      Congratulations, you are all addicts.

      At least we can be comforted in the fact that caffeine lowers your sperm count. That, coupled with the very low likelyhood that most people here even have girlfriends, says some good things about what the gene pool will look like in 20 years.

    4. Re:corollary forces rethink by orev · · Score: 1

      No. Coffee actually tastes good, while smoking has no other point than nicotine (and making you look cool).

      Many people for medical or other reasons cannot have caffeine at all. Other choose not to, because there are some really detrimental effects to drinking it.

    5. Re:corollary forces rethink by Webmonger · · Score: 2

      "No" what? No one would smoke nicotine-free tobacco at all? If that's what you're saying, I mostly agree.

      However, there's a lot of talk about the psychological addiction of smoking (aside from chemical). Perhaps those smokers would smoke nicotine-free tobacco.

      I still think it's a boneheaded idea, though.

    6. Re:corollary forces rethink by Webmonger · · Score: 2

      I should add: coffee is different from tobacco, because the tobacco itself is harmful, not just the nicotine. AFAICT, Coffee is not particularly harmful, except for the caffiene.

      And if GM tobacco plants were introduced, and I was convinced that nicotine-free tobacco was a Good Thing, you'd still have to convince me that this was the only reasonable way to obtain nicotine-free tobacco.

    7. Re:corollary forces rethink by Tackhead · · Score: 2
      > Hypothetically if somebody where to suggest GM tabacco with low/no nicotine, the established tabacco producers would likly follow a similar path and oppose, probably stating similar reasons GM is bad, taste, choice, et. all.

      Well, most of the harmful effects from smoking are due to the fact that you're slurping partially-oxidized chemicals straight into the mucus membranes of your lungs, so I suspect that a nic-free smoke wouldn't be much healthier than your current smokes.

      Problem is, a nic-free smoke wouldn't provide the pleasure to the smoker that nicotine provides, so it'd do poorly in the market. Cigarette smokers would never switch to nicotine-free cigarettes - why bother? (Just as pot smokers have no reason to smoke hemp - you can't get high off THC-free marijuana, so you make rope out of it instead of smoking it :)

      Without the nicotine "high" to addict first-time users, nic-free cigarettes would be useless even as an entry-level product. ("Freddy! We know you're the 'cool' kid on the block, but this Junior Camel your Dad gave you tastes/smells like crap! Why the hell do the grownups smoke this stuff again?")

      So yes, you could engineer nic-free tobacco, but the tobacco lobby wouldn't care either way, because nobody would pay money to smoke it.

      Side note: I always thought the nicotine patch was a good idea - but that it shouldn't require a prescription.

      Nicotine's a drug. It's legal in an air-fouling, often-lung-cancer-causing (cigarette/pipe/cigar) form without a prescription. It's legal in a clean (unless you're kissing the user), sometimes-mouth-cancer-causing (chewing) form without a prescription, why can't it be legal in an even cleaner, non-cancer-causing (patch) form without a prescription?

      FWIW, I'm a non-smoker, and the reason I don't hang around smokers is because, well, I think your drug of choice smells like crap. If you nicotine addicts could just dose up with a patch, you might still have a heart disease risk from long-term nicotine use, but your lung cancer rates would drop, and most importantly, none of us non-smokers would have any legitimate reason to ask you to butt out -- because you wouldn't be filling our air with your choice. Just like coffee drinkers, you could enjoy your drug of choice in public or in the workplace without anyone getting on your case! :-)

    8. Re:corollary forces rethink by epine · · Score: 2


      I've always thought that smoking in enclosed public spaces was the moral equivalent to peeing in a public swimming pool.

    9. Re:corollary forces rethink by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1) Caffine is not dangerous. It is good for you. It prevents tooth decay, prevents disorders of the stomach and bowel, and helps your weight down without restricting your diet. It does all this with no harmful side effects (yes it keeps you from sleeping, but not if you don't drink it after 4pm)

      2) It's pretty low on the addiction scale. It takes your body 2-3 days without caffine to completely kick the addiction. This is nothing, as addictive drugs go.

      Use your head. If caffine was bad for you, how would we all grow up to live longer lives than our grandparents with the huge amounts of chocolate and cola we've all consumed?

  20. I think I speak for all previous posters.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ..when I say..

    WTF? Death to the infidels! Ya hya chouhada Juan Val'dez!

  21. Future for decaf? by bns21 · · Score: 1

    Of course, if caffeine really does help prevent Alzheimers, the future for decaf may be black!

  22. Coffee-free Cafeine by theefer · · Score: 0

    What's the point in drinking cafeine-free coffee ? How do you code all night long with that ?

    I'd have prefered coffee-free cafeine ...

    --
    theefer
  23. Not By My Choice by scottd18 · · Score: 1

    I'm all for great caffeine free coffee. My doctor took me off caffeine. The pain of his Rx was bad, but not quite as bad as the pain of the ulcer that was forming. It's dang hard to find really good whole bean decaf. For now I'm living off Starbuck's decaf House Blend. And I do realize that decaf espresso is quite a contradiction.

    --
    Heck is a place for people that don't believe in gosh.
  24. Alzheimer by noxavior · · Score: 1

    Just a few days ago on /., there was this article which talks about reduced risks of getting Alzheimer if drinking 3 or more coffees a day.

    Why would I want to get rid of the ingredient that actually does anything good?

    --
    Karma:This parrot is dead! (and so is the joke.)
    1. Re:Alzheimer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And as usual, for every potential "good" that caffien does, there is another "bad" that afficianados completely overlook. A real /. post if there ever was one.

    2. Re:Alzheimer by epine · · Score: 2


      They attributed the affect to caffeine out the 200 odd akalines in coffee because they presume, by the celebrity effect, that caffeine has the highest muzzle velocity. Until this new coffee hits the market, they can't actually do a proper experiment to determine whether caffeine is the active ingredient.

    3. Re:Alzheimer by noxavior · · Score: 1

      Wait a sec. I googled coffee, and I saw plenty of the bad stuff it can do. High-pressure, hardening of arteries, decreased blood flow to the brain. But still, heart attack or senility?

      --
      Karma:This parrot is dead! (and so is the joke.)
  25. Anarchy by ThereIsNoSporkNeo · · Score: 1

    I can see it now.

    Genetically engineered decaf-coffee plants cross-breed with normal coffee plants creating a half-strength coffee plant. Then half of that... then half of that. They're trying to wean us off our coffee people!

    We've got to do something! I'd lead the effort, but for some reason, I just don't have any energy today...

    --
    With my dying breath, I curse Zoidberg!
  26. What's the point? by olman · · Score: 3, Funny

    I've never understood why someone would drink decaf.. I you're using drugs, there's little point just taking placebo, is there?

    Some people..

  27. they're trying to kill us! by mike77 · · Score: 1
    Why would they try and kill all of us by growing coffee w/ out caffeine? I mean don't they understand my cells won't divide w/ out caffeine?????

    --

    --Keeping the flame wars alive, one post at a time

  28. A Haiku by Amazing+Quantum+Man · · Score: 2

    Caffeine-free coffee?
    Genetically Engineered.
    Slashdot says "No Way".

    --
    Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
  29. Decaf. vs. non-Caf. by Karnatos · · Score: 1
    Even though this is not to be a popular amungst the /. crowd, it does interest me. I found out that caffeine is bad for me through my doc last fall, causing strange heart palpitations.

    Even decaf. coffee is too much caffeine for me is seems because decaf is not actually caffeine-free, only has the majority of it removed.

    So, for someone like me that's just dying for a good cup of coffee (the smell at work all day just kills me!), but can't have ceffeine in the mix... this is going to be just what the doctor ordered!

  30. What's the fscking point of caffeine-free coffee.. by Enigma23 · · Score: 1


    I need something that keeps me awake when I'm too busy 133t #@ck1ng to be bothered eating or crinking at all...

    --
    Ceci n'est pas une .sig
  31. Classically stupid Inventions... by Myrcurial · · Score: 1

    This has got to be right up there with:

    1. The automatic open on impact parachute
    2. The submarine screen door
    3. Caffeine free diet Coke(tm)
    4. The solar powered flashlight
    5. DRM

    Sheesh.

  32. Penguins. by DoctorFrog · · Score: 1

    Time to stock up on some Penguins. Man, I love those things... crunch three or four and it's the same caffeine as a cup of coffee, and your breath is freshened too!

  33. What happened to the hybrids? by musicmaster · · Score: 1

    In the "good old days" when Monsanto & Co still developped new varieties by crossing existing varieties they used to sell hybrid seeds that couldn't multiply (the resulting plants were infertile). Why isn't that technique used for GM stuff?