I'm poor,or well not rich enough to buy enough organic foods to build my muscles.
What should o do ?
I read hemp protein was a good for this but I tried it last year and it tasted that bad I ended up binning more than half of it.
Btw I'm British so if any one knows of any good deals in any stores or website throw us a link
Other urls found in this thread:
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
nutritionfacts.org
twitter.com
There is literally nothing wrong with GMOs. I'm not even memeing you.
GMO is virtually banned from European countries, save for imported goods like candy and cooking oils.
>Oversaturated in glyphosate based pesticides
Not even going over the moral aspect of trying to copyright plants.
You probably think it's safe to eat meat filled with Bovine Prolactin/Estradiol too.
The food industry gives no fucks about your health
Link me some scientific studies to back up the claim that GMOs are harmful for human consumption.
Nah fuck that the more I read about them the more I'm wanting to turn into an organic vegan.
But I like meat too much
And like I said I aint got money for organic everything.
I honestly believe as well that by us eating all these gmos it will be all our off springs or there off springs which will end up fucked up because of it
"genetic engineering often involves the use of antibiotic-resistance genes as "selectable markers" and this could lead to production of antibiotic-resistant bacterial strains that are resistant to available antibiotics. This would create a serious public health problem. The genetically modified crops might contain other toxic substances (such as enhanced amounts of heavy metals) and the crops might not be "substantially equivalent" in genome, proteome, and metabolome compared with unmodified crops"
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
doing an undergrad in Veeky Forums right now. genetically modified crops and endocrine disruptors are not necessarily synonymous. Endocrine disruptors are the ones you want to avoid, because they affect your genome/epigenome and have unwanted downstream phenotypic effects. It's hard to know what's an endocrine disruptor until someone studies it.
I will admit I don't know the specific edits they make to the plant genome, but I doubt every edit they give leads to an unwanted genomic/epigenomic effect (which is what you really want to watch out for). Let's throw in a hypothetical - plant is engineered to overexpress a gene (e.g. HSP-70/90) in times of stress, ensuring it survives a drought or heat wave, or whatever. I don't see how that could lead to endocrine disruptions.
>often
>could lead
>might
That's the same phrases they use when discussing the safety of GMO crops too, so what is your point?
>>Oversaturated in glyphosate based pesticides
>Not even going over the moral aspect of trying to copyright plants.
>You probably think it's safe to eat meat filled with Bovine Prolactin/Estradiol too.
Notice that none of these have anything to do with the actual genetic engineering.
If you don’t understand what you’re reading, don’t link it.
>Muh resistance
This is a stupid point. Resistance markers used are only for very generic antibiotics and tuned to low doses. Also a resistance marker is only for one particular antibiotic, it does not confer general resistance. Your average hospital poses more danger for antibiotic resistant bacteria than GMOs. Also you can put in counter selectable markers to act as suicide controls.
how? GM food is food that was selected and amplified their genes to be the best kind of food, when you eat it, all the DNA gets disolved in your stomach, they don't even reach your cells.
Also do you think the food we eat today is not modified? Nature is always changing the dna of everything, fucking carrots have like 4 sets of chromosomes or more, the wheat that makes your bread are fucking chimaeras of 4 types of ancient wheats.
Read about genetics son
>antibiotic resistance
Increasingly irrelevant as we figure out better methods of getting the genes in than 'lel just try and kill off any failures'.
>might contain toxic substances
So might 'organic' crap. And considering that 'organic' requires and involves far more aggressive usage of pesticides and the like, GMOs may be the safer option.
>not "substantially equivalent"
Yes, that's the entire fucking point. If they were, you just *failed to create a GMO*.
>Notice that none of these have anything to do with the actual genetic engineering.
They do when you genetically engineer crops to be glyphosate resistant.
Nice argument you have there.
>Resistance markers used are only for very generic antibiotics and tuned to low doses
Except this isn't about antibiotics, you're essentially spouting strawman tier arguments and false equivalents
>GM food is food that was selected and amplified their genes to be the best kind of food
That's not genetic modification, that's artificial selection, two very different things.
mondolez pls go
>Except this isn't about antibiotics
Except that's literally the point raised in the post I responded to. Do you struggle with reading comprehension?
>Increasingly irrelevant as we figure out better methods of getting the genes in than 'lel just try and kill off any failures'.
You don't just "get" new genes, you pervert their already existing biological structure.
>So might 'organic' crap
Except organic foods aren't genetically engineered not are they grown in pesticides and artificial fertilizers.
>Yes, that's the entire fucking point.
Not at all, the point is to create organisms resistant to certain diseases and pesticide/herbicides
>Except that's literally the point raised in the post I responded to.
Did you not read the actual article? Lmao.
>They do when you genetically engineer crops to be glyphosate resistant.
You say the problem is crops being oversaturated in glyphosate based pesticides. Explain to me how this is a problem with genetic engineering rather than the use of glyphosate based pesticides.
Resistant as in the crops won't be damaged or harmed when said chemicals are used.
It's almost as if you haven't been following along at all.
Do me a favour and look up what Roundup ready crops are before you embarrass yourself further
>Link a passage about how GMOs may lead to antibiotic resistance
>Get btfo because you don't understand resistance markers
>"Oh dude I wasn't talking about that at all, I just quoted that text for no reason haha"
You're a special kind of stupid aren't you?
>A link to a peer reviewed study labelling the adverse effects of GMO
>"HURR LET ME STRAWMAN ABOUT A POST THAT ISN'T EVEN YOURS! R-read the actual study? N-no ;_; let me tell you I won"
>I'm British
you're (still) in Europe, so you're worrying for nothing. You may be poor and have 1000 problems but GMOs ain't one.
Oh I see you actually have no understanding of what's going on, and you're just parroting other arguments you read online. Let me break it down for you. GMO crops are designed to be resistant to glyphosate, a herbicide. Because of this, you can use glyphosate herbicides on GMO crops to kill off weeds and other things. The point often raised about this, as mentioned here (), is that some people have concerns about consuming produce that was treated with glyphosate herbicides.
Of course anyone who actually understands this realizes that the point of contention is about the use of glyphosate on crops, not the concept of genetic engineering of crops in general. Using discussion of glyphosate use in crops to pass judgement on the entire realm of genetic engineering is just silly. Are you understanding this better now? I can use smaller words if needed.
>and you're just parroting other arguments you read online
No, I quote peer reviewed articles.
After all of that wall of text you still have no argument, and I assume you agree with me that glyphosate based pesticides are a health hazard.
>Strawman
You keep using that word, but I don't think you understand what it means.
>Did you not read the actual article?
Did you?
"The review of available literature indicates that the genetically modified crops available in the market that are intended for human consumption are generally safe; their consumption is not associated with serious health problems."
Also lmao at using a 2003 article to judge genetic engineering today.
>2018
>still falling for a Big Food Corps marketing scheme
>Did you?
>"The review of available literature indicates that the genetically modified crops available in the market that are intended for human consumption are generally safe; their consumption is not associated with serious health problems."
Oh but I never said genetic modification was bad, just the pesticides they're genetically engineered to be resistant against was bad.
There you go again with the straw man argument :)
The glyphosate conversation is irrelevant to the discussion of GMOs.
>Use glyphosate in every major crop production since the 70s
>Decades later GMOs are designed to work with glyphosate, purely out of following the existing industry
>SEE GMOS ARE BAD BECAUSE GLYPHOSATE
Really activates my almonds.
>No, I quote peer reviewed articles.
Did you? Because you made it quite clear here that the only post in this thread that linked an article wasn't yours.
>The glyphosate conversation is irrelevant to the discussion of GMOs
Yet you admit some GMOs were engineered solely to work with said pesticides..
>Did you? Because you made it quite clear here that the only post in this thread that linked an article wasn't yours.
It wasn't mine, and yes I quoted it.
Do you have no reading comprehension? Do you know what quote means?
>Oh but I never said genetic modification was bad, just the pesticides they're genetically engineered to be resistant against was bad.
I haven't seen someone walk back this hard in a long time.
>Until fairly recently, it was generally assumed that functions as important as DNA repair were unlikely to be readily affected by nutrition. But if you compare identical twins to fraternal twins, only about a half to three quarters of DNA repair function is genetically determined; the rest we may be able to control.
>Thankfully, the regulation of DNA repair may be added to the list of biological processes that are influenced by what we eat and, specifically, that this might constitute part of the explanation for the cancer-preventive effects of many plant-based foods.
>Nine fruits and vegetables were tested to see which was better able to boost DNA repair: lemons, persimmons, strawberries, oranges, choy sum (which is like skinny bok choy),Âbroccoli, celery, lettuce, and apples. Which ones made the cut? Lemons, persimmons, strawberries, apples, broccoli, and celery each conferred DNA protection at very low doses.
>Here's what lemons could do, for example. Cut DNA damage by about a third. Was it the vitamin C? No, removing the vitamin C from the lemon extract did not remove the protective effect. However, if you boiled the lemon first for 30 minutes, the effect was lost.
>so if not vitamin C, user suspects at least one mechanism of action for DNA repair to be flavonoids such as quercetin
Source: nutritionfacts.org
>I haven't seen someone walk back this hard in a long time.
Show me a quote where I said GMO was bad for you.
Op here
So long story short should I jus stop worrying and carry on doing what I've done for the last 29 years
...
Lmao at all the pro GMO shills btfo itt love how everyone has a knee jerk reaction when someone criticizes GMO
Don't even try, the average joe doesn't understand anything about gmos. People were always scared of things they didn't understand. And some people are making easy money by feeding this fear.
That shitty blanket reasoning can also be applied to pro GMO people
>"The review of available literature indicates that the genetically modified crops available in the market that are intended for human consumption are generally safe; their consumption is not associated with serious health problems."
>ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
I can quote mine too
All the Jews pushing for GMOs in this thread is disgusting.
>Cherry picking
"However, because of potential for exposure of a large segment of human population to genetically modified foods, more research is needed to ensure that the genetically modified foods are safe for human consumption."
don't worry OP, if you stay long enough in this thread, you'll get cancer
>You don't just "get" new genes, you pervert their already existing biological structure.
GET *IN* you utter retard. Into the cell. Transfect is the actual term.
And you abso-fucking-lutely can make any DNA sequence you can dream of, it's just not gonna do shit unless it's properly expressed and encodes something useful, and designing working proteins from scratch is hard.
>Except organic foods aren't genetically engineered not are they grown in pesticides...
Keep telling yourself that. Anything not blacklisted is allowed. And that's assuming the farmers are 100% honest.
>Not at all, the point is to create organisms resistant to certain diseases and pesticide/herbicides
By inserting new or altering existing gene sequences. Thereby altering the genome, proteome, and metabolome. If neither of these is altered, you did not make the organisms any fucking different from the baseline.
Nice astroturf, is it organic? What about kosher?
I feel like the best option is to buy local if possible. Like look at where the food was grow if it’s close then buy it.
> Genetic amplification isn't genetic modification