Psychology of the appeal of being anti-GMO

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: HUMBLEONE
The American Psychological Association is in bed with the CIA. This study was probably funded by Monsanto. NO to GMO! Monsanto and GMO is a soft kill arm of the eugenics operation.

The study was not done by the American Psychological Association.

I know. The report say it was done in Belgium. Thank you for your response. Psychology is being used for nefarious reasons.

a reply to: DJW001

What about GMO crops that have been made resistant to Weed killers? specifically Glyphosphate which is the main ingredient in the Monsanto made Round up and highly toxic. It is absorbed by the crops it is sprayed on and in turn absorbed by the consumers of those crops. How this practice isn't illegal is beyond me!

You also mention the labeling of products containing GMO. Don't you think people have a right to know what they are consuming and the right to choose whether or not to purchase something regardless of whether it is harmful or not?

Sorry for my bad attitude. I could have put my evidence that GMOs are bad across without the negativity. No excuses.

One point you mention, about it not being 'all' GMO products that are bad... This reinforces the need for labelling so the consumer can choose which products to accept and which to decline.

We do not need the GMO. They have made many people believe that we do but they are deceiving us. We are not above nature, we are part of it, GMO is not natural, all that chemistry added to food is not natural. Even some of the organic chemistries are overused, they are not necessary. Bigger is not always better, people have been led to believe a lie.

a reply to: swanne

GMO sciences has so much potential, but like so many sciences it's all getting used to suit corporate greed & interests.

The sad thing is corporate and private interest are one of the only ways to fund these scientists...I love bio-technology', I'm in agreement with you that bio-tech is the future for so much innovation.

However, many of these scientists think they can still be ethical with their work by somehow overriding the authority of these interests by turning to academia for support,although corporate and private interests have infiltrated academia,as well as many other institutions to advocate their agenda and as a recruiting ground for their operations.

a reply to: DJW001

I believe there are serious health dangers from GMOs. I believe Monsanto to be one of the most evil corporations on earth. This is not because I am irrational or fall into your flow chart somehow.

It is a good thing that we as humans have such a wonderful track record for being caring and giving to others. Those that have the power to genetically modify plants would never use it for monetary gain, correct? Companies like Monsanto would never genetically engineer seed corn that would produce sterile seeds now would they? I mean what could go wrong with this project?

I wonder why the need for multiple seed vaults? Just in case these GMO's are so good for the human race that we can't handle it?

originally posted by: reldra
a reply to: DJW001

I believe there are serious health dangers from GMOs. I believe Monsanto to be one of the most evil corporations on earth. This is not because I am irrational or fall into your flow chart somehow.

At least you are honest about it being a belief. Most of the posts in this thread are not based on members' attitudes towards GMOs, they are based on members' attitudes towards capitalism. If a multi-national stands to profit by it, it must be evil. As I said in the OP, most of the valid arguments against GMOs are environmental and economic. These concerns cannot be addressed by labeling. It would be better to set standards for the labeling of non-GMO products so they can justify charging more for them. Then people can choose the products they are willing to pay a premium for.