Thoughts On The Monsanto, GMO, and General Biotech Topic

So there has been a great deal of talk going on regarding GMOs, Monsanto, Pesticides, and the biotech industry in general.
Many people are aware of the dangers involved with industrial agriculture and genetic modifications of crops. It's not just a health concern, but people also believe that such a monopoly is essentially walking into a global famine.
However, it seems that a great number of science-minded and intellectual people are starting to side with the biotech industry. They regard the fears of GMOs and pesticides as anti-intellectual and psuedoscience.
I am on the side of organic farming, as you can well imagine if you have read any of my previous entries.
What I am seeing is somewhat of a repeat of what tobacco companies were doing back in the day when health concerns about smoking were first coming out. Tobacco companies were claiming that 4 out of 5 doctors recommended this brand of smokes over other brands of smokes. They claimed that medical studies concluded that smoking was not bad for you. All of this was in their ads. So here's my advice to those of you who are aware of the dangers of GMOs and Pesticides--if someone ever says that "scientists say GMOs are proven to be safe", keep in mind that there was a time when brands of cigarrettes were recommended by physicians, and you can certainly bring this up.
This is an interesting article, I think. While it does not actually say anything about GMOs, it does talk about what tobacco companies did to suppress public fear on the health risks of cigarrettes, and I think that GMO manufacturers are more or less doing the same thing--perhaps somewhat differently, but generally a similar tactic is being employed.
In the 1930's and 40's when health concerns about smoking came into the picture, tobacco companies had to work to convince the public that cigarrettes were safe in order to continue seeing profits. They did this by using physicians (actors playing physicians, actually) in their ads, because physicians were, and still are, figures of expertise, much as a scientist is today. And it worked! Are we seeing the same thing happening now with GMOs? Are the bio-tech giants employing similar tactics that tobacco companies used decades ago? I certainly think so.
I don't know how reliable the source is that published this article, as I have never heard of them outside of reading this article, but I figure that in this instance it is safe to use this particular story, since most of us know the dangers of smoking are virtually undeniable and it points out very well how they went about trying to reshape the public's thoughts on smoking.

Cigarettes were once ‘physician’ tested, approved | HemOnc Today

You can see how big tobacco used the public's trust in physicians to continue selling cigarettes. Now the biotech giant Monsanto is using the public's trust in scientists to maintain their profits. They definitely see that their industry is in danger, as countries are starting to completely ban GMOs in other countries and people are demanding more organic food choices. So bio-tech companies is doing what cigarette manufacturers were doing back in the day...using the public's trust in something.
With the public awareness of GMOs, pesticides, and chemicals growing, corporate interests have been doing everything in their power to change public opinion on these things. They pay for "studies" on these things and pay scientists to say that such things are safe and they condescend to those who know that GMO's and pesticides are harmful, saying that their fears are irrational, anti-science, and anti-intellectual psuedoscience. The word "pseudoscience", by the way, can pretty much be slapped on anything to manipulate a person's opinion and further the agenda of someone else. It's like a magic word that can change opinions! Yes, there is such a thing as pseudoscience, of course. But it seems like this word is starting to be used as a type of leverage. It's used to target intellectuals and try to make those who know the truth about GMOs feel stupid, so that we will "come around" and stop worrying about the "fear-based psuedoscience".
It's not working with some of us, but it's working for others.What is the point of this post? Of course it has to do with the biotech industry, but it is also about how easy it is for those with the most money to manipulate our thinking to favor of a certain agenda. All that really needs to be done is to use something that certain people will easily trust with little or no questions asked.
For some people, it's their religion. If you tell people that the Bible says that you should support racism, some people will believe you, and all you need to do is show them one verse and twist around it's meaning. They will do the rest of the work for you, because they will start twisting around other verses on their own.
If you say that scientists conclude that pesticides are no more dangerous than a candy bar, all you have to do is tell them a study was done (and how are they going to know if one was done or not?), draw up some official looking charts and throw some numbers and data together that look official, and then you'll have science-minded intellectuals supporting whatever you say!
Such tactics are nothing new. Manipulating people's opinions is easy, especially when you have a lot of money. All you have to do is exploit a person's trust in any particular thing. It doesn't always have to be science or religion either. It can be anything. If people put their utmost trust and respect into something, whatever it is, you can exploit that and use it to your advantage.
The use of words like "anti-intellectual", "anti-science", "psuedoscience" have the same effect that words like "immoral", "anti-God", or "blasphemous" do. They are designed to make people feel bad about what they think and makes them feel like they have to change their mind in order to "fit in" with the crowd. It's not only an exploitation of a person's trust in something, it's also a manipulation of their natural human desire to fit in and be accepted into a particular group--an exploitation of a person's fear of being shunned.
These are just some thoughts to consider, and I encourage you to look deeper into this and question what you read, and yes, that includes this blog. I'm not trying to tell you that my outlook is the absolute truth, but I hope it gets you thinking and encourages you to research further.