I'm not arguing against the science, I'm arguing against the people. E.G: I think GMO have a fantastic potential. It's a powerful technology. And like any powe

I'm not arguing against the science, I'm arguing against the people. E.G: I think GMO have a fantastic potential. It's a powerful technology. And like any powerful technology, it has a huge potential of destruction as well. And I don't trust the people making money with it to take the necessary precautions to avoid a catastrophy. There are so many past and present events where money won over the benefit of the human specie. I trust people like you, that are dedicated to analyze things and share conclusions. But between you and the public, there is an army of people whose job is to hide/distort informations that will make them loose money, and show off informations that will make them win money. And they are better are it that the public is at critical thinking. You talk about climat skepticism, and it's a good example of a generalized propaganda that entities with an interest in fossil fuel and live stock keep pushing. And it works. There are people that doubt climate change. There are leaders that act on it. When there is an obvious conflict of interest in an entity of huge influence, one should ALWAYS be suspicious by default. The entity has to prove, over, and over again that it's doing the right thing. Right now entities are usually, as they grow, turning into systems that buy PR campaign to tell you they are doing the right things instead of doing it. Let me pull out this little gem from the WHO archives: http://www.who.int/tobacco/media/en/TobaccoExplained.pdf http://www.who.int/tobacco/media/en/TobaccoExplained.pdf In there you can read the statment from the tobacco industry: 1. That medical research of recent years indicates many possible causes of lung cancer. 2. That there is no agreement among the authorities regarding what the cause is. 3. That there is no proof that cigarette smoking is one of the causes. 4. That statistics purporting to link smoking with the disease could apply with equal force to any one of many other aspects of modern life. Indeed the validity of the statistics themselves are questioned by numerous scientists. Like I said, they are very good at controlling the story. Defending them because that's the intellectually moral thing to do - while I understand that's something intelligent reasonable people wants to do - is not working in our favor. Now you tell me that up to now, nothing is hinting that N-(phosphonomethyl)glycine is dangerous. But Monsanto still decided to have research about it ghostwritten. Such behavior is an alarm signal to me, and should trigger new investigations and tests for the next 10 years.