We're Scientists, Moms, And We Avoid Non-GMO Products - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@BioChicaGMO/were-scientists-we-re-moms-and-we-avoid-non-gmo-products-33bc0aa351a3#.x8kywi7v5 <comment><USER2> I find it hard reading articles like this. I agree with its main premise, but it fails to mention the valid points of the other side. And there are two:

1\. Some GMO has a plant produce extra chemicals, specifically, pesticides

2\. There is a unknown side to GMO, perhaps it can lead to super species that we can never get rid of in the future and will destroy bio diversity.

(1) are banned in the EU for human consumption, a reasonable choice I think until we have more data.

(2) is a much lower risk than most would thing. But it is one of those things where the naive/amateur answer is far from reality, and that naive answer is scary. (Like nuclear, or more rules vs more responsibility.)

When done responsibly, GMOs are fine. And even necessary if we want to feed 8 billion people and more in the future.

But an article that fails to mention valid (remember the eu) downsides, and discuss the tradeoff, will have a polarizing effect: Those pro GMO will think score and think anti GMO is stupid. But anti GMO will see their biggest concerns not mentioned, and will declare fail and conclude their position is well grounded.

<comment><USER3> I am listening to you and your concerns. You are afraid that what we don't know could have disastrous consequences for us all. You want to see it demonstrated that serious people are taking these real, serious concerns seriously. After all, taking people's concerns seriously is the best way to make people feel validated and thus you can calm their fears, right? We all know that taking arbitrary concerns seriously never validates them.

> (1) are banned in the EU for human consumption, a reasonable choice I think > until we have more data.

Seems very reasonable. How much data is enough? How will we know when we've got so much data that we can start just ignoring those who call for more study as unreasonable? When they're convinced, perhaps?

> (2) is a much lower risk than most would thing. But it is one of those > things where the naive/amateur answer is far from reality, and that naive > answer is scary. (Like nuclear, or more rules vs more responsibility.)

Seems reasonable. How do you propose to address these unknowns? And are you aware that non-GMO plants can product dangerous super species we can never get rid of? Purple loosestrife comes to mind.

Having listened to your concerns and seriously pondered them, all I see is fear. Unbounded fear. Nothing in here leads me to think these fears will be calmed by study. The nature of science is that there's always another unknown to point to, and GMOs are seen by many as inherently scary - unlike safe, cuddly natural plants, obviously.

What I see is people who have a fundamentally emotional position and think that study will validate them. They will continue to want more study until their fears are validated, and every result that fails to do so only feeds their fears.

<comment><USER4> Not too many decades ago it was claimed that famine would be solved forever by spraying everything with DDT. But nobody had ever imagined this thing called the food-chain and the birds started dying. Now we're toying with DNA without even comprehending half of it. I'm not opposed to it. We will probably learn some new, interesting things on the way that nobody had ever imagined.

<comment><USER5> See DDT was bad for birds, but in a very short time frame we got rid of malaria in the United States.

[https://www.cdc.gov/malaria/about/history/elimination_us.htm...](https://www.cdc.gov/malaria/about/history/elimination_us.html)

And we put down so much DDT that people around my age never had to deal with bed bugs till now.

I'm not advocating for spraying DDT again, I am suggesting that the history and use of DDT far more interesting than can be covered in a string of HN comments!

<comment><USER6> Indeed, the issue of DDT is much much more nuanced than people make it out to be. At the time, it was a miracle chemical that was going to let us eradicate (rather than simply control or minimize) all manner of diseases, so the scale at which it was used was pretty incredible. In some cases we were effectively carpet-bombing whole islands with the stuff. No wonder we were killing birds and fish.

There's a book [1] about the history of DDT that does a great job of establishing a historical context for its use. I agree that we can't simply un-ban it, but our approach to disease prevention/control has come such a long way since prohibiting it that I can't help but wonder if we could deploy it safely now.

[1] [https://www.amazon.com/DDT-American-Century-Environmental- En...](https://www.amazon.com/DDT-American-Century-Environmental- Entrepreneurship/dp/1469609770)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> A couple I know who avoid GMO products have a few things in common with others I've seen saying the same things: Ignorance of what a GMO really is, a deep distrust of corporate interests/government regulators and a strange, unearned trust placed in those selling "organic" products.

It costs them a premium, but they say they're doing it for their children. I can't argue against it to their faces, but quietly I wonder if they wouldn't be more financially free if they weren't so willingly chained to 7 dollar gallons of milk.

<comment><USER8> The tricky thing is it's very hard to really be on top of all the evidence, so we rely on some signaling. The "granola" crowd tends to place unearned trust in organic or non-GMO products, but the "science" crowd tends to place unearned trust in methodologically suspect corporate studies with a clear conflict of interest.

I'm pretty much right down the middle on this stuff, but I tend to regard the latter as a bigger problem simply because the amount of money and lobbying involved. Think of the amount of money to be made by increasing grain yields by 1%, can we really expect industry to determine objectively that a higher yield grain is nutritionally equivalent?

<comment><USER9> Your comment gave me an interesting thought: how would a labeling system that describes exactly _which_ modifications were made to the organism in question work?

<comment><USER10> There current argument du jour about GM has to do with things like the Arctic apple, which doesn't turn brown when it's sliced, due to silencing several genes[1] - this sidesteps the usual "but now there are fish genes in my tomato!" as nothing has been added, just removed.

1: [http://www.arcticapples.com/how-did-we-make-nonbrowning- appl...](http://www.arcticapples.com/how-did-we-make-nonbrowning-apple/)

<comment><USER11> But.. there's no "save the earth" argument for this GMO modification, just a mild convenience.

I achieve the same thing by slicing apples with ceramic instead of metal. Think of how much I saved on R&D!

<comment><USER12> I think the non-browning modification also helps protect the apples during transportation, which in turn reduces waste (since fewer apples will reach the store in a damaged, non-consumer friendly state). Reducing waste _is_ "saving the earth" :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I have a degree in Molecular Biology and the utmost respect for good science. I avoid GMO products for a variety of reasons:

1\. They're absolutely more likely to be harmful to the environment based on the general behavior of the companies that make them (Syngenta, Monstanto, etc.). There shouldn't really be any debate on this.

2\. They have massive potential for global-scale, subtle, negative externalities. I say this as someone who knows a bit of the history of science and has seen how many times we don't understand the full effects of something new until many years later (see most of the fun and variegated chemicals we came up with in the 30s-50s). In science, the burden of proof is on the new thing to unequivocally prove itself true...not 'harmless until proven harmful.' The U.S. is very pro-business and one of the only countries in the world where you can get away with 'harmless until proven harmful.' Obviously GMOs are not going to kill you overnight and seem to have no acute ill effects. I'm a fan of having a choice in this matter and not being forcibly blinded.

3\. Most of the studies declaring them safe have industry funding at their root. Most of the studies with "impartial" funding sources declare them potentially unsafe or are inconclusive. "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" Careerism and loose morals in this field give me plenty of reason to at least be skeptical of a Pro-GMO general consensus...and of overly enthusiastic new science in general.

4\. I'm morally opposed to supporting products that support mucking with an already perfect product, namely real, clean, unadulterated food. To feed the world, we need better distribution and smarter farming practices, not the sort of "solutions" that Monsanto et all have peddled (see what's happened in India where adoption of GMO seeds was widespread).

Edit: spelling.

<comment><USER14> >I have a degree in Molecular Biology and the utmost respect for good science.

OK.

>They're absolutely more likely to be harmful to the environment based on the general behavior of the companies that make them (Syngenta, Monstanto, etc.). There shouldn't really be any debate on this.

Guilt by association is bad science. Saying "shouldn't really be any debate" is not an attitude a good scientist has.

Also, "absolutely more likely" doesn't make sense.

>In science, the burden of proof is on the new thing to unequivocally prove itself true...not 'harmless until proven harmful.'

Actually, science is not on either side. Science is science. Putting the burden on one side or the other is purely a human policy decision. It has nothing to do with scientific principles.

> Most of the studies declaring them safe have industry funding at their root. > ... Careerism and loose morals in this field give me plenty of reason to at > least be skeptical of a Pro-GMO general consensus...and of overly > enthusiastic new science in general.

Do you avoid pharmaceutical products as well? They suffer from the same problems.

>I'm morally opposed to supporting products that support mucking with an already perfect product, namely real, clean, unadulterated food

Again, this has nothing to do with science. And, I can assure you: Many, many people disagree with the characterization of "already perfect product"

<comment><USER15> > >In science, the burden of proof is on the new thing to unequivocally prove > itself true...not 'harmless until proven harmful.'

> Actually, science is not on either side. Science is science. Putting the > burden on one side or the other is purely a human policy decision. It has > nothing to do with scientific principles.

I think you are actually wrong about this. In order for a hypothesis to be scientific, it must be falsifiable. This is reflective of the principle in reason that the burden of proof falls of the claimant of the positive claim.

The real question here is, "which is actually the negative claim?" Is claiming something safe a negative claim, or is claiming something is harmful a negative claim?

This is where I think OP is incorrect: safety is merely lack of harmfulness. Therefore, claiming that something is safe is the negative claim, and claiming that something is harmful is the positive claim. A reasonable person should assume things are safe until there is significant evidence that they are harmful.

<comment><USER14> Yes, that is pretty much what I meant.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Despite Monsanto and Syngenta's marketing about "saving starving children", there's good reason why developing countries are actively fighting GMOs. Giving centralized control of food production to a handful of American corporations is a precarious position.

In practice, GMO agriculture creates a trade imbalance. Instead of simply exporting produce, many countries will find themselves importing huge volumes of proprietary products from the likes of Monsanto. This includes buying new breed of patented seeds every year _, fertilizers, insecticides, pesticides, etc. And of course, once a farm goes GMO, soil damage makes it almost impossible to go back to organic farming. High level of lock in.

[http://sustainablepulse.com/2015/10/22/gm-crops-now- banned-i...](http://sustainablepulse.com/2015/10/22/gm-crops-now-banned- in-36-countries-worldwide-sustainable-pulse-research/#.WCDVNTv_1II)

_GMO seeds have been modified to create plants that won't make new seeds, great for recurring revenue

<comment><USER17> That's not an argument against transgenetic modification, it's an argument about intellectual property and economic practices.

As for terminator seed, this is a valuable technology that addresses concerns that transgenes could spread into the environment. It's also quite irrelevant to any crop that relies on hybrid vigor for yield; F1 seed must be specifically developed from inbred parents, thus no seed saving is possible. In this context, a terminator line would only serve to protect the environment.

<comment><USER18> > That's not an argument against transgenetic modification, it's an argument > about intellectual property and economic practices.

That's not a refutation, that's a goalpost shift.

In the real world today, you can't separate transgenetic modification from intellectual property and economic practices, when the intellectual property is technologically enforced in the transgenetic modification.

<comment><USER19> Yeah, all these arguments against non-GMO products, painting non-GMO proponents as antiscientific, seem to me to be strawman arguments that ironically miss the point. It's a thinly veiled means of asserting intellectual superiority that backfires to me because it overlooks the real arguments against GMO products.

Great, you're parents and scientists. I'm a parent and a scientist too. But I understand that many of the arguments against GMOs have nothing to do with science (at least biological science) and everything to do with economics and human rights.

Just because something involves biology doesn't mean that arguments about it can be reduced to that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> There may be a lot of ignorance around GMOs. Dismissing the category altogether as being dangerous may be premature. But there are also some educated people who selectively avoid GMOs because they are well-informed of the risks.

For example, the avoidance of food grown from Roundup Ready seeds because of its likely contamination with harmful herbicide.

<comment><USER21> This is why I typically select the non GMO version of most foods that are prepared. I don't think the genetic modifications are problematic, but for wheat etc that typically means it's roundup ready. For fresh produce or fruit I don't mind as much since I control the washing, tho waxed apples can be problematic.

<comment><USER22> Don't they say roundup ready crops require fewer biocides than their non GMO counterparts? Isn't one of their value propositions that you don't have to treat them as much as conventional and organic varieties?

<comment><USER23> Citation needed. One would have assumed that the point of a plant designed to be resistant to a herbicide would be that you could apply that herbicide with abandon.

<comment><USER22> Sure. Here are results from meta-analysis of the question[1].

Key takes:

"On average, GM technology adoption has reduced chemical pesticide use by 37%, increased crop yields by 22%, and increased farmer profits by 68%. Yield gains and pesticide reductions are larger for insect-resistant crops than for herbicide-tolerant crops. Yield and profit gains are higher in developing countries than in developed countries."

So pesticide use goes down, yields go up, resulting in fewer acres planted for the same yield resulting in even further pesticide use.

[1][http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal....](http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0111629)

<comment><USER24> I noting that more and more meta-analyses are kind of falling out of fashion. They're increasingly being viewed as having dubious scientific merit and should be viewed similarly to "lit reviews". As well as some obvious biases there are other subtle issues, such as incomplete data or poorly matched data- sets. There's a list of short-comings on the wikipedia page which should provide a good primer [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta- analysis#Problems](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta-analysis#Problems)

Basically, we need to be careful about accepting the results of meta-analyses as scientific fact. They are useful for illustrative purposes but really, at the end of the day if you're going to settle an argument you're going to need rigorous methodology, data-collection and reporting, as well as the all important _reproducibility_ , _falsifiability_ and _verifiablity_.

<comment><USER25> You are free to go to the list of references in that meta analysis article, and look at the results of the individual studies.

<comment><USER24> Just like with any lit review.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> The article doesn't mention my objection to GMOs:

I would refuse to buy GMO products because I don't want multinationals to "own" genomes. That requires far more trust than I'm willing to put in a corporation, especially a foreign one.

<comment><USER27> There are plenty of university/public domain GMOs as well. Your stance is analogous to not using any software because you don't like Microsoft's closed source model.

<comment> nommm-nommm Which specific GMOs are public domain?

<comment><USER27> Almost any papaya you eat in the US is GMO.

[https://gmoanswers.com/studies/gm-papaya-saved-hawaii- papaya...](https://gmoanswers.com/studies/gm-papaya-saved-hawaii-papaya- industry)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> > Genetic engineering, along with other tools, can help us address challenges > like pests and droughts, while addressing nutritional issues, such as > allergens or nutrient deficiencies. Farmers need these tools at their > disposal to ensure a safe, sustainable, and reliable food supply.

If farmers practiced sustainable agriculture and grew a variety of crops instead of one or two, they wouldn't have nearly as much need for GMO 'tools'. Our agricultural system encourages non-sustainable practices that practically require GMO seeds, pesticides, herbicides, and many others in order to continue to function. The companies that make these products want to ensure this continues.

GMO on it's own is fine, to me. But we need to stop looking at it as the solution to the problem we've created, and focus on fixing the root causes of big agriculture. These 'challenges' that are being addressed are often man- made.

<comment><USER29> And even worse. There seems to be distinct mindsets where some people care about sustainable things like soil-quality, erotion and product quality and other people seem to care distinctly less about these things.

I think the current GMO-reality is harmful because it seems to cater to the people who care less about sustainable practices. And possibly even promote anti-sustainable thinking.

For that reason I avoid GMO products. There is simply no reason for me to support the kind of farmers who don't care about sustainable practices. And right now GMO seems to be a strong signal about that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> If you are three scientists why are you publishing this on medium? Make your "science" credentials more visible at the least.

If you google their name you find out that they work at Biology Fortified.

>Biology Fortified, Inc. (BFI) is an independent educational tax-exempt non- profit organization incorporated in Wisconsin. Our mission is to strengthen the public discussion of issues in biology, with particular emphasis on genetics and genetic engineering in agriculture. Biology Fortified is independently run on a volunteer basis, and is not supported by any funding from any companies or government entities.

So they are paid to have this particular public (!) opinion.

<comment><USER31> "Biology Fortified is independently run on a volunteer basis, and is not supported by any funding from any companies or government entities."

"So they are paid to have this particular public (!) opinion."

One of these things is not like the others...

<comment><USER32> Good point.

But the fat that they do not disclose they work at the same non-profit that has a goals that is much related to the topic they address, this does not seem "transparent science-y" to me.

<comment><USER33> I'd argue that in a time when everybody has a LinkedIn account, putting your name on the article is a form of disclosure.

<comment><USER32> Then acting so "scientific", and "we're just some mommies", just to find out that they work for the same organisation. Yr not just some mommies, your colleagues, and it would not surprise me your got paid to write this.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> > More generally, a recent report from the National Academy of Sciences showed > that herbicide tolerant and pest resistant GMOs have reduced insecticide use > and have allowed farmers to use less toxic herbicides

There's been some serious doubt cast on that assumption recently: [http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/30/business/gmo-promise- falls...](http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/30/business/gmo-promise-falls- short.html?smid=fb-share)

<comment><USER27> There's been quite a bit of shade cast on that article as well. It compares yield growth rates (not absolute yield or cost) across country level data and ignores issues with European production like really high levels of fungicide use. Most people who are in agriculture think that this article was sensationalist crap that exploits several common statistical fallacies.

For more in depth criticism of the NYT article:

[http://weedcontrolfreaks.com/2016/10/the-tiresome- discussion...](http://weedcontrolfreaks.com/2016/10/the-tiresome-discussion- of-initial-gmo-expectations/)

[http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2016/09/01/492091546/how...](http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2016/09/01/492091546/how- gmos-cut-the-use-of-pesticides-and-perhaps-boosted-them-again)

<comment><USER34> Interesting. Thank you for this.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> What is ironic about the GMO debate, is that the people most worried about GMO foods don't seem to know or care about the many crops that were created by exposing seeds to high amounts of radiation or chemical mutagens:

>...Unlike genetically modified crops, which typically involve the insertion of one or two target genes, plants developed via mutagenic processes with random, multiple and unspecific genetic changes[17] have been discussed as a concern[18] but are not prohibited by any nation's organic standards. Reports from the US National Academy of Sciences state that there is no scientific justification for regulating genetic engineered crops while not doing so for mutation breeding crops.[5]

So, these crops with random genetic mutations are sold as organic and have been in the food supply since 1930:

>...From 1930 to 2014 more than 3200 mutagenic plant varietals have been released[1][2] that have been derived either as direct mutants (70%) or from their progeny (30%)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation_breeding](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation_breeding)

<comment><USER36> _" the people most worried about GMO foods don't seem to know or care about the many crops that were created by exposing seeds to high amounts of radiation or chemical mutagens"_

I think you're right in pointing out that there is general ignorance about the roles of radiation and chemical mutagens. These have been around for a long time, introduced when there was less focus on the methods of food production. I think if there were more awareness placed on these aspects as well, people would be interested in, say, labeling for this, too.

As for the labeling of organic, what is acceptable under that label is also a contentious issue, with lobbying on both sides. To assume that those who prefer to buy organic are knowingly accepting that mutation-bred foods should be labeled organic I think is a little disingenuous. Of course, lines have to be drawn somewhere, if we've got a binary label, and that's why some would like more detailed labelling.

<comment><USER35> >...To assume that those who prefer to buy organic are knowingly accepting that mutation-bred foods should be labeled organic I think is a little disingenuous.

Disingenuous? I certainly didn't claim that people who buy organic understand what they are buying and I don't appreciate your insinuation. I simply said that these crops have not prohibited by any nation's organic standards.

<comment><USER36> I apologize. I didn't mean to put words in your mouth. The word "disingenuous" was ill-chosen and I can see that I should have phrased it better. Let me try again.

I'm responding to this phrase:

 _" crops with random genetic mutations are sold as organic and have been in the food supply since 1930"_

As you say, this simply says that these crops are allowed to carry the organic label. It's a small move from here to say that people accept these crops as organic. And then another small move to say that since transgenic crops are no different from these other crops, that transgenic crops should also be accepted as organic. Is this fair? This is the sense I get when reading your _" What is ironic about the GMO debate"_ phrase. Perhaps the _shoulds_ are a bit strong. How would you change my analysis?

You've rightly pointed out where I made a mistake in my use of "disingenuous". What do you think of the rest of what I wrote? Is there anything you agree with, at least in part? If not, what's your take?

<comment><USER35> Thanks for the reply.

>…It's a small move from here to say that people accept these crops as organic. And then another small move to say that since transgenic crops are no different from these other crops, that transgenic crops should also be accepted as organic. Is this fair? This is the sense I get when reading your "What is ironic about the GMO debate" phrase. Perhaps the shoulds are a bit strong. How would you change my analysis?

What I find ironic about the GMO debate is simply that it appears many of the people opposed to GMOs know little about the precursor to GMO even though mutation breeding has produced many of the crops we grow. If someone is worried about inserting one known gene into a plant, I would assume they would be much more worried about eating plants that were exposed to radiation/chemicals to create multiple random genetic changes. (Or maybe people wouldn't be as worried about GMO crops if they did know the long history with mutation breeding - I don't know.)

I don't think most people have any idea that crops created through mutation breeding are labelled "organic" so that was another unexpected fact. In terms of the "organic" label, I just believe in truth in advertising. It seems like it should be very clear to the consumer what it means when a food is labelled "organic". I wasn't trying to make a judgement as to what should be labelled "organic". I wouldn't say the marketing of the "organic" label has been fraudulent, but many consumers do have a misleading idea of what they are buying.

<comment><USER36> I think we're pretty close to being in agreement.

\- There are people who don't know a lot about earlier methods of causing mutations such as chemicals and radiation as applied to crops (labeled organic or otherwise, I suspect)

\- There should truth in advertising/labeling for food. We've been talking about the organic label, but I think we both agree that it shouldn't be limited to just organic, correct?

I think your points about random mutation possibly being more worrisome than targeted (transgenic) mutation, or perhaps knowledge of what's been done in the past may alleviate fears is right on the money. It'd be good to raise awareness of this as well.

What do you think? Substantially accurate representation? Anything to add/subtract/modify?

<comment><USER35> >...I think we're pretty close to being in agreement.

Well... I think we agree on part of this and disagree on other parts...

I think producers should be free to market their products as organic, cage free, free range, kosher, etc, and the consumers should understand what the label means. I think more work needs to be done here to make sure consumers know what they are buying.

I am opposed to mandated labeling of anything unless there is a scientific basis for it being a safety concern - potential allergens, etc. For that reason, a GMO food that has passed EPA, FDA, USDA and state regulations as being safe should not have to be labeled - besides imposing a cost on food, it would likely confuse the customer as the implication would be there are health risks compared to other food. If a producer wants to indicate a product as GMO or not GMO, they should be free to do so, but it shouldn't be imposed on them by the government.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Layla Katiraee, scientist at Integrated DNA Technologies - hardly a disinterested party. It's in her direct interest to trash non-GMO everything.

<comment><USER38> Everyone who proclaims themselves to be a scientist should trash non-sense 'science'.

GMOs are perfectly safe and beneficial. There is no dispute about the safety of GMOs as a class. Feel free to pick apart the corporations and individual crops though.

<comment><USER39> Why should we not focus on the vehicles of these corporations' avarice, though?

It's like saying "hey don't diss DIVX [1] but instead those who created it".

No, products and production methods that are questionable should be critiqued.

Also, follow the money. It seems to work almost every single time.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DIVX](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DIVX)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> Any time your argument boils down to, "we have to keep information from people because they are too stupid and it will confuse them", you should be opposed. The same garbage argument was trotted out (successfully) by the beef producers and testing for mad cow disease. If you don't want to test your meat for mad- cow, then don't! But don't tell me I'm not allowed to test mine because you say there is no risk. If you don't think GMO's are an issue, then saturate your body with them. Go ahead and mutate every cell in your body as far as I'm concerned. But don't tell other people they don't have the right to information because you say they don't need it. Sickening hubris.

</comment><comment><USER41> 1\. How are these scientist be so sure that these modifications will not have some unintended side effect?

Software engineers can't predict every side effect of modifications to code that they created.

I read that some of these GMO products have only been on the market 10 years and have not existed more than 20. So it is impossible for these "scientist" to know the long term effects.

<comment><USER42> what scenario are you imagining? People done this kind of "manipulations" with plants and animals. Why did you quote the word "scientists"? Are those authors not real scientists with diplomas and education on biology? Would you better belive some person that will get paranoid if he finds our the water is polluted with hydrogen?

<comment><USER41> 2 of the scientist work at companies that make money from GMO products. I'm sure they are brilliant scientist but in this capacity they are marketers.

<comment><USER38> I see your point but I have to slightly disagree. Supporting your field and your interest is hardly being a marketer.

Dismissing unfounded science about your field is a good practice.

<comment><USER43> They should at least mention their employers.

<comment><USER33> A <5 minute LinkedIn lookup should suffice.

<comment><USER43> So now i have to google every author because journalistic / scientific standards are not cool anymore?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> I've always been "pro GMO" in the sense that I think its immoral to artificially restrict our food supply and making food unnecessarily expensive. Plus the innovation that can be spurred from the food sector into other areas won't be seen until a hotbed has been established. I also think Europe is losing out on opportunity with its Gealileo-like reflex on fundamentally new, groundbreaking science.

That being said, I was deeply disappointed to hear that our 'groundbreaking technology' amounts to stuff like "make plants pesticide resistant" > "dump more pesticide on plants" > "apply for patent". This is really disappointingly stupid.

Also it turns out that crop yields are almost not at all affected by genetic modification [1]

[1] [http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2016/10/gm-...](http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2016/10/gm- crops-not-increasing-yields.html)

<comment><USER45> In addition to the unknown side effects of GMO's that might take us a few generations to learn about, the scarier thing for me is the risk of GMO's going into the wild and becoming an invasive species that wipes out native crops and habitats. By the time we know if GMO's are good for us and the environment or not, it may be too late to go back to conventional crops.

Agree completely on the pesticides comment though.

Biggest innovation in crop yield seems to be hydroponics and vertical growing. Fraction of the water use and don't need to worry about soil.

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> It sounds suspiciously odd that people want to boycott information. I understand if you don't care about whether a product is a GMO but to prevent other people from finding out and dictate to them what they can and cannot eat sounds elitist to me. I want to know where my food came from and make my own decision. This article smells of astroturfing ([https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing))

<comment><USER31> They want to boycott the _non-information_ that the "Non-GMO" label comes with. It's hugely deceptive at times, and applied to food where there's no GMO-equivelent.

<comment><USER32> Agree, volutary and for-cost non-GMO label does not do much good -- likely more harm as they are keen to point out.

The, IMHO, obvious fix is a mandatory "contains GMO" labeling. Which they obviously do not mention.

<comment><USER33> IMHO, "contains GMO" isn't particularly useful either. If I'm going to be notified that something is GMO, at least tell me what modifications were made. If it takes up too much space, then slap on a QR code or something.

<comment><USER32> > IMHO, "contains GMO" isn't particularly useful either.

Well I think it is our right to know. Doctoring with DNA? At least let me know. Period.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> On a tangential note, there seems to be a large amount of propaganda and astroturfing regarding GMOs, and to question them often leads to being unfairly attacked. Be weary when reading comments as to what interests might be served by various sides of an argument. Nothing is beyond inquiry.

</comment><comment><USER47> I take a very different stance on GMO products than most people I've talked to. I am a support of GMO products and think they are critical to protecting the food supply. I also think that any GMO food sold should be required to release the genome with a FOS license. I think that our food supply is a common heritage and rights to use and work with it should not be restricted to a few corporations.

<comment><USER17> Publish the transgene construct, or assemble the entire genome? De novo assembly? What about for species that only have draft genomes?

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> I find the first section exceptionally problematic and misleading, it reads in part:

      As a reminder, the only items for which a GMO counterpart
      is currently available to consumers are: alfalfa, canola,
      corn (field and sweet, but not popcorn), cotton, papaya,
      potatoes, soybeans (but not tofu or edamame varieties),
      sugar beet, and squash. Genetically engineered apples and
      salmon will be available soon.

The implication is 'you should not worry because there aren't many GMO products out there any way'; but this glosses over the fact that soy and corn constitute major ingredients in to many, many products (many of which you would not necessarily think contain either).

</comment><comment><USER49> > Many vitamins and nutrients used for enrichment are derived from genetically > modified microorganisms. Others are derived from crops, such as corn, that > are genetically modified. The Non-GMO Project bans the use of micronutrients > derived from these GMOs. As such, there are documented instances of foods > that have lost their vitamin content after changing their manufacturing > process to meet the Non-GMO Project's certification requirements.

I believe that many people are not against using GM bacteria/fungi/... to produce stuff (lots of medicine is manufactured that way, for example), they just don't want GMOs in the fields because:

1) they are (rightfully) afraid that unexpected side-effects happen when modified organisms are able to spread beyond the field

2) they do not like the stranglehold that Big Ag can impose on farmers (which is more a socio-economic issue, but nevertheless valid given the actions of e.g. Monsanto [https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/feb/12/monsanto...](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/feb/12/monsanto- sues-farmers-seed-patents))

</comment><comment><USER50> I avoid GMO products to a certain degree, but not because I'm concerned that they may be unhealthy or dangerous.

A food crop could be modified to be dangerous I'm sure. And likewise I'm sure one could be selectively bred (over enough generations) to be dangerous. If someone engineers Sarin-secreting corn or something we'll figure it out pretty quickly and the issue won't be it being GMO, it will be human malevolence. But I really couldn't care less about that.

Rather, I like seeing GMO labels because it's the closest analogue for determining if my food is proprietary. I am incredibly against reproducing organisms that are a living patent violation, and I don't want to support such things if possible. Above so said, I would much prefer to see marking indicating that none of the product was patented, copyrighted, licensed, or otherwise encumbered.

Another thing I think that perhaps gets (erroneously) mixed into the GMO debate is biodiversity. Many people have concerns that monoculture is dangerous and somehow mix and/or conflate non-GMO with heirloom/native varietal foods.

Obviously the shadow over all of the above is the "organic" label, which blurs things a little but further. But the primary consumer for organic overlaps with the primary consumer for non-GMO which overlaps with the primary consumer for local/heirloom/native produce, and the net result is that all the terms get muddied.

Given the above, while I concur that GMO labeling is not ideal as is, and I concur that GMO foods are fine or mostly fine, we don't actually have a sufficient food labeling system. People want to know if proprietary organisms are in their food. They want to know if it was grown with pesticides. They want to know where it was grown. Etc.

In many ways food labels are a product of bizarre anti-consumer compromises. It shouldn't take a rocket scientist to be able to get non-proprietary food grown with low pesticide usage. Complaining about the GMO label doesn't really seem to address this.

(PS: Love getting downvoted in the interval between posting my comment and refreshing the thread... almost like somebody didn't even read it.)

</comment><comment><USER51> We have the right to have our food correctly labeled. Then everyone gets to decide for themselves.

To me, the pro-gmo crowd seems to be about taking away my rights to have my food correctly labeled. This is a morally indefensible position, regardless of safety of gmo.

<comment><USER52> No, if we had our food correctly labeled, all food in your supermarket would be labeled as GMO. All of our food has been bioengineered for centuries, we were just using extremely crude methods until now.

The morally indefensible position is the one that vilifies, through ignorance, a set of plant breeding techniques that have the ability to save wildlife habitat and reduce pesticide use and carbon emissions worldwide by making agriculture more efficient.

If you want to adopt a morally defensible position on this issue, may I suggest asking for labeling with estimates of water, herbicide, and acreage use of your food? Or carbon footprint estimates? Because a "correct" GMO label that actually carries any meaning will look like the methods section of a Science article.

<comment><USER51> Drastically reduce beef consumption, and save resources, save wildlife habitat like the Amazon (I have been there. Most clearing is for beef production). Beef production creates a lot of methane which is even more damaging than CO2, per molecule produced.

It takes between 4000 to 5000 gallons of water per pound of beef produced. Chicken production uses about 5% the resources of beef. Vegan is better still.

I think we are in agreement on protecting the environment, but we have different strategies for doing that. Fair enough.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> She works at "Integrated DNA Technologies". Not to suggest she has a bias, but her main source of income is producing GMOs. Just something you may want to keep in mind.

</comment><comment><USER54> I worked in a big ag company with a genetics lab and in a DNA sequencing lab later (as a sysadmin), so I feel like I have a decent amount of insight into this issue.

My two primary (I have more) objections to GMO are:

1) Lack of rigorous testing, _especially long term testing_. Many of the GMO products in production spent a minimal amount of time in the lab before being selected for production, with little to no long term testing being done. (to find any number of potential issues and side chain-effect issues that can happen.) For example, while at the sequencing company, I learned that it's not just about the genome of the thing itself, but it's surrounding microbiome, which of course is almost an after thought to the big-ag gmo producers.

2) The way in which the pro GMO big ag has essentially corrupted the bodies set up to regulate itself. Monsanto is a perfect example of this, but only one of many. They have a supreme court justice who has refused to recuse himself on cases with obvious conflicts of interest. They have a massive online pr (read: propaganda) operation to keep these things out of the limelight or at least remove them quickly. They have basically taken over the most prominent FDA positions. They abuse K-street beyond what even most of the K-Street abusers do. It's this kind of systematic corporate corruption that makes me sympathetic with those who are anti-gmo.

I also have a huge issue with the whole patent system when it comes to genomes, the system is broke enough for normal tech, but there have been some dangerous precedents set that I don't have the time to get into but they _will_ have major consequences as sequencing costs and manipulation costs are reduced and therefore it becomes a more prevalent tech.

Now, all that being said, I see a ton of FUD on the anti-gmo side that is easily refuted, but the problem is that I far too often see the illogical/irrational FUD of anti-GMO being the strawman used by pro-gmo people against the more reasonable and scientific anti-gmo arguments, which seems to be intellectually dishonest, very much like I find articles like this.

I could go on, but just wanted to offer a quick two-cents.

Oh, and don't even get me started on the horrible state of peer-reviewed science. As a layman with a huge interest in science, I held the process up on a pedestal, that is until I saw it from the inside. Bad science abounds and is rarely challenged, which only gives fuel to the anti-intellectual/anti-science movements which is the last thing we need as a species!

<comment><USER55> But what makes the alternative methods like mutagenesis safer? People always speak of GMO as if the alternative is purely natural and created alone by nature.

They also act as if nature is static. More genes are changed in plants by the environment they live in than through GMO methods.

This idea that getting genes from frogs and putting them in wheat is somehow dangerous deceives people by playing on their ignorance of how closely related living things are.

I share 50% of my genes with a banana. An anti-GMO person might spin this has me being filled with unnatural banana genes which should never have been in a human.

<comment><USER56> Erm, didn't you just perform the exact sort of spin you're arguing against?

>More genes are changed in plants by the environment they live in than through GMO methods. //

Which is to pretend that the potency of any genetic alteration is simply down to the number of genes altered. So, ADA deficiency (a disease caused by a single mutated gene) is less troubling than having red hair (due to [possibly] 4 pairs of genes, AFAIK).

We're making alterations that it would be mathematically impossible to occur by natural mutation, to pretend that direct gene manipulation is only an evolution (eh!) of normal farming methods is exceedingly disingenuous IMO.

<comment><USER55> What exactly do you consider NORMAL farming methods!!!??? How on earth is mutagenesis normal? How is nuking seeds causing massive amounts of mutations "normal"? This is the alternative to GMO. We are already unnaturally altering the DNA of plants.

And you seem to suggest that doing deliberate and controlled altering of specific genes is somehow MORE dangerous than doing RANDOM changes or any number of genes. How does that even compute?

Would you drive a car at 100 mph where the car mechanics had just made massive amounts of random changes hoping it made the car better, or would you drive the car where they carefully studied the engine and made selected changes?

There are no laws in physics which prevent the DNA from getting altered at exactly the same spots through deliberate random mutations than through GMO methods.

Speaking of your ADA deficiency example. If you wanted to avoid accidentally mutating a gene to cause ADA, you would be most certain to avoid that using a the GMO method of specifically altering specific genes than if you just nuked the seed.

<comment><USER56> >'How on earth is mutagenesis normal? How is nuking seeds causing massive amounts of mutations "normal"?'

Do you mean laboratory mutagenesis initiated by human action or other types? You know humans don't have to do mutagenesis to do farming?? It sounds like you're presenting a false dichotomy. It's not my field, can you explain why these are the only options?

>'There are no laws in physics which prevent the DNA from getting altered at exactly the same spots through deliberate random mutations than through GMO methods.' //

And a seed could spontaneously form from a confluence of cosmic rays. but it doesn't. Which is why I invoked the mathematical impossibility.

And just because mutagenesis can occur without human action doesn't mean we should run in slipshod. Stabbing can occur by accident, doesn't make purposeful stabbings a good idea.

Your car analogy needs a small adjustment, the mechanic thinks they know everything and has already written off several cars by modifying them; oh, and their alterations could spread to other cars, houses, tables, and make the entirety of manufactured products fail. But hey, nitroglycerine explodes well, let's try filling fuel tanks with that, and liquid oxygen in the air- conditioning.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER57> Nassim Taleb has been very vocal against GMOs. Here's a summary of his beliefs.

[http://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/FictionAndFacts3.pdf](http://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/FictionAndFacts3.pdf)

<comment><USER36> Thanks for providing this. Useful info. That PDF in turn references "The Precautionary Principle (with Application to the Genetic Modification of Organisms)" from 2014.

[https://arxiv.org/abs/1410.5787](https://arxiv.org/abs/1410.5787)

</comment></comment><comment><USER58> * There are weapons of mass destruction in Irak!

* Drink milk, it has a lot of calcium and will prevent osteoporosis.

* Sugar is not that bad. Fat is the devil!

* AAA CDO's are a good and safe way to invest your money!

The previous sentences are all lies sponsored by big companies and lobbies which have/had the seal of approval of different governments and politicians.

Big companies fight for their own interests and politicians fight for the interests of those who "sponsor" their campaigns and offer jobs in their boards once their political career is done.

GMO is a technique. As a technique is it not good or bad. The problem is the big geopolitics and economic interests behind it.

</comment><comment><USER59> > _The World Health Organization has recognized food fortification as a > beneficial way to "deliver nutrients to large segments of the population > without requiring radical changes in food consumption patterns._

The article got my attention until I've read this line. Sorry, but the WHO doesn't have a good track record when it comes to nutritional advice and I actually believe that " _food fortification_ " is amongst the worst things that could have happened to us. Not only because there's zero evidence that this has led to better health, but also because it's used as a blatant lie when marketing unhealthy products. So now you have children that eat vitamin- enriched cereals instead of apples.

And what do you know, we now have an obesity epidemic on our hands that our grandparents didn't have and guess what else they didn't have? Vitamins enriched bread or freaking corn syrup in everything. Or the health problems we are confronted with, even without such extensive knowledge about good vs bad cholesterol.

Let's face it, when it comes to nutrition, can you imagine what would happen if tens of thousands of medical professionals suddenly admitted wrong doings which directly led to the deaths of an unimaginable number of people? WHO is never going to recognize that and that line above is bullshit.

And if you think about it, because of such fuckups is why many people have lost faith in the healthcare industry and why we now have a significant minority refusing vaccinations for their children, which is fucked up and stupid, but then again you can't really blame them.

</comment><comment><USER60> While some of the points are valid I'd take this with a grain of salt. This piece was written by a Staff Scientist at Integrated DNA Technologies.

She might truly believe what she has written, but she is clearly economically vested into people consuming more GMO products.

<comment><USER31> I'll note that (from personal experience in other areas of science) nearly _any_ scientist whose passionate enough to be both an expert on the topic and care about writing something for the public can be dismissed with similar logic.

</comment></comment><comment><USER61> You are not scientists, you are merely technicians understanding little about how nature and especially soils works. GMOs and extensive agriculture using glyphosate slowing sterilize soils by destroying its ecosystem that were protecting it. Thus you are forced to add more and more fertilizer, making the soils more and more acid. At this point, you are only managing your plants' desease.

Until a stronger desease will come and wipe all of your DNA clones. Think about Dedale's fate, the first engineer that lost his son after going from poor solution to poor solution.

A forest is a very productive environment, without the need of GMOs or glyphosate. Why?

</comment><comment><USER56> That's great and all, and I support labelling to ensure people can make that choice, or some other choice. The big question for me is why those who support GMO want to not let other people choose?

</comment><comment><USER62> I have two reasons for avoiding GMO:

Flavor

Local small farms don't embrace it.

If local farms did embrace it, I'd still be stuck with the flavor problem.

<comment><USER38> >Local small farms don't embrace it.

Yeah, I think that is largely my big worry about "GMOs". It isn't about the crops themselves but the corporations making them.

Even if you don't buy from them, if a seed of "theirs" drifts to your land (which, anyone with a basic understanding of biology will know, __will __happen), you have to pay them. If not, they will tie you up in a lawsuit till you go broke.

GMOs: Fine

Greedy Corporations: Baaad.

<comment><USER63> You're probably thinking of _Monsanto Canada Inc v Schmeiser_ where Monsanto sued a farmer who claimed that the seeds had just drifted onto his field.

Monsanto won the suit because they demonstrated that the seeds didn't _just_ drift there by accident: he knew what they were, and he went out of his way to plant them. He intentionally concentrated the seeds and planted them for a new crop in commercial levels. Of course the sensationalist media had to treat Schmeiser's defense as gospel, but here's a quote covering the ruling:

> "The court record shows, however, that it was not just a few seeds from a > passing truck, but that Mr Schmeiser was growing a crop of 95–98% pure > Roundup Ready plants, a commercial level of purity far higher than one would > expect from inadvertent or accidental presence. The judge could not account > for how a few wayward seeds or pollen grains could come to dominate hundreds > of acres without Mr Schmeiser's active participation, saying '...none of the > suggested sources could reasonably explain the concentration or extent of > Roundup Ready canola of a commercial quality evident from the results of > tests on Schmeiser's crop'"

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_legal_cases](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_legal_cases)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc._v._Schmei...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc._v._Schmeiser)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER64> I don't trust this author because the claim to be a scientist does not speak of her credentials, publication record, field of work. A data scientist does not have the same range of expertise and credibility as a biochemist. Furthermore, actively avoiding a label that one finds meaningless is non productive. Shod non Jews avoid Kosher labelling, or non Muslims avoid halal labels? Surely there is a devout athiest somewhere who does, the rest of us just ignore.

</comment><comment><USER65> While I agree entirely with many points about misleading labelling and the relative safety of GMO foods, these sorts of articles inevitably leave out any notion of the actual risks that heavily pro-GMO policies might produce. Such as the massive risk to long-term biodiversity of crowding out non-GMO breeds in the name of "less wasteful" but far less diverse GMO breeds. Not to mention the well-established risk of lowering the quality of the food itself in terms of taste and nutrition in pursuit of shelf appearance and lifetime, pest resistance, and harvesting density, which long before direct genetic modification was possible ruined many common produce varieties.

These are entirely reasonable concerns, well proven out by past experience with agricultural monocultures and counterproductive "improvements" in the shelf product. And so while it's fair and probably justified to avoid the "Non-GMO" certification label itself, it's not justifiable to dismiss concerns about trends in GMO produce overall by quoting "science" that only addresses the safety of GMO produce and not the larger concerns.

</comment><comment><USER66> Well that's some high-level scientist bullshit there.

So non-gmo labels can be misleading, but not labeling gmo isn't. Wow. Welcome to Animal Farm.

And of course, a non-gmo label doesn't mean anything good. But a cool gmo non- label of course means something positive.

Also I am a scientist, and I avoid gmo products... wait... actually I don't have to avoid it since they are banned in the EU and in France. But we are only a bunch of retards I guess.

</comment><comment><USER67> GMOs don't increase crop yields and don't reduce the use of pesticides [http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/10/30/business/gmo-promise- fa...](http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/10/30/business/gmo-promise-falls- short.html)

<comment><USER68> Current GMOs aren't designed to create higher crop yields, and have massively reduced harmful broad-spectrum insecticide use. They have also replaced harmful broad-specturm herbicides like atrazine.

[http://geneticexperts.org/national-academies-report-looks- at...](http://geneticexperts.org/national-academies-report-looks-at-30-years- of-ge-crops-advocates-changes-to-regulation/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER69> GMO science gets a hard time because it precisely documents the changes made to nature. It seems illogical to regulate GMO so heavily but let farmers use antiobiotics, pesticides, herbicides etc (which have actually been proven to be harmful in a myriad of ways, and alter genetic material in the ecosystem). There also needs to be a sense of magnitude when it comes to harm. The amount of human suffering caused by alcohol, tobacco and refined sugar is far far greater than even the most apocalyptic GMO safety disaster, but we don't demand 10 years safety data for eg. a new Mountain Dew flavour, or e-cigarettes.

It's also disingenuous to claim that GMO isn't needed if we adopt sustainable farming, when the economics and scale of industrial farming make this fantasy impossible.

</comment><comment><USER15> I am just blown away by the amount of anti-GMO sentiment on HN. For a community so vehemently in support of the science around global warming, you certainly do not seem to be nearly as "pro-science" when it comes to the topic of GMOs.

<comment><USER70> I think labelling one side of this debate as "pro-science" and the other as not, is disingenuous.

Science at its core is about scepticism and degrees of certainty - never about absolute truth (see: inductive logic, etc.). Using "science" as an appeal to authority to end debate is the opposite of scepticism.

I personally do not have strong opinions about this debate, but I think it is completely acceptable for someone to take a 'wait-and-see' approach, especially considering the number of times "scientific consensus" has been wrong in the past (see: smoking, fats, etc.).

Moreover, it seems to me that there isn't any immediate danger from people who are "GMO sceptics" since all they do is pay extra for organic products. Market forces will regulate this behaviour if any shortages occur; which I don't think is likely.

So overall I find the "pro-GMO" attitude (such as that displayed in the article) to be strangely insistent on influencing the choices of individual's, dispite such low stakes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER71> I have no problem with GMO, but will only feed my children food that is certified AI-free.

"Sky, not Skynet."

"Google is not the Creator."

</comment><comment><USER72> I do this too. If somebody helpfully labels themselves as anti-science, I'll make sure not to give them my money.

</comment><comment><USER73> News Flash: Genetic Scientist Thinks GMO foods Are OK. What a shocker, a booster for GMOs who works in ... gene sequencing.

</comment><comment><USER74> Good thing the products are labelled as being non-GMO or you wouldn't be able to boycott them!

</comment><comment><USER75> >>The financial, environmental and health impacts of adopting non-GMO ingredients include [...] higher prices [...] and reduced food availability.

You just found the cure for the obesity epidemic! Double win!

</comment><comment><USER76> Clickbait-mood-piece that has plenty of links to even worse articles.

</comment><comment><USER77> Smells a lot like the same industry propaganda over and over...

</comment><comment><USER78> If you support AGW but think GMOs are unsafe you really need to think about why you can support science based conclusions in only certain circumstances

</comment><comment><USER17> Wow, there's a lot of reactionary downvoting in this thread, specifically for comments that are critical of any anti-GMO sentiment.

</comment><comment><USER79> Don't let the double negative trick you like it initially tricked me!

</comment><comment><USER80> Looks and smells like a well-funded marketing campaign. See also this comment, [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12894370](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12894370)

</comment><comment><USER81> > It can also be redundant, since the USDA's organic label already excludes > GMOs

Quick, what's the logical fallacy here?</comment>


Winklevosses To Challenge Today's Facebook Ruling - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2011/04/11/winklevosses-to-challenge-todays-facebook-ruling/

<comment><USER2> Out of curiosity, do these twins maintain a facebook profile?</comment>


TrackingPoint takes (automated) aim at the future of shooting - <AUTHOR> http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2013/01/23/trackingpoint-takes-automated-aim-at-the-future-of-shooting/

<comment><USER2> That's interesting but also disturbing.</comment>


How I Turned Some Luck, Lack of Direction, & a Passion to Learn Into a Business - <AUTHOR> http://www.alexpcoleman.com/how-i-turned-some-luck-lack-of-direction-and-a-passion-for-learning-into-a-successful-business/

<comment><USER2> love the idea for the book you're writing! I'm trying to solve the same problem actually, checkout www.appcubator.com</comment>


Ask HN: Would you pay a service that enables you to send updates to visitors - <AUTHOR> I'm working on this product by which I hope to convert the visitors who are not willing to commit their email to your service just yet. Our service collects their emails on your behalf to send them updates (which you will send) about their interest/product.
For example, let us say you run a phone blog and you have a lot of visitors and very few give out their email addresses. This way you cannot reach the visitors again for a followup update about the things they were interested in. Our service collects the emails of the visitors for sending updates about the particular phone they were interested in. You can then send updates to that list about that particular phone and turn them into returning visitors and maybe make them purchase that phone through a referral link after it is launched.
Do you find value in a service like this, that helps you send super relevant updates to your visitors who aren't yet committed enough to give you their email address? Would you pay for such a service? <comment><USER2> You mean mailinglist, right? :)

<comment><AUTHOR> Not exactly :D

Our service does not give out the email addresses to the subscribing services. They just allow them to send relevant updates.</comment></comment>


Inside The Mind of a Productivity Master - <AUTHOR> https://superorganizers.substack.com/p/inside-the-mind-of-a-productivity <comment><USER2> I thought it's a computer version of Elon Musk in the first picture</comment>


The Bourne collection: the history of online search - <AUTHOR> https://computerhistory.org/blog/the-bourne-collection-online-search-is-older-than-you-think/ <comment><USER2> Going by my recent experience with mainstream search engines (read: I don't find shit anymore), I think the history of online search isn't closed yet. So far I've come to the conclusion that the problem isn't one of neglect by the likes of Google Search, DuckDuckGo, StartPage, etc. Rather, search engines do their job just fine, there just seems to be no good new content out there to search, and that has everything to do with the incentives that Google Search sets (and perhaps slow retirement and/or disillusionment of the web enthusiast generation). It'll be interesting to watch GOOG being torn between squeezing the last femto-penny out of each and every visitor contact on the web and elsewhere for growth, and at the same time seeing their cash cow fade as content creators can't make a living on DoubleClick and YouTube pittances.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> I first came across Bourne because of his book "Methods of Information Handling". Its masterful summary of the available methods well deserved the American Documentation Institute Book-of-the-Year award.

It's available from archive.org via a 1 hour loan: [https://archive.org/details/methodsofinforma0000unse](https://archive.org/details/methodsofinforma0000unse) .

</comment><comment><USER3> I recently stumbled over this list of old defunct Search Engines...

[http://www.jaruzel.com/textfiles/Old%20Web%20Info/Internet%2...](http://www.jaruzel.com/textfiles/Old%20Web%20Info/Internet%20Search%20Engines%20v2.61.txt)

It's sad that there's no real competition in online search anymore.

</comment><comment><USER4> Nice

</comment><comment><USER5> Is this the bash dude?

<comment><USER6> You mean the Bourne shell dude, and no, that is Stephen Bourne ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_R._Bourne](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_R._Bourne)).

bash and the Bourne shell aren't the same thing. More or less, this is the history:

* in 1979, sh (Bourne SHell), created by Stephen Bourne, is released as part of AT&T Unix

* in 1983, ksh (Korn SHell), created by David Korn, an enhanced version of sh, is released by AT&T

* in 1989, bash (Bourne Again SHell), created by Brian Fox, is an open-source alternative released by the GNU project</comment></comment>


Telstra facing questions over damaged cable that let 000 calls go unanswered - <AUTHOR> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-05-04/telstra-triple-zero-outages-several-states-cable-damaged/9725860 <comment><USER2> For those who don't know, 000 is Australia's equivalent of 911</comment>


Ask HN: Best way to see who's linking to a URL? - <AUTHOR>

Technorati has their Cosmos API, but that only returns results when both linker and linkee are in Technorati.  For some of the topics I'm creating memetrackers for, this isn't always the case.
Are there any other services like that out there?
What would rolling my own look like? <comment><AUTHOR> Sorry. I think I totally botched this post.

I'm looking for a way to automatically look up any sites linking to a given URL.

I'm building a memetracker and while I've got the related stories and clumping of them in hand, tracking down the discussion links in the way that Techmeme does it is proving much harder to do.

I was wondering if there was a way to do it other than Cosmos. And if not, what would be involved in creating something that does that? Building a web spider?

<comment><USER2> I think Techmeme just crawls the sites in their 'network' for cross-linking. For example Techmeme has TechCrunch/Ars/Engadget/Scobleizer/etc in their network and if they link within each other then that pushes the story up higher (again, not 100% sure, just making an assumption based on what I've seen).

I don't think there is a real-time way to see how many sites are linking to another unless they're being crawled quite often by google/yahoo/technorati OR you have a script installed on their site to see the inbound links and gauge traffic.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> You mean like Google?

Use the syntax "link:[http://www.someurl.com/"](http://www.someurl.com/)

<comment><AUTHOR> That appears to return no results for URLs that are returning results using the Technorati api. I think that feature is meant more for base-level domains rather than specific URLs.

<comment><USER3> likely because it takes time for something to get into the Google index.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> <http://siteexplorer.search.yahoo.com></comment>