Don’t Eat the Yellow Rice: the Danger of Deploying Vitamin A Golden Rice

[Judi Lynn]

Don’t Eat the Yellow Rice: the Danger of Deploying Vitamin A Golden Rice
July 12, 2016


by Ted Greiner

What better way to discredit your critics than to rope in 107 naive Nobel Prize winners (all without relevant expertise) to criticize your opposition?

But such tactics are not new. Long ago, the GMO industry spent well over $50 million to promote “Golden Rice” as the solution to vitamin A deficiency in low income countries. They did so well before the technology was completely worked out, let alone tested. Let alone consumer acceptability tested. Let alone subjecting it to standard phase 2 and 3 trials to see if it could ever solve problems in the real world.

So why has this apparently straightforward scientific project not reached completion after so many decades?

Because the purpose of Golden Rice was never to solve vitamin A problems. It never could and never will. It’s purpose from the beginning was to be a tool for use in shaming GMO critics and now to convince Nobel Laureates to sign on to something they didn’t understand.

More:
http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/07/12/dont-eat-the-yellow-rice-the-danger-of-deploying-vitamin-a-golden-rice/

[longship]

1. I dunno about this.

Seems like science has sorted this out. Genetic modification is safe. And Golden Rice helps children not go blind.

Golden Rice

And to those screeching about GMOs and Monsanto, you don't know what you are talking about.

On edit: more info on golden rice:

https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/national-academy-of-sciences-report-on-gmos/
http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/golden-rice-follow-up/
https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/once-more-bad-science-in-the-service-of-anti-gmo-activism/
https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2012/12/10/greenpeaces-disinformation-campaign-against-golden-rice-and-science-prevails-in-china/
https://www.facebook.com/ScienceBasedMed/posts/620152718111607

[eShirl]

2. that pesky human nature doesn't always comply with "what's best"

[Fast Walker 52]

14. that's not the point of this piece

[cleanhippie]

29. What is the point then?

Perpetuating ignorance?

[DetlefK]

3. Oh boy. Where to start?

1. 99% of the Nobel Prize winners who signed this are from the fields of physics, chemistry or medicine. It takes a DAMN amount of intelligence to make it this far in science and denouncing them as "naive" is mere slander.

2. These pople don't demand the introduction of GMOs. They demand that GMOs be judged by scientific criteria, not dogma.

3. The insistence on white rice is a cultural thing. One might as well demand that nobody eat pork ever again because pork-meat spoils in the hot middle-eastern climate. If a behavior has no use, why go the extra-mile to exercise this behavior?

4. But one does see beriberi in the East (this is the first large-scale outbreak in the West) among hard working men who drink a lot of alcohol and eat mainly white rice.
Beriberi is caused by a deficiency of the vitamin B1. These people wouldn't have gotten beriberi if they had had a diet with more meat and vegetables. But since they drink a lot of alcohol, I suppose they don't care much about a good diet.

5. You now know more than 107 Nobel Laureates about something concerning which they signed a letter; sadly putting their scientific reputations on the line.
I can assure you that scientists care about their reputations, because there is nothing more embarassing and nothing more career-damaging for a scientist than to make claims without good evidence and then to be proven wrong.

[skepticscott]

5. We can be quite sure

that if the same 107 Nobel Laureates had signed a letter condemning GMOs as unsafe, this poster and a host of others would be shouting it from the rooftops as the best evidence possible.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

7. Excellent rebuttal. . . . nt

[Fast Walker 52]

11. Nobel prize winners really don't have to worry about their career anymore.

Further, if they did care about their career still, being proven wrong in a field outside of their expertise is not going to do damage to them. History is littered with scientists who made bad claims.

Also I will say that scientists make claims all the time and are wrong all the time --it's part of science.

Adding that I'm not making any judgement about the support for yellow rice at all or the article.

[DetlefK]

16. In science, there is "wrong" and there is "wrong".

If you do an experiment, and then publish the conclusions, and then it gets revealed that you were wrong, that's embarrassing but normal.

But if you don't have data, and then publish some wild claims, and then it gets revealed that you were wrong, that can damage your career and reputation as a scientist because it's a sign of sloppy working.
"Wow, what a discovery. Wait. Isn't that the guy who once claimed X and was totally wrong? So, how can we be sure he's right this time?"



It comes back to the core-issues at the heart of science:
Data trumps theory.
No experiment will ever yield final, undoubtable results. (It's mathematically impossible.)

A scientist is aware of his data and won't make empirical claims he isn't sure about.
A scientist is aware of his expertise and won't make theoretical claims he isn't sure about.
Because everything is fallible, nothing is ever final and nothing can be trusted.

No scientist will make a claim without an explicit or implicit disclaimer that this is just the most likely or most practical explanation.
Scientists don't make absolute claims. Because this way of thinking has been beaten into them during their education.

[Fast Walker 52]

46. I agree all that, but signing onto this product is not going to be some huge embarrassment

they are not making some wild claim. It's an easy thing to support.

[jberryhill]

56. So, William Shockley was right about race, and Linus Pauling was right about vitamin C?

[DetlefK]

74. I don't know who they are and I never said anything about being "right".

Being "right" does not exist in science. You can say:
"A is definitely wrong."
"There is a probability of X% that B is correct."

Other results do not exist in the scientifc method, for empirical and statistical reasons.

[jberryhill]

102. I'm sorry, but they are two very well known Nobel Prize winners

If someone is going to opine about the relative merits of scientists making commentary outside of their respective areas of specific expertise, then I would expect that person to be familiar with Shockley and Pauling - two very well known Nobel Prize winners who capped their careers by espousing complete and utter bullshit and hokum.

[HuckleB]

103. So you think you can compare single scientists to 107?

Oh, goodness. That's rich.

[kristopher]

78. Notice the total lack of science offered by those waving the word science like a banner.

Along with the constant straw man constructs that aren't even remotely representative of the actual concerns of the critics, that tactic smacks of jingoistic zealotry.

Genetically modified Golden Rice falls short on lifesaving promises
GMO activists not to blame for scientific challenges slowing introduction, study finds

By Gerry Everding June 2, 2016


Heralded on the cover of Time magazine in 2000 as a genetically modified (GMO) crop with the potential to save millions of lives in the Third World, Golden Rice is still years away from field introduction and even then, may fall short of lofty health benefits still cited regularly by GMO advocates, suggests a new study from Washington University in St. Louis.

“Golden Rice is still not ready for the market, but we find little support for the common claim that environmental activists are responsible for stalling its introduction. GMO opponents have not been the problem,” said lead author Glenn Stone, professor of anthropology and environmental studies in Arts & Sciences. (Emphasis added - k)

Golden Rice on Time cover
Proclaimed as a potential life saver 16 years ago on the cover of Time, Golden Rice may still be years away from approval.

...GMO proponents often claim that environmental groups such as Greenpeace should be blamed for slowing the introduction of Golden Rice and thus, prolonging the misery of poor people who suffer from Vitamin A deficiencies.

In a recent article in the journal Agriculture & Human Values, Stone and co-author Dominic Glover, a rice researcher at the Institute for Development Studies at the University of Sussex, find little evidence that anti-GMO activists are to blame for Golden Rice’s unfulfilled promises.

Washington University anthropologist Glenn Stone, shown here with an agricultural field agent, has studied rice cultivation and research in the Philippines since 2013. (Photo: Glenn Stone)

“The rice simply has not been successful in test plots of the rice breeding institutes in the Philippines, where the leading research is being done,” Stone said. “It has not even been submitted for approval to the regulatory agency, the Philippine Bureau of Plant Industry (BPI).”

....

https://source.wustl.edu/2016/06/genetically-modified-golden-rice-falls-short-lifesaving-promises/

[Fast Walker 52]

12. Also, your reading of the piece is odd

The resistance to yellow rice has to do with a yellow mold that can grow on rice and its toxicity.

[HuckleB]

22. Wrong. The resistance to it has been there from the beginning.

The fact that it may not work is beside the point. The fact that these people condemn a useful technology before it is even used, over and over again, is ludicrous. It is unethical, and pretending that they have a point because sometimes things don't work out is simply despicable.

[Fast Walker 52]

47. Wha???

The point in the piece is that Asians have a natural aversion to discolored rice, because in their experience, it is associated with mold infection. That is reasonable, and not an easy thing to overcome.

What is "unethical"?

[HuckleB]

53. I see you choose to focus on the parts you like.

Last edited Wed Jul 13, 2016, 07:17 PM - Edit history (1)

Typical anti-GMO silliness.

You know what you haven't realized? The author is basically saying he thinks the farmers wouldn't be able to tell the difference between mold and yellow rice. I find that to be ludicrous white privileged nonsense.

[Fast Walker 52]

66. I'm not anti-GMO!

Talk about jumping to conclusions.

And it sounds like the issue is more with the consumer than the farmer.

[HuckleB]

70. If you say so, and the consumer is often the farmer in this case.

Regardless, the author of the piece in the OP is ludicrous to the core. He actually called the Nobel Winners naive. What a bunch of nonsense.

[uriel1972]

63. "Asians have a natural aversion"...

I was not aware of a genetic predisposition to the colour of rice, or more to the point a homogeneous group of people called "Asians". Perhaps better to say a cultural aversion among the people living in Asia.

[marybourg]

24. Insofar as this refers to the propensity

of unmilled, brown rice to have poor keeping qualities:

" The insistence on white rice is a cultural thing. One might as well demand that nobody eat pork ever again because pork-meat spoils in the hot middle-eastern climate. If a behavior has no use, why go the extra-mile to exercise this behavior? "

I can assure you, as a heavy user of rice due to celiac disease, that brown rice and products made with it, STILL have poor keeping qualities, even with refrigeration, due to the inability of the consumer to know how long the product was in the supply chain before it reached her. Most of us no longer live in the same village as the miller.

Especially for people with limited access to food and the money to pay, discovering the main intended meal ingredient is rancid is a serious problem, whether that person be a first world celiac or a third world mother of seven.

[Warpy]

55. You forgot a particularly glaring one

Because the purpose of Golden Rice was never to solve vitamin A problems. It never could and never will. It’s purpose from the beginning was to be a tool for use in shaming GMO critics

I've been reading about the project now for well over 20 years, long before the first GMO critic wrote the first screed to be published on the first dogmatic website where no one ever checked facts. It most certainly was an attempt to get more beta carotene into the diet to prevent the great number of Vitamin A deficiency blindness cases in some areas.

The only thing this article has right is the cultural resistance to rice that isn't pure white. Most of the extremely poor who can't afford vegetables also don't grow their own rice, so perhaps a mixture of yellow and white rice could be sold, a catchy slogan about colorful rice sealing the deal.

If this article had been less focused on insulting the writer's elders and betters, it might have been a worthwhile one. Too bad the writer's jealousy over people who know more than he does and fury when they don't agree with him got in his way.

[kristopher]

76. What scientific criteria, specifically?

[DetlefK]

79. For example:

For example using experiments where animals have been fed with GMO-food and then taking a look whether they got health-problems from that.

[kristopher]

81. So you don't really have a sense of what "criteria" means?

Try this excerpt from the GMO report by the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine:

This report indicates where there are uncertainties about the economic, agronomic, health, safety, or other impacts of GE crops and food, and makes recommendations to fill gaps in safety assessments, increase regulatory clarity, and improve innovations in and access to GE technology.

Download report here (sign in as guest)
http://www.nap.edu/catalog/23395/genetically-engineered-crops-experiences-and-prospects

As I noted in a recent exchange, your sense of what constitutes "science" is poorly developed. That may be just a public facade you adopt for arguing with people and trying to shut down discussion, but from your remarks there is no indication you are even making an effort to look at the full set of relevant fields of inquiry.

You far too often resort to straw man argumentation and ad hominem. Case in point: the Greenpeace position aligns pretty well with the range of concerns listed by the National Academies review. And yet, you seem incapable of acknowledging that there is a broad set of criteria by which (thru science) we learn what sort of match exists between human values and the performance of these types of products.

Twenty Years of Failure
Why GM crops have failed to deliver on their promises
Publication - 5 November, 2015
Twenty years ago, the first genetically modified (GM) crops were planted in the USA, alongside dazzling promises about this new technology. Two decades on, the promises are getting bigger and bigger, but GM crops are not delivering any of them. Not only was this technology supposed to make food and agriculture systems simpler, safer and more efficient, but GM crops are increasingly being touted as the key to 'feeding the world' and 'fighting climate change'.
The promises may be growing, but the popularity of GM crops is not. Despite twenty years of pro-GM marketing by powerful industry lobbies, GM technology has only been taken up by a handful of countries, for a handful of crops. GM crops are grown on only 3% of global agricultural land. Figures from the GM industry in fact show that only five countries account for 90% of global GM cropland, and nearly 100% of these GM crops are one of two kinds: herbicide-tolerant or pesticide-producing. Meanwhile, whole regions of the world have resisted GM crops. European consumers do not consume GM foods, and a single type of GM maize is cultivated in Europe. Most of Asia is GM-free, with the GM acreage in India and China mostly accounted for by a non-food crop: cotton. Only three countries in Africa grow any GM crops. Put simply, GM crops are not 'feeding the world'.

Why have GM crops failed to be the popular success the industry claims them to be?

Download report here: http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/publications/Campaign-reports/Agriculture/Twenty-Years-of-Failure/



Finally, are you aware of the global situation on persistent organic pollutants?
If not, there are links to some abckground below. The point is we are - willy nilly - making thousands of new, never-before-seen chemicals that persist in the environment. These chemicals are very often dumped with no idea of how they will affect the environment or what potential harm might result from the interaction between these products.

Given that existing situation do you honestly believe that the precautionary principle is being followed in regard to GMOs? If so, could you explain how that is possible?

https://www.epa.gov/international-cooperation/persistent-organic-pollutants-global-issue-global-response
http://www.who.int/ceh/capacity/POPs.pdf
http://chm.pops.int/Convention/ThePOPs/The12InitialPOPs/tabid/296/Default.aspx

[DetlefK]

82. re

1. I can assure you that I have a very good grasp on what science is. And I can throw the accusal of strawmen and ad hominem right back at you.

2. I have neither the time nor the interest to invest myself so deeply in the topic of GMOs to gain an opinion that I myself would consider sufficiently informed. I have more important stuff to do.

3. That Greenpeace-report looks sloppy.
Page 5: They emphasize that region plays a big role and then they compare different regions and use that as an argument about GMOs.
Page 6: After complaining that present GMOs do not deliver higher yields, they complain that hypothetical future GMOs shouldn't deliver higher yields at all because that would bankrupt small farmers.
Page 7: Legal issues and slow pace of scientific advance held up as proof why GMOs are a failure.
Page 8: Slow pace of scientific advance held up as proof why GMOs are a failure. (And that for an extremely challenging and ground-breaking project like a maize that would need less water.)
Page 9: GMOs are blamed for the downsides of monoculture.
And I'm confident I would find more.

The Greenpeace-report is not as conclusive as it pretends to be and requires a very, very careful reading.

And lastly: People are stupid. People are emotional and people do not make rational decisions. It's a big mistake to declare that GMOs must be bad because the majority of people thinks they are bad.




If you have any further questions, please see "2." above.

[kristopher]

84. Yeah, you're better off running from substantive discussion.

Since you seem confused about the difference between the method of science and the broader philosophy of science.

Philosophy of science is a branch of philosophy concerned with the foundations, methods, and implications of science. The central questions of this study concern what qualifies as science, the reliability of scientific theories, and the ultimate purpose of science.
Philosophy of science - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As a sample, let's compare your criticisms of GP pg 5 & 6 with the text of their brochure.

DetlefK:

That Greenpeace-report looks sloppy.
Page 5: They emphasize that region plays a big role and then they compare different regions and use that as an argument about GMOs.

Greenpeace pg 5:

There are no GM crops designed to increase yields. The evidence that GM crops increase yields
compared to conventionally bred crops remains inconclusive10, with performance varying according to
crop type, country/region and other local conditions (e.g. pest pressure in a given year, farmer training).
GM crops can only increase yield by reducing losses to pests in years of high infestation, and this effect
is not permanent as pesticide-producing crops lead to resistant ‘superbugs’ (see Myth 4.2). Studies
examining GM crop yields have often failed to isolate the effects of GM technology from other factors,
or to compare like-for-like farms.
Those farms able to take on the increased costs associated with GM crops are often the biggest
and most competitive farms to start with, while the non-GM farmers figuring in comparisons may be
lacking credit, training and resources11. Genetic modification has not improved the yield potential (i.e.
the maximum possible yield) of crops, as this depends more on the breeding stock used to carry the
genes12. Conversely, reduced yields have been attributed to the GM insertion process. For example,
Monsanto’s original Roundup Ready GM soya was found to yield 10% less, when compared against
the latest high-performing conventional soya crops. This was thought to be equally due to both the
gene or its insertion process and differences in breeding stock13.
Meanwhile, a regional comparison shows that Western European countries have achieved higher
average maize yields per hectare than the predominantly GM maize systems in the US, and Western
Europe has also outperformed Canada’s GM rapeseed yields, suggesting that under similar conditions,
the package of non-GM seeds and crop management practice in Western Europe is more conducive
to driving yield gains than GM systems14.

DetlefK:

Page 6: After complaining that present GMOs do not deliver higher yields, they complain that hypothetical future GMOs shouldn't deliver higher yields at all because that would bankrupt small farmers.

Greenpeace pg 6:

There are around 500 million small-scale farms worldwide, supporting some 2 billion people livelihoods
and producing about 80 % of the food consumed in Asia and sub-Saharan Africa18. These communities
are also among the most vulnerable to poverty and hunger. Food security depends on the ability of
these communities to access resources and markets, to secure their livelihoods, and to produce
diverse and nutritious food for local communities. GM crops have not been designed to meet these
needs. GM development has overwhelmingly focused on two crop commodities – soybean and maize
– together accounting for 80% of global GM acreage19. By far the most common GM trait is herbicide
tolerance, which is designed for use in large-scale monocultures (see Myth 2). GM crop production
entails high and sustained input costs (see Myth 5), making GM crops even more inappropriate
for the needs of small-scale farmers. Indeed, 90% of global GM acreage is in the US, Canada and
three emerging countries: Brazil, Argentina and India20. However, in India, the only GM crop grown
extensively by small-scale farmers is cotton – a non-food crop. In Argentina, the GM soybean boom
has been driven by large-scale farmers buying up and displacing smaller farmers, as well as being
environmentally damaging21.
These GM production patterns, therefore, pose a threat to the environment and resource base of smallscale
farmers serving local food systems. This means that even if GM crops were to increase global
yields of key staple crops – which appears unlikely (see Myth 1.1) – this would not necessarily boost
food security. The key to tackling hunger is securing the livelihoods of food insecure communities – not
producing bulk commodities for global supply chains in ways that undermine their livelihoods, food
systems and natural resource base.

Do you seriously maintain that your criticism is accurate, cogent, or even fair?

[DetlefK]

85. *sigh*

Page 5:
The evidence that GM crops increase yields compared to conventionally bred crops remains inconclusive 10, with performance varying according to crop type, country/region and other local conditions (e.g. pest pressure in a given year, farmer training).

...

Meanwhile, a regional comparison shows that Western European countries have achieved higher average maize yields per hectare than the predominantly GM maize systems in the US, and Western Europe has also outperformed Canada’s GM rapeseed yields, suggesting that under similar conditions...

So what is it? Do local condictions count or do they not count?

----------

Page 2:
There are no GM crops designed to deliver high yields.

Page 6:
This means that even if GM crops were to increase global yields of key staple crops – which appears unlikely (see Myth 1.1) – this would not necessarily boost food security.

So what is it? Is it good or bad that GMO-crops do not outmatch conventional crops when it comes to yield?

----------

Yes, I maintain my criticism. This report is sloppily written and contains inconsistencies. Additionally, issues that are only tangent to GMOs (and actually belong to the topic of modern agriculture) get portrayed as a downside of the genetically modified organisms themselves. And despite these weaknesses this report gets passed off as a definite source of information on the topic.




As I said, I do not consider myself sufficiently informed to hold a viable opinion on this topic and I refuse to waste my time to get into this topic just so I can argue on an internet-forum with somebody who hurls passive-aggressive insults and throws around memorized knowledge to show his superiority. Get your kick somewhere else.

[HuckleB]

86. Unless Greenpeace puts its "review" up for peer review in a legit journal, it really doesn't matter.

The yield issue is easily conflated by multiple factors, as you note.
http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/gmo-crops-higher-yield-depends-answer/

And Greenpeace has lost all credibility on this topic, as the respondent in question knows but refuses to acknowledge, over and over again. I have stopped wasting my time with that individual.

[kristopher]

89. Another Pro-tip

Greenpeace has presented a "position paper" based on peer reviewed articles, they aren't writing a peer reviewed article themselves.

Those little numbers embedded in the text are references (179 of them) for specific claims they are making.

Generally there are 4 levels of validity in data:
Peer reviewed
NGOs
Corporate funded or accomplished studies
The popular press

That list is in order of validity and is ranked by the presence of ulterior motives.

Greenpeace and other NGOs are an extremely important part of policy discussion and formation in an environment where corporate distortion of science is the rule rather than the exception.

[HuckleB]

90. You are in no position to give anyone tips of any kind.

Last edited Thu Jul 14, 2016, 03:01 PM - Edit history (1)

You have seen Greenpeace get debunked over and over again, but you continue to pretend otherwise.

Making a list of references that are peer reviewed does not make propaganda anything more. It's just a nice little trick. It's time for you to realize that you have no idea what you're talking about on these matters. You ludicrous posts are not worth anyone's time.

Ethics matter. It's time for you to realize that, period.

Did green groups learn anti-GMO tactics from climate sceptics?
https://euobserver.com/environment/128410

Goodbye.

[kristopher]

91. The more appropriate reaction for you would be shame.

But obviously you lack the capacity for that feeling when you are in attack mode.

[kristopher]

87. Pro-tip: The first rule of doing science is to be honest.

Those quotes are completely clear in full context.
Re page 5: The first part of your quote begins the section and follows the 4 previous pages of discussion. It's refuting the GMO industry's blanket assertion that GMO technology raises production by pointing out that the global market includes extremely dissimilar regions (developed, emerging, and developing).

The second part, segmented from the first with the transitional word "meanwhile", is dealing with similar regions and shows that when the comparison is between similar regions, "...the non-GM seeds and crop management practice ...is more conducive to driving yield gains than GM systems"


The second specific example you offer is a distortion much like the first where you cherry pick a sentence rejecting the industry claim that GM crops lead to high yields and then act as if that is contradicted by Greenpeace elsewhere accepting on a hypothetical basis the eventual achievement of the goal the GM industry already claims to have accomplished. They do that in order to point out the distinction between regional food security and servicing the global food market.

Do you not understand what a hypothetical is?
Do you fail to understand the distinction between regional food security and the global food market?


Either you are slacking off on reading for content or you are being dishonest. Whatever the root of your distortions they are completely consistent with the practices of most of the other boosters of GM technology in this recent series of threads on the topic.

TTFN

[Skinner]

4. We keep hearing how awful GMOs are.

But now I read this article about golden rice, and the only "problems" the author could name with this terrifying frankenfood are that people who eat rice are picky, there exists some totally unrelated desease called "yellow rice desease," and some Nobel laureates are putting their precious reputations on the line.

Shocking!

[msanthrope]

8. This source makes a mockery of the forum title. nt

[Else You Are Mad]

54. Some GMOs are benign and others are harmful.

The debate between GMOs, like everything else, is not black and white. There are degrees of 'awfulness' just like there are degrees of 'benefits'.

But, I agree with you on this article.

[HuckleB]

59. Name one GMO on the market that is harmful compared to the non-GMO alternatives.

[Else You Are Mad]

61. Harmful is a relative term...

And, I was referring to the impact on the environment as a whole -- not just to the health of consumers.

http://m.phys.org/news/2010-11-gmo-genes-hybrids.html

http://m.phys.org/news/2014-02-gmo-soybean-pollen-threatens-mexican.html


http://m.phys.org/news/2014-11-gmos.html


I am on my cellphone so I just chose one site, I will follow up later.

[HuckleB]

62. So you have nothing.

Genes can "escape" from every kind of plant, and far fewer are changed in GMOs, so the silly fear pushed by your first article ignores the fact that such an argument is much greater for other seed development technologies. Whoops. That means your first link is one of the most ridiculous anti-GMO routines around. Your second bit is all about marketing nonsense. Your third piece is just a bad opinion piece that offers up the usual diatribes, none of which stand up to the evidence available.

Either show with a consensus of science that a GMO product is truly more harmful to the planet than its fellow non-GMO product, or move along. No more obfuscation, please.

[Else You Are Mad]

67. Yes, they can.

I am not disagreeing with you. I'm not anti-gmo, I am just saying that the whole GMO debate is not black and white, there is a nuanced middle ground.

[HuckleB]

68. Not really, no.

GMOs are just plants developed from a particular seed development technology. They are no more likely to cause problems than plants created from any other seed development technology. In fact, because fewer genes are affected, they may be less likely to lead to unintended consequences, plus they are actually studied far more.

Meanwhile, the anti-GMO con artists lie about GMOs daily, spreading fiction to foment baseless fear about them. So that middle ground you see is really just another way of allowing the ugly, unethical anti-GMO movement to have space it does not deserve.

[Else You Are Mad]

71. Well, both sides are just as fanatical...

And just as wrong.

[HuckleB]

83. Not even close.

Those who are fighting the fictions of the anti-GMO movement had no desire to join the conversation. The anti-science lies simply became to prolific, and it became the ethical thing to do.

It's time for you to stop pretending.

[msanthrope]

6. Counterpunch? Woo from Counterpunch? This would be hysterically funny if it weren't

so sad.

[Fast Walker 52]

13. maybe read the piece first

it's not woo.

[msanthrope]

17. Ted Greiner is an HIV denialist. I have better things to do with my time than read woo

from cranks and loons.

[uhnope]

19. thanks for the info. I can't believe anyone even glances at Counterpunch anymore

[Fast Walker 52]

48. Source for him being an HIV denialist?

The only thing I could find is him disputing the idea that HIV can be transmitted by breast milk, which is hardly the same thing, and the guy seems to be an expert on breast milk, so his research may have merit.

[msanthrope]

58. Precisely. That's HIV denialism. HIV is definitely transmitted

through breast milk.

[Fast Walker 52]

64. the paper was a while ago, and it looked like he was merely saying the evidence

wasn't conclusive. He hasn't made a career out of denying HIV causes AIDS.

[msanthrope]

72. Indeed...his HIV denialism is probably why he's now characterized as an ex-professor. nt

[HuckleB]

23. Unfortunately, there seems to be a lot of it there, these days.

Last edited Wed Jul 13, 2016, 07:19 PM - Edit history (1)

The author is basically arguing that the farmers couldn't tell the difference between mold and yellow rice. That is some serious nonsense.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

9. There are GMOs and GMOs.

There are two types of GMOs:

1) GMOs keyed to pesticides and that promote monoculture farming. Such GMOs promote the expanded use of chemical pesticides and the attendant problems that impact the environment and health.

Monoculture (widespread single variant farming) leaves the food supply vulnerable to a sudden rise of a fungus or herbivores. Single variant means reduced diversity in nutrients. These GMOs tend to also monopolize the seed industry, create an addiction-like dependency on the single source supplier (usually Monsanto), and drive out heirloom varieties.

These GMOs are not a health risk per se, but the problem is the chemical pesticides and the monoculture.

2) Ordinary GMOs that increase some characteristic like Vitamin A content in rice or salmon that grow twice as fast. These can actually have a net health gain for the population.

There are still issues, such as salmon farming should be contained in sealed pens, not merely nets in bays of the sea.

[progressoid]

33. Monoculture was a problem before GMOs.

Technological advances in general have caused it to become more prevalent.

GMOs usually mean a reduction in chemical use. Often eliminating the need for some pesticides entirely.

Despite a recent hailstorm, the weather had been kind, and the new crop flourished. Productivity nearly doubled. Mr. Rahman had already harvested the small plot 10 times, he said, and sold the brinjal (eggplant’s name in the region) labeled “insecticide free” at a small premium in the local market. Now, with increased profits, he looked forward to being able to lift his family further out of poverty.

...

Mr. Rahman’s pest-resistant eggplant was produced using genetic modification. A gene transferred from a soil bacterium, Bacillus thuringiensis (more commonly known by the abbreviation “Bt”), produces a protein that kills the Fruit and Shoot Borer, a species of moth whose larvae feed on the eggplant, without the need for pesticide sprays. (The protein is entirely nontoxic to other insects and indeed humans.)

Conventional eggplant farmers in Bangladesh are forced to spray their crops as many as 140 times during the growing season, and pesticide poisoning is a chronic health problem in rural areas. But because Bt brinjal is a hated G.M.O., or genetically modified organism, it is Public Enemy No.1 to environmental groups everywhere.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/25/opinion/sunday/how-i-got-converted-to-gmo-food.html?_r=4

[Bernardo de La Paz]

41. Yes, monoculture predates it. Thanks for interesting excerpt. . . nt

[ms liberty]

10. For a minute I thought this was

A story about Vigo Yellow Rice, a delicious staple of Cuban cooking; but it has been the same formulation for my whole life as far as I know. Black beans and yellow rice...mmmmm!

[msanthrope]

18. And only 99 cents! I love it! nt

[bluedye33139]

26. Stop eating tostones, too

[Igel]

15. Really? The goal of the yellow-rice people was to shame GMO critics?

Sorry, that's not what I remember from hearing the first reports of good people trying to develop it. Shaming activists because they're not on the current bandwagon and don't support The Cause is ignorant.

[Fast Walker 52]

49. I don't think that was the whole goal, but I do know that yellow rice is a big part of PR for

GMO advocates. My wife works with GMOs, and this idea of a medically beneficial GMO was a big deal in her work.

[fasttense]

20. And yet GMOs destroy people's lives regularly

MIT Scientist: Glyphosate to Cause Autism in 50% of Children by 2025

Read more: http://naturalsociety.com/mit-scientist-glyphosate-to-cause-autism-in-50-of-children-by-2025/#ixzz4EIW6UKqu
Follow us: @naturalsociety on Twitter | NaturalSociety on Facebook

So, they made some yellow rice. What about all the people they damaged with their Round Up (Glyphosate) ready corn and soy beans? Tens of millions of acres of GMO corn and soy beans bathed in the same corporations' chemicals, then fed to unsuspecting people. A little yellow rice is suppose to make up for all thet illness they have caused? Monsanto and Byer are like the tobacco corporations who denied for decades that smoking causes lung cancer.

You all know it's true. GMOs kill Just like cigarettes kill, GMOs are one hand of the same corporation. The other hand is the Round up and other chemicals they sell to grow their GMO seeds.

[Skinner]

21. I find this line of thinking bizarre.

Apparently if you think Bt corn is bad, you also have to think Vitamin-A fortified golden rice that saves the lives of malnourished children is bad.

Because MONSANTO!

[HuckleB]

25. First, glyphosate is not a GMO. Second, Seneff's silliness has been debunked over and over again.

https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/glyphosate-the-new-bogeyman/

https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/seneff-claims-gmos-cause-concussions/

Please stop pretending that nonsense posted on crap conspiracy pages such as "natural society" are worthy of anyone's time.

[fasttense]

27. Round Up is killing you too.

So, scream and stamp your feet all you want but you too are going to pay for the deadly chemicals in our food.

It could be your liver, your kidney or you could get one of the ever increasing number of autoimmune diseases. It could be diabetes, obesity or bowel disorders you never know where a poison may impact your health. Much like smoking cigarettes, many diseases are linked to the deadly chemicals in your foods.

Go ahead and thank Byer and Monsanto for all they have done to feed you GMOs. Have a glass of Round Up to cheer yourself up. Get plenty of that High Fructose Corn syrup and GMO filled processed foods.

[Archae]

32. This is nuts.

Total craziness pretending to be "concern" for our health.

[HuckleB]

36. No, it's not. Why do you want to go back to harsher herbicides?

http://www.crediblehulk.org/index.php/2015/06/02/about-those-more-caustic-herbicides-that-glyphosate-helped-replace-by-credible-hulk/

Why do you want to expose yourself to more toxic organic products?
https://risk-monger.blogactiv.eu/2015/11/12/the-risk-mongers-dirty-dozen-12-highly-toxic-pesticides-approved-for-use-in-organic-farming/

You're the one stomping your feet and ignoring the actual state of the science. It's time to realize that you've been conned by baseless fear mongering.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

39. Drop the binary thinking. There are GMOs and GMOs.

Binary thinking condemns ALL GMOs just because some GMOs may be bad (glyphosate system).

Binary thinking is terrible fallacy that reactive types of people fall into. They don't look at more than surface issues.

Prove that you are not one of them. Prove that you, like us, "do nuance".

[fasttense]

104. First, without GMOs glyphosate use would be down by over 50%. What do you think Round-Up ready seeds

are? They are seeds designed to be used with a deadly poison so that Monsanto can make a profit on both the seed and the deadly poison. Second your love of corporate agriculture is noted. Too bad you don't love our planet as much.

[HuckleB]

105. So you prefer more toxic products used on non-GMO plants.

That's not cool at all.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

38. Illogical & Foolish in the extreme to condemn ALL GMO because SOME GMO has issues. . . . nt

[HERVEPA]

51. Total crap course.

[guillaumeb]

28. It is important to read the entire article, not just the title.

From the article:

Consumer resistance has special importance among the really poor people for whom Golden Rice actually might otherwise prove useful. That’s because when rice is poorly stored it can be infected with a yellow mould causing the deadly “yellow rice disease” (beriberi) if consumed. Only a decade ago this was thought to have killed dozens of male sugar workers in the Maranhao region of Brazil (Rosa et al., 2010). Is that really a type of consumer resistance we want to debunk?

Contrary to some of the comments here, the author is not stating that this rice is harmful. As this short excerpt points out, the rice looks like rice that is mold tainted. And this appearance of being tainted might make people resistant to eating the rice.

The fact that Monsanto "just happened" to have spent billions marketing, testing, and pushing this rice for the benefit of their bottom line is only one part of the article.

Excellent job, Judi Lynn.

[progressoid]

30. Huh?

I don't think Monsanto is going to be making billions from this.

The grain known as golden rice was developed with the support of the Rockerfeller Foundation and others over several years by Dr Peter Beyer of the University of Freiburg in Germany and Professor Ingo Potrykus of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Zurich. The technology involves modifying the DNA of the commonest rice plant, Oryza sativa, by adding bacterial and daffodil genes to produce rice cells capable of making betacarotene using certain methods patented by the life sciences company Monsanto. Monsanto have now agreed to provide royalty-free licenses for its technologies to help fast-track the further development and distribution of the rice.

‘‘I now very much hope that others having intellectual property rights used in the development of golden rice will follow the generous example of Monsanto and also provide a royalty-free license for the humanitarian use of the technology and its transfer to developing countries,’’ said Professor Potrykus, codeveloper of golden rice. Some 32 companies and institutions hold 70 patents for various technologies used to create the enriched rice.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2560613/pdf/11100623.pdf

Potrykus has enabled golden rice to be distributed free to subsistence farmers.[49] Free licenses for developing countries were granted quickly due to the positive publicity that golden rice received, particularly in Time magazine in July 2000.[50] Monsanto Company was one of the first companies to grant free licences.[51]

The cutoff between humanitarian and commercial use was set at US$10,000. Therefore, as long as a farmer or subsequent user of golden rice genetics does not make more than $10,000 per year, no royalties need to be paid. In addition, farmers are permitted to keep and replant seed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_rice#Distribution

[guillaumeb]

31. So subsistence farmers, who cannot afford to pay, get it free.

That is not Monsanto's market. This is public relations and a tax write-off for a very rich company that makes billions by commercializing agriculture with patented products.

RoundUp anyone?

[progressoid]

34. It's not anyone's market because of frightened luddites around the world.

Also, what does Roundup have to do with Golden Rice?

But thanks for the reminder. I have some pesky weeds to deal with this weekend. I need to get some more glyphosate (I buy the generic version).

[guillaumeb]

40. Weeds? Use a 5% vinegar solution.

And you might want to look up the glyphosate/cancer connection.

[progressoid]

42. Won't work on these.

Also, it's pretty ineffective and costly by comparison.

There isn't a glyphosate cancer connection. I'm more likely to get cancer from all the coffee I drank in my youth.

[guillaumeb]

45. Vinegar works on many common weeds,

and plants in general. it is a mild acid. Some weeds have adapted/evolved to become super weeds in much the way some antibiotics caused the evolution of super viruses.

[HuckleB]

60. It's interesting that you get debunked, but you just repeat yourself as if it hadn't happened.

WTH?

[guillaumeb]

65. I am an organic gardener, and know a few others.

Vinegar works for us. It works even better when combined with a tiny bit of dishwashing liquid.

Will it work on kudzu or amaranth? I have no idea. But it works on poison ivy and many other weeds. So if you have a different experience I attribute that to different soil conditions and/or different weeds.

[HuckleB]

69. Anecdotes about using old technology that isn't safer aren't really going to change reality.

Next.

[guillaumeb]

92. Neither is believing industry-funded "research" that is designed

to "prove" that a product is safe.

DDT was also called safe by the industry, as was asbestos, tobacco, and numerous other products.

[HuckleB]

93. I don't need industry-funded research when there is plenty of independent research.

You seem to think that you can just push all the debunked anti-GMO nonsense out there, and not have it called out.

That's not ok.

http://fafdl.org/gmobb/about-those-industry-funded-gmo-studies/

[guillaumeb]

94. If you read the original post,

there was no attempt to attack the modified rice.

As to your use of Roundup, and your contention that there is no evidence that it is a carcinogen:

The cancer-research arm of the World Health Organization last week announced that glyphosate, the world’s most widely used herbicide, is probably carcinogenic to humans. But the assessment, by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) in Lyon, France, has been followed by an immediate backlash from industry groups.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/widely-used-herbicide-linked-to-cancer/

Does this constitute scientific proof? No, but it suggests that much more research is needed. And given that the heavy commercial and private use of this toxic stew means that runoff from rain causes these chemicals to end up in waterways we should all be very concerned that in the quest for a weed free lawn we just might be poisoning our water supply.

I will stick with vinegar and boiling water for occasional weed control.

[HuckleB]

95. FFS, you are going to use the debunked IARC nonsense?

I've read the OP, and your assertion is ludicrous.

As for glyphosate, you don't even know what the IARC's job is, and you are choosing to ignore the fact that every other scientific organization around the world says otherwise.

One recent example:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-who-glyphosate-idUSKCN0Y71HR

Do you know what the IARC's job is? If you do, explain it. This should be good.

(And all of this is hilarious coming from Mr. Vinegar, who chooses to ignore the toxicity posts offered to him.)

[guillaumeb]

96. From your very own citation:

In a question-and-answer document issued alongside the joint FAO/WHO statement, the WHO denied that the conclusions by the joint group and by IARC were contradictory. It said they were "different, yet complementary", with the IARC assessment focussed on hazard while the other looked at risk.

So we have two complementary studies, not your claim of a debunked study. Perhaps you should have read the entire article that you cited.

Plus:

Glyphosate is also "unlikely to be genotoxic at anticipated dietary exposures", it added.
And also:

In contrast, it said, the joint FAO/WHO committee looks at published and unpublished studies to assess the health risk to consumers from dietary exposure to pesticide residues in food.

Which begs the question, was the carcinogenic potential only evaluated for dietary exposure and not for environmental exposure?

Again, your proof is nothing of the sort.

[HuckleB]

97. So you don't know what the IARC's job is.

Got it.

Of course, you just showed that you don't understand how science works, to boot, by cherry picking and misinterpreting specific lines out of context. All of this, of course, is what anti-science, anti-GMO folks do.
http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2016/05/18/glyphosate-and-cancer

PS: http://www.senseaboutscience.org/pages/glyphosate-whats-the-lowdown.html

[guillaumeb]

98. Your own citation, the one that you chose to make your point,

does nothing of the sort.

And again, you resort to ad hominem, perhaps to cover for the fact that your source does not say what you wanted it to say.

As to cherry picking, you are the one who claimed that your cite said something that it did not say. I do not know how to make this any simpler.

[HuckleB]

99. You really don't get it, do you?

Cherry picking, no matter the source, is still cherry picking. You failed to understand the whole, because you want to believe something that is unsupported so very badly.

And you choose to ignore everything else because of that.

It's rather sad, dude.

[guillaumeb]

100. Agreed, it is rather sad.

Again, from your source:

In a question-and-answer document issued alongside the joint FAO/WHO statement, the WHO denied that the conclusions by the joint group and by IARC were contradictory. It said they were "different, yet complementary", with the IARC assessment focussed on hazard while the other looked at risk.

The key word are "different, yet complementary".

Sorry, but your citation does not say what you wanted it to say. It is not a refutation of my original citation. Accept it and move on.

[HuckleB]

101. Again, you show that you don't know what the job of the IARC is.

Why would you do that, over and over again?

https://risk-monger.com/tag/iarc-gate/

And why do you think repeating one thing while ignoring everything else makes everything else go away?

[HuckleB]

44. You might want to look a bit further.

http://weedcontrolfreaks.com/2014/06/salt-vinegar-and-glyphosate/

And please stop pushing debunked claims about glyphosate, especially when those same claims are far greater for most other herbicides, including "organic" ones.

[kristopher]

77. The Anthropology of Genetically Modified Crops

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2010. 39:381–400
First published online as a Review in Advance on June 21, 2010
The Annual Review of Anthropology is online at anthro.annualreviews.org

This article’s doi: 10.1146/annurev.anthro.012809.105058
Copyright c 2010 by Annual Reviews. All rights reserved
0084-6570/10/1021-0381$20.00

The Anthropology of Genetically Modified Crops
Glenn Davis Stone
Department of Anthropology, Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri 63130;

Abstract
By late in the twentieth century, scientists had succeeded in manipulating organisms at the genetic level, mainly by gene transfer. The major impact of this technology has been seen in the spread of geneti- cally modified (GM) crops, which has occurred with little controversy in some areas and with fierce controversy elsewhere. GM crops raise a very wide range of questions, and I address three areas of particular interest for anthropology and its allied fields. First are the political- economic aspects of GM, which include patenting of life forms and new relationships among agriculture, industry, and the academy. Sec- ond is the wide diversity in response and resistance to the technology. Third is the much-debated question of GM crops for the developing world. This analysis is approached first by determining what controls research agendas and then by evaluating actual impacts of crops to date.

Author's copy available here:
http://pages.wustl.edu/files/pages/imce/stone/stone-annualreview-2010.pdf

[Fast Walker 52]

50. exactly.

[progressoid]

35. Maybe DU should have a "Bad Reads" or "Idiotic Reads" forum.

Because this certainly ain't Good Reads.

[HuckleB]

37. Something needs to change.

This type of baseless fear mongering is beyond the pale.

[thedeadchucken]

43. Yeah...

I'd take this with a grain of salt (or rice): big thing for me is the ariticle's authorized conflating beriberi, a thiamine deficiency, with citreoviridin-related malignant acute cardiac beriberi, which is caused by a mycotoxin. Granted, doesn't it invalidate anything and symptomatically they're similar, but I find it hard to trust lazy authors.

[HERVEPA]

52. Your ignorance concerning science and inability to recognize a bad and disgusting source is just sad

[Dont_Bogart_the_Pretzel]

57. Don't eat the yellow snow either!

The only yellow rice I eat is after I put a blob of butter on it

[Judi Lynn]

73. GMOs, Greenpeace and Nobel Laureates

July 13, 2016
GMOs, Greenpeace and Nobel Laureates

by Carmelo Ruiz

Supporters of genetic modification technology, known as GMO, apparently scored a big one on June 30 with the publication of an open letter signed by over 100 Nobel prize laureates blasting Greenpeace for its opposition to GMO crops, in particular so-called ‘golden rice’, supposedly high in vitamin A. But activists and critical experts see the much publicized open letter as no more than a clumsy and awkward public relations move.

The open letter, published in the Support Precision Agriculture web site, says:

“We urge Greenpeace and its supporters to re-examine the experience of farmers and consumers worldwide with crops and foods improved through biotechnology, recognize the findings of authoritative scientific bodies and regulatory agencies, and abandon their campaign against “GMOs” in general and Golden Rice in particular.

Scientific and regulatory agencies around the world have repeatedly and consistently found crops and foods improved through biotechnology to be as safe as, if not safer than those derived from any other method of production. There has never been a single confirmed case of a negative health outcome for humans or animals from their consumption. Their environmental impacts have been shown repeatedly to be less damaging to the environment, and a boon to global biodiversity.” (1)

More:
http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/07/13/gmos-greenpeace-and-nobel-laureates/

[kristopher]

75. National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine

Authors
Committee on Genetically Engineered Crops: Past Experience and Future Prospects; Board on Agriculture and Natural Resources; Division on Earth and Life Studies; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine


Description

Genetically engineered (GE) crops were first introduced commercially in the 1990s. After two decades of production, some groups and individuals remain critical of the technology based on their concerns about possible adverse effects on human health, the environment, and ethical considerations. At the same time, others are concerned that the technology is not reaching its potential to improve human health and the environment because of stringent regulations and reduced public funding to develop products offering more benefits to society. While the debate about these and other questions related to the genetic engineering techniques of the first 20 years goes on, emerging genetic-engineering technologies are adding new complexities to the conversation.

Genetically Engineered Crops builds on previous related Academies reports published between 1987 and 2010 by undertaking a retrospective examination of the purported positive and adverse effects of GE crops and to anticipate what emerging genetic-engineering technologies hold for the future. This report indicates where there are uncertainties about the economic, agronomic, health, safety, or other impacts of GE crops and food, and makes recommendations to fill gaps in safety assessments, increase regulatory clarity, and improve innovations in and access to GE technology.

Download report here (sign in as guest)
http://www.nap.edu/catalog/23395/genetically-engineered-crops-experiences-and-prospects

Twenty Years of Failure
Why GM crops have failed to deliver on their promises
Publication - 5 November, 2015
Twenty years ago, the first genetically modified (GM) crops were planted in the USA, alongside dazzling promises about this new technology. Two decades on, the promises are getting bigger and bigger, but GM crops are not delivering any of them. Not only was this technology supposed to make food and agriculture systems simpler, safer and more efficient, but GM crops are increasingly being touted as the key to 'feeding the world' and 'fighting climate change'.
The promises may be growing, but the popularity of GM crops is not. Despite twenty years of pro-GM marketing by powerful industry lobbies, GM technology has only been taken up by a handful of countries, for a handful of crops. GM crops are grown on only 3% of global agricultural land. Figures from the GM industry in fact show that only five countries account for 90% of global GM cropland, and nearly 100% of these GM crops are one of two kinds: herbicide-tolerant or pesticide-producing. Meanwhile, whole regions of the world have resisted GM crops. European consumers do not consume GM foods, and a single type of GM maize is cultivated in Europe. Most of Asia is GM-free, with the GM acreage in India and China mostly accounted for by a non-food crop: cotton. Only three countries in Africa grow any GM crops. Put simply, GM crops are not 'feeding the world'.

Why have GM crops failed to be the popular success the industry claims them to be?

Download report here: http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/publications/Campaign-reports/Agriculture/Twenty-Years-of-Failure/

[NeoGreen]

80. Imaginary Organisms

http://fair.org/extra/imaginary-organisms/

Imaginary Organisms
Media tout benefits of GMOs that never were
By Jonathan Latham 3/1/2014

Genetically engineered Xa21 rice was big news in the New York Times. In a 1995 article headlined “Genetic Engineering Creates Rice Resistant to Destructive Blight” (12/15/95), journalist Sandra Blakeslee wrote it was “the first time that a disease-resistance gene has been put into rice.”

...

But 18 years after that article was written, the failure of these predictions is clear: No commercial GMO rice of any kind exists, nor has Xa21 or any similar gene for disease resistance been developed for commercial purposes.

Snip

Golden rice: the emperor of GMOs
Golden rice has the kind of PR to ensure it needs no introduction. The search terms “golden rice” and “vitamin A” generate 106,000 results on Google. Golden rice has genes inserted which produce in its endosperm modest quantities of beta-carotene, the precursor molecule of vitamin A. Golden rice has become the standard- bearer for the humanitarian and beneficial use of a GMO, and was famously featured on the cover of Time magazine (7/31/00) as well as being the inspiration for eight separate articles in the New York Times alone.

...

The current version of golden rice (GR2) has been the subject of just two scientific publications since its initial announcement (American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 6/09, 9/12). Nothing is known about its yield or agronomic characteristics, and hardly any more is known about its efficacy or safety. GR2 has not been approved for commercial use or public consumption in any country. It is thus a product still in development, and indeed the transgenes in GR2 have only recently been crossed into the indica rice subspecies most often eaten in Asia. There is thus what must surely be an unprecedented disparity between the number of articles generated around golden rice and its actual achievement, which currently stands at zero.

Moreover, in both scientific trials on humans, GR2 was immediately frozen at -70°C to prevent loss of the apparently easily degraded beta-carotene. It was then fed to the study participants with 10 percent or more butter or oil (to ensure the availability of the fat necessary for absorption of beta-carotene). It perhaps doesn’t need saying that -70°C storage capability and comparably fatty diets are not characteristics of those likely to be deficient in vitamin A.

[HuckleB]

88. A great discussion that shows the ludicrous nature of the OP.

https://www.facebook.com/search/top/?q=Preston%20Baez%20yellow%20mold%20food%20farm

The lack of incidence of beriberi makes his whole premise appear to be as ludicrous as one would expect.