carepov

IRRI official position statement: Thursday, 21 February 2013 16:28 http://www.irri.org/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=12483 IRRI Director General Robert Zeigler Blog: Thursday, 10 October 2013 00:15 http://irri.org/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=12682%3Aseeing-clearly-golden-rice-and-climate-science〈=en

I agree that "encourgaging" does not mean proven. At the same time "not yet determined" is very different from "disproven" or "failed". I have supported the "crime against humanity" charge many times.

We are dancing in circles. I am not ignoring the IRRI statement. I agree with it 100% and with everything I've read so far on the IRRI website. Do you? http://www.irri.org/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=12483 "It’s true that human nutrition research indicates that the beta carotene in Golden Rice is readily converted to vitamin A in the body, providing encouraging evidence that eating Golden Rice could help reduce vitamin A deficiency. However, it has not yet been determined whether daily consumption of Golden Rice does improve the vitamin A status of people who are vitamin A deficient and could therefore reduce related conditions such as night blindness. If Golden Rice is approved by national regulators, Helen Keller International and university partners will conduct a controlled community study to ascertain if eating Golden Rice every day improves vitamin A status. In short, Golden Rice will only be made available broadly to farmers and consumers in the Philippines if it is approved by national regulators and shown to reduce vitamin A deficiency in community conditions. This process may take another two years or more."

Would you care to provide some examples of other contentious issues where a "crime against humanity" label can be applied? This issue is clear-cut. Hundreds of thousands of children die every year due to VAD. Many of them eat rice. Were it not for opposition to Golden Rice, many of these children would have been getting sufficient VA.

The solutions proposed by Greenpeace are part of the work done by Helen Keller International (HKI) - they are not enough. http://www.hki.org/reducing-malnutrition/biofortification/golden-rice/ "Golden Rice offers a very unique opportunity to improve the nutrition of people—particularly of women and children in Asia—who are not reached by current interventions to reduce Vitamin A deficiency." http://irri.org/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=12654〈=en Greenpeace's stance lead to: http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/08/26/golden_rice_attack_in_philippines_anti_gmo_activists_lie_about_protest_and.html Like I said, there are already limitations to free dom of expression. For example, hate speach and slander is illegal. It is illegal to spread lies that result in peoiple dying - that is what Greenpeace is doing.

IMO, a significant percentage of those children blinded and dyeing each year would have been saved if it were not for Greenpeace's opposition to Golden Rice. *** If proved efficacious and once approved by the regulatory bodies, HKI would proceed to include Golden Rice in their VAD combatting toolbox. According to HKI 190 million pre-school children and 19 million pregnant women are currently vitamin A deficient. Each year, an estimated 670,000 children will die from VAD, and 350,000 will go blind. In the Philippines, approximately 1.7 million children aged 6 months to 5 years and an additional three out of every ten school-aged children have VAD, as do one out of every five pregnant and lactating mothers. http://www.goldenrice.org/ http://www.goldenrice.org/Content3-Why/why1_vad.php "The body converts beta carotene in Golden Rice to vitamin A as it is needed. According to research published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition in 2009, daily consumption of a very modest amount of Golden Rice – about a cup (or around 150 g uncooked weight) – could supply 50% of the Recommended Daily Allowance of vitamin A for an adult." http://irri.org/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=10227〈=en "HKI firmly believes that there is no single magic bullet solution for vitamin A deficiency, and views Golden Rice as a potential additional intervention that could be used in combination with other existing proven vitamin A strategies, including the promotion of optimal breastfeeding, vitamin A supplementation, large-scale food fortification, home fortification with micronutrient powders, dietary diversity, and agricultural measures including homestead food production (HFP) and the cultivation and consumption of orange-fleshed sweet potatoes or other vitamin A rich crops." http://www.hki.org/reducing-malnutrition/biofortification/golden-rice/

While I have agreed all along that there were flaws in the study. You said: As per your own source, the technical conclusions are sound - β-carotene is converted to the vitamin once ingested. Do you agree with this conclusion?

It is more practical because it is simple and has a chance of sucess (Mexico) while a fat tax did not work in Denmark. There is a consensus that soft drinks are bad for health. There is probably already a category for "soft drinks" there would be no need to create arbitrary distinctions between high-fat/low-fat and high-sugar/low-sugar products. No, I wouldn't care if there was cross-border shopping. The goal is to reduce consumption - I think that the tax would work. When faced with a large problem, I like the idea or "starting small" and chipping away at the problem. Perhaps the tax on soft drinks would be just the beginning. Grandiose "solutions" are very rare.

The point is that we have choices. Even if we are doing some already, we can choose to do these things bigger, better and faster. I am in favour of a well-implemented carbon-tax - this would incentivize the choices. Revenue raised in the carbon tax should be used to reduce the payroll tax and personal income taxes.

1. A tax on soft drinks is more practical (easy to implement, less arbitrary) 2. Soft drinks have no health benefits and are therefore more comparable to alcohol and tobacco 3. Even Denmark could not make their fat tax work - it's a loosing battle

First of all, there is no debate regarding over-religious societies (fanatics/zealots etc...) - in these cases absolutely: the less religion the more rational. Overall the most rational societies are less religious. However, once the influence of religion reaches a certain low point (similar to what we have in the West), I would argue that it is no longer true that: "The less people identify as religious, and the less religious are the people that identify as religious, the closer we come to a rational world." Today, look at the least religious countries: http://www.therichest.com/expensive-lifestyle/location/top-10-countries-with-the-least-religious-people/ #1 is China. It is of course becoming more rational, however it has nothing to do with religion - China was not religious during the Cultural Revolution however it was certainly not rational. #2 is Japan. How can the level of sexism in Japanese society be explained? IMO, it shows a huge lack of reason. IMO, today and throughout history, the most irrational acts (mass violations of human rights) have nothing to do with religion. And of course in today's West, there are no: "shackles of religion".

Yes we do have choices. For starters: -We can conserve energy -We can switch electrical generation from coal to nuclear/hydro/gas and then use more electric vehicles -We can use more geothermal for heating

The precedent being set by those that oppose Golden Rice is being set at 8 million and counting. http://www.allowgoldenricenow.org/ "It is surprising to me that it is often the activists who speak up in support of the scientific consensus around climate change (i.e., that there is overwhelming scientific evidence that climate change is induced by humans and is happening), who are the same activists who don’t accept the scientific consensus and evidence that shows that GM crops can be safe. Either you accept scientific consensus or you don’t; but you cannot have it both ways, accepting science that agrees with your personal philosophy and rejecting that which does not." http://irri.org/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=12682%3Aseeing-clearly-golden-rice-and-climate-science〈=en

First, the data is not so clear in Canada: http://www.sugar.ca/english/healthprofessionals/carboIssue16.cfm I am not sugesting that the Candian Sugar Institute should be completely trusted as a source, however they do seem to make some good points that should be considered. Second, Denmark's experience with the fat does not bode well for your argument: In October 2011, Denmark introduced a fat tax on butter, milk, cheese, pizza, meat, oil and processed food if the item contains more than 2.3% saturated fat.[25] However, in November 2012, the Danish Tax Ministry announced it would abolish the fat tax,[26] stating that it failed to change Danes' eating habits, it had encouraged cross border trading, put Danish jobs at risk and had been a bureaucratic nightmare for producers and outlets.[26][27] The proposed sugar tax plans were also scrapped.[28] Mette Gjerskov, the Danish minister of food, agriculture and fisheries, stated that "the fat tax is one of the most criticized we had in a long time. Now we have to try to improve public health by other means.” Although the tax resulted in an additional $216 million in revenue, it also led to numerous complaints from Danish retailers that their customers were taking their business to other countries, such as Sweden and Germany, to take advantage of their lower prices.[28][29] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fat_tax That said, I agree with the Mexican tax on soft drinks. Another suggestion is to ban all food advertising aimed at children.

There does seem to be a correlation: http://www.news-medical.net/health/Obesity-and-Infertility.aspx http://www.webmd.com/infertility-and-reproduction/news/20071211/obesity-linked-to-infertility-in-women

IMO, the right to life and health of children suffering VAD should not be "trumped".

Look waldo, you are the one that is selectively pulling out pieces. All I did was to follow-up on your sources and show that your claims are untrue: You claimed that Golden Rice is a technical failure: "It’s true that human nutrition research indicates that the beta carotene in Golden Rice is readily converted to vitamin A in the body, providing encouraging evidence that eating Golden Rice could help reduce vitamin A deficiency." Do you stand behind the IRRI as a valid source of information? *** Then you claimed repeatedly that the study that showns that beta carotene is taken into the body was "failed" and therefore invalid. Again, the quote below is your own source. "The reviews found no evidence of health or safety problems in the children fed golden rice; they also concluded that the study’s data were scientifically accurate and valid."

IMO, the purposeful obstruction of life-saving solutions is criminal.

"'Golden' rice is environmentally irresponsible, poses risks to human health, and could compromise food, nutrition and financial security." http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/agriculture/problem/genetic-engineering/Greenpeace-and-Golden-Rice/#2 Lies. "If the rice gains the Philippine government’s approval, it will cost no more than other rice for poor farmers, who will be free to save seeds and replant them, Dr. Barry said. It has no known allergens or toxins, and the new proteins produced by the rice have been shown to break down quickly in simulated gastric fluid, as required by World Health Organization guidelines. A mouse feeding study is under way in a laboratory in the United States. The potential that the Golden Rice would cross-pollinate with other varieties, sometimes called “genetic contamination,” has been studied and found to be limited, because rice is typically self-pollinated. And its production of beta carotene does not appear to provide a competitive advantage — or disadvantage — that could affect the survival of wild varieties with which it might mix." http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/25/sunday-review/golden-rice-lifesaver.html?pagewanted=all&_r=2& What could be more "cost-effective" than free?

Greenpeace is speading lies that prevent Golden Rice from reaching children that need vitamin A. "Freedom of speach" has its limits.

I see your points but still do not agree. I do not agree either with your Nazi analogy, however opponenets of Golden Rice today are more like Nazi supporters in the 40's not the 30's. But again - I would never have brought up this analogy and I do not agree with it. The best analogy I can think of is that of Jehova's Witnessess that oppose blood transfutions.

And yet your very own source did exactly that - while there were some issues with the methodology the technical conclusions are sound. So, for the third time, what is your position, waldo? Do you agree that further work should go into the development of Golden Rice?

I'm not sure that I catch your drift, but I'll try: Criminal negligance causing death. Failing to provide the necesseties of life.

I respectfully disagree. Delaying and preventing the widespread use of Golden Rice has unnecessarily allowed VAD affect millions of children. This is a crime.

I had a chance to read your earlier link you used to claim that the Tang study "failed". http://news.sciencemag.org/asiapacific/2013/09/golden-rice-not-so-golden-tufts Yes you are correct there were issues regarding the study, but: "The reviews found no evidence of health or safety problems in the children fed golden rice; they also concluded that the study’s data were scientifically accurate and valid." "German plant scientist Ingo Potrykus, who developed the first golden rice variety in the 1990s, says the controversy should not deflect attention from the study's outcome. "The study has shown that golden rice is a very effective source of vitamin A," says Potrykus, who is retired and lives in Switzerland. "That's what's most important."" When it comes to reducing VAD and preventing blindness and deaths in children you are damn right that I like the word "encouraging". Again I ask, what is your opinion: Are you in favour of conducting field trials for Golden Rice?