Comments on: Nibbles: golden rice, nutrition, organics, feral livestock

By: Jeremy

Jeremy — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 13:04:26 +0000

Thanks for that. Given the whole brevity thing in these posts, I don’t think “pro” mis-states the position you reached, after all that analysis and review, too drastically.

By: Alexander J. Stein

Alexander J. Stein — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 11:40:11 +0000

I would not call the supplementary discussion paper to our article on Golden Rice in Nature Biotechnology 24: 1200-1201, which is linked to on this blog, a “pro” Golden Rice document. We carried out an ex ante analysis on the potential impact of Golden Rice on the burden of vitamin A deficiency in India based on the best information available, we used a scenario approach to account for the uncertainty of ex ante analyses and we discussed common arguments used in the discussion about Golden Rice in the light of our findings. Given that our analysis has passed the peer review process of “Nature Biotechnology” (and the one of “World Development” for a more comprehensive and up-to-date article at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2007.02.013), I also think it can be considered a scientifically sound analysis. And even though the results of our analysis indicate that Golden Rice could be a promising approach to follow, we put them into perspective – for instance by stressing the need for further research and by acknowledging that Golden Rice would only be a “complementary” intervention to fight vitamin A deficiency, that (quite obviously) it would only be suitable for “rice-eating” populations and that it would only cover the “medium” term. With these qualifications our assessment of the potential impact of Goden Rice on public health in India and of its cost-effectiveness is indeed positive – but it is balanced and goes beyond the often simplistic, partisan and counterproductive dichotomy of “pro” and “contra” GM crops…

By: Jeremy

Jeremy — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 07:48:36 +0000

Thanks for that. It is so hard to know who is supported by what these days.

By: Mike Huben

Mike Huben — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 01:15:31 +0000

The organic article is part of the greenwash “Center for Consumer Freedom” site.

You can read about it at SourceWatch, which writes:

“The Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF) (formerly called the “Guest Choice Network”) is a front group for the restaurant, alcohol and tobacco industries. It runs media campaigns which oppose the efforts of scientists, doctors, health advocates, environmentalists and groups like Mothers Against Drunk Driving, calling them “the Nanny Culture — the growing fraternity of food cops, health care enforcers, anti-meat activists, and meddling bureaucrats who ‘know what’s best for you.’ “”