I wonder if the actual issues with this rice are similar to the miracle rice programs of the '70s where western aid programs introduced commercial strains of rice to traditional farmers in Indonesia and other SE Asian countries. These strains promised higher yield but at the cost of buying in commercial fertilisers and herbicides. The side effect of higher rice yield was disappearance of fish and companion/accidental crops that would typically grow in the rice paddies, along with poisoning of rivers downstream due to excess nutrients from fertilised rice paddies.
..The Government of India signed an agreement with the Rockefeller Foundation to carry out research to achieve higher food production. The program started with research for the development of suitable hybrids of maize followed by hybrids of sorghum and pearl millet.
The dwarf wheat bred by Dr. Borlaug in Mexico, named Sonaro 4 and Larmarojo, were introduced. These efforts created an agricultural revolution.
I consider myself a farmer and used to grow wheat on 80 acres. I was very happy to harvest about 500 quintals every year – about six quintals (600 kg) for every acre. The planting of Sonaro 64, with the agronomic practices recommended, led to a harvest of 20 quintals (2000 kg) an acre, which was more than three times the previous yield.
I remember three to four years after the introduction of those seeds, India’s wheat production expanded significantly, and quite rapidly India became self-sufficient in food.
> "The green revolution has won a temporary success in man's war against hunger and deprivation; it has given man a breathing space. If fully implemented, the revolution can provide sufficient food for sustenance during the next three decades. But the frightening power of human reproduction must also be curbed; otherwise the success of the green revolution will be ephemeral only. Most people still fail to comprehend the magnitude and menace of the "Population Monster"...Since man is potentially a rational being, however, I am confident that within the next two decades he will recognize the self-destructive course he steers along the road of irresponsible population growth..."
Finding out the author of this quote is left as an exercise to the reader...
The green revolution of India was primarily because of newer strain of crops and mechanisation to some degree. Chemical industry simply was not mature enough in 50s to have been a major factor.
I can corroborate this. My family was involved in a chemical manufacturing business in India from the 60s onwards. My understanding from what my family tells me is that the 80s and early 90s is when a lot of these base manufacturing inputs became readily available.
interesting (!) good to put details on the general trends. crop type, latitude and elevation, proximity to rail and other industrial infrastructure, market economics with demographics.. more? all would inform this crucial and interdependent topic
Well, the article does not mentioned anything about second order effects of the use of fertilisers and herbicides that happened 50 years ago in another country so I am going with: No.
Buying seed and fertilizer and pesticides from another country is almost the same as importing the food directly. You have a poor country that is struggling to export products and then you tell it to import even more? Recipe for disaster.
You raise a good point regardless. The trust in science and technology is gone. We’ve been bamboozled so many times that we first see new developments with mistrust instead of wonder.
A device that can bring surveillance and social media and its accompanying society-breaking stressors to him at any place and time in an unceasing torrent of shit...
I understand that the deal is that "golden rice" is a low-maintenance GMO crop whose purpose is to get a foot in the door for other GMO crops, with all the issues that you mentioned.
I was scared of GM crops when they first started getting news attention, but I've flipped now. Quoting a Greenpeace representative, the article writes:
> “GM crops have never been proven safe,” Pelegrina asserted.
This might be true in some way, but what kind of proof are they looking for? What evidence has been presented that GM crops are unsafe? Proving the absence of something (health risk) is quite hard. On the other hand, GM crops have been consumed by many people for many years now and haven't found any large scale deleterious effects.
> I was scared of GM crops when they first started getting news attention, but I've flipped now.
I think putting this into binary options, of pro-GM, anti-GM, is not ideal.
It's like saying "I am pro-chemistry," or "I am anti-chemistry."
Just as with chemistry, various GM products can have largely positive or largely negative outcomes.
The question which needs to be asked on each and every GMO product introduction is along the lines of: is this new product like creating fertilizer from natural gas, or like adding lead to gasoline?
The solution for any nutritional deficiencies is not the "fortification" of the staple foods.
I believe that the future of food sources is in genetically-engineered organisms, but I am dismayed by the fact that all the current attempts of genetic modifications have stupid goals.
The "fortification" of staple foods is extremely stupid, because the amount of staple food that is consumed varies widely with sex, size, age and physical activity and it is not proportional to the daily requirements for various vitamins or minerals. The amount of vitamins ingested from "fortified" food is always either insufficient or wasted as excessive.
The staple foods are required to provide only proteins and/or fats and/or carbohydrates. For everything else there are specific sources that are needed only in small quantities, so they usually do not add up to a major part of the cost of the food.
The daily intake of vitamin A can be obtained for instance from 100 grams of carrots, which in Europe, where I live, cost much less than 10 cents, so they can be afforded by anyone. In other parts of the world, where carrots are less common, there are various vegetables with similar properties, e.g. sweet potatoes and many others.
If they have vitamin A deficiency in their population, the solution is not buying more expensive yellow rice, but teaching everyone which is the amount of the cheapest locally available vegetable that is a suitable source of beta-carotene, which must be eaten daily.
You are philosophically correct but the flaw with this argument is time and $$$. With each passing year millions of people around the world die or go blind from vitamin A deficiency. Most of these cases are due to an over-reliance on white rice in particular, making golden rice essentially a drop-in solution for much of the world’s poorest. The goal is (or should be) to stop the bleeding with golden rice while also investing in and providing education around more diverse agricultural production.
They're not just philosophically correct but probably correct in practice as well. Golden rice - especially the original version of it - is not just an easy drop-in solution. It requires the development of specific variants suited to the climate where it's grown, the original version didn't supply enough vitamin A even in an ideal scenario and had pretty major yield reductions which made the rice more expensive (which is a huge problem when poverty is one of the major reasons people are so dependentt on rice in the first place), and this was compounded by licensing restrictions which blocked both cross-border sales and most growing in countries which were self sufficient for food production.
Those licenses made it effectively unavailable both to most countries which imported their rice and most countries that were self-sufficient. I think the two countries that had early trials may well have been the only two that were both eligible to make use of it and able to do so, and in at least one case that was a result of an error which resulted in them being counted as eligible when they weren't. They mostly seem to have been a PR stunt, something big biotech could point to and claim that they'd given the world a free solution to vitamin A deficiency that was being blocked by evil anti-GMO campaigners that wanted kids to go blind.
It should be obvious that golden rice must be more expensive than traditional rice, otherwise it would not be promoted by whichever company has invented it.
Therefore it would take $$$ from the pockets "of the world’s poorest" to the pockets of that company.
Correct education is the "drop-in solution" for the poor, not convincing them to buy a more expensive "IP-protected" product, so that their lives will become dependent of the new exclusive supplier.
Golden rice want IP protected - it was part of the deal that targeted use was not too be encumbered.
The biggest "IP protections" on golden rice came from... Greenpeace and other anti-GMO activists - who wanted prevention against "accidental contamination" of non-gmo with gmo.
"Would it not be better if they spent more money on wholesome things like oranges and wholemeal bread or if they even, like the writer of the letter to the New Statesman, saved on fuel and ate their carrots raw? Yes, it would, but the point is that no ordinary human being is ever going to do such a thing. The ordinary human being would sooner starve than live on brown bread and raw carrots."
People will do what people do. Better operate within that than to change people.
People do not need to "live" on carrots or whatever other sources of vitamins are needed. These are needed only in small quantities in comparison with the main food. Carrots need not be eaten raw. They should be boiled either in a soup or with the rice. In many places carrots are a normal addition to rice, to make it tastier, regardless of any vitamin benefits.
I have given the example of a natural source, which should be the cheapest in most places, but even taking a vitamin A capsule per day must be cheaper than replacing white rice with yellow rice and it is guaranteed to provide the right amount of vitamin, unlike eating yellow rice and it also avoids the dependency of a monopolistic supplier.
Unlike for a genetically-modified crop, for vitamin capsules or tablets or powders there are many suppliers in various countries and for most of them the prices have become much cheaper than for the equivalent amount of fresh vegetables or fruits.
You're taking this extremely literally. My point, and the point of Orwell's quote up there, is that people eat what they enjoy, not what's nutritionally best. Poor Asian countries nigh-on venerate rice as the staple crop, and can grow vast amounts of it locally. So working within that does incredible work very easily.
I understand what you are saying but the missing piece is a willing and able population.
I don’t know the data so I am making guesses but perhaps the population impacted the most is not the middle class living in more metro areas but the rest of the population. I am reminded about the iron deficiency in Malaysia maybe? They introduced cast iron casted into good luck shapes for the population to use during cooking.
a problem that is easily solved with education. the money invested in this rice could easily instead be spent on educational campaigns to influence peoples eating habits. and i don't mean advertising but actually going door to door and talking to everyone. repeatedly, and getting everyone involved along the way. people learn to improve their hygiene to avoid spreading diseases, they can also learn to eat better.
i'd like to see evidence that teaching people failed before i believe that this is not working.
You’re assuming people have the money and availability to do this. It’s easy to say that this is easily solved with education but that’s probably a pretty entitled opinion.
Habit and tradition are hard to break. Along with that going back to my original point, it could be that a significant part of the population does not have the money or access. Lots of people have access to rice as their sole staple food when no money is available.
Edit: I am not as close to the Philippines but have lots of friends that emigrated and my understand is that there is a significant part of the population that are still living very poor. Also leaning on my life in Vietnam for comp of rural poor living in a growing country.
as others have argued, you do not need to replace the rice with equal amounts of more expensive vegetables. but you replace a small amount of rice with vegetables for the same value as you can afford it. of course it also helps if there is more support for growing the vegetables.
i am in a developing country now. what i have observed is that people here eat more than twice as much rice or other staple food in a meal than i do myself. i suspect that this is to make up for the lack of nutrients they could otherwise get from eating more vegetables.
"Greenpeace Southeast Asia campaigner Wilhelmina Pelegrina said in a statement. Greenpeace joined MASIPAG, a farmers’ association, and other organizations and individuals in challenging the planting permit. “GM crops have never been proven safe,” Pelegrina asserted."
Well, you can't prove a negative.
I actually wonder how high the acceptance rate for this rice in Asia is. White rice is one of the foundations of their culture. And this rice is not white!
Except you can make hypotheses about what you could expect to see as negative effects, feed a population of volunteers (or animals) the food, compare them to control population and see if the hypotheses can be accepted or rejected? Complaining about proving a negative or proving something is safe as a knee-jerk reaction is silly. Think about what happened with all the regulations around BPA in plastics food containers. The industry worked around it by substituting BPS and BPF. Demending those alternatives should have been proven safe first is entirely reasonable.
I will admit that Greenpeace will probably just shift goal posts continually with "it's not proven safe enough" while simultaneously never putting in writing what the bar for safety should be..
So you are actually in complete agreement that you can’t prove a negative and you also agree Greenpeace is not operating in good faith but rather is agenda driven.
I'd usually be in favour of the various antics of Greenpeace, but this ruling strikes me as odd. There's very little safety testing of traditionally produced crops and there's typically no problem with producing new varieties of existing produce. I could understand it more if it was a push-back against varieties that are engineered to not produce seed so that farmers are continually having to purchase from the company.
That's also (mostly) propaganda. Farmers are very busy without having to deal with the side business of inefficiently growing their seeds and would buy anyway.
Not everywhere, even in the USA. I know there are small family farms that got busted for growing gmo seeds so it is worthwhile for some. Maybe not the big players.
Except the only versions of golden rice that are engineered to prevent growing your own seed is... Mandated by Greenpeace, campaigned to make mandatory in various countries, in order to prevent "contamination"
> White rice is one of the foundations of their culture
Golden rice is targeted at the lesser-developed countries in Asia who are less likely to be snobbish about the color. Fried rice (where rice turns a yellow/red/brownish color) is also very common in the Philippines/China/SEA so aesthetically it just looks like fried rice to me. Would be much weirder if green or purple.
The cooked form resembles saffron rice, an expensive dish made of rice and saffron. Indian leaders have taken the lead on foods and vaccines and ensured popular adoption and continues today.
>> “GM crops have never been proven safe,” Pelegrina asserted.
> Well, you can't prove a negative.
If someone claims that GM crops have never been proven safe, they should be expected to provide evidence to support that claim. I don't think that the claim being negative should shift the burden of proof away from the claimant.
There doesn't seem to be any reviews that actually mention its taste whatsoever, other than it's supposed to taste like rice. Maybe it doesn't taste great, or it's anyhow not a significant value add for farmers.
> A recommendation was made that golden rice be distributed free to subsistence farmers. Free licenses for developing countries were granted quickly due to the positive publicity that golden rice received, particularly in Time magazine in July 2000. Monsanto Company was one of the companies to grant free licences for related patents owned by the company. 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 would not make more than $10,000 per year, no royalties would need to be paid. In addition, farmers would be permitted to keep and replant seed.
> Therefore, as long as a farmer or subsequent user of golden rice genetics would not make more than $10,000 per year, no royalties would need to be paid. In addition, farmers would be permitted to keep and replant seed
From a farmer’s point of view, that’s a definite yes.
The original 20-year-old version of golden rice was unfortunately basically unusable (not enough bioavailable vitamin A even when used as part of a much more balanced diet that was more favorable to vitamin A absorption than that of the people it's actually aimed at and substantial yield reductions). Fixing the yield reductions at least required more modern GM techniques that are likely going to be under patent for a good while.
You can also never be 100 percent sure that not doing something is safe, so the "hard" form of the Precautionary Principal is simply obvious stupid garbage.
I find it ironic that people here assume the country is acting in good faith. For when you read the article in question and know some cultural background of the country - more stock of rice would decrease the price of rice hurting the current rice farmers and decreasing the value of farm land, rice brokers, etc. it’s a real complicated issue where even if you go get milled rice you’ll get rocks thrown in as it increases the weight by 5-15%.
This isn’t any fear of gmo risks, but an act to protect the status quo.
That’s the poiht, it’s from the country, from the government and different sides of the government are arguing it. One side wants it and one side doesn’t.
First, you wrote about ‘the country’ as if it’s a monolith. Second, working out what you mean more precisely is hard when you fail to give even the slightest explanation of why it’s the judiciary specifically that wants to preserve the status quo.
I'm not really sure if it applies to this case, but the worse thing with GMO is that when you start using them, you are not free anymore. Like using a SaaS software.
Usually you can use your own seeds from your production for your next batch. But GMO plants are supposed to produce sterile seeds that you can't reuse. And in fact you wouldn't even be allowed to, as it is the intellectual property of the chemical company producer.
So, farmers will have to buy and depend on a company for the seeds that they have to use at every season...
> Usually you can use your own seeds from your production for your next batch.
I'm sorry, that is simply not true. Yes, there are so-called "heirloom" varieties that come true from seed, but commercial farming in the United States has been relying on hybrid seed for well over a hundred years now, and hybrids in general do not come true from seed.
Seed production is a highly specialized form of farming.
To be fair to the GMO's, it's not that they try to create sterile plants, it's that much of their benefit comes from hybrid vigor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterosis
AFAIK vitamin A deficiency is a recent issue, due to the increased consumption of white rice at the expense of brown rice, which was the traditional way of eating rice for centuries (except among the elite, which had other sources of vitamin A thanks to a more diversified food supply than subsistence farmers).
Golden rice is yet another technological “solution” to a social problem, and unsurprisingly it's also failing for other social issues (fear of GMOs)…
It's not a treatment here (vitamin A supplementation for people with deficiency is, and nobody argues against that), it's more like bulletproof vest in your example. Sure we could generalize bulletproof vest at the same time we're pushing for gun control, but it's not necessarily a desirable thing to do.
Allowing people access to bullet proof vests sure seems desirable to me!
But also I think the "treating the gunshot wound" analogy is a better fit. A crop that produces vitamin A is a treatment for population suffering from vitamin A deficiency. And "let people grow this crop" is a much smaller social problem than "dramatically reduce poverty".
> Allowing people access to bullet proof vests sure seems desirable to me!
Maybe, but I'm not sure law enforcement would agree with you, for their own very good reasons.
> But also I think the "treating the gunshot wound" analogy is a better fit. A crop that produces vitamin A is a treatment for population suffering from vitamin A deficiency.
No, it's not a treatment, it's a prevention measure, and its effect is very slow (the population must accept the reinforced food, and incorporate it in sufficient fashion in their diet, and it can take decades before the entire population is positively affected). “letting people grow this crop” is only the very beginning of a very complex social process that you are oversimplifying.
I don't have a particular opinion on the use of Golden Rice nor on GMOs in general, but believing that it will instantly solve the social problem at stake is delusional, and such delusion is exactly part of the lobbying campaign from GMOs industrial, which, unlike GMOs themselves, is a problem.
The only way for such a technological solution to be as effective as advertised, is with strong political support and regulation allowing its very quick generalization (that's what we did with iodized salt) but one must be careful with such an approach, because its effectiveness itself is a danger if things have hidden side effect (see the adverse effects of added fluorine in tap water to prevent dental cavities).
I don't know of anyone who thinks any idea can solve any problem instantly. And I don't see where I've expressed any view of the complexity or simplicity of anything. The discussion I thought we were having is whether it is wise to try a technical solution.
Iodized salt is a good example of a technical solution success story, and the one that was top of mind for me too. I don't think anyone thinks we should have waited for the underlying social problems to clear themselves. It certainly points out that these solutions need to be implemented well and have government support in order to be successful, but that's exactly why people are so upset about the political setbacks to golden rice.
Golden rice is a sort of Ozempic, high tech remediation for the damages of a modern diet. De-modernizing the diet is a better solution where it can be afforded.
Where was brown rice the traditional way of eating rice (for non-elites)? During what centuries roughly? What is your evidence?
I always thought that brown rice was eaten mainly by Westerners in the 20th Century whose dietary options were varied and plentiful enough that they didn’t notice the anti-nutritive effects of the bran and germ. And maybe also by East Asians millenia ago when rice culture was new and still being explored.
Now if you were to say instead that vitamin A deficiency became a problem in East Asia only with the introduction (millennia ago) of the practice of getting most of one’s calories from rice, I would tend to believe you.
> I always thought that brown rice was eaten mainly by Westerners in the 20th Century whose dietary options were varied and plentiful enough that they didn’t notice the anti-nutritive effects of the bran and germ. And maybe also by East Asians millenia ago when rice culture was new and still being explored.
That's insane. White rice was extremely labor intensive to produce until machines started doing it.
> White rice was extremely labor intensive to produce until machines started doing it
Here is someone producing rice without any machine that is “95% white” (less than 5 percent of the bran remains). In fact, when using this primitive tech the bran and germ seem to come off as an unavoidable side effect of removing the husk, which no one suggests should be left on the rice grain and no one eats AFAIK.
To make it easy for you to verify my “95% white” assertion, I have “jumped” to a close-up of the rice just before cooking, but of course to verify that no machine is used, you have to watch from the start of the video (to minute 9).
Nobody said it could not be done. From you video it's hard to judge if it is or not extremely labor intensive, but the description of the video seems to suggest it “the fact that it's very tiring and laborious”. If it takes 2 hours, for instance, of additional work to get such rice for every meal without any nutritional benefit, people aren't gonna do it on a daily basis and only do so for special events and stuff while keeping eating brown rice most of the time.
The process depicted in the video is not to turn brown rice to white rice: it is to make rice edible at all. The video starts with harvesting the rice and ends with cooking the rice.
If you are not a visual person but rather an auditory person, you can hear a narrator in this next video say, "pounding . . . removes the husk and the bran layers" (emphasis mine). Rice with the bran layer removed is white rice.
The technique (mortar and pestle) depicted in the 2 videos I linked to seems to be able to produce only rice that is between about 90% and 99% white, and to get the 90%-white rice, you probably have to put up with an annoying amount of inedible rice husk in your food because (again) removing the husk removes the bran as a side effect.
The second video goes on to say that "there are some locals" (in the Philippines) who are still using the technique:
> The process depicted in the video is not to turn brown rice to white rice: it is to make rice edible at all.
But what tells you that it is the default process for making rice? There could be an easy process to make brown rice, and this “tiring and laborious” process to make white rice, and such a video would tell you nothing about the former.
> --so, the burden is on you to provide evidence that brown rice can be made at all without using machines that only became available after 1750.
The thing is that the literature talks about the fact that people used to eat brown rice in most of Asia, and when it comes to evidence, an individual YouTube video doesn't weight as much as you think it does. Also I don't know where you got your 1750 figure from, but it's likely to be more like 1950 or even later in most countries.
>Also I don't know where you got your 1750 figure from, but it's likely to be more like 1950 or even later in most countries.
I picked 1750 because that is the earliest date before which I am sure that the people who eat a lot of rice would definitely not have had access to precisely-machined steel parts.
I strongly suspect that precisely-machined steel parts are necessary to turn just-harvested rice plants into brown rice: older rice-processing methods can only produce white rice (more precisely, rice with at least 90% or 95% of the bran removed whereas modern brown rice has most of the bran intact).
(Precisely-machined parts as also needed, I suspect, to produce rice with no bran at all attached -- 100%-white rice we might call it -- where most of the grains are not broken into pieces.)
Both of the creators of the 2 Youtube videos I linked to say that when they were children, their families of origin used the technique depicted in the videos to get the rice they needed to survive. The technique makes white rice and cannot be modified to make brown rice: one of the creators outright says that the process of removing the husk also removes the bran. If there is some other technique that does not rely on post-1750 technology that can make brown rice (husk removed, but bran left on the grain), why weren't subsistence rice farmers using it? Either it does not exist (my guess) or the rice farmers prefer white rice to brown rice.
I know that many internet commentators say that traditional subsistence rice farmers since the dawn of rice culture ate brown rice. But lots of falsehoods get repeated over and over on the internet.
> I know that many internet commentators say that traditional subsistence rice farmers since the dawn of rice culture ate brown rice. But lots of falsehoods get repeated over and over on the internet.
Except we're not talking about “people talking about stuff on the internet” but dedicated literature on food production in Asia, which, albeit not perfect, is far less prone to propagate urban legends than internet forums.
The sources are given in introduction to the acoup blog post I posted elsewhere in this thread, and to which you responded:
> I relied primary for this on Hsu, Han Agriculture: The Formation of Early Chinese Agrarian Economy (206 B.C. – A.D. 220) (1980) and F. Bray, The Rice Economies: Technology and Development in Asian Societies (1986) which were recommended to me by specialists in the field. The latter is a wealth of technical details on rice cultivation, although it is as focused on the transition to mechanization and modern agriculture as to the conditions of pre-modern rice cultivation.)
Again, I know nothing about rice cultivation except what I read in this blog post, but the source is an historian and he himself is quoting the work of people who have dedicated a good part of their academic career to this topic. They might still be wrong − academia isn't perfect − , but it would need far more than a Youtube video presenting one way to process rice as a rebuttal for their work.
For what it is worth, the assertion in the post by acoup you linked to that I am most confident is false is, "prior to that mechanical milling, brown rice was all that was available for the poor".
I believe that to be false because I am confident that using the primitive technique depicted in both of the videos I linked to, continuing to pound the rice continues to remove rice bran with the result that with enough pounding, the fraction of bran left on the grain can be driven down to 0.1% or lower, which I'm sure no one would call brown rice.
This "0.1%-brown" rice might consist mostly of grains that have broken into 2 or 3 or 4 pieces, but I've cooked and eaten white rice like that in the past, which is how I know it is perfectly edible and as far as I can tell just as nutritious as intact grains. (The broken pieces I got were the product of modern manufacturing: probably the factory has an easy way to separate broken pieces from intact grains, and for cosmetic purposes, omitted broken pieces from their product, and then they gave the broken pieces to a food bank or something like that.)
> Where was brown rice the traditional way of eating rice (for non-elites)? During what centuries roughly?
My understanding is that it was the usual way of doing so until mechanization made it affordable.
> What is your evidence?
I remembered reading it on acoup, and that's indeed the case:
> Consequently, while a diet of mostly brown rice can be healthy, a diet overwhelmingly of white rice leads to Thiamine deficiency, known colloquially as beriberi. My impression from the literature is that this wasn’t as much an issue prior to the introduction of mechanical milling processes for rice. Mechanical milling made producing white rice in quantity cheap and so it came to dominate the diet to the exclusion of brown rice, producing negative health effects for the poor who could not afford to supplement their rice-and-millet diet with other foods, or for soldiers whose ration was in rice. But prior to that mechanical milling, brown rice was all that was available for the poor, which in turn meant less Thiamine deficiency among the lower classes of society.
I have evidence that seems to contradict acoup’s assertion that “prior to that mechanical milling, brown rice was all that was available for the poor” at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40258263
>Where was brown rice the traditional way of eating rice (for non-elites)? During what centuries roughly? What is your evidence?
Japanese commoners prior to the post-WW2 era mostly ate brown rice, white rice was eaten only by the rich and powerful.
Even today, "hakumai"/"shiroi gohan" (white rice) still holds some of that special regard compared to "genmai" (brown rice), and that's despite the latter now being known as a vastly superior source of nutrients.
I am not familiar with the food histories of other asian countries, but I wouldn't be surprised if they are similar.
Many people do not find sweet potatoes palatable and won't eat them. Rice doesn't have this issue. The whole point here is to introduce Vitamin A into the food supply of people with limited options at risk of Vitamin A deficiency without changing the diet so as to encourage adoption.
This is no different than when western countries started iodizing salt. It was much more effective at eliminating iodine deficiency than telling people to just eat seafood.
Or by adding back brown rice to cookers. Same deal as whole grain breads, a healthier option. Won't work for sushi, but sushi comes with fish slices on top too, so...
That's Spanish, but wouldn't it be better to use the more common lanugage, Tagalog, to render it "hukuman ng Pilipinas"? If one were to insist in talking about foreign courts in foreign languages, rather than the language of the readers.
What a Philippine court ruling means for
transgenic Golden Rice, once hailed as a
dietary breakthrough
My comment was an appeal to just copy the actual link title. Perhaps people who did not click through and see the actual title are downvoting for some strange reason.
The quoted title should be as close to the original as possible, within the HN title size limit, and should certainly copy correctly spelled words.
It's probably because it's a pedantipoint, more than anything else. The more important thing is the title is rewritten badly not just in spelling and grammar (a court can ban the cultivation or growing of something, not its 'growth') but in meaning (court revoked a previously granted license). But either way, if you think the title needs fixing, just email hn@ycombinator.com and the mods will likely sort it out.
Been furious about this one for years. When the alternative is death and/or going blind who the fuck cares if there’s side effects? No one is saying it should end up in American grocery stores without proper testing but it could save and improve millions of lives around the world. For those who don’t know Greenpeace is essentially leading the campaign against GR via millions in “Zero GMO” funding. That kind of mindset won’t last long once wealthy nations start experiencing crop shortages caused by CC. Maize production will be first.
I don't know about you, but there is significant competition in the vitamin A space. Carrots, sweet potatoes, spinach, etc. Nothing prevents anyone from promoting those today. The fact that you are myopically focusing on a single solution really tells me that the people going blind are just a side show for you.
That’s an odd and hurtful statement to make towards a stranger online. Trust me none of this is a side show for me. I’m an agricultural scientist who deeply cares about global food security and part of that is going to have to be GMOs. The fact that we can’t even try supplementing certain developing markets with golden rice because of a NGO in America where food security is mostly an afterthought is criminal.
Weird to have a professional article start five sentences with "But..." in such a short article. I do sometimes too, but it's a bit grating when done so many times.
They are such a disgrace… spreading fear and misinformation that does nothing to help the environment, and causing serious environmentalists that know what they are doing to have a difficult job, because they will also be branded as idiots.
Human prosperity--including, you know, properly nourishing infants--is the single best way to protect the environment. Poor societies exploit and devastate the environment for subsistence. When societies become rich, they begin to view the environment as a luxury good worthy of preserving, and largely forestall short term exploitation. Case-in-point, most of the developed world has experienced net reforestation in recent decades.
> Case-in-point, most of the developed world has experienced net reforestation in recent decades.
Kind of, and only if you care about quantity as a leading metric. As a woodworker and someone interested in silviculture, I do not; the tree balance has often shifted radically and for example much of the United States's reforestation is fast-growing but fairly homogeneous conifers. American hardwoods are ever more limited.
At the same time, the demand for exotics largely by rich markets (think non-plantation teak, mahogany and substitutes, etc.) has caused CITES warnings and bans to circle the world, pointing to poorer countries in various stages of exploitation.
Rich societies also get to outsource their nature damage, and are not expected to account for those externalities.
