Golden Shower
It shows what a slow weekend it’s been for news when this reaches the headlines:
BBC News: GM golden rice boosts vitamin A
UK scientists have developed a new genetically-modified strain of “golden rice”, producing more beta-carotene.
The human body converts beta-carotene into vitamin A, and this strain produces around 20 times as much as previous varieties.
I’ve written about this wonder rice twice - here, in January, and on my old blog three years ago. Which shows, a) how long this story has been around and b) what a fringe issue it’s been regarded as until someone at BBC News was desperate to fill some space on a bank holiday, picked up a Syngenta press release and produced an advertorial.
It’s also interesting how Syngenta has given us a GM-related good news story just a week after admitting their massive cock-up in allowing an unapproved strain of GM corn into the food chain, for four years.
UPDATE: Some quick maths.
The BBC article above says the new strain of rice “produces around 20 times” the amount of beta-carotene than previous strains.
Now, this article from AlterNet in 2003 says of the old strain:
…an analysis of industry data shows that in order for those most vulnerable to blindness — infants — to get enough vitamin A from breast milk, their mothers would have to consume almost 40 pounds of cooked rice per day.
Which means even with the new strain, a nursing mother would still have to eat around two pounds of the rice to produce enough vitamin A. Which still seems a lot to me.
Posted on March 28th, 2005 at 9:24 am
| See also • Golden Opportunity? • That’ll show ‘em • BBC stealth editing |
• Permalink • Trackback • Subscribe |
|
• Filed under Science and progress |
• |
Just seen a little panel discussion about this on BBC Breakfast and I have to say I was a little converted by the ‘evil biotech’ guy. The amount of A in the rice is hugely concentrated from the last batch (research and dev. done by a UK company, apparently). More tellingly, the representative from FoE, in opposing, was very weak: her argument seemed to be of the ‘letting the best be the enemy of the good’ type, i.e. this doesn’t address the real issues behind global poverty and malnutrition. Well, that’s a no brainer, of course, but if it can help then it shouldn’t be dismissed as inherently evil without thinking. I haven’t looked into the details, so can’t comment further, but my reaction to this wouldn’t be a reflexive ‘no’. Of course, issues surrounding seed ownership etc. remain.
Sustainable local development, for as long as the planet allows us to sustain ourselves, is the only viable way forward.
The progress of GM crops, via contamination and cross-pollenation of natural crops, or other methods, is about delivering control of the food chain into the hands of a few unaccountable private tyrannies which, ultimately, is a very bad thing for everyone.