Jump to content

Talk:Golden rice/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Nutritional Value

Do the proponents of golden rice really say that golden rice is a viable option instead of eating better and more diverse food than just a bowl of rice a day? BedrupsBaneman GMT 17:36 2005-04-08

If you read the article, you'll notice the statement is not that golden rice is better than a mixed diet, but that it's better than ordinary rice for people who can get rice but can't get a mixed diet.--85.210.167.89 12:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

How many beta-carotene pills can you buy for the cost of the research behind the golden rice?

Running a Vitamin A supplementation program in 3 countries-Ghana, Nepal, and Zambia, is estimated to cost USD2.9 million a year [1], its not just the pills that the money its the entire distribution network. Vitamin A deficency is a public health problem in 118 countries, so its probaly at least 100 million a year to supplement the way its done now. Golden rice has not had 100 million invested in tis development.--nixie 23:30, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Actually, the information at Ingo Potrykus says that the entire project cost only $2.6 million. So it was cheaper than 1 year of supplementation in only 3 countries (!). --Tweenk (talk) 16:24, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Let me rephrase my question above: How many carrots a day will give a sufficient amount of beta-carotene? Just to give a tool for understanding the benefits or lack thereof of golden rice. Bedrupsbaneman 16:12, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC) 

 That objection is currently expressed in the article:
    "Vandana Shiva, an Indian anti-GMO activist, argued that the problem was not
     particular deficiencies in the crops themselves, but problems with poverty
     and loss of biodiversity in food crops. These problems are aggravated by the
     corporate control of agriculture based on genetically modified foods. By
     focusing on a narrow problem (vitamin A deficiency), Shiva argued, the golden
     rice proponents were obscuring the larger issue of a lack of broad availability
     of diverse and nutritionally adequate sources of food."
  - Bevo 18:34, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You don't need a lot of vegetables to get enough beta-cartoene, but in many parts of the developing world over 80% of the diet consists of rice because people simply don't have the money to buy vegetables or have access to land to grow them themselves. The supporters of golden rice aren't arguing that golden rice is better than a balanced diet, they are trying to provide a tool that will improve nutrition for millions of people, for no charge. --nixie 23:59, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

By playing with numbers on the golden rice and vitamin articles (and external links) it seems that circa 180grams of golden is enough to reach the RDA of vitamin A. But also look at the NIH page linked in the vitamin A article, it gives figures that indicate that one carrot per day is more than enough. Nixie says that 80% of the food is rice, what is the other 20%? One kilo of carrots costs ca 1USD in the EU/US. How much does it cost in the areas of high incidence of VAD compared to the cost of rice? i.e. mainly south and east asia?

The golden rice will not be free of charge for the consumers. It will have a price tag just as normal rice. The no-charge is the free license given to anyone selling less than 10 000 USD of golden rice annually. See the article.

That someone cannot afford to buy one carrot a day seems really staggering to me. Which makes me ask myself: Who are they, where do they live, and how and why did they end up in this dilemma? I.e. more precisely, who are the intended customers for the golden rice? Bedrupsbaneman 5 July 2005 17:46 (UTC)

It easy to ignorant about just how bad poverty in the developing world is, read the WHO for the extent of VAD. It not just malnutrition that contributes to the problem, its also chronic starvation, the latest UNICEF put the number at 90 million starving children worldwide. If is was as easy as replacing some rice with some carrots, I'd have though there wouldn't still be this problem (FAO is down so I can't get calorie breakdown now). I see golden rice as somce extra bang for you buck.--nixie 5 July 2005 22:12 (UTC)

From the FAO food security statistics for some countries in Southeast Asia that are targets for Golden Rice. Share in total Dietary Energy Consumption (percent) 2000-2002 and prevelance of undernutrition in children under the age of 5 (years vary with last survey); Bangladesh, Rice 72%, vegetables 2%, 47.9% children underweight; Cambodia, Rice 70%, vegetables 1%, 45.2% children underweight; Laos 65% rice, vegetables ~8%, 40.4% children underweight ; Myanmar, rice 70%, vegetables 1%, 36% children underweight. The rest of the calories come mostly from vegetgable fats, with some animal protein/dairy, and some legume consumption. On a grams per day it roughly 500g of rice to about 50g of starchy vegetables (potatoes etc) and 30g of other vegetables in the case of Bangladesh, keep in mind these are averages and may be reduced due to wastage. I weighed an average size carrot from my fridge, its about 120g, clearly these people are eating less vegetables than that daily. --nixie 13:37, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

How would the nutritional value of these people be affected if they ate unpolished rice instead of polished rice? There probably are a lot of micro-nutrients including pro-vitamin A in the removed parts.Bedrupsbaneman 11:16, 2 August 2005 (UTC) golden rice is a good source of vitamin a —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.111.96.68 (talk) 10:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Rice is polished to improve the shelf life - it doesn't have anything to do with the preference of westerners. It would ridiculous to harvest tonnes of rice and have it go rotten in half the time. This would worsen the food security situation somewhat don't you think? All rice producers polish between 60-70% of the rice they produce [2]. Also, according to the nutritional data, now added to the article, both brown and white rice lack beta carotene, but brown rice does contain more of other micronutrients. --nixie 00:29, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I had a look around on the www and found at that it is oils only present in brown rice that oxidises and thus lower the quality of the brown rice if stored in contact with air. Solution: keep the brown rice away from air by putting it into airtight containers, or even replace air with nitrogen in the atmosphere in the package. This will increase the shelf life from 6 months to at least one year for both consumption and seeding. For example see GrainPro . Many sites mention putting the rice in a fridge but that is not really an feasible option in this case. Bedrupsbaneman 18:50, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Btw: Is it not usual to have two and even three harvest per year in south east asia? Harvests going bad or being eaten by insects, fungi and rats etc are probably amazingly common in south east asia if the harvested crops are not properly stored. I do not know how much money and resources there are to save if all the harvested crops were well stored. Bedrupsbaneman 18:17, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I am currently reading an anthology over the use of transgenic organisms (GMO) with regards to farming and environment etc. Most of the the authors are positive to use of GMO for increasing the technical qualities (excluding poison resistance). However, in paragraph the word "rice fish" appeared. A quick look at www showed that were rainfall in consistent one often have fish in the rice paddies to control pests but also as an extra food source. Nowadays, NGOs and governmental agencies in south east asia are involved on a local basis to also make this possible in areas where rainfall is not always consistent. This will not increase the amount of the vitamin A in the diet but it will make it easier to adsorb any vitamin A that already is in the diet. 

193.137.16.173 09:43, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Have a look at the map over the distribution of Vitamin A deficiency. VAD is most widespread in Africa, including the very dry near-Saharan parts. Growing any kind of rice there would be insane since rice is such a water intensive plant. Noting that regions with monsun rain might get precious little rain outside those periods. I guess the "rice fish" mentioned is a good added source of proteins etc, but only when one have ample source of water. This could be good news for parts of the world with ample year-around rain water, but this is not where there is such huge problems with VAD! Growing much less water intensive crops would be a better choice in parts of the world with low and intermittent rain in combination with water harvesting approaches (basically using even small or intermittent rain fall to feed the ground water rather than directly putting it on the fields). This is of course less flashy than any high-tech solution including the golden rice but does not rely on any specific (staple) crop and is thus easier to translate to regions with other food preferences (than rice). Benkeboy (talk) 11:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Weeds like dandelion have more than enough Vitamin A and are free, in areas where rice must be purchased. Kortoso (talk) 22:22, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

"yet" is TOO correct grammar! (even if this talk page section isn't...)

Okay, User:Petaholmes, "yet" is grammatically correct and also implies that Golden rice might eventually be available for human consumption. Saying something is not available for consumption makes it seem like it's possible that it was at one time available, as opposed to not "yet" available for consumption, which correctly implies that Golden Rice has not been available, but that it's expected as possible that it will be available for consumption in the future. (Sorry for the poor quality of this post. I'm really tired.) Robotbeat 09:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Since this is an encyclopedia it is best not to speculate about forthcoming events, golden rice probably won't actually be available for at least 3 or 4 years. Alluding to that fact is not encyclopedic writing.--nixie 10:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I know, but the intent of the production of the rice is clearly for human consumption, which is made more obvious by the inclusion of the word "yet." I really don't care that much about it. I was really tired when I wrote this talk section last night. In fact, I don't think that this is worth spent another second arguing about. Sorry for wasting your time. Robotbeat 21:10, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

fumento.com addition

Golden Rice -Milled rice does not contains bets-cartene -Vitamin A defincency Afflicts over 200 million children and woman -About 500,000 children go blind (60 every hour!) -2 million chilren under 5 years die each year [www.fumento.com/img4/goldenrice.jpg]

I moved the above because it was poorly formatted and likely in the wrong spot. Could be integrated into the article if it doesn't repeat anything, and can be sourced. - RoyBoy 800 20:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


I would be interested in your thoughts on the following. I do feel we may be using a reductionist model when talking about golden rice in the context of its effectiveness. We should be looking at it at a higher level ie the root cause of the problem which is socio economic. In a world where obesity reigns in developed countries why do we have the complete opposite in developing ones? The following is a paper I wrote on the subject.

Journal of Nutritional & Environmental Medicine 

  Publisher:   Taylor & Francis  
  Issue:   Volume 13, Number 3 / September 2003  
  Pages:   169 - 184  
  URL:   Linking Options  
  DOI:   10.1080/13590840310001619414

Vitamin A Deficiency and Golden Rice--A Literature Review


Nilva E. Egana A1

Abstract:


Purpose: To present one possible framework by which to appraise the potential for golden rice to prevent vitamin A deficiency (VAD)/xerophthalmia.

Design: Literature review.

Method: Twenty-nine articles were read and the term 'issue' was used for factors that the authors of the articles or secondary sources identified as being either causative or protective of VAD/xerophthalmia. The term 'issue' was not used exclusively to indicate that the factor caused VAD/xerophthalmia.

Setting: VAD and xerophthalmia in developing countries.

Main Outcome Measure: The number of issues identified and the frequency with which they occurred.

Results: Twenty issues were identified with varying degrees of frequency. Socio-economic/environmental, parasitic infestation and dark green leafy vegetables were the issues mentioned most frequently. Each issue was addressed in relation to golden rice. It is difficult to ascertain whether the frequency with which an issue was raised is relative to how important it is in relation to the other issues. It is interesting to note that socio-economic/environmental factors are regarded as the fundamental causes of VAD/xerophthalmia and in this review it was one of the most frequently occurring issues in the 29 articles.

Conclusions: It appears that the elimination of VAD/xerophthalmia in developing countries is not likely in the foreseeable future, even with the introduction of golden rice. This genetically modified rice does little more than add another supplement to the market. The World Health Organization and the United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund have failed to eliminate VAD/xerophthalmia through the use of supplements, fortification and dietary modification. So of interest is the rationale behind spending public money to develop rice which has been genetically modified with pro-vitamin A when other supplements have failed. It is the socio-economic/environmental issues which impact on whether a population has VAD/xerophthalmia and these are not being addressed.Ginger28 13:53, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Greenpeace & GMO

Does Greenpeace indeed oppose all GMOs? http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/genetic-engineering says this: "We believe: GMOs should not be released into the environment as there is not adequate scientific understanding of their impact on the environment and human health."

I get the impression that Greenpeace does not oppose GMOs which are kept isolated from the natural enviroment, like GMOs that are kept only in laboratories. Greenpeace just opposes the use of GMOs out in the natural world. Shubi 23:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Greenpeace does not believe that any measures to contain GMOs would be adequate. 50.0.164.30 (talk) 01:32, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Nutritional testing

I have removed the following statement because it is broad, unsubstantiated, and contrary to other cited information. 

     "Golden rice and Golden rice 2 have not yet undergone nutritional testing."

It is unclear what type of nutritional testing this statement refers to. Many references have cited information indicating that there has been testing done to determine Beta-carotene levels. If there are other specific tests which ought to be performed, but haven't been, this information ought to be included with a citation. If the statement was meant to refer more generally to a process of regulatory approval (e.g. deregulation by the FDA) which may include nutritional testing, then this too should be included with a citation. AAMiller 22:53, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Bias

Sorry I'm new to editing Wikipedia so for now I'd just like to point out this statement, in the 'Opposition section':

Opponents of genetically modified foods, however, have yet to propose or act upon a viable solution to the problem of malnutrition.

The statement seems to be a 'weasel statement', unsourced, unverifiable, and biased. Really it reads like it's coming straight out of a press release defending GM foods. --ThanatosUroboros (talk) 03:33, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

hello im the moderator, well, not really. But I think if GM rice is safe, doesn't have poisons in it and grows good then I say go ahead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.50.143.20 (talk) 09:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Well why don't you add a paragraph or two about the viable solutions that were proposed? Gould80 (talk) 19:16, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I'm new to this discussion but regarding the question above: viable solutions have not only been proposed, but enacted. In the Philippines, which is the main country where Golden Rice is being bred & tested for possible release in the near future, Vitamin A Deficiency has been slashed from a peak of 40.1% in 2003 to 15.2% in 2008 and has certainly fallen further (but updated figures are not available yet). This was done without any GM crops. There is an article about this in Agriculture & Human Values. Is this entry open for editing, or locked because it is subject to controversy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.136.235.178 (talk) 14:30, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

GM economics

The argument has been made to me(*) that a major reason for the lack of G.R. uptake in poor nations is this: Impoverished Nation X raises much of its foreign exchange by exporting rice to the West. Western supermarkets insist on being able to guarantee to their (paranoid?) consumers that the rice they sell is totally GM free. So X cannot risk planting GR, for fear of losing its exports. I.e. Our western anti-GM panic [a luxury which we can afford, since GM/non-GM is just a matter of financial choice] becomes a life/death issue for X [who really don't care about the trivial risk from GM, when many are dying from V.A.D.]. Can anyone provide any formal references for this? (*)Personal conversation with a notable biochemist. I believe that the above assertion is exactly correct, but I haven't got the references, so won't modify the article itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.171.29 (talk) 02:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Interesting that no one has bothered to comment further on this (above). While I agree with most the macro-economic rational, perhaps the main reason why this has idea not gone forward is due to poor harvest yields in agricultural trials. So, yes, the GM technology did work for this potentially useful application, but this GM variety has not been used for a very practical reason; i.e., poor yields.173.216.59.26 (talk) 17:02, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

This book can be cited as a reference: Mendel in the Kitchen: A Scientist's View of Genetically Modified Food (page 311). This LA Times article (on page 3) speculates that the decision by Zambia to reject GM corn shipments from the U.S. was politically motivated. --Tweenk (talk) 16:16, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum and careful attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 06:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if its temporary or not, but the link for reference 9 cannot find the page it points to. Is anyone else having the same problem? --Shiftingskye (talk) 02:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it seems the Gates foundation website has been restructured. I've hunted out the press release and updated the link. Thomas Kluyver (talk) 12:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Removed unsourced claims / corrected reference

I removed the last sentence from the "opposition" section, marked in italic below:

Vandana Shiva, an Indian anti-GMO activist, argued that the problem was not that the crop had any particular deficiencies, but that there were potential problems with poverty and loss of biodiversity in food crops. These problems are aggravated by the corporate control of agriculture based on genetically modified foods. By focusing on a narrow problem (vitamin A deficiency), Shiva argued, the golden rice proponents were obscuring the larger issue of a lack of broad availability of diverse and nutritionally adequate sources of food.[21] Other groups have argued that a varied diet containing foods rich in vitamin A such as sweet potato, leafy green vegetables and fruit would provide children with sufficient vitamin A.[22] While this may be true when diets contain enough fat, others contend that a varied diet is beyond the means of many of the poor, which they say is why they subsist on a diet mainly of rice. The poorest people may not have an option to eat a varied diet, necessarily relying on one or few foods to provide complete nutrition.

First, this claim is not sourced and only contributed to "others". Second, Shiva's argument is exactly to put more effort and resources in improving the overall food quality, instead off "focusing on a narrow problem", e.g. get to the root of the problem and working on ways to improve the variety of food available, instead of just adding Vitamin A to this unbalanced diet. I'll call the removed part a circular argument.

Similar, I reworded the following reference under "Golden rice and vitamin A deficiency"

In that respect it is significant that vitamin A deficiency is rarely an isolated phenomenon, but usually coupled to a general lack of a balanced diet (see also the arguments against Vandana Shiva's suggestions below).

into the opposite meaning:

In that respect it is significant that vitamin A deficiency is rarely an isolated phenomenon, but usually coupled to a general lack of a balanced diet (see also the Vandana Shiva's arguements below).

Since this is exactly what Shiva is drawing attention to. 92.206.160.78 (talk) 10:38, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Chunk to add in Opposition section

No time atm, so I am putting this here - it would fit neatly at the end of the opposition section, feel free to integrate. It is from 2008, quotes a WHO malnutrion expert and was published in Science Journal.

Real-world studies are still lacking, says WHO malnutrition expert Francesco Branca, noting that it's unclear how many people will plant, buy, and eat golden rice. He says giving out supplements, fortifying existing foods with vitamin A, and teaching people to grow carrots or certain leafy vegetables are, for now, more promising ways to fight the problem.

Enserink, M. 2008. Tough Lessons From Golden Rice. Science, 230, 468-471.

http://fbae.org/2009/FBAE/website/news_tough-lessons-from-golden-rice.html 92.206.160.78 (talk) 11:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

added, not sure about the wording - not my mother tongue. feel free to improve. 92.206.128.231 (talk) 20:37, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Opposition

A chief argument of the opposition is that it's "unnatural" to add genes from one plant to another, since we have no idea what the effect will be. But not only does nature move genes from one species to another regularly, but a case has recently been discovered in which the very genes used to allow rice to make beta-carotene, have been naturally transferred to aphids, by evolution, so that THEY now make beta carotene. We already knew gene-transfer between species is a process naturally seen. But this is the first case where nature is found to have naturally transferred the same capability at the center of a genetically-modified crop debate, and even transferred it from a plant to an insect. SBHarris 16:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Besides being OR, these thought belongs in an article covering the debate about GMO opposition. This page is about Golden Rice, and the opposition section does not contain any arguments about the "naturality" of gene transfers. The topic is not mentioned at all on the whole page. Moreover, you attached the discussion about natural gene between species onto this sentence:
"Greenpeace opposes all genetically modified organisms, and is 'concerned that golden rice is a Trojan horse that will open the door to more widespread use of GMOs."
How do you make the connection from that concern to your assumed "chief argument" about how "natural" the process is? I removed your edit without consulting the talk page first because it was imho obviously out of place. Could you please explain how you see the piece you added fitting with the article? I still don't get it. 89.247.52.141 (talk) 19:21, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
I removed your edit again. The removed part is in italic below:
Greenpeace opposes all genetically modified organisms, and is concerned that golden rice is a Trojan horse that will open the door to more widespread use of GMOs.[20] Interestingly, however, it has recently (April, 2010) been found that a species of aphid has naturally gained the ability to sythesis carodenoids by borrowing the genes to do so from a fungus, via natural gene transfer (the only known member of the animal kingdom able to do so). Thus, natural cross-species genetic modification is more widespread that previously believed. [21]
Resasons see above, plus:
Original Research: the citation does not conclude that "natural cross-species genetic modification is more widespread that previously believed." On the opposite, It asserts that "[...] the transfer documented here, from a fungus to an aphid ancestor, is, so far, the only acquisition of carotenoid biosynthetic machinery known in animals" and that "In view of the widespread dependence of animals on carotenoids, it is perhaps curious that acquisition of genes underlying carotenoid biosynthesis has not been more frequent." Also you are assuming that Greenpeace "chief argument" against GMO is that gene transfer between species is "unnatural", I doubt this to be the case.
Please see the guidelines about words to avoid (i.e. however, interestingly), and use the discussion page before adding your thoughts back in. Thanks! 89.247.73.20 (talk) 10:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

One of the reasons for opposition listed is the idea that golden rice doesn't have "sufficient Vitamin A". But that's nonsensical given that regular rice doesn't have any Vitamin A. 75.76.213.106 (talk) 06:17, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Recommend edit - A dated (2002) reference which is only sourced to activists - this source and claim is not found on the WHO.int website support for traditional supplementation positioned here as some validation for Greenpeace and other activists opposition to biofortifying rice with Vitamin A is misleadingly suggesting WHO agrees with them. Support for traditional supplementation does not mean opposition to Golden Rice research. In fact, the WHO has voiced support for this type of Vitamin A biofortification research and alternative delivery systems with more than 30 references to this support found on WHO.int. After the initial 2002 WHO notations about the Vitamin A levels in early strains of Golden Rice they have since noted the increases and promise this offers. WHO's concern that the public not stop support for traditional supplementation is not validation of opposition to Golden Rice. As such, this quote should be removed: "Because of lacking real-world studies and uncertainty about how many people will use golden rice, WHO malnutrition expert Francesco Branca concludes "giving out supplements, fortifying existing foods with vitamin A, and teaching people to grow carrots or certain leafy vegetables are, for now, more promising ways to fight the problem".

NEW SUGGESTION - I just reverted an edit I made to this section to note recent vandalism at a Golden Rice site in the Philippines. I have a conflict of interest so should not add it myself but recommend someone else does. A google search on "golden rice vandalism" will bring up related news items, such as http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23632042. Press release from Philippine Department of Agriculture where trial was located is here http://www.bicol.da.gov.ph/News/2013/Aug10a.html and my organization's (IRRI) perspective is here: http://irri.org/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=12639&lang=en

Thanks Sophie Clayton (talk) 04:35, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Silver+gold.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Silver+gold.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:07, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Biased view of this GM crop

After reading this article, even though it is referenced, I could not stop feeling that it was biased towards the good that this GM can make, without addressing its bad issues properly. The few opposition views mentioned is about nutritional and social fear. That's why I marked it as biased and as I'm not an expert nor does English is my first-language, so I do not feel that I could make any valuable addition to this article. 83.223.172.184 (talk) 17:32, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I have re-read this article and it seems objective and neutral. I don't see any reason to call it biased. I vote we delete the bias marking.SylviaStanley (talk) 09:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

After re-reading the article, the "Opposition" section seems to cover the main criticisms adequately. If there is a specific point that should be included but isn't, then please bring it here for discussion. The issues that are covered have been given due weight and there doesn't seem to be a real neutrality issue here, so I'm removing the tag. Doc Tropics 13:54, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Move "Clinical Trials" to "Research"

Currently the "Clinical Trials" section sits under "Opposition" but clinical trials should be neutral simply reporting on any clinical trials that have been done and the research results. I would like to move this section to "Research" to reflect this and add some links to other clinical trials and encourage more people to contribute. Sophie Clayton (talk) 07:10, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Agree! The current orientation of both the "research" and "opposition" sections is highly misleading and biased. "Opposition" to clinical trials and research would be a more accurate reflection of the current status of this section. The research section is also lacking in references to the detailed and available research on Golden Research (not just GM rice). The recently published nutrition study doesn't belong under opposition - it appears to be a highly favorable result for proponents of Golden Rice demonstrating its effectiveness. Apparently the "opposition" opposed doing this research before it was conducted and is now opposing the favorable results. These opposing views can be characterized in an opposition/criticism section; however, that doesn't mean research results should be negatively characterized there as well. They should be represented in an unbiased (whether results are negative or positive) manner on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.7.60.157 (talk) 13:09, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

OK - thanks for the input - I'll move it shortly and see if there is other input or suggestions. Sophie Clayton (talk) 00:06, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


Removed unsourced claim from intro

"However, its failure to make it to market is due to its lack of ability to thrive in many real-world growing conditions."

No source and sounds a bit like someone trying to take the blame off misguided environmentalists for Golden rice's failure to be released to the public. Also no mention of Golden rice having difficulty growing anywhere else in the article. Quick google search is turning up some references about it having trouble growing...from banGMOs.com. Editor that inserted the sentence claims to be PR for an institute that does work with rice. If she'd like to show us what work she was referencing I'd be happy to go through it and link it properly. Keytud (talk) 05:21, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Scientists who work on golden rice

WE have several that oppose GM (Vandana Shiva for e.g.). Why not list some that are - in favor - e.g. in the German Wikipedia Matin Qaim is one that could well be linked in here. I am not sure how I would do that (he has published a lot in ENglish) and as a full prof is notable, but there seems to be no see also section and no logical place to put him! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.190.194.228 (talk) 17:57, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Lycopene?

The article suggests that the fact that it was thought that a lycopene gene would be required for production, but it was later found that the wildtype endosperm already produced it. Is there something I am misunderstanding? If that were true, rice would be red...according to this paper CRTI is one the two transgenes that were introduced into rice that should have lead to the terminal lycopene product, but it was found that the pathway continued on to produce carotenoids. I understand that as the wildtype organism not producing lycopene without transgene modification. If my understanding is correct then the sentence in the article is wrong.Maneesh (talk) 00:37, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Ah the article was referring to lycopene cyclase, not the production of lycopene. Maneesh (talk) 19:46, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

IRRI

Several references to the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) seem to have been inserted into this article by editor with an apparent conflict of interest (see here for details). As all mention to the IRRI seems attributable to the editor in question, I suggest we blanket delete them. Do I hear objections? NickCT (talk) 02:17, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

She's been going round reverting her edits herself, then sorting it out on the various Talk pages, after having been informed what COI means. So yes, I object, for the time being. Is your objection because her entries are tainted by COI, or are the edits unencyclopeadic?Roxy the dog (talk) 05:27, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Further to the above, see the latest entry in the "opposition" section on this page. Roxy the dog (talk) 05:30, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
She has not reverted all of them. I personally don't believe them to be independent enough to be considered RS secondary sources, seeing as how this organization is associated with the creation of the rice variety (unless i'm misinterpreting). -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 05:45, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
My objection is that an mention of IRRI inserted into this article by the IRRI PR manager is probably going to be inappropriate. If we're going to keep them, someone is really going to have to make the argument that the mentions are due and neutral. NickCT (talk) 11:55, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Then I reckon the view of the more experienced editors gets it. Does anybody intend to tell her that the IRRI is going to be wiped off the wiki? They do seem to be an integral part of the whole shebang though.Roxy the dog (talk) 17:33, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Ok. I've gone ahead and removed the IRRI stuff.
@Roxy the dog - re "They do seem to be an integral part of the whole shebang though." - On what basis do you say that. All the citations all saw for the IRRI stuff were from the actual IRRI organization themselves. Clearly not reliable, and clearly not a way to demonstrate notability. Do you have some other reason to think they are an "integral" part of things? NickCT (talk) 23:42, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
I do understand that the sources are not adequate for our use.Roxy the dog (talk) 00:10, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Further to the above, could you guys explain for me how you feel about the IRRI page itself? I suspect that this is not the correct spot for such a discussion - how about my talk page? Roxy the dog (talk) 00:27, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
@Roxy the dog - re "how you feel about the IRRI page itself? I suspect that this is not the correct spot" - You're right. This probably isn't the correct spot. I've glanced at the page, and my initial feelings are a little mixed. If you want to open a discussion on that talk page, I'd definitely participate. NickCT (talk) 02:23, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Just to chime in here, I have reverted what changes I made where it was straight forward to do so and have been making comments to alert ones that were not straight forward to me - I have always been 100% open about my COI here but I understand everyone's concern and have been doing what I can to fix - take a look at my NEW SUGGESTION below under the section Opposition. IRRI is doing Golden Rice research so it would be remiss not to have mention of IRRI on this wikipedia page and it would be great if another editor could step in and think about how best to note our involvement and consider the expert contribution we could make to keep this page updated and accurate. I would be very open to ways I can help or just step away if that is what the community advises...? Sophie Clayton (talk) 05:52, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Also the photo of Golden Rice is from IRRI and uploaded by me - should I remove it? Sophie Clayton (talk) 06:11, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
If you are (or appropriately represent) the rights holder of this media, then it is appropriate that YOU are the one who post and make it available. Thus you should not remove it. Simply being a part of an organization involved with an issue does not automatically preclude you from contributing as long as your contributions are neutral and appropriately sourced. The quality of content on Wikipedia benefits from knowledgeable sources making responsible contributions. Unfortunately content linked to GMOs has attracted aggressive reactions on Wikipedia that require additional diligence and broader community engagement to ensure factual information is included and retained in related articles. Given your transparency and acknowledgement of potentially perceived COI, consider using the TALK pages of articles to recommend your edits first. Often an independent editor will chose to make those edits then based on your input, or you will then be able to make them yourself with the input and agreement of others. [[User:NickCT|NickCT] Engaging in a blanket deletion of contributions by Sophie Clayton, many of which do appear to be appropriately referenced and neutral, seems like an overreaction given the willingness of Clayton to engage here in a productive and responsive manner.CinagroErunam (talk) 14:52, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
@CinagroErunam - re "Engaging in a blanket deletion ......... seems like an overreaction" - Possibly. But if someone doesn't put in the effort to verify the stuff she's put in, I think deletion is next best outcome. NickCT (talk) 15:28, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
@NickCT No disrespect intended here, but I've not seen evidence of wholesale COI abuse, just claim of potential COI for someone who openly declared they work for a non-profit organization with an interest in this issue. A wholesale removal of all contributions and edits by this contributor based on that would be inappropriate particularly when the contributor Sophie Clayton is openly engaging in learning and offering to make any corrections to their contributions warranted. If we discourage people who have expertise and interest (which doesn't mean a conflict - this is not some corporation here shilling a product, but a non-profit international research institute which appears to be part of this project because of their expert status and not for some marketing or profit gain) then the quality of articles will be driven by those with undisclosed agendas without the benefit of truly knowledgeable sources.CinagroErunam (talk) 18:17, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
@CinagroErunam - "A wholesale removal of all contributions.... If we discourage people who have expertise and interest ...... then the quality of articles will be driven by those with undisclosed agendas without the benefit of truly knowledgeable sources." - Oh I agree. To clarify, I'm not arguing we remove contributions Sophie Clayton has made relating generally to Golden Rice. I'm arguing we should blanket remove contributions Sohpie has made which specifically relate to the entity for which she works (i.e. IRRI). The WP:COI is fairly clear there. NickCT (talk) 20:07, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
@NickCTOK - I can see where contributions made to her employer IRRI article could be COI (again if they are neutral, appropriately referenced and add to the quality of the article then does COI automatically apply resulting in deletion?) and she should avoid directly editing that page deferring to the talk page to provide input and recommendations as a better practice. I'm glad you clarifying that her edits to other areas in which she may have expertise and add to quality articles are not being discussed for blanket deletion. Thanks for that clarification. CinagroErunam (talk) 20:18, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
I should point out that the COI guidelines actually specifically say that no distinction is or can be made between corporations or nonprofit/ngo entities. Since the bulk of this user's edits have been to insert IRRI links, and she herself says she is a PR person rather than a scientist (which would better comport with my idea of "subject matter expert"), I am perhaps less willing to give the benefit of the doubt. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 00:13, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
It is possible for a person with COI to contribute constructively and because I care personally about this issue I would be willing to meet this organization's representative on Skype and give them coaching for constructive participation. My personal base demand when I work with such people is that in addition to the changes they want to make they also go to some other article in their field of expertise and develop something which is important to Wikipedia but less important to them. If they show good faith in developing Wikipedia then I have more faith in their participating in articles in which they have a stake. Of course, people with COI are instructed to keep good communication with the talk page and propose all changes on the talk page first, in accordance with community guidelines and years of precedent. I do not want to chase away expertise in an underserved sector if something good can come of this. Blue Rasberry (talk) 03:17, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
+1 strongly encourage. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 03:35, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks User:Bluerasberry - I'll be happy to communicate with you - I'll email you. User:UseTheCommandLine - correct I am not a scientific expert, but I work very closely with the IRRI scientists working on Golden Rice who provide me with all the information I have previously added and give me advice on updates on our Golden Rice work - so I know all the latest in relation to our work and the latest research they are aware of. It is my job to help communicate what we are doing (hence my COI!). It would be great if the scientists had the time and energy to contribute directly, although I guess they too would have a COI. Anyway... thanks to everyone in this discussion thread for your interest in getting this page updated, accurate and unbiased - I am 100% behind helping that happen and I will be happy to help in whatever way is appropriate. Sophie Clayton (talk) 00:28, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Lynas/Slate article

I read the Lynas article (http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/08/26/golden_rice_attack_in_philippines_anti_gmo_activists_lie_about_protest_and.html) that is being used for reference and it seems quite slanted. I also note that Lynas both not a regular reporter for slate, nor does he indicate that he contacted the organizations accused of the direct action. I can't find other documentation of the event other than the butalat(sp?) links though. I am going to add some more attribution language, and think more about this source and how it is used. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 17:42, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

This edit was reverted. Which part is OR, exactly? There are plenty of citations for Lynas's current positions on GMOs. Some of the attribution language could have been left in, anyway. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 23:59, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict):I am sorry but it sounds like you are using original research to judge the article and the reporter. You would need a secondary source to say that the journalist is pro-GM. It may well be a case of the source not being reliable enough to use, but we shouldn't label it slanted because we think it is slanted. AIRcorn (talk) 00:01, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

It was fairly clear and well sourced in his own article. I put the ref there to assuage your OR concern, but I'm not sure it belongs here specifically. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 00:05, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

As the originator of this difficulty, I made another amendment to note that Lynas was previously a demonstrative opponent of GMOs. For prickly articles like this, I think more context is better than less...Lfstevens (talk) 00:17, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I think that's fine. To me it seems barely better than a press release, composed as it is mostly of observations by IRRI folks. Had considered going to RSN about the quality, but i think it's ok for now. I wish they had at least made a pretense of trying to contact the organizations said to be responsible, as that would have made it much more acceptable as a source, journalistically. If other RS emerge I would strongly suggest making use of them instead, as I think the deficiencies are significant enough to be an undue weight issue. But again, ok for now until other accounts (if any) emerge. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 01:12, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Yields

It is surprising to find no info at all in this article on yields for this crop. Any available info on typical yields? Jace1 (talk) 20:39, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Removing commentary sourced from ISIS

Unfounded claims listed in the research section citing an anti-science website. The statement was acknowledging the letter, but the long quote is irrelevant due to unverified claims.

"In response to the research, a group of 20 scientists suggested in an open letter that there might be deficiencies in clinical trials: "There is now a large body of evidence that shows that GM crop/food production is highly prone to inadvertent and unpredictable pleiotropic effects, which can result in health damaging effects when GM food products are fed to animals. More specifically, our greatest concern is that this rice, which is engineered to overproduce beta carotene, has never been tested in animals, and there is an extensive medical literature showing that retinoids that can be derived from beta carotene are both toxic and cause birth defects.""

Sourcing this article from a website which promotes anti-vaxxer, anti-GMO and AIDS denialism articles. [1]

After reviewing the claims and the literature they cited about golden rice. None of the claims regarding birth defects, toxicity or pleitropy were found in any of the three studies posted in this letter. This source appears to be unscientific, unreliable and unfounded. The studies listed in the letter were actually in favor of golden rice and others were merely questioning the safety without bringing forth conclusive evidence for any dangers or harm. The letter is also framing the issue as an ethical one regarding people consenting to the study instead of the claims regarding birth defects. The following studies were conducted by Tufts and actually cited in the article as they concluded the efficacy of golden rice. Jnav7 (talk) 02:56, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.i-sis.org.uk/SPUCTGM.php

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Golden rice. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:48, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Naturally occurring rice with high vitamin A content

It would be really nice if this would also find a notice in the article. I remember an interview with Vandana Shiva in which she described such an old rice from India (with higher Vitamin A than the golden rice) Informationskampagne (talk) 12:27, 7 June 2016 (UTC).

  • She's hardly a reliable source on anything related to the subject, as she's been demonstrated wrong about the vitamin A contents of greens eaten in India and apparently will say anything to oppose golden rice. 208.54.70.183 (talk) 01:20, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Greenpeace

Greenpeace responded on Thursday with a statement issued from Manila, saying that "the only guaranteed solution to fix malnutrition is a diverse healthy diet" and denying the capabilities of Golden Rice.

"This costly experiment has failed to produce results for the past 20 years and diverted attention from methods that already work," wrote Wilhelmina Pelegrina of Greenpeace Southeast Asia. "Rather than invest in this overpriced public relations exercise, we need to address malnutrition through a more diverse diet, equitable access to food and eco-agriculture."[1]

  • Part of the reason it's 'failed' is because of their opposition to it. That statement is the unholy combination of "Then let them eat cake" and the Nirvana Fallacy. 208.54.70.183 (talk) 01:26, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Inconsistent capitalization

In various places in the article it's written as "Golden rice," "golden rice" and "Golden Rice." The project site (http://www.goldenrice.org) uses "Golden Rice" exclusively as far as I can see. Any reason that shouldn't be the way it's rendered throughout the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C2:301:40F6:650B:BE16:4AE0:582F (talk) 23:52, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Higher risk of cancer

Death Stalks Smokers in Beta-Carotene Study --Ghettobuoy (talk) 00:21, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

By no means an expert, but how does "high doses" relate to GM rice, which is about correcting deficiencies? Most things are dangerous at a high enough dose...To be relevant to this piece, you'd need a review that cited studies showing that golden rice at recommended consumption levels more detrimental than regular rice with a std supplement or that consumers were way overloading on golden rice for whatever reason. Lfstevens (talk) 06:14, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Tang 2009 has been retracted

The article by Guangwen Tang et al., Golden Rice is an effective source of vitamin A, has been retracted due to ethics concerns. Retraction Watch has this article about it. The article is purported to substantiate a significant claim about golden rice ─ that its beta-carotene is available for the body to transform into vitamin A ─ and the retraction of the paper weakens that claim. The article should stop being used as a reference. Amorim Parga (talk) 06:07, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

"it is estimated that 144 g of the high-yielding strain would have to be eaten"

I assume this is per day? This is now totally unclear. Also, *who* estimated this and how was it calculated? Simonbr (talk) 07:29, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Colinrin.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:31, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Golden rice. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:08, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2016/0630/Why-Golden-Rice-has-become-a-symbol-of-the-GMO-debate
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Golden_rice/Archive_1&oldid=1227618600"