860,000 children to die from Vitamin A deficiency

wrote:

Roman Bystrianyk wrote:
Emmanuel Ukudolo, "860,000 children to die from Vitamin A deficiency",
Daily Independent, Nigeria, November 1, 2005,
Link: http://www.independentng.com/news/nnnov010521.htm

Sounds like stepwise-PR for GM rice with vitamin A.

Vitamin A deficiency doesn't kill. It can lead
to poor night vision.

The URL above does a switcharoo from vitamin A
to iron. It claims children will die from
lack of iron, but leaves an implication in
the reader's mind that vitamin A is involved
in this. Then the headline reads "chidren to
die from vitamin A deficiency".

In the ng, the "GM rice with vitamin A" was deftly
inserted, suggesting a well-coordinated marketing
plan for selling this particular GM rice.

Check your foil beanie for holes.
--
Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com

PeterB wrote:
Peter Bowditch wrote:

"PeterB" wrote:


Roman Bystrianyk wrote:

Emmanuel Ukudolo, "860,000 children to die from Vitamin A deficiency",
Daily Independent, Nigeria, November 1, 2005,
Link: http://www.independentng.com/news/nnnov010521.htm


Vitamin A is crucial for reducing death in cases of infectious disease
in children. Our resident pharma bloggers will likely have little or
nothing to say about a health article that doesn't also promote
vaccine. Sad, that.

PeterB

You would be wrong.


Thanks for confessing.


Are you against the distribution of Golden Rice, the
genetically-modified form of rice that would provide Vitamin A to the
very large proportion of the world's population who get their calories
from rice? I'm not, but many alties seem to think that GM food is the
work of Satan.


GM is an extremely dangerous agricultural experiment. We can't know
the consequences of wild-strain mutations of these organisms that are
impacting the human (and animal) food chain. We do know that GMO
contaminates non-GMO agriculture and threatens the viability of organic
farming.

Organic farming isn't viable anyway, that is, it can never produce
enough food for the whole worldpopulation. With regard to the
contimination argument - what do you think nature has been doing for
eons? Swapping DNA between organisms or inserting yours into another
organism has been going on naturally for millions of years and has never
led to the extinction of life or any major problem in general. Look up
cladistics and the problem of horizontal gene transfer if want to learn
more.

The real impetus behind GMO technology is commoditization of
agriculture at the genetic level for the purpose of increasing
corporate profits, whereas the potential short-term benefits (if there
are any) are nothing more than pre-packaged justification.

Well, the thing I don't like about GM foods is that it started out as
"this will allow us to grow crops in deserts and oranges on the north
pole so there will be food for everyone", but it is now mostly about
profit. Monsanto has come up with soy that is resistant to Roundup,
which they just happen to sell, and that doesn't grow any seeds so
farmers need to buy new seeds after every harvest, which, guess what,
Monsanto also happens to sell. I do see longterm benefits though, Golden
Rice being a better example of what can and should be done with GM food.

Yes, I'm opposed to sinking my ship to get a drink of water.

I find it strange that you're scared of a 100% natural proces.

cathyb wrote:
wrote:

Roman Bystrianyk wrote:
Emmanuel Ukudolo, "860,000 children to die from Vitamin A deficiency",
Daily Independent, Nigeria, November 1, 2005,
Link: http://www.independentng.com/news/nnnov010521.htm

Sounds like stepwise-PR for GM rice with vitamin A.

Vitamin A deficiency doesn't kill. It can lead
to poor night vision.

As PeterB stated above, vitamin A deficiency is a killer if a child is
exposed to infectious disease; it increases mortality, which is why it
is a treatment for measles; the WHO is in fact trying to ensure that

I hadn't read that, I stand corrected. The article is about
iron deficiency, though, and the vitamin A connection is just
added without any support. The numbers appear incorrect
for "increased risk" of infection.

I would like to say that the new and improved JanD wrote the following,
but, if I did that Jan would be justified in calling me a liar, since
she is neither new or improved:


"Mark Probert" wrote

[ SNIPPAGED RESTORED BELOW-Jan is afraid of facts]

.

Peter Bowditch wrote:

wrote:



Peter Bowditch wrote:


You would be wrong.

Are you against the distribution of Golden Rice, the
genetically-modified form of rice that would provide Vitamin A to the
very large proportion of the world's population who get their calories

from rice? I'm not, but many alties seem to think that GM food is the

work of Satan.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

It's conceivable that some day we would know enough
genetics to pre-determine from the genetic signature
of a GM food what all its ramifications to the
human body are.

If you think that day is today, you have been dangerously
sub-informed. Right now, using GM food is gambling.

Personally, I would feel OK with a particular GM food
after folks like you have been using it for 20 years
or so -- so I guess I should thank you for
volunteering to be the guinea pigs.

So: Thank you.

(But, please note I am not taking any share of
responsibility in your decision to feed it to
your children.)


Note how the poster deceitfully snipped (without mentioning) the words
to which I had been replying, where I and others were accused of not
wanting to give Vitamin A to anyone because it is not a vaccine:



Vitamin A is crucial for reducing death in cases of infectious disease
in children. Our resident pharma bloggers will likely have little or
nothing to say about a health article that doesn't also promote
vaccine. Sad, that.


Sad that, indeed.

I suppose that the poster just wants to line the pockets of the
Herb/supplement/magic potion industry and have these people who are in
desperate need of Vit A be dependent on us.

JohnDoe wrote:
PeterB wrote:
Peter Bowditch wrote:

"PeterB" wrote:


Roman Bystrianyk wrote:

Emmanuel Ukudolo, "860,000 children to die from Vitamin A deficiency",
Daily Independent, Nigeria, November 1, 2005,
Link: http://www.independentng.com/news/nnnov010521.htm


Vitamin A is crucial for reducing death in cases of infectious disease
in children. Our resident pharma bloggers will likely have little or
nothing to say about a health article that doesn't also promote
vaccine. Sad, that.

PeterB

You would be wrong.


Thanks for confessing.


Are you against the distribution of Golden Rice, the
genetically-modified form of rice that would provide Vitamin A to the
very large proportion of the world's population who get their calories
from rice? I'm not, but many alties seem to think that GM food is the
work of Satan.


GM is an extremely dangerous agricultural experiment. We can't know
the consequences of wild-strain mutations of these organisms that are
impacting the human (and animal) food chain. We do know that GMO
contaminates non-GMO agriculture and threatens the viability of organic
farming.

Organic farming isn't viable anyway, that is, it can never produce
enough food for the whole worldpopulation...

Organic farming is perfectly viable for the markets it serves,
including those in developed nations who choose to avoid standard
agriculture. And even combined with GMO technology, modern farming
methods will not feed the world population.

With regard to the
contimination argument - what do you think nature has been doing for
eons? Swapping DNA between organisms or inserting yours into another
organism has been going on naturally for millions of years and has never
led to the extinction of life or any major problem in general. Look up
cladistics and the problem of horizontal gene transfer if want to learn
more.

There is a huge difference between naturally-evolved genetic mutation
and instantaneous alteration using gene transfer technology. Insertion
of genes into target DNA is a very imprecise science. If we disrupt
other genes essential to the life of that organism, we increase the
risk of harm to ourselves.

The real impetus behind GMO technology is commoditization of
agriculture at the genetic level for the purpose of increasing
corporate profits, whereas the potential short-term benefits (if there
are any) are nothing more than pre-packaged justification.

Well, the thing I don't like about GM foods is that it started out as
"this will allow us to grow crops in deserts and oranges on the north
pole so there will be food for everyone", but it is now mostly about
profit. Monsanto has come up with soy that is resistant to Roundup,
which they just happen to sell, and that doesn't grow any seeds so
farmers need to buy new seeds after every harvest, which, guess what,
Monsanto also happens to sell. I do see longterm benefits though, Golden
Rice being a better example of what can and should be done with GM food.

Monsanto prosecutes innocent farmers whose crops become contaminated
with their GMO seeds. I think it's clear that this will end badly for
everyone.

http://www.innerself.com/Health/frankenfood.htm

Yes, I'm opposed to sinking my ship to get a drink of water.

I find it strange that you're scared of a 100% natural proces.

Let's say that geneticists wanted to put a fish gene into your brain.
Would you consider that natural?

PeterB

PeterB wrote:
JohnDoe wrote:

PeterB wrote:

Peter Bowditch wrote:


"PeterB" wrote:



Roman Bystrianyk wrote:


Emmanuel Ukudolo, "860,000 children to die from Vitamin A deficiency",
Daily Independent, Nigeria, November 1, 2005,
Link: http://www.independentng.com/news/nnnov010521.htm


Vitamin A is crucial for reducing death in cases of infectious disease
in children. Our resident pharma bloggers will likely have little or
nothing to say about a health article that doesn't also promote
vaccine. Sad, that.

PeterB

You would be wrong.


Thanks for confessing.



Are you against the distribution of Golden Rice, the
genetically-modified form of rice that would provide Vitamin A to the
very large proportion of the world's population who get their calories

from rice? I'm not, but many alties seem to think that GM food is the

work of Satan.


GM is an extremely dangerous agricultural experiment. We can't know
the consequences of wild-strain mutations of these organisms that are
impacting the human (and animal) food chain. We do know that GMO
contaminates non-GMO agriculture and threatens the viability of organic
farming.

Organic farming isn't viable anyway, that is, it can never produce
enough food for the whole worldpopulation...

Organic farming is perfectly viable for the markets it serves,

Oh yes, plenty of suckers who think that overpriced 'organic' produce
(as if other produce is inorganic or something - but that's a bit of a
pet peeve of mine) tastes better and is healthier.

including those in developed nations who choose to avoid standard
agriculture. And even combined with GMO technology, modern farming
methods will not feed the world population.

There is more food on the planet than the population needs, it's just
that a lot of it is in the wrong place.

With regard to the
contimination argument - what do you think nature has been doing for
eons? Swapping DNA between organisms or inserting yours into another
organism has been going on naturally for millions of years and has never
led to the extinction of life or any major problem in general. Look up
cladistics and the problem of horizontal gene transfer if want to learn
more.

There is a huge difference between naturally-evolved genetic mutation
and instantaneous alteration using gene transfer technology. Insertion
of genes into target DNA is a very imprecise science. If we disrupt
other genes essential to the life of that organism, we increase the
risk of harm to ourselves.

If we disrupt such an essential gene the organism will die and won't be
able to spread its DNA so what's your problem?

The real impetus behind GMO technology is commoditization of
agriculture at the genetic level for the purpose of increasing
corporate profits, whereas the potential short-term benefits (if there
are any) are nothing more than pre-packaged justification.

Well, the thing I don't like about GM foods is that it started out as
"this will allow us to grow crops in deserts and oranges on the north
pole so there will be food for everyone", but it is now mostly about
profit. Monsanto has come up with soy that is resistant to Roundup,
which they just happen to sell, and that doesn't grow any seeds so
farmers need to buy new seeds after every harvest, which, guess what,
Monsanto also happens to sell. I do see longterm benefits though, Golden
Rice being a better example of what can and should be done with GM food.


Monsanto prosecutes innocent farmers whose crops become contaminated
with their GMO seeds. I think it's clear that this will end badly for
everyone.

http://www.innerself.com/Health/frankenfood.htm


Yes, I'm opposed to sinking my ship to get a drink of water.

I find it strange that you're scared of a 100% natural proces.


Let's say that geneticists wanted to put a fish gene into your brain.
Would you consider that natural?

PeterB

Tell me, what's unnatural about genes? And if you knew anything about
biology, specifically evolution, you'd know we already have fish genes
in our DNA. It's called common ancestry.

JohnDoe wrote:

Oh yes, plenty of suckers who think that overpriced 'organic' produce
(as if other produce is inorganic or something - but that's a bit of a
pet peeve of mine) tastes better and is healthier.

What's this, even "taste" has to be approved by big brother?
If your taste buds don't work like mine (imho they
have degenerated and/or are partially covered, feel free
to have opinions about mine), why should that
be my problem?

If organic food doesn't taste better to you, don't eat it.
If someone is forcing you to eat it, then write and
I will support your right not to be forced.

In the meanwhile, I think what somebody else
finds better "tasting" is their business.

"Mark Probert" wrote

I would like to say

[ ]


"Mark Probert" wrote

[ ].

Peter Bowditch wrote:

wrote:



Peter Bowditch wrote:


You would be wrong.

Are you against the distribution of Golden Rice, the
genetically-modified form of rice that would provide Vitamin A to the
very large proportion of the world's population who get their calories

from rice? I'm not, but many alties seem to think that GM food is the

work of Satan.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

It's conceivable that some day we would know enough
genetics to pre-determine from the genetic signature
of a GM food what all its ramifications to the
human body are.

If you think that day is today, you have been dangerously
sub-informed. Right now, using GM food is gambling.

Personally, I would feel OK with a particular GM food
after folks like you have been using it for 20 years
or so -- so I guess I should thank you for
volunteering to be the guinea pigs.

So: Thank you.

(But, please note I am not taking any share of
responsibility in your decision to feed it to
your children.)


Note how the poster deceitfully snipped (without mentioning) the words
to which I had been replying, where I and others were accused of not
wanting to give Vitamin A to anyone because it is not a vaccine:



Vitamin A is crucial for reducing death in cases of infectious disease
in children. Our resident pharma bloggers will likely have little or
nothing to say about a health article that doesn't also promote
vaccine. Sad, that.


Sad that, indeed.

wrote:
Peter Bowditch wrote:
wrote:

Peter Bowditch wrote:
You would be wrong.

Are you against the distribution of Golden Rice, the
genetically-modified form of rice that would provide Vitamin A to the
very large proportion of the world's population who get their calories
from rice? I'm not, but many alties seem to think that GM food is the
work of Satan.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

It's conceivable that some day we would know enough
genetics to pre-determine from the genetic signature
of a GM food what all its ramifications to the
human body are.

If you think that day is today, you have been dangerously
sub-informed. Right now, using GM food is gambling.

Personally, I would feel OK with a particular GM food
after folks like you have been using it for 20 years
or so -- so I guess I should thank you for
volunteering to be the guinea pigs.

So: Thank you.

(But, please note I am not taking any share of
responsibility in your decision to feed it to
your children.)

Note how the poster deceitfully snipped (without mentioning) the words
to which I had been replying, where I and others were accused of not
wanting to give Vitamin A to anyone because it is not a vaccine:

I was only responding to your comments about genetically
modified food. Anybody who wanted to see the entire
context could go back and read the whole thread -- they
don't need to see the whole thing in each and every message.

Bowditch just needs an argument. Badly.

wrote:

JohnDoe wrote:


Oh yes, plenty of suckers who think that overpriced 'organic' produce
(as if other produce is inorganic or something - but that's a bit of a
pet peeve of mine) tastes better and is healthier.


What's this, even "taste" has to be approved by big brother?

What's this, you need a strawman to make it look like you have a point?
I simply point out that a lot of people buy 'organic' produce for
reasons that, when properly investigated with things such as blind
tasting, are simply not true.

If your taste buds don't work like mine (imho they
have degenerated and/or are partially covered, feel free
to have opinions about mine), why should that
be my problem?

If organic food doesn't taste better to you, don't eat it.
If someone is forcing you to eat it, then write and
I will support your right not to be forced.

In the meanwhile, I think what somebody else
finds better "tasting" is their business.

In the meanwhile, I think consumers have a right to know that in blind
tasting, people can not taste the difference between 'organic' and
regular produce. And as far as I'm concerned, people are free to choose
whatever they want as long as people are given the full and honest
facts. I have absolutely no beef with peoples choices, only with people
offering those choices and lying about what they are offering.