Sanet folks -
We are very interested in the ongoing discussion of the golden rice
issue. We especially appreciate Roger Littge's explanation of the
difference between beta carotene and retinol. On this subject, we have
several questions perhaps someone can answer -
1. We have been told that most varieties of brown rice, before polished
and processed, are a reasonably good source of vitamin A in addition to
other essential vitamins and minerals. It is only when rice is processed
and polished that much of the nutrient value is lost. Is this true?
Would unpolished regular rice provide adequate supplies of Vitamin A to
children? In developing countries, how prevalent is the consumption of
polished rice? Has consumption of polished rice increased significantly
during the past 25 years?
2. Andre Voisin, writing in 1959, stated that the vitamin A content of
milk fat is a function of the carotene content of the grass that the cow
ate, and that the carotene content of grass is greatly dependent on the
fertility of the soil. Has there been any followup to indicate if
carotene content is indeed affected by soil health? If this is true, is
there any educated speculation on variable carotene content in 'golden
rice', grown in soils of varying fertility, especially in soils typical
of areas where most severe vitamin A deficiency is noted?
3. Voisin also cited a study in Germany that showed "with the
introduction of white flour and new processes for its manufacture, a
deficiency of mineral and trace elements, as well as of vitamins in the B
group and vitamin E, made its appearance in the diet. These very
important elements are present mainly in the germ of cereals which is
eliminated in white flour." Voisin also states that " It is a well known
fact that polishing of rice, by depriving it of its vitamin B1, is the
cause of beri-beri." What other essential elements are removed in rice
processing? Could reduced processing and nutritional education provide a
simpler solution to this problem?
We are reminded of a story about a young man who had been a Peace Corps
volunteer in the Phillipines during the 1960's. The peasant diet
consisted of rice, supplemented liberally with small fish that lived in
the rice paddies. When this person returned to the Phillipines 20 years
later, he found the peasants experiencing increased nutritional
deficiencies. Not only that, no longer were the rice paddies filled with
small fish. The coming of modern agriculture with its heavy use of
pesticides had killed off the fish. Using sound organic practices,
could not a sustainable system be developed that produces high yields of
rice, yet where fish could coexist with rice and with people?
It used to be common for country folk to gather wild greens in the
spring, even in the United States. Now that practice is rare, as the
availability of more convenient food, displacement of people from the
rural environment, and chemical intensive agriculture has changed the
American perspective on food sources - on our ability and responsibility
to gather food for ourselves. Is this change in attitude also occuring
in developing countries? One old Danish man we used to know loved to eat
dandelions, but he noted that dandelions growing in recently sprayed
fields were much easier to dig, the roots were shrunken, they were very
easy to pull out but obviously they were probably not safe to eat
anymore. Could it be that indiginous people, noting the same types of
changes in vegetation, be arriving at the same conclusion?
Mary-Howell and Klaas Martens
To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"subscribe sanet-mg-digest".
All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Mar 12 2000 - 14:00:33 EST