Greenpeace has lost its moral compass

Which according to one of the links posted above has sinister links to bill and melinda gates

Nice one, jess

Thatbags I did not suggest that the region couldn't produce foods with A (including meat/fish/eggs). I said that is NOT what was happening.

But even if the seed is provided free if people are already impoverished and in debt, if this new wonder crop has special requirements for fertiliser and pesticides they will need to borrow to cultivate it, impoverishing them further. They may need to sell all they produce to service their debts or to feed their families and this product will be a premium product and may well be sold at a premium price so putting it out of the reach of those who most need it. Selling prices are set by local traders, not by the International Rice Research Institute.

You are wrong, or misleading, about the meat/fish/eggs as well, Bags.
If you eat a steak there is only a trace of vit.A. If you eat a cod fillet there are two micrograms. Pork and chicken on their own only have a trace. The only meat that has a lot is liver.
What gives the meals their vit.A are the vegetables that are in the stirfry or curry. I'll allow you an egg, but a slice of mango has as much as an egg, and they do tend to ship their mangoes over here rather than eat them all themselves. Big business again.

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation have bought 500,000 Monsanto shares worth around $23m.

The South Africa-based watchdog the African Centre for Biosafety found the foundation was teaming up with Cargill in a $10m project to "develop the soya value chain" in Mozambique and elsewhere. Cargill is a faceless agri-giant that controls most of the world's food commodities.

"The Gates Foundation continues to back agricultural strategies that open new markets for strong corporate interests while assisting in the creation of policy environments to support foreign agribusiness’ interests. The programme will yoke African farmers into the soya value chain and open the door for major agribusiness players such as Cargill, while displacing African agricultural practices and traditional crops. In addition, there is a very real threat that this project could be a foot in the door for the introduction of genetically modified soya onto the Continent."

The point is not how much vit A there is in meat/eggs, jend, but the fact that it is vit A and not beta-carotene. Beta-carotene is not vit A. It has to be converted into vit A. For this it needs fats. Animal foods have all this so will help conversion of beta-carotene from vegetable foods as well as providing some vit A themselves.

Yes, you need 6 micrograms of beta-carotene in carrots to make 1 microgram of retinol. I know that. In which case what is the point of putting vitamin A in rice if it is not the right sort of vitamin A, according to you.
The reason liver is so high in retinol is because the body is trying to get rid of the overload. Too much vitamin A can cause loss of calcium and osteoporosis.
As I suggested above, a stirfry, using plant oils, will provide the fat. You are saying that the meat only provides the fat.
It is safer to have beta carotene which the body can convert to vitamin A and not cause loss of calcium.

Animals require more food than the meat they produce. So what is the point of wasting land and water when more food can be produced by growing crops to feed people.

No. Liver stores vitamin A (and D), so an injection of high dose vitS A and D will last you a long time. Useful if you are unlikely to have good sources in your diet.

No. I am not saying meat is the only source of fats. Just that it's a good source. And also a good source of vit A in the right form. And D, especially pork fat if the pigs have lived outside.

Doses of Vit A together with vit D resolve the issue of the calcium problem. I've a feeling that the problem you mentioned only applied to synthetic vit A, not that found in meat, fish, eggs, etc.
As you say, there won't be an issue of adverse bone health effects with beta-carotene.
And there won't be with food sources of retinol so long as there isn't a shortage of vit D at the same time. In places where rice grows, lack of vit D shouldn't be a problem.

faye, land that can be used for grazing is not the same as land that can be used for growing grain. So land, eg hilly land, used for grazing is not being 'wasted' by using it for meat production.

Rice is grown in hilly regions because man's genius has made terraces. This is also to keep the necessary water in place. I don't think that works for other grains.

Beautiful rice, as the Thais call it

Exactly, Faye. It's all to do with the energy cycle.
It's strange how the idea of renewable energy does not permeate the food industry. The western world does to Asia exactly what it used to do in colonial times. It takes their food and lets them have what is left, rather than letting them feed themselves and buying the surplus.
With renewable energy, we use what we need then sell the rest to the grid.
I know that sounds a bit mixed up, but it's the principle. All the big companies want to do is use as much land as possible in Asia to grow food for their own populations.

Are you infavour of biofuels, jen? You know, burning food for fuel? That has pushed up the price of food.

I'm sorry you have a such a jaundiced view of the world. I will leave you to it.

Hope I do not have a jaundiced view. That would mean a problem with my liver.
Yes, I am in favour of biofuels, but not many of us eat bamboo or willow. Willow can be grown in this country to use as biofuel. It does not have to be corn or palm.
What I am saying is we need to live within our own resources as much as possible, and not destroy the economy of other countries for our own greed. What is wrong with that?
Oh, and I know I am not perfect and eat food imported from other countries, before you ask.

Graphs to show how going meatless has more benefits

Vegetables have enough protein. The largest animals in the world eat plants. A variety of plant based foods make a lot more sense.

Permaculture Focus on solutions that work and forget forcing GM crops on third world counties.

Biofuels are usually grown on land that could otherwise be used to grow food. although there are many hundreds of square miles of renewable woodland in Scandinavia and North America, which are now being used as fuel, mainly by power stations.

However whether harvesting wood in those areas to fuel power stations in Yorkshire and Essex makes any kind of bio care sense I am not sure.

I am bemused by this meat versus vegetarian issue, I have yet to meet any people in their 90s or 100s who are vegetarians. All the extremely elderly people I have met are omnivores.

I thought we were talking about how to get vitamin A to people. I am not arguing that people who choose to be vegetarians should change to being omnivores, just stating scientific facts about what foods human beings can get vit A from and what the humanitarian golden rice project is about. What people believe about omnivorousness or otherwise makes no difference whatsoever to all that.

I actually only know one person over 90, and she is an omnivore, except she hardly eats anything. She'll order a ham salad and eat half the ham and leave the rest. She's an exception. All you have to do, Flickety, is google vegetarian centenarians and you'll find some.
gmwatch.org/latest-listing/1-news-items/12451-gates-foundation-and-cargill-paper
Have you read this, Bags, about why golden rice is not the panacea that people think it is. It's a link that Faye put on earlier, but it's worth reading again.

Cargill Connections. and there are many.

Cargill joins the Gates Foundation on Cocoa Aid.

Three companies now control more than half the world's global seed market a position that has sent prices soaring.

So much for helping starving children!

I do not see the point of the vegetarian versus omnivore argument. Greed in any group is to be abhorred and it makes sense to have a nutritionally sound diet - and that can be reached in a variety of ways. I can see good ethical reasons for either choice of diet but it is just not a subject I think is worth all the time people waste arguing about it.

People are not being able to produce enough food to eat Flickety. It takes 10 -20kg of feed to produce 1kf of meat. The production of 1kg of beef takes 100,000 - 200,000 litres of water.

Reasons for choosing a vegetarian diet

Flickety, the reason this thread mentions vegetarianism is because Bags told us that if we only eat enough meat/fish/eggs we will get enough vitamin A in our diets.
The vegetarians among us are telling her that you do not get vitamin A from most meat/fish sources and eggs provide less than carrots and sweet potato. People who are deficient in vitamin A tend to be deficient in food in general, and putting vitamin A in rice will not help that.

There is no ethical reason for eating meat.

Recent speech/essay by Mark Lynas of labelling GMOs. Convincing argument. Syngenta has already agreed.

jings, do not complain! Just don't bloody read it if you can't be arsed!

Faye your figures for water consumption per kilo of meat are ridiculous, and that is not a vegetarian versus omnivore issue.

See [http://www.waterfootprint.org/?page=files/Animal-products]. Even then it will vary considerably according to methods of rearing. Dairy uses more water than beef production. Grass reared animals consume less than those kept in cattle lots and fed only farmed feed. It will depend on whether the feed crop needs irrigation or not. Some land - Welsh and other hillsides, areas of flat infertile land are only suitable for animal rearing.

The growing of vegetables and fruit under glass requires enormous quantities of energy. I have yet to hear of vegetarians who will not eat vegetables or fruit grown under glass because of concerns about carbon emissions. Most also eat dairy products - and where do they come from?This is what I mean about ethical issues about any eating choices.

This is why I think this whole argument is so ridiculous. As Michael Pollen says: 'Eat well, not too much, mainly plants'. I do not think you can improve on that.

- just to throw the cat into the vegetarian pigeons. Is it not the case that in order to be healthy on a vegetarian diet you need to have a very particular mixture. Carbohydrates are no problem as rice, wheat etc cheap staples. But to get enough protein you have to have a seed of some kind that complements the amino acids in your staple - otherwise, instant protein deficiency. And without a fair quantity of a good range of vegetables you are likely to be short on vitamins such as A (and D in a cold climate). Animal foods (whether fish, sheep or tarantula) are concentrated forms of complete protein and fat soluble vitamins.
So if you are a wealthy vegetarian who has access to a choice of food, not too much of a problem. If you are an impoverished person with very little land, and/or maybe no money, not so good.

And a vegetarian diet collected from the wild has grown in earth enriched by many years of dying vegetation and decomposing animal matter. Farming without using some kind of improver or fertiliser leads to gradually decreasing ferility unless great care is taken to return all waste to the soil, vegetable, animal or human.

Organic farming uses natural fertilisers, not artificial ones. Is there enough spare land to grow green manure crops to take the place of animal dung and feed an expanding world population?