I do not agree, however, that there are conceivable environmental risks (I am still waiting for Greenpeace or anybody else proposing a concrete environmental hazard from Golden Rice) and I can not agree with the cost argument. Golden Rice will not cost a cent more than other rice, and the farmers can use their own seeds. I also do not consider it fair, that Dr. Nestle expects Golden Rice to solve all nutritional, health, and social problems. The inventors, which take responsibility for the humanitarian project (and who should not be blamed for PR campaigns from industry) consider Golden Rice as a promissing, cost-free, and sustainable complementation for the traditional interventions, not for a "technical fix of all problems". The inventors (and some biotech industries) are well aware of the complexity of the problem, and work towards further contributins by adding a "high iron"-trait (P.Lucca et al., TAF 102: 392-396-2001), and a "high-quality protein" trait (under development) to the Golden Rice prototype. Both will, hopefully contribute to a releave from the network of problems Dr. Nenstle rightly points to.

I am a bit surprised about the notion that bioavailability of pro-vitamin A may even be only in the range of 10%.This would bring the calculation in "How much Golden Rice has a child to eat ...." to a) 900, b) 450, c) 300 g/day. Of course, I could argue, that I have calculated on a modest assumption of only 3 fold putative increase in concentration, and could continue, that there are scientific arguments which speak for, say, 6 fold, and consequently a) 450, b) 225, c) 150 g/day. All this demonstrates, how important it is to get material produced for "critical scrutiny from nutrition professionals."