Brown rice is healthier and more economical

After World War Two, missionaries in the Philippines did prisoners a favour by changing their brown rice to white rice. A number died from the resulting beriberi. This experience was repeated as recently as two years ago - with more deaths in Haiti. Prisoners in Thailand have recently had the same favour bestowed on them: high-class white rice at their own request. I hope we do not see a repeat of the Philippines and Haitian consequences.

The high fibre levels of brown rice improve digestion by reducing transit times, which also appears to result in reduced intestinal cancer rates.

The relative affluence of recent times has masked the deficiency of white rice; we are getting enough additional vegetables and fruit, as well as meat, to make up for the deficit. But as food prices rise, nutrition levels will go down. In many countries that will be beneficial, serving to reduce obesity; but in other less affluent countries, the principal consequence will be increased malnutrition.

Converting brown rice to white reduces its weight by 5 per cent; therefore, eating brown rice would effectively increase the rice supply by 5 per cent, as virtually zero brown rice is consumed currently. Many markets stock dozens of different varieties of rice - all white. Increasing the rice supply by 5 per cent might reduce the price by more or less than 5 per cent, depending on the price elasticity of rice; on a worldwide basis, it would almost be enough rice to feed Indonesia. One can confidently predict, however, that the price would go down.

A case could be made for outlawing white rice. However, this might be a bit draconian. Nevertheless, all food establishments could be required to at least offer the option of brown rice. A research and education campaign could help spread the brown rice message. For sticky rice, only every second grain needs to be sticky; thus brown rice can be mixed with white sticky rice for a much more nutritious staple.

Another very good reason to eat brown rice is that His Majesty the King has recommended that all Thais eat it for better nutrition and health.

Stuart Saunders

Bangkok

-----------

National parks need responsible visitors

The number of visitors to our national parks during the high season is 47 per cent above what it should be, and each visitor leaves behind half a kilogram of garbage, seriously threatening the parks' ecology. I propose a holistic approach to the problem:

Sell a limited number of tickets per day, with high-season tickets costing, say, double those of the low season. For a small park, we could have morning or afternoon tickets, at reduced prices. Tickets for overnight stays would cost double those of day-trip tickets. The price of a low-season ticket would equal the average cost of maintaining the park as it is, and the premium for the high season would go towards park development and weekday subsidies for targeted groups such as students in uniform, low-income people or seniors.

Since foreign tourists pay all Thai taxes for which they are liable, I see no justification for charging foreigners more than Thais.

Sell tickets over the Internet as well as at the gate, enabling advance planning by visitors.

Chinese parks have found a most effective way to reduce litter to almost nil: anybody littering is given a big bag and not allowed to proceed until he/she has filled the bag with garbage picked up from the ground. In China, you cannot pay a fine in lieu of your public service. However, as a reward to the vigilant ranger who caught the litterbug, I propose a Bt100 fine in addition to filling the bag. Of course, these penalties must be well publicised at entrances and on tickets.

Enjoy our parks, but make sure others can, too.

Burin Kantabutra

Bangkok

----------

Is there the will to bring Thaksin back?

The question of judicial independence in this country is frequently raised, but for now the Thaksin extradition debate has shifted attention to the UK and resurrected the notorious Pinochet case. I am afraid that Anti-Dictator (Letters, August 16) displays a certain naivety in appearing to assume that the British authorities are immune from the pressures of political expediency.

Regarding Pinochet, although the House of Lords did indeed rule that the ageing dictator had a case to answer in Spain, the home secretary eventually allowed him to return to Chile. While, as Anti-Dictator says, the decision was ostensibly based on medical reports, I would suggest it was in fact not unconnected with the logistical support Britain received from Chile during the Falklands War.

Returning to the present time, I suspect the real issue will ultimately prove to be the depth of the desire for justice on the part of the Thai authorities, given the ease with which the accused and the convicted have so far been allowed to slip the noose.

Chris Jeffery

Bangkok