Talk:Vitamin A deficiency

message: "Non-animal sources of vitamin A which contain pre-formed vitamin A account 
for greater than 80% of intake for most individuals in the developing world."
Not correct, or just very badly worded. There are no non-animal sources of 
PREFORMED vitamin A; only non-animal sources of carotene, which can be converted 
into vitamin A.
Also, the link on reference #15 is bad.
Here is the correct link, and a snippet:
http://www.childinfo.org/vitamina.html
"Dietary diversification: Non-animal sources of vitamin A account for greater than 80 per cent of intake for most individuals in the developing world. In order to meet the nutrition needs of children, intake of these sources would need to increase up to tenfold. Feasible control of deficiency through dietary diversification would require increased consumption of bioavailable, vitamin A-rich foods of animal origin, coupled with continued promotion of nutritious fruits and vegetables."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.40.61.39 (talk) 18:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not intuitive to me, that it "would require increased consumption of...foods of animal origin".  This seems an unsourced, undefended assertion that is being made on this page, so we could cite the fact that this source recommends it, but not that it is true.  Based on what I know, I suspect that this claim is not true--it's much less resource-intensive to get carotenoids from plant sources than Vitamin A from animal sources, and people are able to subsist entirely off plant sources of Vitamin A.  Eggs, cheese, and milk are in general, not very good sources of Vitamin A compared to red, orange, and dark green vegetables.  I.e. a typical large egg has about 6% RDA of Vitamin A, but a single baby carrot (much less costly to produce than an egg) has about 41%, this is according to the USDA nutrient database. Cazort (talk) 14:18, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Non-animal sources" 

message: The introduction doesn't need the information about how many children are affected around the world and the consequences thereof; it makes it read like a PSA. The information is not bad and doesn't need to be removed, but would putting it another section be a problem? 98.219.84.5 (talk) 18:37, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Introduction" 

message: eg: "Approx 250,000 to 500,000" should be better written as "between x and y". the "approximate" definition seems to be watered down, i see it kind of often. approx did mean a large number of digits accuracy ie, approx 55.006%,  now its very broad. Charlieb000 (talk) 21:23, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  note for editors 

message: There should be full section in the article on food sources. WillNess (talk) 10:14, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: See Vitamin A David notMD (talk) 21:24, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Food sources are missing 

message: Does it have any meaning to display a world map with information about 1995? That was 24 years ago!
Maybe we could extract updated data from WHO (licence) or from UNICEF (licence). I'm unsure if it's possible.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pabloab (talk • contribs) 06:10, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map outdated 

message: Many of the refs are more than 20 years old, and some are not WP:MEDRS. David notMD (talk) 21:26, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old refs