No, the idea is to taint anti-GMO activists with the accusation that they're killing third world children so that other, more profitable GMOs can be fed to fat Americans. Golden rice is so utterly incapable of actually solving vitamin A deficiency that even the IRRI have given up pretending that it can (notice how the article describes it as "a complementary, food-based solution to existing nutritional interventions, such as diet diversification and oral supplementation" - a working oral supplementation program is effective without any complementary solution and is much cheaper).

To give some idea of how fundamentally absurd an approach this is, two 5-cent capsules of vitamin A a year are sufficient to prevent vitamin A deficiency in kids, whereas as far as I can tell replacing all the rice eaten in countries whose poor populations are almost entirely dependent on rice with the most modern, improved varieties of golden rice still wouldn't achieve this. (Oh, and by the way it inherently has worse yields than the varieties it's based on, so that golden rice will be more expensive too.)

Even if it worked, the licensing issues made it undeployable in practice. There's a free license to certain third-world countries that GMO proponents like to wave in the face of opponents, but that's basically all it's useful for - due to a one-two punch of requiring the rice to be grown in the country it's sold in and only licensing countries that can't grow enough rice to feed their population (almost all of which can't grow rice at all), it cannot be used for any kind of meaningful deployment of the tech. Despite the complete and utter lack of any profitable commercial market for golden rice, the GMO industry couldn't bear to actually give up the possibility that they could somehow make money from starving third world kids.