Talkin’ ’bout a Green Revolution

July 25, 2007

The man many refer to as the “Father of the Green Revolution,” Dr. Norman Borlaug, received the Congressional Gold Medal on July 17, 2007. He also received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1970 for his work to develop high yielding maize and wheat varieties. Winning these two awards puts Dr. Borlaug in the good company of Martin Luther King, Jr., Mother Theresa, Nelson Mandela and Elie Wiesel, a clear indication that Dr. Borlaug’s efforts have made a worldwide impact. What is not clear is whether the long term results of his work have truly benefited its intended audience.

The history of agriculture is a history of adaptation. In the 10,000 or so years that humans have been growing food, they have adjusted the scope and approach to meet the demands of changing civilizations. The so-called “Green Revolution” is the latest stage in this history. In the mid 1940s the Rockefeller and Ford Foundations, along with the US government, funded a program to increase agricultural production in Mexico. The International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center was a pilot project intended to increase crop yields in response to a rapidly growing global population and to avoid predicted widespread famines. The most intensive activity lasted until the early 1970s and was used in many parts of Asia. Dr. Borlaug was part of that initial effort in Mexico and continues to support biotechology to this day through a variety of venues, including the World Food Prize.

So how dramatic were the results of the Green Revolution? Very. According to Walt Parks at the University of Georgia, 300,000 metric tons of wheat were grown in Mexico in 1950. By 1970, due to the technology associated with Green Revolution, 2.6 million metric tons were grown. Worldwide, from 1950 to 1990, crop yields jumped from 14 million tons to 144 million tons, the number of famines decreased, caloric consumption per capita increased 25% and there was an overall rise in incomes and standards of living. At the same time, the ability to get more out of the same amount of land prevented the spread of farmland and the destruction of valuable forests and other ecosystems.

This initial overview seems to portray the Green Revolution as an undeniable success, but there have been some significant downsides. The biotechnology of the Green Revolution is dependent on pesticides, irrigation and fertilizers, all things which increase agricultural production costs, favor large farmers over small subsistence farmers and cause a number of environmental problems (e.g. salinization of aquifers, top soil erosion, and soil nutrient depletion). In addition, the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations points out that in looking at the Green Revolution “two general trends are apparent: the wealthy have benefited more from technological change in agriculture than the less well off and men have benefited more than women.”

Do these negatives take away from the accomplishments of Dr. Borlaug and his Green Revolution colleagues? I say no. Yes, the problems caused by agricultural biotechnology are significant and clearly the Green Revolution did not accomplish all that was promised. Like any human endeavor it was not perfect. Dr. Borlaug himself has acknowledged that fact. Poverty and hunger still exist in the world, but the reality is that it will take more than just an increased amount of food to resolve the sources of those problems. As a global community we need to address the way in which resources are used and distributed if we are going to ensure that everyone has enough.

What I think is important about the story of Dr. Borlaug is that he did something. It may not have been the perfect resolution to the problem he was addressing and it may have had some unintended consequences, but it helped good number of people. Some people talk about billions when they talk about the numbers of beneficiaries of the Green Revolution.

How many people have you helped today?

About these ads

3 Responses to “Talkin’ ’bout a Green Revolution”

  1. G said

    Thanks for such an insightful look into the issue. I agree that it’s a first step…hopefully in the right direction!

  2. OBVIOUSLY THIS IS A MARVELOUS ACCOMPLISHMENT. TO TAKE THAT FIRST STEP AND ACCOMPLISH SO MUCH IS A CREDIT TO HIS PROACTIVE MINDSET. THIRD WORLD COUNTRIES WOULD NOT HAVE WOMEN BENEFIT AS MUCH AS MALES FINANCIALLY BECAUSE OF THEIR SOCIAL STRUCTURE AND GOVERNMENT. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE MORE RESEARCH,DISCUSSION AND MOST IMNPORTANTLY INPLEMENTATION OF HIS CONCEPTS. MAYBE FORTY YEARS FROM NOW SOMEONE WILL CATCH UP TO HIS EFFORT AND IMPROVE ON A GREAT BEGINNING.
    I ONLY WISH I COULD POSITIVELY IMPACT THAT MANY HUMANS INSTEAD OF THOUSANDS. THANK YOU FOR RELEASING THIS ARTICLE.

  3. Jennifer said

    While I think this work is impressive and important, I do find myself increasingly concerned with the degree to which humans are changing and ‘improving’ food by altering plant genetic structure. I do wonder if there might not be unforeseen consequences.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: