Tuesday, September 15, 2009

Father of the Green Revolution dies

On Saturday Norman Borlaug died. Mr. Borlaug was an agronomist who’s development of semi-dwarf, high-yield, disease-resistant wheat varieties are estimated to have saved the lives of at minimum 250 million, and as many as a billion people at risk of starvation. Although his accomplishments have hardly gone unnoticed (Norman is one of five people to have won the Noble Peace Prize, the Presidential Medal of Freedom and the Congressional Gold Medal), his later years were marked with criticism by some who believe his methods of pesticides and genetically altered crops create dependency on monoculture crops and environmental degradation in poor countries.

Yet the father of the “Green Revolution” continued to be a dogged advocate for the use of science in agriculture into his 90s. His simple but persuasive argument against organic activists, who warned of the looming elimination of bio-diversity, was if we really want to promote bio-diversity the most important thing is to keep the most bio-diverse regions intact. That is to say, rainforests, the most bio-rich regions on earth, should not be deforested, yet with a growing population and an unchanging amount of farmland simple math tells us the only answer is to increase food production—which has the added convenience of bringing more food and more profits to those in the world who most need it.

However Borlaug’s arguments have done little to change the minds of those who believe the costs of using such technology in crop production outweigh the benefits. Indeed the man who went to Mexico’s desperately poor Yaqui Valley in 1944 to dig in the dirt and toll in a lab and who’s work would by 1950 double Mexico’s wheat production, a phenomenon that spread like wildfire to Pakistan, India and throughout Asia, has become a lightning rod for environmentalists.

To give Borlaug’s critics their due, we do need to be aware how genetic mutations and pesticides can alter an ecosystem, especially when incentive structures develop where agro-businesses can extract a profit from an unsustainable product. But more dangerous is the instinct to draw upon first world values to deal with the developing world’s problems. The growing environmental awareness of Americans and Europeans has created the opportunity for global progress on issues such as climate change and renewable energy—topics that have a profound impact on those in the poorest countries. Yet it is nothing short of a tragedy when such interests are taken as more important than they are. Quite simply, when the choice is as Norman Borlaug faced, between more single strain crops and more starving children dying in the sun, the moral calculus is unequivocally weighted towards the latter.

Norman Borlaugh saved the lives of millions of the world’s most needy. For that he will forever in my mind remain one of the greatest Americans of the 21st century.

3 comments:

  1. I really like that argument for more homogeny in crops, more efficient crops require less land which requires less human encroachment.

    I still worry, though, that it's not just the environment but what if one of our food crops get hit by some disease that runs through them due to their homogeny?

    ReplyDelete
  2. You would think more efficient crops would require less land but the increased need for water and chemicals causes soil to be depleted at much higher rates and it requires serious money and time to restore them. This means that the spread of the crops may be smaller at any given moment but over time the land use is the same or even greater. Environmental degradation aside, there are some serious humanitarian concerns with GM crops.

    I agree that Borlaug should be commended for what he accomplished with the existing knowledge base but looking at the results it can't be said that GM crops will better the world's food situation. Yes, between 1970 and 1990 the estimated number of hungry people in the world fell by 16% but when you remove China from the equation hunger actually rose by 11% (China instituted land reform to raise the standard of rural living). This increase in hungry people cannot be accounted for by population increase either.

    So how do you explain the simultaneous increase in food supply and hunger? It's all about access. To begin small farmers are pushed out of business because they can't afford the higher priced GM seed. The increased yield does not increase their profit enough to purchase the fertilizer, the pesticide, and the increased irrigation (all owned by the same companies, of course) required to keep their crops growing. If they are lucky they become workers on large scale farms owned by the wealthy or work in the new industries sprouting up to produce the fertilizers and no longer have their own land. The food supply is increasingly in the hands of large corporations and the lack of competition gives them no incentive to lower prices. The Green Revolution brought us industrial agriculture which is petro-dependent. This means a drastic increase in agricultural expenses. These massive farms can only stay alive as long as they can keep price of their crops ahead of the production costs. Exporting crops to wealthier nations brings in far more money than keeping the food at home.

    India gives great examples of how this all works, the good and the bad. We've all heard of the extreme poverty and hunger rates in India but check out the state of Kerala. It is one of the poorest in India but life expectancy is significantly higher than the rest of India while infant mortality is much, much lower. Grassroots movements in the state have resulted in extreme land reform and a cooperative food system. Hunger in Kerala? Not a problem.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Megan,

    You're going to have to elaborate on some of your points as they don't seem to make sense. If modern industrial agriculture has caused "Drastic increases in agricultural expenses", which I assume you mean an increased price per ton of foodstuffs produced, why don't small farmers simply reject the methods and continue with what they were doing? Why are they being outcompeted by the large industrial scale corporate farms if the corporate farms use intrinsically more expensive methods?

    Can you also explain why land use is the same or greater for more efficient crops? I agree that raising more calories per acre will intrinsically raise the need for water and fertilizer, but I don't know why those in turn would raise the need for land usage. Additionally, I believe it was the first generation of GE crops that was looking to be pest resistant, but new generations of GE crops are attempting to tackle things like drought resistance and thus should need less water.

    ReplyDelete