Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

livingontheland - [Livingontheland] Norman Borlaug who passed away

livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Healthy soil and sustainable growing

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Tradingpost" <tradingpost@lobo.net>
  • To: livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: [Livingontheland] Norman Borlaug who passed away
  • Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 22:05:47 -0600



This is my response to some posts on another list.
paul tradingpost@lobo.net
------------------------------------------

Disagree. Referring to what Kathryn mentioned, Notwithstanding his values on
socioeconomic issues, his "Green Revolution" turned out to be a monstrous
hoax on the hungry of the world. It contributed nothing to organic growing or
sustainability (isn't that what this list is for?), and I'm surprised anybody
here doesn't know how his "Green Revolution" turned out. Many observers now
tell us that the realistic solution to world hunger lies in the direction of
local food independence and returning production to small growers on land
taken by corporate agribusiness.


following excerpts from:
http://www.foodfirst.org/media/opeds/2000/4-greenrev.html


"Much of the reason why these "modern varieties"
produced more than traditional varieties was that they were more
responsive to controlled irrigation and to petrochemical fertilizers,
allowing for much more efficient conversion of industrial inputs into
food. With a big boost from the International Agricultural Research
Centers created by the Rockefeller and Ford Foundations, the "miracle"
seeds quickly spread to Asia, and soon new strains of rice and corn were
developed as well."

"By the 1970s, the term "revolution" was well deserved, for the new
seeds-accompanied by chemical fertilizers, pesticides, and, for the most
part, irrigation-had replaced the traditional farming practices of
millions of Third World farmers. "

"Clearly, the production advances of the Green Revolution are no myth.
Thanks to the new seeds, tens of millions of extra tons of grain a year
are being harvested. But has the Green Revolution actually proven itself
a successful strategy for ending hunger? Not really."

"Narrowly focusing on increasing production-as the Green Revolution
does-cannot alleviate hunger because it fails to alter the tightly
concentrated distribution of economic power, especially access to land
and purchasing power. Even the World Bank concluded in a major 1986 study
of world hunger that a rapid increase in food production does not
necessarily result in food security-that is, less hunger. Current hunger
can only be alleviated by "redistributing purchasing power and resources
toward those who are undernourished," the study said. In a nutshell-if
the poor don't have the money to buy food, increased production is not
going to help them."

"The remarkable difference in China, where the number of hungry dropped
from 406 million to 189 million, almost begs the question: which has been
more effective at reducing hunger-the Green Revolution or the Chinese
Revolution, where broad-based changes in access to land paved the way for
rising living standards?"

"If agriculture can play
any role in alleviating hunger, it will only be to the extent that the
bias toward wealthier and larger farmers is reversed through pro-poor
alternatives like land reform and sustainable agriculture, which reduce
inequality and make small farmers the center of an economically vibrant
rural economy."







Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page