SUPPORT OUR
SPONSORS
Assessing the Legacy of Norman Borlaug: Did the Green Revolution Prevent Famines?
-
By Alexis Lathem
Towards Freedom, October 8, 2009
Straight to the Source
In the last month, following the announcement of the death of Norman Borlaug, we have been reminded of the sweeping claims that have been made about the successes of the green revolution. Borlaug was an agricultural scientist who, under the auspices of the Rockefeller Foundation, developed dwarf varieties of wheat and rice that are widely reported to have produced miraculous yields, and which "saved the lives of millions of people" in the developing world who would otherwise have starved.
"Father of green revolution saved millions of lives" reads one headline. "The Nobel winner who fed the world" reads another. It would seem that any claim that a single human being could have achieved these miracles, let alone a technician - should arouse at least a measure of skepticism. Although some of the commentary that appeared following the announcement of Borlaug's death admitted that the green revolution has had its critics - it has after all, increased poverty in the world, widened the gap between rich and poor, caused water tables to drop to dangerous levels, caused widespread chemical contamination, and led to staggering losses of topsoil and soil fertility - the claim that Borlaug's innovations in plant genetics "saved millions of lives" has gone by virtually without challenge.
The moniker "green revolution," which refers to the United States' aggressive campaign to "modernize" third world agriculture, has been one of the most successful public relations ploys in the history of political marketing. For what could be more politically benign than the wholesome images it evokes - images of green fields and amber waves of grain - or less objectionable than an effort to grow food to feed the hungry and the poor? For all the criticisms of the industrial agricultural system that the green revolution introduced to India, Pakistan, the Philippines and other countries, these concerns must be measured against the claim that "millions of people" would otherwise have starved.
"Father of green revolution saved millions of lives" reads one headline. "The Nobel winner who fed the world" reads another. It would seem that any claim that a single human being could have achieved these miracles, let alone a technician - should arouse at least a measure of skepticism. Although some of the commentary that appeared following the announcement of Borlaug's death admitted that the green revolution has had its critics - it has after all, increased poverty in the world, widened the gap between rich and poor, caused water tables to drop to dangerous levels, caused widespread chemical contamination, and led to staggering losses of topsoil and soil fertility - the claim that Borlaug's innovations in plant genetics "saved millions of lives" has gone by virtually without challenge.
The moniker "green revolution," which refers to the United States' aggressive campaign to "modernize" third world agriculture, has been one of the most successful public relations ploys in the history of political marketing. For what could be more politically benign than the wholesome images it evokes - images of green fields and amber waves of grain - or less objectionable than an effort to grow food to feed the hungry and the poor? For all the criticisms of the industrial agricultural system that the green revolution introduced to India, Pakistan, the Philippines and other countries, these concerns must be measured against the claim that "millions of people" would otherwise have starved.






