Subscription Center
Sep 14, 2009 02:25 PM | 8
Norman Borlaug went from a small farm in Iowa to feeding half the world, thanks to a lifelong interest in tinkering with the genetic design of wheat. He passed away on September 12 from cancer at the ripe age of 95 and the question remains: Is the Green Revolution dead, too?
In 1944 Borlaug, trained as a plant pathologist, left the U.S. for Mexico to fight stem rust, a fungus that infects wheat, at the invitation of the Rockefeller Foundation, among others. He and his colleagues spent the next decade crossing thousands of strains of wheat from across the globe, ultimately developing a high-yielding, disease resistant variety. Unfortunately, it couldn't stand, heavy with grain.
So Borlaug crossed it again with Japanese dwarf wheat to produce a so-called semidwarf wheat, both shorter (and therefore not prone to tipping over with all that extra grain at the tip) as well as disease-resistant and amenable to fertilization. Where the variety was planted, yields soared.
First Mexico, where he did the work, became self-sufficient in grain (in what was dubbed the "Quiet Wheat Revolution"). Then India and Pakistan, where yields doubled. Paired with similar strains developed for rice and other cereals, a "Green Revolution" was evident in the fields of Asia and helped stave off apocalyptic famine predictions.
"There are no miracles in agricultural production," Borlaug said, but as a result of this increase in food production, millions of lives were saved and Borlaug was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1970.
However, the Green Revolution continues to run into an old Malthusian problem: humans are breeding faster than food supplies can keep up. Despite the fact that wheat varieties based on Borlaug's work cover some 80 million hectares of the globe, food riots broke out in 2008, helped in part, to Borlaug's way of thinking, by the drive for biofuels. And, thanks in part to Borlaug's success, agricultural funding has dried up.
The Green Revolution in Asia has also left a conflicted legacy. Leaving aside the social justice concerns surrounding farm consolidation (and therefore the favoring of rich landowners over peasants), it required massive dams like Bhakra or groundwater mining for irrigation water and huge quantities of synthetic fertilizers made from fossil fuels in addition to Borlaug's wheat. Today, India's waters are drying up and some of the water that remains is now poisoned by those same fertilizers.
Africa also proved resistant to Borlaug's revolution. Despite nearly 30 years of work, yields have not risen as much as he and others hoped—largely because many countries lack the capacity for massive irrigation or road infrastructure needed to truck in fertilizer. But in 2007, for the first time since record-keeping began in the 1960s, per capita food production in sub-Saharan Africa rose, led by countries such as Malawi that subsidized fertilizers.
Borlaug, in later years, turned to genetically modified crops as the best hope for a more bountiful future. And rust is now on the move again, with a new breed out of Uganda. Borlaug's battle may never be completely won and his heirs face unprecedented challenges.
As he said in his Nobel Prize acceptance speech in 1970: "It is true that the tide of the battle against hunger has changed for the better…but ebb tide could soon set in, if we become complacent." Has complacency set in?
After all, "civilization as it is known today could not have evolved, nor can it survive, without an adequate food supply,” Borlaug once said. "The first essential component of social justice is adequate food for all mankind.”
Image: Courtesy of Steve Mirsky
Tags:
india,
water,
wheat
More News Blog:
Next: Staph makes a splash: Antibiotic-resistant bacteria found at public beaches
Previous: Recession layoffs may threaten blood bank reserves
See what we're tweeting about
Deadline: Jul 25 2013
Reward: Varies
This challenge provides an opportunity for Solvers to build a web-based or mobile “app” to explore data relationships in scholarly conte
Deadline: Jul 15 2013
Reward: $5,000 USD
SciBX: Science-Business eXchange, a joint publication from the makers
Powered By: 
YES! Send me a free issue of Scientific American with no obligation to continue the subscription. If I like it, I will be billed for the one-year subscription.
8 Comments
Add CommentDr. Norman Borlaug was the single greatest contributor to the common good of the human race in the twentieth century. I find it amazing that a scientific American article would try to denigate his accomplishments.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisECO's never quit in their hatred of the human race.
I agree with the sentiments of pgtruspace, Dr. Borlaug should be remembered for what he has accomplished and the inspiration he provided to those that follow in his foot steps. The debate of declining agricultural funding and complacency can be discussed in a separate piece. The legacy of Dr. Borlaug can not be summed up in a few paragraphs regarding his plant breeding; his formation of the World Food Prize to encourage the continued improvement of agricultural crops set a standard by which all other scientists can continue to improve the world we live in. Additionally, his creation of World Food Prize Youth Institute to encourage the application of young minds to problems that will affect them in greater ways than it affects the world currently. Dr. Borlaug's legacy is one that should be held with honor for the lives he saved through his research as well as the future agricultural development inspired by his work.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFrom the article "... humans are breeding faster than food supplies can keep up". This is the same drivel we've been hearing since the 1970's. Food supplies are adequate. Maldistribution of food is the problem, along with underdistribution of capitalism.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWas Dr. Borlaug was a success or a failure? I can't tell from this article. He sounds like a Nobel winner on par with Carter or Arafat from this piece. Intellectual honesty would suggest he was a great man. Why vascillate so?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, the Green Revolution is attacked for requiring more water and fertilizers. But water per ton of wheat produced is actually LOWER and fertilizer per ton is about the same. The alternative, exploitation of sterile soils in rainforests, would have used even more fossil resources and would have added to carbon signature. And, by now it would have fallen short of feeding the world anyway.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe same roads needed to bring in fertilizer can also be used to bring excess crops to market, improving farm incomes -- if governments would not force farmers to sell at artificially low prices to feed the urban poor. There would not be an urban poor if people could make a good living in the countryside, but outside aid is needed during the transition, and such aid is hard to get into Africa (ruling elites historically have skimmed it).
It is not an issue of capitalism or socialism; it is an issue of corruption.
The next "revolution" will be to eat more crop protein directly, and not cycle it through animals. (I'm not a vegetarian, but I have cut back on meat myself.)
Dr. Borlaug was an inspiration when I was a student. Few people are as kind, helpful and generous. He is a major inspiration in my life and career. The so called "failure" of the Green Revolution was proximally a huge success, but in a complex system, many factors interact with unpredictable consequences. The demand from a growing population maintained hunger. Population increased and we have not gained wisdom to socially connect the supply with the need. Another participant has been Wes Jackson, who won the Right Livelihood Award for perennial grain crops. This protects topsoil and allows flexibility in cropping and land use. Still there is hunger. It is not complicated to see the "driver" of hunger is numbers of people over demanding of potential supply. Ecology and sociology are complex systems, and humans remain simplistic in our thinking. Hunger is not a function of simple supply and demand, but population size matched to productive potential and . Birth control is a tool We have not yet indicated a general willing for moderating population that creates greater demand without starvation or disease -- and war. The Four Horsemen remain a constant for a limited potential on the planet. Paul Erlich remains the best prognosticator of our future. The Horseman of Famine was addressed by Dr. Borlaug, who was an inspiration when I was a student, and I admired him greatly. Few people are as kind and helpful and generous, and he was a major inspiration in my life and career. The so called "failure" of the Green Revolution was proximally a huge success, but in a complex system many factors interact in unpredictable ways. The demand from a growing population maintained hunger. Population increased and we have not socially connected the supply with the demand/need. Another participant has been Wes Jackson, who won the Right Livelihood Award for perennial grain crops. This innovation protects topsoil and allows flexibility in cropping and land use. Still there is hunger. It is not complicated to see the "driver" of hunger is numbers of peoples' over demand on potential supplies. Ecology and sociology are complex systems, and humans remain simplistic thinkers. Hunger is not a function of simple supply and demand, but population size matched to productive potential of food and water. Missing is a general willingness for moderating population that creates greater demand without starvation, disease -- or war. The Horsemen remain a constant for a limited potential on the planet. Only humans can voluntarily control the "system" for changes
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this976,000,000 people are currently starving, according to UN figures. There are enough cereals to feed everybody, but the problem is much of them are being fed to cattle to produce beef, mutton and dairy products. Developed countries could free up enough cereals to feed the whole world by only eating such meat two meals per week. It is only a question of egoism.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNature will make the necessary adjustments. We can act
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisbefore nature does it for us. Population control is
the deciding factor in any effort at sustainability.
If you would like a taste of severe climate conditions
combined with an unregulated free market, I suggest
Late Victorian Holocausts by Mike Davis.
I caution you it's not pretty.