Norman Bourlag and the Green Revolution

You’ve probably read the headlines. Norman Bourlag, the face of the Green Revolution, passed away last Saturday. This week, instead of just looking at the detrimental effects of the Green Revolution, themarmotmurmurs would like to look at the intent behind the Green Revolution.

A Road Paved With Good Intentions

The green revolution, for all the flack it gets now, started out as an idealist notion that countries should be able to provide food for its people. Not even nature should limit a person’s access to food. Mr. Bourlag's work on new strains of wheat undeniably provided affordable food to millions of people, including people in India, the Middle East, Africa, and here in North America. He is now, as ever, well deserving of his Nobel Peace Prize.

The good intentions quickly disappeared behind the greed of agro-businesses. Food began to be produced in mass quantities, not to feed the masses but to line the pockets of a few at the expense of the workers who harvested and tended the crops, at the expense of smaller, local farmers, at the expense of landowners who were evicted from their homes, and the people surrounding the agro-business’ plots who could not afford the food being produced in their back yard. The use of pesticides and GMOs of course had detrimental environmental effects such as endangering indigenous and heritage crops. Such crops are not only important to the environment, but often important to specific cultures as well. And undoubtedly such widespread use of pesticides introduced poisons into the soil and water supplies.

Despite good intentions, what the green revolution did not recognize was that nature is not the only limiting factor in a person’s access to food. Today many people recognize that limiting factors include environmental degradation caused by human contact, poverty and prices of food, disease and conflict, poor infrastructure, embargoes, a lack of farms, a lack of financial support to farmers, and a lack of ability or resources to produces one’s own food. The list could go on.

The equation should’ve been simple: higher crop yield = cheaper + more accessible produce. The equation did not factor in a global market that would exploit land, environmental and human health, labour, and economic circumstances of capitally poorer nations and regions….

Ooops.

Okay, so this post did focus on the negatives… but I’d like to remind you that the green revolution was built with good intentions. I respect Mr. Bourlag for his vision, for his brilliance, and for his compassion. And as with most great visions, it is not always the fault of the visionary that the vision has a detrimental side.

But as with all ideas promising sweeping changes, we must always consider the possible consequences. We must consider what it means to drastically and intentionally shape nature. We must consider the effects such changes will have on individuals directly engaged in the movement, those engaged in the production, and those who might be indirectly affected. While there is no crystal ball for all of this, the lessons from the Green and Blue revolution alike can provide helpful hints for future endeavors.

And how about you?

What will you do today to support food security? Will you join the good food box? Will you plant a garden? Will you go to your local farmer’s market? Do you have a brilliant solution to widespread hunger?

Thoughts?

Thoughts or comments about the green revolution?

Thoughts or comments on the blog? Should we head back to the reviewing of delicious things around the city? Any suggestions on the next yummy place we should hit up? Really, marmots just want an excuse to eat.