James Wen

Professor Simmons

History-20

22 February 2016

The Green Revolution: Harmful or Helpful?

The Green Revolution is an era in which rapid technological innovations in agriculture

resulted in the largest boost in food supply since the Neolithic Agricultural Revolution. Biologist

Norman Borlaug, remembered as the Father of the Green Revolution, began the revolution in

Mexico in the late 1940s with enormous success.[1] Using innovative agricultural techniques,

such as high-yielding varieties of cereal grains, expansion of irrigation infrastructure,

modernization of management techniques, distribution of hybridized seeds, synthetic fertilizers,

and pesticides to farmers, nations around the world attempted to imitate the techniques he

employed, usually with success.[2] For example, the United States was only able to supply half

its own wheat demand in the 1940s, all of it in 1950s, and had surpluses in the 1960s. The only

notable exception to the success of the Green Revolution are large parts of Africa due to war,

corruption, incompetence, and poor infrastructure. Whether the Green Revolution progressed or

regressed humanity is debatable because while it increased the durability and size of our food

supply, it also led to health problems in farming villages, corporations dominating food

production, and environmental destruction.[3]

One of the most crucial successes of the Green Revolution is new farming techniques,

which allowed previously unfarmable land to be used for food production.[4] In Western Brazil,

vast amounts of pulverized chalk or limestone was used by farmers since the 1960s to reduce the
acidity and increase the nutrition of soil. In the late 1990s, in which 14 million to 16 million tons

of lime were being sprayed on fields annually, Brazil finally became worlds largest beef and

poultry producer as well as the worlds second largest soybean producer.[5] The ability of

Brazilians to turn one of the worlds most uninhabitable lands into one of the worlds most

productive farmland is a Green Revolution success story.

Likewise, the creation of more durable crops using Green Revolution technology allowed

other regions around the world to increase their farmland. For example, scientists invented

strains of rice that would thrive even when submerged in three feet of water.[6] As a result,

flood-prone land can be utilized for farming, which meant that food production can continue

uninterrupted during the typhoon season, thus allowing the livelihood of farmers and the food

supply of the general population to stabilize.[7] Regions commonly struck by typhoons, such as

China, India, Sri Lanka, and Southeast Asia, dramatically increased their food supply thanks to

such innovations. For example, in only two decades, the Philippines increased from their rice

production from 3.7 to 7.7 million tons.[8] The Green Revolution increased the durability and

size of mankinds food supply with corps that were able to thrive in harsh environments.

The ability to plant crops in previously unfarmable land, coupled with the ability to

produce food more quickly, cheaply, and artificially using Green Revolution technology resulted

in the ability to sustain a rapidly-growing population. Despite Malthusian P. R. Ehrlich's warning

that India couldn't possibly feed two hundred million more people by 1980, India defied

expectations when it became a self-sufficient wheat supplier in the early 1970s.[9] For many

impoverished nations, especially African ones, which were rapidly increasing in population but

not in food supply, agencies and nations that benefitted from the Green Revolution, such as the

UN and the US donated their surpluses to them to avert a Malthusian disaster.

 Unfortunately, the Green Revolution did not benefit all of humanity. Widespread uses of

pesticides resulted in numerous health problems for workers ranging from fertility issues to

cancer. Laborers in the field often worked without protective gear, were exposed to chemicals for

prolonged periods to time, and uninformed about the possible health consequences of their job.

[10] The effects were alarming. For example, an Indian government study concluded that cancer

rates among farming villages in the province of Punjab increased twenty-fold compared with

pre-Green Revolution rates.[11] Similarly, environmentalist Vandana Shiva concluded that the

new farming practices resulted in the inhabitants of the region suffering from water scarcity,

vulnerability to pests, and incidents of violent conflict and social marginalization.[12]

Indeed, social marginalization is a by-product of the Green Revolution. Like the

Industrial Revolution, the advanced production techniques that were usually only available to

corporations resulted in small businesses being pushed out of market because machinery,

pesticides, fertilizers, and other farming essentials were much more affordable for corporations

than for the average farmer.[13] As a result, family-owned farms were being bought large

corporations, such as Tyson Foods and Nestle. Farmers who were often economically indebted to

corporations due to the extensive borrowing of farming equipment, which was a failed attempt to

increase production rates to make them more economically competitive, ended up growing and

selling food to them at a pitiful price, further trapping them in a vicious debt cycle.[14] Others

were forced to sell their farms and move to urban slums. Like what factory workers learned in

the Industrial Revolution, the farmers of the Green Revolution quickly discovered that big

business was all too powerful and eager to exploit them. This led to accusations of Neo-

Imperialism, in which Western corporations and Western governments acting on their behalf

often economically ruled Third World nations by controlling their farmers. In some cases, the
cynics were right. For example, the 1954 Guatemalan Revolution was launched by the United

States to protect the profits of the United Food Company.[15] The Green Revolution shifted the

powers of agriculture from farmers to corporations, and in the eyes of critics, extended the era of

colonialism.

Additionally, the Green Revolution also caused harmful environmental effects, especially

on wild biodiversity and agrobiodiversity. Despite claims that an increase of crop yield per land

unit will protect nature because there is no need to expand farmland, soil degradation resulting

from chemical fertilizers and irrigation has led farmers to turn previously forested areas into

farmland.[16] Furthermore, chemicals from pesticides and pollution from farming machines,

such as tractors, are damaged the environment surrounding the farmland. Similarly, Green

Revolution practices were harmful to agrobiodiversity because many polyculture fields were

being converted to monoculture ones.[17] Although the new monoculture crops are much more

durable than their polyculture counterparts, they are also harder to replace should a natural

disaster or parasite strike.[18] Thus, whether the Green Revolution really increased the durability

of farmland by having farmers and corporations put all their eggs into one basket is debatable,

and critics remained concerned about the loss of wild biodiversity and agrobiodiversity.[19]

Whether the Green Revolution is a social and technological progress or decline is

questionable, but it is certain that almost all of humanitys food supply is dependent on Green

Revolution technology. Despite its drawbacks, such as health problems in farming villages,

corporations dominating agricultural production, and environmental destruction, Green

Revolution technology has sustained our population growth at rates that defied the expectations

of Malthusians. Perhaps Borlaug himself summarized his revolution perfectly, stating that it is "a

change in the right direction, but it has not transformed the world into a Utopia".[20]