"Larry Caldwell" wrote in message
...
In article ,
writes:

You might find it interesting to do a bit of reading on the "Green
Revolution". Someone called Borlang or Borluag or something like that
received the Nobel Peace Prize for work he did on wheat while with
Dupont
(or should that be Du Pont??). Unfortunately, his wonder wheat caused
very
real problems down the track in the Third World countries he was
intending
to help.

His wheat needed fertilisers that weren't readily available in the Third
World, it wasn't as resistant to local pests as the old varieties were
and
the straw that had been used for both animal feeds and thatching was now
too
short etc etc etc. In short for a while it was OK but very quickly it
became a real pig's ear. The farmers were caught in a spiral of needing
to
buy seed, fertiliser and then sell to make a profit etc.

It was a good idea at the time but 25+ years down the track and it's a
different story but since we don't seem to learn from history then no
doubt
we'll repeat it again.

I don't know where you heard this, but none of it is true.

If you had done any sort of research (even on the net) you would not make
such a knee jerk and unsupportable statement. My source for most of my post
was a memory of a paper done by one of this country's Govt Aid agency. But
just to refute your knee jerker, I have done a bit of a net hunt and there
is certainly enough there if you had chosen to do any research.

He did work for Du Pont, the Green Revolution is causing, has caused and
will continue to cause problems in Third World Countries over the next few
years. However, as you say, he was funded by Rockefeller so you got
something right. He was also funded by Ford.

The only
reason the world hasn't been having repeated famines for the last 30
years was the development of superior strains of wheat, rice and corn by
plant biologists.

Goodness me! Did you think that famines stopped when the tracks of "Concert
for Bangladesh" were laid down? A few I can think of whitout even trying
are (currently) North Korea, and emerging, Zimbabwe, and back a few years,
Somalia, Ethiopia, Chad, Kenya, Eritrea and Sudan. I'm sure I could think
of others if I really got off my blot.

Work continues on strains like golden rice and
balanced amino acid corn that drastically reduce dietary disease by
providing a better balanced nutrition. The green revolution tripled crop
yields around the world and saved untold billions of human lives. Norman
Borlaug richly deserved his Nobel prize.

Yes he probably did deserve his Nobel Prize for very good research but the
green revolution had only short term success. If you had done some research
you would know that my referral to "25+ years" was not an accident. The
green revolution problems are now piling up thick and fast. It was and is
unsustainable. Not necessarily Borlaug's fault, but given the article you
have quoted he certainly seems to be prepared to sprout a fair amount of
rubbish that cannot be supported by the either the facts or even common
sense.

Borlaug never worked for Du
Pont.

You are wrong. He did work for Du Pont. Look at:
http://www.normanborlaug.org/267339_borlaug_21liv..html

His work was initially funded by the Rockefeller Foundation.

He joined the Rockefeller foundation in 1944 and , yes, he was funded by
Rockefeller and Ford for his Nobel Prize winning research.

Check out

http://reason.com/0004/fe.rb.billions.shtml

if you want to know the real story.

One thing I am noticing more and more is that so few people can manage to
read an article critically.

How can you possibly describe that article as being "the real story"?

Hasn't it occurred to you that of course Borlaug is going to say that he can
walk on water and that everything he did was simply miraculous? Didn't you
notice that this so called "real story" has only him as the source? Where
are his critics? Does he answer any criticism?. Of course not, so it is
hardly likely to be any sort of "real story" to anyone who has any critical
facilities.

If you read it critically and if you have any interest in Third World
countries you would notice a number of problems with what he actually says.

For example, read the section where he is interviewed and you will notice
that he refers to Roundup and it's wonderful usefulness to Africa. Then he
talks about bringing roads into Ethiopia so that they can have access to
fertiliser and that then they'll be able to have schools and get cosy with
the neighbours. How out of touch can he be? He doesn't seem to understand
that he's describing the creation of a poverty trap which such expensive
inputs and nor does he seem to know about local conditions in places like
Ethiopia. Even he must know by now that the major problem with the Green
Revolution, and his varieties in particular, is sustainability, rapidly
increasing land degradation, loss of biodiversity and social dislocation.

If you think that one person saying "I'm wonderful", in an interview, is
"the real story", then there really is no point in suggesting you look at
any of the following, but I'll do so anyway.
http://www.sos-arsenic.net/english/mitigation/1.html
http://www.foodfirst.org/media/opeds...-greenrev.html
http://www.public.iastate.edu/~cfford/342Myth5.htm
http://www.corpwatchindia.org/issues...?articleid=603
http://primalseeds.nologic.org/revolution.htm
http://www.biotech-info.net/sour.html
http://www.orst.edu/instruct/bi301/cropdiv.htm

I could go on but I won't.