The public concern [over starvation in India] prompted a loose coalition of scientists, government officials and philanthropists - spurred and funded, in part, by the Rockefeller Foundation - to launch a "Green Revolution."
In the context of the times, "green" did not refer to what it means today - organic, pesticide-free farming methods. To the contrary, India's farmers were persuaded to abandon their traditional methods and grow crops the modern, American way.
For example, the advisers told farmers to stop growing old-fashioned grains, beans and vegetables and switch to new, high-yield varieties of wheat, rice and cotton. Farmers began using chemical fertilizers instead of cow dung. They plowed with tractors instead of bulls.
The "Green Revolution" of the 1960s and 1970s meant that if farmers embraced chemicals and high-yield seeds, their fields would turn lush green with crops. - NPR's All Things Considered, April 13, 2009
So, as Dr. Phil would say, "How's that working out for you?" The answer, in this case, is NOT WELL.
When India's government launched the Green Revolution more than 40 years ago, it pressured farmers to grow only high-yield wheat, rice and cotton instead of their traditional mix of crops.
The new miracle seeds could produce far bigger yields than farmers had ever seen, but they came with a catch: The thirsty crops needed much more water than natural rainfall could provide, so farmers had to dig wells and irrigate with groundwater. - NPR's Morning Edition, April 14, 2009
NPR continued, saying that the water table was dropping as much as 3 feet per year. Obviously that in itself is a problem, but then there's the $4000 it cost for the water pump and the salt in the water at deep levels that poisons the crops.
In addition to gobbling water, the crops used up the nutrients in the soil. The farmers now use 3 times as much fertilizer as before in order to achieve the same yields. And they still use pesticides, but the pests have developed resistance to them.
Sustainable agriculture means producing food in a way that doesn't harm the ability of future generations to produce food on the same land. Prior to the Green Revolution, Indians were poor and starving but their agriculture was sustainable. And the U.S. gave them help - money and technical support - but it was very short-term help. The help we gave, along with the low cost chemicals and seeds their own government gave them, prevented starvation from the 1960's to the 1990's only to cause an epidemic of suicides later. And - knowing that - it seems to me that what we gave them in the 1960's and 1970's wasn't actually help.
Clearly the answer is NOT allowing people to starve to death. But it's also not another Green Revolution. |
