What Happened to the “Green Revolution”?

NEARLY 40 years ago, agricultural experts began to experiment with new types of wheat. These “plant breeders” were trying to produce greater yields for the same acreage. They succeeded.

In the years since then, the results of their experiments have been extended to rice. Large areas of these new strains of wheat and rice were planted in Central and South America, and in Asia. Yields increased dramatically. Thus, some thought that here was an answer to some of the world’s food shortages.

What Happened?

Recently, prominent agricultural expert Lester Brown was asked: “Whatever happened to the ‘green revolution’ that was supposed to end famine?” He answered: “The green revolution was never intended to solve the food problem​—only to buy time to get population growth under control. . . . there are no agricultural technologies that will keep up with that growth.”

So the “green revolution” did bring some increases in food production. But the huge growth of population in the meantime largely overwhelmed it.

Also, the “green revolution” has an “Achilles’ heel,” a vulnerable spot. What is this weakness? It is the fact that while it increased yields, the basis for it was the much greater use of fertilizer, pesticides, irrigation and mechanization. As noted in the previous article, much of that is based on the availability of petroleum to run the tractors and other machines, as well as to produce the fertilizers and chemicals used in the “green revolution.”

Not only is there an energy squeeze now, but the cost of oil has “gone through the roof.” The very countries that need food the most are in the worst position to afford the oil, and without it the “green revolution” cannot be sustained.

Time magazine, commenting on this before recent additional rises in oil prices, said:

“Now they are paying the price of a 1600% rise in OPEC prices since 1970; they cannot do without oil but cannot afford to buy it.

“Admits an official of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization: ‘The guy who was enlightened enough to follow our advice to buy machinery and fertilizer is in a bind, while the farmer who kept his water buffalo is in much better shape.’”

Another paradox within the poorer countries is that usually only the wealthier farmers can afford to pay for the new technology necessary to make a success of the “green revolution.” The poor farmer who most needs the increased food production cannot afford it.

Complicating the picture further is the fact that most of earth’s four billion people are poor. So even if increases in food production did keep pace with rising population, these poor people could not afford to pay for a decent diet.

A New Breakthrough?

Will some dramatic new development in food production save the day? Experts are pessimistic.

The Royal Bank of Canada Monthly Letter says: “Although the green revolution has done wonders, no one pretends that it is the whole solution to the food problem which now faces humanity.” It adds: “Science alone cannot be expected to do the job.”

U.S. News & World Report asked Lester Brown: “Are there any breakthroughs in sight that might dramatically increase food supplies in the future?” He answered:

“I wish I could say yes, but the chances are against it.

“Looking at what’s on the drawing board today, it’s very difficult to see anything leading to a quantum jump of the sort we have had since World War II​—with developments such as the hybridization of corn, the enormous growth in use of chemical fertilizer, the rapid growth in irrigation, and high-yielding wheat and rice.”

Does this mean that there is no solution? Not at all. There is, and it is one that is certain to come, one that will prove completely satisfying. However, until that time comes, can some people benefit by learning what others are using for food?