Still Feeding the World
Norman Borlaug just turned 94 – and is still going strong.
Recommend this page.

During
the “Eat This” segment of their docu-comedy series BS, Penn Jillette beat Teller in a round of their “Greatest Person
in History” card game. Penn needed just one card: Norman Borlaug.
This
At
94, and despite having cancer, the “Father of the Green Revolution” is still
“an Energizer Bunny,” his daughter Jeanie says. He serves as a consultant,
attends occasional conferences, and graciously let my daughter interview him
for a high school paper.
Decades
ago, while neo-Malthusians were predicting mass famine, Borlaug used
Rockefeller Foundation grants to unlock hidden (recessive) genes and crossbreed
different wheat strains, to create new “dwarf” varieties that were resistant to
destructive “rust” fungi. The shorter plants were also sturdier, put less
energy into growing leaves and stalks, and thus had higher yields.
He
also taught modern farming methods to
When
the Nobel committee awarded him the 1970 Peace Prize, it said his work had
saved a billion lives. Borlaug simply observed that “you can’t build a peaceful
world on empty stomachs and human misery.” He later won the Presidential Medal
of Freedom and Congressional Gold Medal.
In
1985, he began working with former President Jimmy Carter to bring a Green
Revolution to Sub-Saharan Africa, emphasizing intensive modern farming methods
with new hybrid and biotech seeds on existing fields, to reduce the need to
slash and burn wildlife habitat, as soil nutrients are exhausted.
Unfortunately,
their progress may be undermined by former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan and
his misleadingly named
Dr.
Borlaug fears that would be a devastating failure. As he said during a 2005
biotechnology conference, sponsored by the Congress of Racial Equality at the
United Nations, he sees no way the world can feed its hungry population without
genetically engineered (GE) crops, especially if it relies more on biofuels.
He
has little patience for “well-fed utopians who live on Cloud Nine but come into
the Third World to cause all kinds of negative impacts,” by scaring people and
blocking the use of biotechnology. These callous activists even persuaded
“Our
planet has 6.5 billion people, says Borlaug. “By all means, use manure. You
can’t let it sit around. But if we use only organic fertilizers and methods on
existing farmland, we can only feed 4 billion. I don’t see 2.5 billion people
volunteering to disappear.” To feed everyone with organic and traditional
farming, we would have to plow millions of acres of forests and other wildlife
habitat, he calculates. If, instead, we continue to use commercial fertilizer
and hybrids, and have strong public support for both biotech and traditional
research, “the Earth can provide sufficient food for 10 billion people.”
Producing
7 billion gallons of ethanol in 2007 required corn grown on an area the size of
Biotech
crops have higher yields; provide enhanced nutrition; are more resistant to
insects, fungi, and disease; and require less water and insecticides. New
varieties are being developed that grow better in drought and flood conditions,
and even supply vaccines and anti-diarrhea nutrients (as in Ventria
Bioscience’s GE-rice-based oral rehydration solution). Ongoing research will
ensure that genes that once protected crop plants will be replaced by new ones,
as plant pathogens continue mutating.
Genetically
engineered crops are more stringently regulated and tested than any others –
unnecessarily so, say many scientists. Americans have eaten well over a
trillion servings of food containing genetically engineered ingredients,
without a single instance of harm to people or habitats, notes former FDA
biotech director Henry Miller – whereas organic spinach sickened and killed a
number of people in 2007.
Biotechnology
actually frees poor farmers from the shackles of Nature’s destructive forces.
They pay more for seeds, but less for insecticides and water, get higher yields,
and make more money. South African farmers who’ve switched to GE crops attest
to this.
Elizabeth
Ajele: “The old plants would be destroyed by insects, but not the new biotech
plants. With the profits I get from the new Bt maize (corn), I can grow onions,
spinach and tomatoes, and sell them for extra money to buy fertilizer. We were
struggling to keep hunger out of our house. Now the future looks good. If
someone came and said we should stop using the new maize, I would cry.”
Richard
Sithole: “With the old maize, I got 100 bags from my 15 hectares. With Bt maize
I get 1,000.”
Thandi
Myeni: “The new Bt cotton means I only spray two times, instead of six. At the
end of the day, we know the crop won’t be destroyed, and we will have a harvest
and money.”
Bethuel
Gumede: “By planting the new Bt cotton on my six hectares [15 acres], I was
able to build a house and give it a solar panel. I also bought a TV and fridge.
My wife can buy healthy food, and we can afford to send the kids to school.”
Farmers
in
His
accomplishments have made Norman Borlaug a household name in parts of
Leon
Hesser’s fascinating and inspiring account of Dr. Borlaug’s life and successes
may finally bring him the fame he deserves. “The Man Who Fed the World” does
what I’ve always loved about biographies: it shows how one person can change
the world. Now out in paperback, the book will ensure that Norman Borlaug’s
incredible legacy will live on – as will the billion-plus people whose lives he
saved.
_____________
Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor
for the Congress of Racial Equality and Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow,
and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power ∙ Black death.
Click here to return to TRA's Issue CLI Index.
Learn about Mr. Stolyarov's novel, Eden against the Colossus, here.Read Mr. Stolyarov's new comprehensive treatise, A Rational Cosmology, explicating such terms as the universe, matter, space, time, sound, light, life, consciousness, and volition, here.
Disclaimer: The presence of the following advertisement serves as an attempt to eventually enable The Rational Argumentator to generate sufficient revenues to cover the costs of its domain name. TRA does not foresee making an actual profit with these advertisements for a long time. The advertisement does not necessarily reflect the views of TRA or any of its contributors, and the readers are encouraged to judge it on its own merits.
The
Rational Argumentator