<P align=justify>NPR's Robert Siegel talks with biologist Norman Borlaug, who turned 90 years old this week, about the ''Green Revolution'' in agriculture his research helped to spark. Borlaug promoted inorganic fertilizers to create higher yields crops — and for his efforts at curbing world hunger, he won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1970. But today, many environmentalists are challenging the ''Green Revolution'' and urge a shift back to organic fertilizers. Borlaug says the theories of who he calls ''extreme greenies'' would be inadequate to feed the world. From NPR News, this is ALL THINGS CONSIDERED. I'm Michele Norris; ROBERT SIEGEL, host: And I'm Robert Siegel. Green comes in different shades. In the 1960s, population growth in poor countries was booming, farming was inefficient, and many forecast widespread famine. Then the spread of tougher wheat hybrids, irrigation and inorganic fertilizers boosted crop yields in places like India and Pakistan by phenomenal increments. It was called the Green Revolution. And in 1970, its champion, American biologist Norman Borlaug, was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. NORRIS: More recently, green has come to signify opposition to inorganic fertilizer, concern about its effect on the water and a preference for more traditional agriculture. It's green vs. green. For the old Green revolutionary Norman Borlaug, his shade of green is the color of humanity's survival through the 20th century. Yesterday he turned 90, and we caught up with him in the kind of place where he's done his life's work: the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center in Obregon, Mexico. SIEGEL: Dr. Borlaug, welcome to ALL THINGS CONSIDERED, and happy birthday. Dr. NORMAN BORLAUG (International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center): Well, thank you. SIEGEL: Now back in 1970, the Green Revolution was seen as almost an undisputed good. Today it's different. Today we hear people complaining about the extent of the reliance on inorganic fertilizer or what it does to water tables. First of all, have you made any re-evaluation of what you did based on what people who count themselves as green nowadays say, or are they simply missing the point? Dr. BORLAUG: Of course, we continue to make re-evaluations. And it's as simple as this. Without the proper use of chemical fertilizer, millions would have starved to death–hundreds of millions. There's a big confusion. I have! always said use all the organic fertilizer that's available, but plea se don't have the extreme greenies come to the developing nations and tell their agriculture leaders that it's simple, all they have to do is use the organic fertilizer and they can change production. This is nonsense. There's 83 million tons of active nitrogen fertilizer used in the world today, and the affluent nations are among the highest users. People who are carrying these extreme ideas have never been involved in production. They're looking at it very often–now I'm talking about the extremists–they are talking about things from a theoretical standpoint, not from a realistic one. And by the use of the so-called green technology, we have saved wildlife habitat and many endangered species. Had we tried to produce the food of the year 2000 with the technology of 1960, we would have had to have much more than double the area under cultivation, which would have meant cutting down forests, plowing up lands that were marginal because of rainfall and would never have had sustainable production. So what would have happened to wildlife? SIEGEL: I want to ask you about the technologies of the 21st century, since some of the arguments about inorganic fertilizer seem to be at some level being re-enacted now over genetically modified crops. Do you have strong feelings either way about the introduction of genetically modified crops? Dr. BORLAUG: Well, I say that the proper use of genetically modified crops opens the door to using genes that can be useful in other distant taxonomic groups from the animal kingdom. But there's just a lot of confusion going on, and unfortunately the general public is poorly informed on these things because we can't produce the food the world needs now without the use of modern technology. SIEGEL: Dr. Borlaug, I've read that a decisive experience in your life was the Dust Bowl of the 1930s and the terrible crop failures that drove people out of the Middle West and that left people hungry. Do you still remember those days, and were they a powerful motivation for you? Dr. BORLAUG: Of course I remember those days. And they certainly changed my whole way of thinking about what was needed to change agriculture. I saw the unem–when all the banks went broke–rural banks especially–the unemployment–my first visit when I went to Minneapolis to try to get into the University of Minnesota, I encountered hundreds, yes, thousands of people on the street with their hands out asking for a nickel to buy bread. I went through all of that, and I'm conditioned by this, and that's why I'm not too patient with some of the oversophistication of the greenies who think that old technology can produce the food that's needed for the people we have today. Remember, in my lifetime when I was born 90 years ago, the world population was about 1.3 billion people. Today we're 6.3 billion, and we're adding 80 million more a year. And without the use of high-yield technology, we would have chopped down all of our forest, destroyed our wildlife, much of the beauties of nature that people who have good incomes can use during vacations to see the wonders of nature. I'm a firm believer in that. SIEGEL: Well, Norman Borlaug, thank you very much for talking with us today. And happy birthday, once again. Dr. BORLAUG: Well, thank you. SIEGEL: Norman Borlaug, who was the 1970 winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, turned 90 yesterday. He is the father of the Green Revolution, and he spoke to us from Obregon, Mexico, where he's at the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center. <BR><I>Fonte di informazione:</I> This article originally appeared in AgBioView</P>
Menu
Menu
