I would like to commend Dean and others for sticking to their principles. In so many of these discussions the  players retreat to their corners to duke it out. Each thinks they're right and the other is wrong. 

In this case, both sides are right. The Green Revolution produced great increases in food production, prevented mass starvation, and generated much needed revenues for developing nations.

It also has had a negative effect on wildlife, indigenous people, and small scale farmers. Therefore, I suggest that a Meeting of the Minds is in order. We have to find a way to assist those for whom the Green Revolution was/is a disaster.

One possible route is to encourage the Local Food Movement. If extra value is placed on local food by the customer, it can translate into better profits to small scale producers. Buy Local!

I would suggest avoiding the disparagement of imported food, however. Products can have a positive appeal without the need for trashing somebody else's goods. For example, I enjoy purchasing honey, wine and fresh fruit from around the world, even though those things are produced in my own county.

Additional material of interest (I hope):

Assessing the Impact of the Green Revolution, 1960 to 2000. 

The development of modern or high yielding crop varieties (MVs) for developing countries began in a concerted fashion in the late 1950s. In the mid-1960s, scientists developed MVs of rice and wheat that were subsequently released to farmers in Latin America and Asia. The success of these MVs was characterized as a Green Revolution.

On the positive side, it is clear that productivity growth associated with MVs had important consequences. Increased food production has contributed to lower food prices globally. Average caloric intake has risen as a result of lower food prices--with corresponding gains in health and life expectancy. 

Critics of further investment in research have noted that grain prices are at or near historic lows, and they question the need for further improvements in technology. They have also raised concerns about the sustainability of intensive cultivation--e.g., the environmental consequences of soil degradation, chemical pollution, aquifer depletion, and soil salinity--and about differential socioeconomic impacts of new technologies. 

These are valid criticisms. But it is unclear what alternative scenario would have allowed developing countries to meet, with lower environmental impact, the human needs posed by the massive population expansion of the 20th century. Nor is it true that chemical intensive technologies were thrust upon the farmers of the developing world. 

Both IARC and NARS breeding programs attempted to develop MVs that were less dependent on purchased inputs, and considerable effort has been devoted to research on farming systems, agronomic practices, integrated pest management, and other “environment-friendly” technologies. 

But ultimately it is farmers who choose which technologies to adopt, and many farmers in developing countries--like those in developed countries--have found it profitable to use MVs with high responsiveness to chemical fertilizers. The end result is that virtually all consumers in the world have benefited from lower food prices. 

Many farm families also benefited from research-driven productivity gains--most clearly those whose productivity rose more than prices fell, but also those who produce much of their own food. But some farmers and farm workers experienced real losses from the Green Revolution. 

Those who did not receive the productivity gains of the Green Revolution (largely because they were located in less favorable agro-ecological zones), but who nonetheless experienced price declines, have suffered actual losses of income. The challenge for the coming decades is to find ways to reach these farmers with improved technologies; for many, future green revolutions hold out the best, and perhaps the only, hope for an escape from poverty.

Excerpted from "Assessing the Impact of the Green Revolution, 1960 to 2000"
R. E. Evenson* and D. Gollin. Science 300, 758 (2003)

             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html

Guidelines for posting to BEE-L can be found at:
http://honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm