Norman Borlaug

Borlaug, Norman E. (1914-). Plant scientist who played leading role in developing high-yield, disease-resistant wheat strains. PhD, University of Minnesota, 1942. Nobel Peace Prize for "Green Revolution,"1970. Joined Rockefeller Foundation cooperative project on wheat research and improvement in Mexico,1944. Developed new methods for crossing and testing strains; worked with farmers to implement changes. "Green Revolution" contributed to the improvement of food production in developing countries (e.g., Pakistan, India), helping nearly to double global grain yields per acre in second half of twentieth century. Since 1980s involved in African projects. Faced criticism from environmentalists for use of inorganic fertilizers. Publications include The Impact of Agricultural Research on Mexican Wheat Production (1958); Wheat Breeding and Its Impact on World Food Supply (1968); A Green Revolution Yields a Golden Harvest (1969). Sources: D. Paarlberg, Norman Borlaug: Hunger Fighter, 1970; D.G.Johnson, The Struggle Against World Hunger,1967.



http://www.normanborlaug.org/
http://ideachannel.com/Borlaug.htm

The Life and Work of Norman Borlaug, Nobel Laureate

http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/97jan/borlaug/borlaug.htm

http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/97jan/borlaug/speech.htm

Any one have any opinions on him....

I think this was/is the right way too go....

 

Or is this you kinda guy


Bové, José (1953-). French activist and farmer, prominently involved in opposition to free trade policies, corporate agriculture, and genetically modified food. Born in Bordeaux, spent early childhood in Berkeley (US). College activist in France after 1968. Moved to countryside to farm in 1975, involved in politics of agriculture. Launched Peasant Confederation in 1987 (fusion of two organizations) to defend independent farmers and promote traditional practices. Caught public attention with destruction of genetically modified rice plants and ransacking of McDonald's (Millau) in 1999, followed by prosecution and trials. Celebrity in anti-globalization movement (chant at World Social Forum, Porto Alegre 2001: "We are all José Bové"). Publications: The World Is Not For Sale: Farmers Against Junk Food (with others; Verso 2001); La Révolte d'un Paysan (Éditions Golias 2001); "Pour une Agriculture Paysanne (Le Monde, 1999); "Report from French Farmers" (address to court).

 

Norman Borlaug is the greatest man who's ever lived. He's saved nearly a billion lives in the third world since the thirties. I completly support everything he's done with helping launch the Green Revoltuion, He's a hero in every sense of the word.

 

José Bové is not worthy to even share the same forum space as Norman Borlaug. Borlaug saved 100's of millions of lives by preventing famine in India and Mexico using the latest agricultural technology. Jose Bové works toward the opposite goal.
Borlaug is a humanitarian. Bové is an enemy of the human race.

 

There is large difference in cross-breeding plants and GMO plants. Lots of plants naturally crossbreed if you even grow them next to each other (this is how we got cauliflour). Crossbreeding also gives you white peaches, different kinds of apples, seedless watermelons and grapes, ect. GMO is very different. You actually insert new amino acids or DNA in an artifical way. GMO allows scientests to go much much farther than Norman did with crossbreeding. You can't crossbreed a fire fly and a fish to get a glowing fish, it requires genetic mutation beyond crossbreeding. I am really not sure exactly what Norman's method was, but I am sure it did not come close to the things we are doing these days. Besides, I think Norman was out to truly help people. Monsanto and other agribuisness corporations are out to make money and nothing else. Do take motives and the actual scientific methods into consideration. It is a confusing issue. Personally I am against GMO, but I will happily eat a watermelon crossbread with another watermelon to make it seedless. I also love cauliflour!

 

Its interesting how arguments frequently used against GM food apply so well to "non-GM food".

Using traditional breeding techniques you can actually insert new amino acids or DNA in an artifical way.
Traditional breeding techniques allows scientests to go much much farther than Norman did with crossbreeding.

earthy 44:"You can't crossbreed a fire fly and a fish to get a glowing fish, it requires genetic mutation beyond crossbreeding."

You cannot with modern genetic methods either. The only way to marry different species (different plant species) is to use traditional breeding techniques.

earthy44:"I am really not sure exactly what Norman's method was, but I am sure it did not come close to the things we are doing these days."

Nor did Norman envision using X-rays to mutate some of the foods which we eat today (and refer to as "non-GMO"). BTW, Dr. Borlaug is one of the most passionate defenders of GM methods.

earthy44:Besides, I think Norman was out to truly help people. Monsanto and other agribuisness corporations are out to make money and nothing else. Do take motives and the actual scientific methods into consideration. It is a confusing issue."

Dont forget the charities and governments that are out there designing GMO crops to alleviate malnutrition in the third world. The Rockefeller foundation and the Swis government's "golden rice" is a prime example.

earthy44:"Personally I am against GMO, but I will happily eat a watermelon crossbread with another watermelon to make it seedless. I also love cauliflour!"

And thats a shame. The UN's food and agricultural agency recently released a statement calling for the use of GM to help the impoverished nations. I hope that consumer attitudes dont further delay the good that GM crops can do.

 

It's interesting that you mention Golden Rice. Golden Rice, regardless of who developed it, has been used by the Biotech industry to promote the "benefits" of biotechnology. Unfortunately, it appears that Golden Rice is not capable of providing a person with the needed daily intake of Vitamin A unless it is eaten in unrealistic quantities. Yet another example of how biotechnology and the biotech industry is a sham. Why do you always try to substantiate your arguments with fraudulant information???

 

Do you think that a healthy balanced diet should come from a small unvaried amount of food .

 

When it comes down to it, the inappropriately dubbed "Green Revolution" is totally misguided--this notion that to solve the world's hunger problems, we have to tamper with Nature in order to increase yields, ultimately will fail--big time. The problem is that by increasing yields, and therefore theorietically reducing mortality, this leads to a continued population increase, and in order to sustain this population increase, science has to continually produce plants with higher yields. It's obvious, however, that at some point population growth will outpace science's ability to produce BE plants that can sustain the given population, and that this will result in a part of the world living in starvation. So the Green Revolution will simply perpetuate the problem, and clearly be responsible for the deaths of untold millions of people.

 

Thats a bleak view of humankind...i read that the population is declining not increasing . I do not beieve that myself , but if its true then there will be less people to feed.

I hate that phrase because we tamper with nature in many diffrent ways and its a benefit . what ever 'modifications' are made its all DNA anyway our bodies do not distinguish the diffrence . Our bodies have dealt with countless 'unnatural' things and 99.9% are just fine. If its the enviroment thing then those considerations should be taken into account but not used as a barrier for change.

 

Jiimaan god damnit,

First off golden rice easily triples yields in enviorments that are to harsh to sustain crops on there own (Africa, Siberia) And it has more vitamin A then 'natural' rice.

What the hell is so wrong with tampering with nature anyway, when you can feed the whole damn planet with genetically purer food, why the hell would you care if we have to alter its DNA. This is an amazing time in human history, we can now master our enviorment for the better of the enviorment and humanity. The Great Dr. Borlaug saved hundreds of millions of people from starvation with tremendous benifits to the environment by reducing the amount of farm land needed to produce sufficient crops and ending slash and burn cropping methods that were in place in the third world.

The benifits of Bio-tech are limitless, crops can produce 8 times yields, survive harsh climates, survive refrigeration longer, be less suseptable to pesticides. (The US is ruining culumbia's countryside to fight the drug war)
Your argument that having more food will make more people so that eventually more people will starve is completly baseless, all the industrialized nations populations are decreasing (China, US, Japan, Europe) and strangly enough, populations which dont have adequate food are the ones whos populations are dramatically increasing.

It's really damn easy for you, sitting in a starbucks drinking $9 coffee to be aginst sending GM food to Africa, where people are living in conditions you couldn't fathom. So your response is "hey, maybe the planet will be better off if a few billion people starve." The people in Europe and the US who have protested sending GM food to the Third world based on clames that it will make people "grow extra arms" is ignorance thats evil on the verge of the silent consent of the holocaust.

How dare you, who lives in a land of limitless affluence, who can shell out the extra $1 for natural potatoes, whos never known anything but the benifits of advanced agriculture, try to tell these poor people whats best for them. Why dont you help yourself to a fucking science book.

 

Triples yields? Where's your proof? And, uh, it's the biotech industry that was trumpeting how Golden Rice would bring the daily required Vitamin A to the starving masses. Even if it has more, it is still far from enough--so what if you increase the yield threefold, when it would take eating forty pounds per day to receive one's recommended daily intake of Vitamin A. Incidently, rice isn't grown in Siberia, and as far as I know, not in Africa as well. Rice is primarily grown and consumed in Asia.

Both the saving of millions of lives and reducing farm land are fallacious arguments. Over population, hence starvation would not occur is countries implemented population control measures, such as financial incentives for having less children--such as baby-less bonuses. Moreover, it's debateable whether there has been any significant decrease in farmland and whether this has any positive benefit for the environment. Much of the farmland where I live was probably farmed with GE crops, thus allowing for larger yields per acre, but these farmers still can't compete against factory farms; so they sold out to developers who turned their fields into virtually treeless suburbs. Oooo, thanks Norman Borlaug, thanks a whole bunch. (Incidently, these new burbs are made possible by population increases, not decreases.)

Actually, population is increasing just about everywhere. I'm not sure where you get this notion that it is decreasing in the industrialized world.

I've never bought a $9 coffee in my life, and I don't make a habit of frequenting any of these coffee joints, so I'm not sure where you're coming from with this one. And I think this accusation that I would prefer to see millions of Africans starve is really fucked in the head. I mean, can you really be that stupid? Apparently! No, what I would like, is for people in Africa to be treated with the respect that we expect--and that's not to have foodstuffs produce through dubious science foisted upon them because they're poor and in no position to complain about being guinea pigs for the bio-tech industry. The fact of the matter is, that we could feed these people--easily, but governments such as the U.S. and Canada, which produce massive surpluses, would rather have the wheat, etc. rot in the silos rather than ship it to where it's needed. So again, I'm not quite sure where you're coming from suggesting that I'm in some way "silently" condoning a sort of holocaust, which is far from the case.

Unfortunately, we don't live in a land of "limitless affluence"--we may have the ability to be agriculturally self-sufficient, but our affluence is extremely limited.

 

Proof: http://www.biotech-info.net/GR_tale.html

And now the Biotech industry is Giving away Golden rice with no financial incintive. Usually Rice contains no Vitamin A, and although one stock of GM rice isn't a magic bullet, it sure as hell helps. And uh.. Siberia is in Asia.

Your right that golden rice hasn't saved millions of lives or reduced farmlands. Thanks to crusaders like you all the golden rice produced is looked away in silos in Sweeden. Population control incintives are a good idea, but where are the governemts of the third world (where those restrictions are most needed.) going to get that money from? There people are starving now and you say "why don't they have less children?" Thats sadism. So some small farmers got bought out by larger industrys because they couldn't make enough food to stay competitve? Boo god damned hoo, and now the farms have been replaced by suberbs? Are you aginst people having homes too?

What have you done with your life thats so great? When Norman Borlaug won the nobel prize in 1970 the WHO estimated that he had saved nearly a Billion lives. (thats b..bb..billion) The man has saved hundreds of millions of people from starvation, and in his 90's hes still slaving away despite the fact that most people in the US don't even know who he is. The man has dedicated his life to ending hunger, and hes made more progress then anyone could have ever dreamed. Dr. Borlaug is the greatest man who has ever lived.

If you dont want to eat GM food, dont. But some people in the world dont have the same luxury. The starbucks reference was an illustration that you have no idea how damn good you have it, unless you've spent a few years living in hundred degree heat with tapeworm and so malnurished that you can hardly move. treated with respect? I think not giving starving people food is pretty disrespectful. Do you think that because they live in the third world they cant choose whether to eat something they think may be unsafe? Who the hell are you to be making that decision for them?

This food has already been tested by real guinea pigs, and scientists, and dignitaries. Just because you have some primative objection to Something you don't understand doesn't mean its not safe. People like you are slowing down the progress of humanity.

Many western nations are fortuanate enough to have food surpluses, but i dont know where you get the idea that we have enough surpluses to begin feeding the 3 billion hungry people on earth. About everything of dietary consequence spoils rather quickly, and couldnt survive the shipping process. Even then if those two problems were solved, the figures of shipping that much food would be astronomical, at least tens of trillions of dollars. Fortunatly golden rice germinates very well, and shipping it in that form is feasible.

Dr. Borlaug has worked his entire life for the sake of humanity, and has shown that famine, the worst plauge of the earth can be manigable. By the end of the 20th century, famine was half of what it was in the 19th century, largly thanks to the work of this great man. Through Bio-technology, famine can be reduced another half this century. Whether condoning or not, turning your back on GM foods, a so far safe and effective solution, while proposing nothing but using are limited food surpluses which are implausibly expensive to export, and "population control" whilst billions of people are starving today. A holocaust of famine is taking place, and your refusal to allow science to come to the aid based on ignorant alarmism about how it will "cause us to get rectal cancer" is perpetuating the problem of famine.

http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/97jan/borlaug/borlaug.htm

 

If you want to prove your point, post a link that actually contains the information, or point out where the information is if it is obscurely imbedded in a lengthy text. Seriously, I'm not going to read through all of that for your benefit--my guess is that you posted this link knowing that I would be forced to read through it, and that this would somehow "enlighten" me. In fact, from what I did read, the justification for developing Golden Rice is flawed. If it was developed because 2 billion people are malnurished, then what difference does a rice containing trace amounts of Vitamin A make? Next to none is the answer--and so one has to wonder what the real motivation for developing Golden Rice was. Answer: it was an attempt to gain greater acceptance for biotechnology. You have to admit that it's pretty sad and pathetic that the bio-tech industry would exploit the poor and malnurished to promote itself.]

As for Siberia--the last time I checked, rice is not a major crop in Siberia, nor is the region's climate suited for growing rice. In the north, the ground happens to be frozen, while in the south, the land is flat and arid (the steppes). There may be a few isolated areas where rice can be cultivated, but overall the climate doesn't appear to be suited for growing rice. Southeast Asia is, because of the amount of rainfall it receives. And I don't think that people in Siberia really need rice anyways since the region is suited for wheat and rye, as well as beets. Ever had beets? You'd probably get more vitamins from a couple of those than you would eating twenty pounds of Golden Rice.

And that's where it should stay. Considering that it has basically no benefits, what's the point of foisting this abomination upon these people.

Population control measures would have to be undertaken globally, and it is a long-term process. In the interm, the global community would obviously have to continue supporting countries that have populations that are malnurished, and this can easily be done without Golden Rice.

Well, you stated that BE crops reduce the amount of farmland in cultivation, and I gave you my answer--to get all bitchy about it just shows what the level of degeneracy that your mind works on.

Yeah, and what have you done? God knows you've led a more disolute, immoral life than I have, and based on the level of you writing, you're intellect is so pathetically meagre that flipping burgers at a fast food joint will be the high-point of your career.

Yet another example of why you must be a complete MORON. If you seriously think that I have never understood the state of my lifestyle in comparison the much of the rest of the world, you can't be anything but. Therefore, I see absolutely NO POINT in addressing any more of your pea-brained twaddle.

USELESS CRAP DELETED

 

Yeah... the text was rather long, but it was also very pertinent on the subject. It doesn't bother me if you don't wanna read it, but you might wanna consider educating yourself before debating something. Although Vitamin A is essential for visual accuity, it seems like that being the major point on why we wouldnt give rice to starving people seems ludacris. Rice is an excellent source of ninacin and magnessium, and a good source of nessecary starches, thiamin, protein, zinc, and iron. (anemia affects about 2 billion people world wide) Golden Rice is perfect to augment the megar food supplies of the third world. I think its prety sad and pathetic to let your narrow minded views of scientific potential deny starving people sustainence. The Bio-tech industry has no immediate financial incintive to provide food approved by the FDA to the third world, and doing so is admirable.

-As pointed above, the benifits of GM food and Golden Rice right now are astronomical, your letting that green peace pamplet you've been parroting allow you to turn your back on the needs of the third world. Agronomists and most sane enviormentalists evaluating the true potential of GM produce have agreed that its very usefull for quickly increasing the amount and decreasing cost of producing adequate amounts of food for the populations who need it most.

-As stated above, Population controls are a good idea, but theres no proof of how effective they would be, China's population controls have been a moderate success, but theres no telling how effective they would be in parts of the world where such measures are the most essenital. And as also stated above the global community is doing as much as you could hope, but as of yet have hardly made a dent in world hunger. To suggest that we have the surpluses to feed three billion hungry people and the means to ship enough food promptly to avoid spoilage, and somehow come up with the hundreds of trillion of dollars to ship it to the source of this problem is insane. GM produce is the best solution that anyone has come up with and all you can do is deny it, not to yourself but to the people who really need it, based on ignorance and fear, is something that revolts me to the core of my being.

- I am a degenarate, but I'm also aginst starvation. Funny world isn't it?

From here on you have absoultly nothing to say but making personal attacks, and even though I usually endorse ending dabates that way, answering all of them sounds boring. But since you seems so interestd in what I'm up to, I'll give you the abriged autobiography toots. I'm a 19 year old guy in Texas, enrolled in school to become a paramedic. I'll finish my EMS certification in June, and then maybe work in a hospital for a few years. I'm an ametur boxer (17-2-0) and my trainer says I'll be ready to go pro soon, but i want to finish up school first. I'm single and enjoying the scene, and I'm a pretty happy guy, as my lifes going where I want it to.

That being said I dont even deserve to be mentioned in the same breath as Norman Borlaug, he being the greatest man ever, and I being some jerk from Texas. But I have noting but praise for the him, and I'm not the one patronising the work of a man whos saved a billion lives.

 

What does the motivation of those who created Golden Rice have to do with the question of whether or not to use it? If it is a good crop, it is a good crop. (By "good", I mean practicle, nutrisious, etc. I do not mean anything relating to morality.) If not, it is not. The motivation of its creators does not enter into the question.

 

Jiimaan, if you want to keep embarassing yourself, post the source of the link that claims you need 40 pounds of golden rice to ease malnutrition. That argument is so shallow a child could see through it. The fact of the matter is that the final product should need just a pound or two of cooked golden rice to prevent vitamin A deficiency diseases.

To put the population issue to bed, the worlds population is still growing, but the growth RATE is decreasing. World population is expected to level off in a few decades and then start DECLINING.

jiimaan:"Actually, population is increasing just about everywhere. I'm not sure where you get this notion that it is decreasing in the industrialized world.."

Please think before you speak.

Fertility rates for industrialized countries
United States 2.0
France 1.9
Australia 1.7
United Kingdom 1.6
Canada 1.5
Germany 1.4
Japan 1.3
Italy 1.2
1Total fertility rate is an estimate of the average number of children women aged 15 to 49 will have in their lifetime.




Jiimaan:"Moreover, it's debateable whether there has been any significant decrease in farmland and whether this has any positive benefit for the environment."

That agricultural technology produces more food on less land is not debateable. The fact that total farmed acres in the world increased slightly while worldwide populations have ballooned in recent decades is testimony to the eco-friendly legacy of Norman Borlaug.

Jiimaan:" Much of the farmland where I live was probably farmed with GE crops, thus allowing for larger yields per acre, but these farmers still can't compete against factory farms; so they sold out to developers who turned their fields into virtually treeless suburbs. Oooo, thanks Norman Borlaug, thanks a whole bunch. (Incidently, these new burbs are made possible by population increases, not decreases.) "

You are blaming urban sprawl on Norman Borlaug? Why dont you blame him for the cancelling of "Friends" while you're at it?

Jiimaan:"and that's not to have foodstuffs produce through dubious science foisted upon them because they're poor and in no position to complain about being guinea pigs for the bio-tech industry."

So by this measure, the United States has been a country full of guinea pigs for about 10 years now. Similar situation (perhaps a few less years) with South Africa, Spain, Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Netherlands, China and any country that has imported corn, or soy from them. Guinea pigs have a lifespan of 3-4 years, so your analogy is a bit off-base to say the least. For the sake of argument, how many years will it take for you to finally admit that we arent guinea pigs anymore, and that recombinant DNA techniques are not inherently more dangerous than the mutagenesis and cross breeding techniques that you embrace? 10? 20? ever?

Jiimaan:"and so one has to wonder what the real motivation for developing Golden Rice was. Answer: it was an attempt to gain greater acceptance for biotechnology."

Neither the Rockefeller foundation or the Swiss government have any direct ties to the biotech industry. Again your conspiracy theory has no basis in reality.

jiimaan to lodui:"you're intellect is so pathetically meagre that flipping burgers at a fast food joint will be the high-point of your career........<snip>...Yet another example of why you must be a complete MORON"

Check your own "facts" before you sling mud.

 

Eurpancreas is a wise man. Jiimaan your going to argue with a Molecular Pathologist?

I'd also like to point out that here you say we have extremly limited afluence.

And here you say we could easily feed the world with surpluses

Pick one. In the mean time we need to come up with legitimate solutions to the problem of world hunger. Bio-Technology is very promising, and Dr. Borlaug has spent his life making great advances on this problem.

 

Yeah, and where's your proof that it "should" take "just a pound or two". That's such bull. And as for embarrassing myself you're the one who raised the issue of this fraudulent bio-tech poster-Frankenfood. You haven't answered my question when it comes to the necessity of a little Vitamin A when the person is still STARVING.

Care to explain HOW this population decline will come about?

Maybe you should practice what you preach. Yeah, you produce numbers on fertility rates, but you don'e include immigration with that. Canada takes in about 250,000 people a year.

Do you know what eco-friendly means? Again, this ballooning population could have been controlled through proactive measures, hence a eco-friendly and BE-free solution.

Why don't you re-read my post. What does it say? There's your answer.

Well, I don't think that many scientists can honestly say what the long-term consequences will be, but since there's money to be made in all of this, it's full steam ahead. People like you baffle me. Why don't you get it? We're talking about something that could have significant longterm effects, but you're willing to support it with limited research after a couple of years.

I'm not sure where you get the notion that I'm putting forth some sort of "conspiracy theory". What I stated--in plain English--that Golden Rice, regardless of who developed it, has been used by the bio-tech industry as a PR tool. This is even stated in the website that Luigi linked.

As for Golden Rice not being developed by a private bio-tech firm--BIG DEAL! Most Frankenfood are developed by bio-tech companies that stand to profit from their dubious products. So you're not really proving much by always bring this up.

Incidently, it is only logical to question what went on behind the scenes in the development of Golden Rice. That's logical, not paranoia. Even you should know by now that you can't take everything at face value. Stop being so bloody naive.