The Accidental Hedonist's Guide to:




My Book



99 Drams of Whiskey:The Accidental Hedonist's Quest for the Perfect Shot and the History of the Drink


Communication

Poll

Would you support a soda tax if the revenue went to improving our health care system?

View Results

-->

Who is Norman Borlaug and why you should know his name

11/09/05, by Kate Hopkins Email 2055 views • Categories: Food Politics

We talk a lot about food at this here site. We talk about recipes, politics, corporatism, good taste and not always in the same conversation. But rarely do I touch upon people who've actually made a difference in the food world. Emphasis on the word 'world'.

Let me briefly mention Norman Borlaug. "Who is he?", you may be asking yourself at the moment. As Penn Jillete (of Penn and Teller) once noted,"When (Norman) won the Nobel Prize in 1970, they said he had saved a billion people. That's BILLION. 'BUH!' That's Carl Sagan's billion with a 'B'. And most of them were of different race from him. Norman is the greatest human being."

What did he do? He developed a type of genetically engineered scientifically crossbred wheat. Borlaug then introduced this grain, as well as modern agricultural production techniques, to Pakistan, India and Mexico,. The end result of this? He increased their food production from 500-1000 kilograms per Hectacre to 2000, 2500 and 5000 kilograms to each respective country. The Nobel committee was correct -- the man has saved billions of lives.

I bring his name up for two reasons -

1. The dude should be a household name. Along the lines of Einstein and Newton.
2. His work is the best example of what science and food can do. When people dismiss Genetically Modified and other scientifically developed food outright, he's the man I point to in order to refute their charges.

That's not to say that there are not issues surrounding Genetically Modified food , as there are many. But like anything else, with moderation and proper diligence, these foods add the the benefit of our society. They should not be dismissed for what they can accomplish.

I wanted to put this out into the ether this morning. Thanks!

UPDATE: Touched up a line to better make a point.

Technorati Tags: , ,


Comments, Pingbacks:

Comment from: Harlan Harris [Visitor] · http://somethinktochewon.blogspot.com/
Hi Kate. Actually, what Borlaug did was not what we would currently call "genetically engineering," where individual genes are manipulated. Instead, what Borlaug pioneered as part of the "Green Revolution" is more accurately described as "scientific crossbreeding." He figured out what properties of various strains of wheat would work best to increase yields in particular climates (dwarfism, to reduce broken stems, high output, etc.), and bred those strains together to create new hybrids. As you noted, those hybrids allowed productivity to literally double in the last half century.

There are a few genetically engineered crops being produced today, primarily in the US, and primarily to allow reduced use of pesticides and to make the crops resistant to less-dangerous herbicides. I, personally, am not sure whether they're worth the trouble and (rather low) risk or not. I guess my preference would be to use genetic engineering if that would allow more food to be produced without nasty pesticides, herbicides, and synthetic fertilizers...
PermalinkPermalink 11/09/05 @ 06:53
Comment from: greg [Visitor]
Just a brief comment to agree here with Harlan about the importance of the differences between scientific crossbreeding -- basically a rational and rigorously controlled form of the selective breeding that people have been doing for millenia -- and genetic engineering -- introducing foriegn genetic material into plants or animals using laboratory techniques.

One of the objections to genetic engineering is that introducing these totally new species into the ecosystem (and food supply) is irresponsible unless they have been very well tested.

This is, of course, also true of "natural" species. It seems to me that we've seen enough problems arise because of new species being introduced into foriegn ecosystems (kudzu, hydrilla, zebra mussels, rabbits in australia, etc.) that we ought to automatically be cautious.

Of course we won't be.
PermalinkPermalink 11/09/05 @ 08:49
Comment from: Barbara Fisher [Visitor] · http://www.tigerberries.blogspot.com
I mentioned both Luther Burbank and Norman Borlaug in my blog last week--great minds think alike.

And yes--the way they created plants with more vigor or nutrient value was a bit different than manipulating plants on the genetic level--however, the fact remains that working on plants and animals on the genetic level holds the promise of a second green revolution.

I agree with Kate that GMO's should not be rejected out of hand, however, they should be carefully monitored and not released into ecosystems without careful consideration. GMO corn has already polluted the genes of various varieties of corn in the US because corn is pollenated by wind.

Any farmer could have told the folks who developed GMO corn that would happen, but they did it anyway.

But still--GMO's may help us feed the hungry on this planet. I just fear that a lot of these crops are being developed with profit in mind, not feeding those who starve.
PermalinkPermalink 11/09/05 @ 09:30
Comment from: Ore [Visitor] · http://www.PotentialGold.com
Wow...

I think it is great to know Borlaug's name. Honestly, if someone I speak with about this topic can tell me what he did, then I will automatically let them win the argument...for now, for me at least, I will spread this word. GMO's do get a hard wrap out on the street, Bourlag, although not EXACTLY, may soften the blow and show people what Food, Science and Technology can do together.
PermalinkPermalink 11/10/05 @ 03:56
Comment from: David [Visitor] · http://www.organicconsumers.org/
My concern is that GM crops are legally intellectual property. Ergo, they carry end-user licenses that may, for example, specify the user not to resow GM seeds. And, I believe there have been reports of GM pollen drifting from one farm to another.

Not to dismiss the potential social benefits of genetic engineering, but there are serious legal skeletons in the GE closet. After all, there are many less controversial things we could do to reduce waste and feed more people, and opponents of GM food are often branded as opponents of technological and social progress.
PermalinkPermalink 11/10/05 @ 11:38

Leave a comment:

Your email address will not be displayed on this site.
Your URL will be displayed.

Allowed XHTML tags: <p, ul, ol, li, dl, dt, dd, address, blockquote, ins, del, span, bdo, br, em, strong, dfn, code, samp, kdb, var, cite, abbr, acronym, q, sub, sup, tt, i, b, big, small>
(Line breaks become <br />)
(Set cookies for name, email and url)
(Allow users to contact you through a message form (your email will NOT be displayed.))
What color is a red balloon?