THE PARADIGM OF THE GREEN REVOLUTION NEEDS TO BE CHANGED, BUT WILL IT CHANGE?
Reading Tim Folgar’s article titled The Next Green Revolution was interesting to me because the location in the article is a neighbouring country to the country from which my parents originated from, and I have visited Tanzania once. Although I did not grow up in a rural area, the rural area where my father’s family comes from and I visited regularly is heavily reliant on cassava, due to the climate which is not as favourable to other African staple crops like corn. I truly understood what Juma meant in the article when he said cassava is everything.
I completely agree with what the proponents of a different vision of agriculture have to say about genetically modified crops and share the same sentiments-that the expensive genetically modified crops are a costly input into a broken system.[1] The way Monsanto does not allow farmers to save seeds for planting in the next season, but to only buy patented crops instead is not user-friendly for the poorest farmers, who can barely afford the costs of inputs. As the proponents of a different vision of agriculture state, it is a broken system, and it benefits those that already have abundant resources while restricting those that face financial constraints. Although World Food Prize Laureate Hans Herren rightly states that the paradigm of the green revolution needs to be changed in ways such as finding means of deterring pests and increasing yield that are user-friendly for people like Juma, whether it will change in the direction Herren talks about is uncertain due to the interests that corporations like Monsanto have. While it might seem that their main interest is to enhance food security, profit and financial gain are their topmost priority. Having genetically modified crops that are resistant to a pesticide created by the same company is a sure way to maximise profits, and if profits are being made there is no incentive to those making the profits to change the system. It is encouraging that there are people like Hans Herren who have the welfare of the poor at heart, even establishing a non-profit (Biovision) that is focused on Sub Saharan Africa[2], and rightly so because the levels of human suffering in some communities are unacceptable. When ending food insecurity becomes the topmost priority for everyone, perhaps change in the direction that Hans Herren and other proponents of a different agriculture have in mind-change that is more mindful of the environment, a farming system that deviates from the current heavy input method of agriculture can take place. It will be good for every living organism on the planet if methods of agriculture that do not pollute the environment and are easily accessible to farmers. The works of non-profits like the IRRI, though controversial to many are commendable because they seek to combat food insecurity without the monetary incentive big corporations have and should be part of the new green revolution, without throwing caution to the wind.
-Wongani
REFERENCES
Folger, Tim. The Next Green Revolution, October 2014. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/foodfeatures/green-revolution/
[1] Folger, Tim. The Next Green Revolution, October 2014. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/foodfeatures/green-revolution/
[2] https://www.biovision.ch/en/about-us/who-we-are/strategy/
Hi Wongani,
Thanks for sharing the personal insight you’ve gained from living within the regions that Folgar discusses in his article! I think philosophical discussion is always enriched when we manage, as you have done, to incorporate some of our direct, lived experiences regarding ethical matters, rather than having them just be abstract theory on a page. I agree with the arguments you make that corporations hailing bio-tech tend to have the problem of prioritizing profit over the well-being of people and the eco-community, and social and agricultural reform are stifled as a result. Much of what you said resonated with the Scott article, as well, and I think he’d agree that we are rightfully concerned that the legacy of the Green Revolution is still haunting our current scientific paradigms, and what’s unfortunate is that many who disproportionately suffer the harmful effects are these communities who are already vulnerable, as you mentioned — that absolutely needs to change. Your post is very insightful; my only criticism would be to try to organize and split your paragraphs into more concise chunks, since I think that would make it easier for readers to follow along your lines of thought. Still, you offer a very nice read, weaving into the discussion some of the harmful socio-economic implications of bio-tech that we’ve learned, and I appreciate your and your family’s personal experiences!
~ John