Norman Borlaug

Ok, to be honest, I have never heard of Norman Borlaug until reading this post. I read through some of the links, and his accomplishments are pratically beyond belief. He is obviously a very smart and compassionate man. When reading about him, what I found espically interesting was that he didn't only do what he had learned through plant pathology, etc. to help plant growth, but he also taught it to many people. When I good idea gets spread, there's no telling how many people it helps. I also admire how much he delt with bad conditions when he didn't have to, in order to help and teach farmers in third world countries approriate farming techniques. Thank you for sharing this information. Norman Borlaug is definately a man of GREAT accomplishments and deserves to get more attention than he gets. (although from the reading I've done, it seems like it's mainly the US that isn't recognizing him)

 

Hah ha, no problem, I hadn't heard of him till a little earlier this year, I was stunned. His contributions to the third world are inumerable, and he deserves greater attention. He won the nobel prize in 1970, but he doesn't milk it like Kissinger does.

 

I did not know of him either. I just watched a programe shortly before i started this thread.
Since i watched that programe i have learnt lots and lots of things

http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/aginatur.htm

http://web.greenpeace.org/news/details?campaign%5fid=3942&item%5fid=324213

http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/prog2.htm

http://www.igc.apc.org/

http://www.us.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Economics/Agricultural/~~/cGY9MTAwJnByPTEwJnNzPWF1dGhvciZzZj1mZWF0dXJlZCZ2aWV3PXVzYSZzZD1hc2MmY2k9MDE5NTExMDEzNw==





Lots of hidden agendas by the good the bad and the ugly , but all intresting (i thought).

 

It would probably be in your best interest to do some more research into Norman Borlaug before you go off raving about what a great man he is--because he certainly isn't a great man. I'm not sure how anyone who was so stalwart in his advocacy of pesticides, etc. and later GM, can be considered a great man. People will argue that he saved billions of lives, but there is absolutely no basis to this claim whatsoever. It's more likely that he has caused more deaths than lives he has saved, and that because of him and people like him, our environment and numerous species of fauna have been adversely effects.

 

Aha ha ha! Still at it eh jiimaan?

DandelionPrincess Dr. Borlaug is a hero and deserves to have his achievments analyzed and studied, kinda wish i were teaching sociology... anyway it doesn't take long to figure out everything some people say about this great man are completly unsubstantiated. You should keep an open mind on the subject, but there are some facts to keep in mind, namely that the advanced methods of agriculture that he taught to the third world made a need for less natural land to be destroyed, and that the slash and burn cropping methods that had been used in Mexico, Africa, and Asia were devastating to the enviorment. Dr. Borlaug's ecological contributions were almost as great as his humanitarian contributions. And when he won the Nobel prize in 1970 the World Health Organization (the UN's repuatable health agency) said that he had saved over a billion lives in the third world. I can't imagine anything more nobel.

 

Well, let's see your proof for his having saved over a billion lives. This I'd like to see. And I want it to be a reliable source, not some narrow-minded devotee's hyperbolic statement.

As for his contributions to ecology--yeah, you're seriously fucked in the head. Do you even know what ecology is? This idol of yours was really keen on the use of pesticides, etc., and when Rachel Carson came out with her book Silent Spring, which drew everyone's attention to the dangers of chemicals in the environment, he sharply criticized her. Not very ecological of him, if you ask me.

 

Wait wait, first off its Lodui artard.

having already answered this, I guess I'll repost for your convenience

Alright so more contradictions abound here

You almost seem to be making a legitamite point, although the dire needsof the third worldneed to be addressed expediantly, I think saying that more testing should be done is at least a reasonable argument.

And here you are calling it 'frankenfood' and 'dubious'. How can legitamate research be done when people are fear mongering before its been found to have a single negative health impact.

Why don't you put down the greenpeace pamplet your getting all your talking points from and try thinking for yourself? 1/3 of the world is hungry and whilst an effective and cost effecient solution is produced, you slam it down without a good reason other then calling it 'frakenfood'. You've typed about an essays worth and still not come up with another solution to malnutrition.

you live in abundence and deny hungry people food, because it could help promote technology you have some primative objection to. I'm sure cro-magnon man would have been deathly afraid of refrigeration, but that worked out for everyone. Please tell me why you would deny starving people food? If its not saidism then why? 'frankenfood'???!!! What a fucking joke. what else can we do for these people? Population controls? Kinda like the nazi's??? Like I said earlier population controls are a good idea, but come the hell on, how will that be effective any time in the next 50 years?! Imaginery surpluses? why dont you just come up for a legit solution rather then shoot down existing solutions that your to naive to accept?

Pertaining to Dr. Borlaug, is the Rockefeller Foundation legit enough?
http://www.rockfound.org/display.asp?context=3&SectionTypeID=17&DocID=601&Preview=0&ARCurrent=1

If not, I suggest you try to prove to me why your not betraying human kind with accusations that the great Dr. Borlaug has ben responsible for any deaths. How can teaching people how to farm be malaficial? What maybe somebody got a cut from fixing a tractor that got infected? Thats a disgusting thing to suggest, and you have no proof, just vile slander.

As to Dr. Borlaug's ecological contributions, Rachel Carson's book was ascientific at best, and Dr.Borlaug eloquently pointed out the contrictions and poor arguments made in her book. (kinda what I'm doing to you, dig?) The movement Ms. Carson's book spawned led to the banning of pesticides that were almost essential to many parts of the world, and these bans led to a decrease in agricultural efficiency and an increase in malaria. Dr. Borlaug's criticism was light.

 

Yeah, you should maybe read the article before you post it here, buddy: in particular you may want to read the paragraph starting with "Having said that..." in which the author describes how BE crops are making small farmers landless. Where once they were free and independent, could provide themselves with food and an income with their surplus, now they have to migrate to the cities where they live in poverty and become more impoverished mouths that the great bio-tech industry has to save.

Oh, and you may want to read this one as well:

http://www.rockfound.org/display.as...cID=80&SectionTypeID=17&Preview=0&ARCurrent=1

I do remember you ranting that it was people like me that was keeping Golden Rice from the starving masses: we'll wouldn't you know it, it's the bio-tech industry itself--which you claim is doing great things for the malnurished--due to patent rights. It would seem that certain companies find their patents more important than starving people. How noble of them.

Oh, and what's this about Zeneca? Are they involved in the whole Golden Rice thing now too? Geez, and here I thought Golden Rice was a charitable undertaking by people who didn't stand to profit from it (well, financially at least). Guess I'm wrong.

In the end, I still haven't seen any proof that this Golden Rice will be able to provide anywhere near the needed amount of Vitamin A. So how much Golden Rice will these people have to eat daily in order for them to not be Vitamin A deficient???

 

Er... Have you read anything I've posted? I said earlier that the advent of golden rice may make some farmers lose there jobs, cause they can't farm as effeciently. But so what? When It can feed an entire country I don't care if a few farmers have to move to the city. The same thing happened in the US in the early 20th century, 90% of americans farmed. Today its like 5%, and everyone else has moved on and found better jobs. The same thing can happen to many underdeveloped asian countries.

Ever taken a reading comprehension test Jiimaan? First of the link you posted was praising the benifits of golden rice, providing an additional source of vitamin a, and as pointed out earlier the other nutritional benifits of rice. First off why would you care, you dont think the 'frankenfood' is worth serving to starving people... you just want to drag the bio-tech industry through the mud. Secondly the reason that golden rice was initially held back was additional testing based on questions raised by rational enviromentalists stating that golden rice might have introduced an extra allergen. If you look at the little date at the top of the article you'll see that it was published in Noveber 2000... well in those four years the testing has been completed, no allergen was found. The Golden Rice was prepared to be shipped, but halted through complications raised by many protests...

And what I said was that the initial crop of golden rice wouldn't benifit the bio-Tech industry, its been given away. But thanks to people like you, it won't benifit the hungry either. After that it will be obviously be sold commercially, the bio-tech industry can't afford to keep producing it simply through generous investing. But since Golden Rice germinates so quickly, and produces so abudently it is much less expensive to purchase then the food currently being grown in the thrid world. Even if you don't want to accept it, food is a resource, but through golden rice and other forms of GM crops food can be produced more effeciently and therby reaching more people. If your stake in this debate is trying to supress an industry you can't understand, perhaps you should readjust your priorities to think of those who really need the help.

I can't imagine why your still taking about Vitamin A... In the link you posted it says

Also as pointed out for the third time rice has many other nutritional benifits

Finally there is a better link in the Rockefeller Foundation praising the great work of Norman Borlaug.

http://www.rockfound.org/display.as...cID=87&SectionTypeID=17&Preview=0&ARCurrent=1

 

It's a fallacious argument to state that small farmers farm less efficiently. This is simply not the case. It has everything to do with lowering the cost of the rice to theoretically make it more accessable to the poor who have limited resources, which means that the farmer receives less revenue. This is not the fault of his own inefficiencey, rather the self-righteous will of a foreign act of charity. Yeah, but so what, you say? It's easy for you to be this callous, when you aren't on the receiving end. Moreover, this just shows how much of an arrogant hypocrite you are--you talk about helping these people, but at the same time you couldn't give a shit about them, and how their lives are ruined. And just to prove how stupid you are, you bring this up about "in the early 20th century..." Do you even know what you're talking about? These Americans who migrated to the cities from farms often found little or no work and therefore had a much lower standard of living. This persisted until the end of WWII when America's industrial power coupled with its increasing imperialism allowed to to develop a strong economy. The situation in South Asia is TOTALLY different, and to make a general comment like "if Americans can do it, so can they" is just plain stupid.

Again you bring it up, but you just don't seem to get it: GR was not held back because of the concerns of environmentalists--this has never stopped the bio-tech industry, why should it have then???--but rather, as it states in the article: "However, as with nearly all academic research in crop biotechnology today, Golden Rice was produced using techniques that are patented in some countries and materials obtained under legal agreements that restrict further dissemination. As the inventors sought permission to share Golden Rice, a number of intellectual property (IP) constraints surfaced that appeared difficult to resolve."

As for it requiring only 300g of GR to provide sufficient Vitamin A, guess again. It would appear that you're the one with the reading comprehension problem. Re-read what the article says. It states that some of the trials indicated that it would take 300g--and that this would "contribute significantly" Well, what does that mean? If you're getting next to nothing, any trace amount is a "significant" improvement, isn't it. And of course this 300g nonesense is not backed up, so who knows what the truth is. It's most likely totally bogus, as is most everything that is said by the bio-tech industry. As for rice having other nutrients as well... since there's no proof that the Vitamin A will be significant enough to do any good, and since rice has other nutrients as you say, what is the point of GR then? Still just sound like a big PR stunt to me.

 

Jiimaan God Damnit
Small farmers dont farm less effecintly?! Do you have any idea what you just said?!! How do you think it is that there is more food per person in the US today when 5% of the country farms then in 1900 when 90% farmed? Blessing from Rha the sun god? Ceres perhaps? Are you insane or just dumb?

Through the advent of refrigeration and advanced farming techniques, (which Dr. Borlaug taught to much of the third world) the US has produced adequate food supplies for its population with less farmers.

Its funny that someone who doesn't want to give malnurished countries food would call me callous, and then a hypocrite. I'll admit that farmers not being able to sell their crops at a comforatable price due to inefficiency , and therby being forced out of business isn't ideal, but its certainly better then to have a country starve. The scenario of farmers being put out of work with the introduction of better farming techniques has played itself out all around the world, not just the US. For example, Canada, about all of Europe, Japan, and China. These countries also have the highest standard of living. Losing your job isn't the end of the world, starving is. I feel for these people, but theres always more work to be done. try to not let your inherent racism make you ignore the needs of these poor people.

Again with the reading problems my man... an agrement was reached.

With Patents taken care of, its now stalled up in the EU, caving into pressure from "enviormentalist" lobbies.

You really need the stupid slapped outta you... The Rockefeller Foundation isn't legitamite enough for you? Who do you wanna hear it from, the Dali Lama? I've already linked you to tons of info, and so has matthew, but as for the point of golden rice... I'm going to spell this out really slowly so you can understand...
These... Poor...People..Don't...Have...Enough...Food...

 

Your ignorant ranting is LAUGHABLE. An example more closer to home is Canada. Say 1850. In what is now Ontario, farms were small, very small in many cases. No tractors, no combines, no fertilizers. Agriculture constituted the regions major export. There was an ample surplus, and this with large tracts of land still unsettled. If I were to find statistics for the U.S. in 1900, I would no doubt find that American farmers were also producing a surplus. So based on your logic, they aren't being inefficient, hence I'm write. Doesn't say much for you when someone you claim to be "dumb" proves you wrong.

Now, while we're on the topic of being dumb, let's look at your next statement. Funny, I don't remember saying that we shouldn't assist countries that have starving populations. Unless you're suggesting that GE foods are the only foods that we should be sending them. So is it GE or nothing for you? That is pretty callous. What I want to see is malnurished people treated with the respect you would expect, and not have food produce through dubious, experimental science foisted upon them. And we also have to take proactive measures to curtail hunger and starvation. I'd develop this point further, but I know you just don't get it, so there's really no point, is there? Yeah, and as for me being a racist--I personally find that a pathetic tactic. There's absolutely nothing in what I've said that should make any intelligent person come to this conclusion. If anything, the arguments that you've put forth reveal a racist, or at least ethnocentric, aspect to your personality. Wants GE food to be tested on the people of SE asia, doesn't give a shit what this does to the regions social fabric. God, if onlythese people could only see what kind of arrogant assholes such as yourself want to "help" them.

And what's this preoccupation with the "legitimacy" of the RF??? Who cares if they're a legitimate organization: they're funding dubious science with misguided goals, while fully aware of the negative social ramifications that GR will have on the region.

Seriously, you must be an IDIOT. If GR simply has trace amounts of Vitamin A, and the rice that is already being grown in these regions, contains all of the other nutrients, then obviously there's no added benefit to eating GR. So what's the point of GR, then?

You really need the stupid slapped outta you... The Rockefeller Foundation isn't legitamite enough for you? Who do you wanna hear it from, the Dali Lama? I've already linked you to tons of info, and so has matthew, but as for the point of golden rice... I'm going to spell this out really slowly so you can understand...
These... Poor...People..Don't...Have...Enough...Food...[/QUOTE]

 

The hell? You've at least writen coherently up till now. Up too late or something? Is "more closer" the new english? I guess we can't always be "write". Be that as it may, are you still suggesting that farming methods were as efficient in the the 19th century as they are now? Because there were megar agriculture surpluses back then? Are you suggesting that the third world's farms produces as much food per acre as our farms? thats ludicris. A monkey could see through that argument. once again, how do you think we have more food per capita in 2004 with 5% of the population farming then in 1900 when 90% farmed? Answer that before this side of the debate continues.

On the topic of being dumb... I never remember saying it was golden rice or no aid at all, but as i once again said earlier food is a resource, it costs lots of money to ship large amounts of food. Because Golden Rice germinates so effectivly we can give them much much more. and please do go on with these proactive measures, because so far, you've come up with no legitamite solutions at all. Just irrelevant contradictions condeming GM food without pause. And I don't think you per se are a racist, I just think that automatically denying these people GM food instead of letting the consumer make an informed decision is an inherently racist argument.

If i were hungry I wouldn't think someone offering me food was an asshole... and social fabrics of societys undergo constant change, and I feel the changes that would happen with more adequate food would be positive. Theres no testing about it... golden rice has already been rigerously tested, and if all it would take to allow The Enviromentalist Lobbies to approve it was for me to eat a plate then I would dig in, I bet its delicious. Funny that you would mention SE Asia, because I'm a Buddhist, and i have a deep respect and appreciation for the culture of SE Asia, I also have a particular affinity for Thailand. No need to go into that, but theres no way I would consider approving GR for human consumption if there was a shred of proof from the many studies that it was in any malaficial, and believe me, people like you have tried. But there isn't,and I don't feel that letting it rot in silos is helping the problem.

The Rockefeller Foundation isn't funding any science, its promoting GR. Amongst many other humanitarian undertakings. Even If you do disagree with their means, the goal of the RFI is very noble. This Preoccupation with proving the RFI's legitimacy is based on the fact that you refuse to believe any evidence that golden rice has sufficient amounts of Vitamin A. Even if that weren't the case (which it is) these parts of the world have inadequate amounts of food, and since Golden Rice germinates more efficiently, more rice can be produced with less resources.

If you don't have anything pertinent to say on the subject, then shut the hell up. Your whole series of poor arguments originated from your patronizing the work of a man who's saved millions of lives.

 

First of all, you are right in that I should have done more research. Which, I have found is rather hard to do when I live in America. You are wrong however, when you say he isn't a great man. I've noticed a lot of your posts involve name calling, and I guess that just fits. But Borlaug has done much to teach good farming techniques to countries that wouldn't have learned otherwise because of poverty levels. And I only hope to have a small fraction of his many accomplishments he has made throughout his life. My web based research has showed that Norman Borlaug is pratically considered a saint in contries such as Asia and India for how many lives he has saved by helping them get food. But America continues to ignore his accomplishments because of people's lack of knowledge how GM foods do not necissarily harm. I went to my university's library...which is HUGE...and you know how many books I found on him or about his accomplishments? or how many journal articles I've found? NONE. I thought maybe I was being faulty in my system of trying to find the information, so I went to the librarian and asked how I could go about finding something on or about him and he helped, and also found nothing. But, he had actually heard of him. He said he saw a documentary on him the other day and that "he has done wonders for helping world hunger, yet America still ignores him, it is bad that there is nothing on him in this whole library." (not an exact quote, but very close, it's not exact for memory reasons) So, I could since I could not resort to any books or journals from my library I had to resort to web-based articles. I made sure all of my sources are reputible and will site all of them for you, so you can take a look at the entire article in case I left important information out. I took the research w/o a side. I looked at the positive articles and the negative articles.

First of all, the debate on whether GM foods are safe:

Source: Medical News Today
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=9794

GM foods have to go through a rigorus procoss of being evaluated for safety before they go on the market. Many of the articles you will read about the "dangers of GM food" involving food safety, will usually refer to the process of growing them, not to how the food is when the process is over. But, of course, there is still more scientific research needed to be done ...

Yes, I do realize that there may be some dangers that have not yet been discovered about GM product's affect on the environment and health. Especially for the new discoveries. This will come in time though, it's still a fairly new concept and more tests are needed to be done before you can say "yes, it's a good idea," or "no, it's not a good idea". On one side, so many benefits can come of it.

Source: The Scientist
http://www.biomedcentral.com/news/20040408/01/

The volume of crops per amount of land can increase and more people can be fed (helping world hunger).

On the other side, there may be bad affects:

Source: The Scientist
http://www.biomedcentral.com/news/20040408/01/

It said I had to many words, I'll make another post to continue this...

 

Will it increase the unemployment rate? These are already impoverished countries. But of course, depending on what source you look at, it could increase the unemployment rate like the one above, or decrease it like the quote below that comments about GM cotton...



Source: GMWatch

http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=3921

And as far as Norman Borlaug's accomplishments, I could go on and on...



Source: American Society of Plant Biologists

http://www.aspb.org/publicaffairs/agricultural/borlaug.cfm

Once again, to be continued...

 

And as far as what he does ruins the environment, I could not seem to find any information that was from a reputable source and not just propaganda. I actually found quite the opposite. I found sites that would discuss methods of farming which are harmful to the environment, but praise Norman Borlaug for his accomplishments in helping the Green Revolution. They are now trying to help Africa, but Africa is being reluctant to accepting GM food, but it has not been scientifically researched on their part. It's all based on propoganda.



Source: The Scientist

http://www.biomedcentral.com/news/20040408/01/

Hopefully, they will come to accept it soon, for their own sake. Because on a Global scale, they are way behind everyone else as far as Agricultural Production goes...



Source: The Green Revolution in Africa

http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/webprojects/w01_africagr.htm







Basically, as far as how good of a person Norman Borlaug is, there's no question. What you seem to be arguing about jiimaan is how GM foods are bad for the enviornment and for our health. That is not Borlaug's doing. Borlaug has taught farmers from poor areas, who were never taught properly, how to farm. I can't see how you could argue with that. He has also contributed to discoveries to help agriculture withstand many harsh weather conditions.



Sorce: American Society of Plant Biologists

http://www.aspb.org/publicaffairs/agricultural/borlaug.cfm

As far as GM foods go, there has been no scientific proof to show that they are harmful. But, more research is being done, because it has been acknowledged that more proof of it's safety is needed, before new discoveries can be used.



And as a side note, I've noticed a lot of name calling in posts...I don't take responses seriously when they contain phrases like "Your ignorant ranting is LAUGHABLE" and "this just shows how much of an arrogant hypocrite you are". That's weak, and makes me feel like the rest of the information given in the post is just as weak, so if you want me to take your response seriously, don't do that.

 

If you start introducing plants that have been significantly altered due to BE, then that's bad for the environment. I'm not sure how you cannot understand this.

Farming of course is in its own right destructive to the environment, but farming can be done in a manner that minimizes the adverse effect on the environment. The use of GE crops, factory farming, etc., tend to have a detrimental effect on the environment. This is simply a fact. Proponents of GR will tell you that it will benefit the environment because less acreage will be farmed. Well, that's far from the case. If GR is adopted and does increase yeilds of rice, countries will then either continue farming the same acreage and export more; or convert some farmland to industrial, residential use; or, switch over to other crops. As it stands, Thailand is already doing this. If Thailand is so impoverished, then why is the government undertaking initiatives that will reduce the amount of rice that is in production? And why is it that these people developed a strain of rice with trace amounts of Vitamin A to be used in SE Asia when the most urgent problem is in Africa. And why is it that you even think that there is a need for GR when there is already ample amount of surplus grain in North America to assist people in Africa?

My guess is that you won't answer these questions because by doing so honestly you will discredit your flimsy argument. But I thought I'd ask anyway.

 

Can you give me some site or something that I can read up on it? Because like I said, I couldn't find anything. And I did spend a lot of time reading various articles. And it wasn't an argument, none of my posts were arguements. I was showing what I had found and wanted other peoples opinions and comments on it. Why does everything have to seem like a debate? I'm simply trying to learn.

Also, from what I've read, it seems like their focus is Africa, not SE Asia. Also, the cost of importing that much food would be EXTREMELY costly. And from what I've read, Africa is hesitant on importing a lot of food b/c they are afraid it will take away jobs from their country.

 

I See you didn't answer what I last said Jiimaan, and who can blame you considering that you haven't really answered anything I've said.

Your actually right, farming is detrimental to the enviorment... particularly slash and burn cropping. (the methods Dr. Borlaug has been doing away with)

You never even try to prove here that GM crops are any more enviormentally hazardous, you just conject that land that doesn't need to be used for rice production will be used for other things.

And Thailand is one of the world leaders in rice production. But are you actually saying that Thailand isn't impoverished? I was simply saying that I love Thailand, but there is Vitamin A defeciency, and I've already proven that GR has sufficient amounts of Vitamin A to help the problem of Vitamin A defeciency, you just refuse to belive it. Other countries in SE Asia don't have as abundent of a rice market as Thailand, such as Cambodia, and can't afford to import, so both the amount produced, and The Vitamin A content are ideal.

DandelionPrincess GR is also being aimed at the African market, where food production is scarce, and this crop will help feed millions. Unfortunalty many African nations have rejected GM crops because of pressure from the EU, caving into lobbies. While already rigerously tested, and thus far proven safe, these lobies aren't even asking for more testing, which although overzealous, might be reasonable, but rather the abolishment of GM. Doing so without reason, while this technology can benifit millions, is pretty disgusting.

http://www.foodsecurity.net/news/newsitem.php3?nid=1904&tnews=news

As I have mentioned several times, and DandelionPrincess just has, exporting enough food to help Africa really isn't plausible. We don't have nearly enough surplus to help out that many people (Thailand produces more rice then we do), Just about everything of dietary consequence spoils quickly, and the shipping fees would be impossibly enormous. Since GM crops germinate so effeciently, giving them as aid is worthwhile.

 

Your a marvel DandelionPrincess ... thanks . Like me you have come to this fresh. I am not too sure what conclusions you have come too yet. personaly ... i see endless positives and not many negatives. Organisations like GreenPeace are never going to alter their stance on enviromental issues...they assume they are right and to change their mind would bring them into question ...its not realy in their best intrests i suppose.


Again thanks... i find using the images on google a better way too find information .. it sounds odd but it works for me

This




says a lot more than this (initialy )

http://www.agbioworld.org/biotech_info/topics/borlaug/borlaug-photos.html

Thanks everybody actualy...don't let me interupt though..