The Green Revolution: mainly instigated by the Rockefeller Foundation, the World Bank and IMF

The term “Green Revolution” was first used in 1968 by former USAID director William Gaud, who noted the spread of the new technologies and said, "These and other developments in the field of agriculture contain the makings of a new revolution. It is not a violet Red Revolution like that of the Soviets, nor is it a White Revolution like that of the Shah of Iran. I call it the Green Revolution."

The Green Revolution describes the transformation of agriculture that led to significant increases in agricultural production between the 1940s and 1960s in developed countries and now in underdeveloped countries. This transformation occurred as the result of programs of agricultural research, extension, and infrastructural development, instigated and largely funded by the Rockefeller Foundation (still today - 23rd April 2007 - you can read "...only through human resource development will Africa realize its dream of a green revolution..."), along with the Ford Foundation and other major agencies like the World Bank and IMF.

The Green Revolution has had major social and ecological impacts, which have drawn intense criticism for underdeveloped countries and developed countries see for example here:

http://www.sos-arsenic.net/english/mitigation/1.html

"Since 60's the World Bank, IMF and other international aid agencies financed to introduce imported High Yield Variety (HYV) of Rice and Wheat that required imported irrigation pumps, diesel, fertilisers and pesticides and constructed embankments to stop overflow of nutrient rich river water. Instead of improving traditional varieties - there were about 30,000 varieties of rice in this sub-continent - now exists only about 8 varieties.

In Bangladesh the Green Revolution have contributed to worsening income inequality and deepening absolute poverty. The absolute poverty afflicts two-thirds to four-fifths of the rural population (Khan, 1985). The studies on the "green revolution" in India reveals that small farmers cannot participate in its diffusion as much as large ones because the new crop varieties require a large amount of investment in purchased inputs that the poor cannot afford, and small farmers have little access to financial institutions (Griffin, 1974). The result of national nutrition surveys in Bangladesh show that the per capita daily energy intake decline by about 9 percent between 1962-64 and 1975-76, and another 7 percent by 1981-82. Modern agriculture became expensive for the poor farmers and many farmers lost their land. Landless small farmers and as well as urban informal groups constitute 50 per cent of Bangladesh's population. "

or here:

http://www.sustainabletable.org/issues/economics/

who argues by saying that:

"Supporters of industrial farming often claim that sustainable agriculture is not an economically viable way to produce food. They believe large-scale factory farming is the most efficient way to produce huge quantities of cheap food.

What these advocates fail to recognize is that the seemingly low price of industrial food does not take into account the true costs of production. These hidden costs include environmental degradation, use of fossil fuels, damage to human health, and the destruction of rural communities. These costs are not paid for by the owners of factory farms; they are paid for by residents of the communities in which these operations are located, by taxpayers and by consumers.

"Environmental Costs"

Factory farms are directly responsible for a wide range of environmental problems. In addition to creating unmanageable amounts of waste, causing massive topsoil erosion, aquifer depletion, and the reduction of biodiversity, factory farming pollutes our air, water and soil with hazardous gasses, toxic chemicals, and harmful pathogens. The price of industrial-farmed food does not include the cost of this damage. Instead, the burden is borne by the local community and by we taxpayers who must finance government cleanup efforts with their tax money.

Fossil Fuels and Energy Use

As a result of industrial agriculture, food that was once produced locally must now be transported extraordinarily long distances. On average, conventional fruits and vegetables produced in the US travel about 1,500 miles before reaching the point of sale.i In addition, there are numerous food products imported from foreign countries, which means the average meal can travel even longer distances. Industrial farms also rely on highly mechanized systems, to run livestock operations and produce the feed for their animals.

Transporting and producing food in this way requires an enormous amount of fuel for trucks and machinery. This fuel consumption results in increased air pollution (a problem that is both extremely difficult to fix and essentially immeasurable in terms of cost), as well as a continued reliance on foreign oil.

Human Health Costs

Many industrial agriculture practices are harmful, not only to the health of individuals living nearby large farms but also to the health of consumers who eat the food they produce. Residents suffer illness resulting from contaminated water supplies and air pollution, while consumers are exposed to antibiotic-resistant bacteria, pesticide residues and outbreaks of food borne diseases. Factory farms do not pay the hospital bills to treat any diseases from contaminated food and water, instead, they are passed directly to the people who miss work when they are sick, and to the taxpayers who help finance the health care system.

Rural Communities

Another hidden cost of industrial-farmed food is its impact on small family-owned farms and rural communities. As a result of the expansion of industrialized agriculture, there are now nearly 4 million fewer farms in the US than there were in the 1930's.ii While small family farms help improve rural economies by creating more jobs and by patronizing local businesses, factory farms operate with minimal labor and generally purchase building materials, equipment, supplies, and feed from outside of the region.iii As a result, rural areas are left with high rates of unemployment and very limited opportunity for future economic growth.

Economic Efficiency

Even if the hidden costs of factory farming are ignored, it's still not clear that industrial agriculture operations are more efficient than smaller, sustainable farms. A substantial body of work within agricultural economics literature suggests that smaller operations are in fact more productive than larger ones. Large-scale, single crop, industrial farms can produce a large amount of output per unit of labor, but diverse, sustainable crop systems are actually more productive in terms of output per unit of land.iv In other words, sustainable farms require more workers (and create more jobs), but produce more food on smaller plots of land than industrial farms.

Also, increased food production by industrial farming has not managed to relieve any of the problems related to famine and hunger throughout the world. The University of Essex found that sustainable agriculture increased productivity by an average of 93% in 9 million farms in such places as the Sahel of Africa, the hills of the Andes, the rainforests of Southeast Asia, and other areas where chemical inputs are neither affordable nor successful.v Meanwhile, industrial agriculture has allowed the US to develop a culture of over-consumption, where we waste about half the food we produce.vi

Subsidies

Even if it seems like we’re paying less for industrially-produced food at the grocery store, we’re spending our tax money on huge subsidies that the government gives to agribusiness. Between 1995 and 2004, the U.S. government awarded $143 billion in agricultural subsidies.vii 72 percent of these subsidies were granted to just 10 percent of US farms.viii These subsidies promote industrial agriculture while allowing big food producers to keep their prices artificially low, making it impossible for small farms that don’t receive subsidies to compete. And it’s our tax money that’s supporting this!"