Norman Borlaug: modern hero
Who are our heroes? Is it someone who plays a mean lick on a guitar and lives a glamorous life? A model with inflated breasts who appears at charity events? An explorer accompanied by a TV crew enduring some pretty rough times? A journalist who bravely exposes a corruption scandal? An ordinary person who at great personal risk dives in to dangerous waters to save a child? A sportsman who achieves amazing physical feats but remains humble? A politician who risks her reputation to break a political logjam and end a conflict?
All of the above would qualify as heroes among varying groups. Some might even be recognised as such by their governments or international bodies. But what does it take to become a hero? How about someone who quietly save the lives of hundreds of millions of people? There is only one person who could claim that sort of hero status: Norman Borlaug.
If you’ve never heard of Norman Borlaug it’s probably because he lived a decidedly unglamorous, modest life. He was a brilliant scientist who is known as the Father of the Green Revolution. His work in developing a high-yielding variety of disease resistant wheat and improved varieties of other crop plants led to the feeding of legions of starving people. He started in Mexico, where he produced a fungus-resistant strain of wheat that allowed farmers to emerge out of poverty and starvation to selling surplus wheat. He achieved spectacular increases in crop yields in India and then the rest of Asia.
Borlaug won the Nobel peace prize in 1970. Never has such an award been more fitting. Penn & Teller call him the Greatest Human Being. Ever.
Dr Norman Borlaug died last week (September 12). He was 95 years old. Norman Borlaug was a modern hero.
“Norman E. Borlaug saved more lives than any man in human history,” said Josette Sheeran, executive director of the U.N. World Food Program. “His heart was as big as his brilliant mind, but it was his passion and compassion that moved the world.”
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=f8f1d331-d036-4b53-bfc6-65b310af29c5)
Organic food “not healthier”
A recently published study claims that so-called organic food is no healthier than conventionally produced (inorganic?) food.
“A small number of differences in nutrient content were found to exist between organically and conventionally-produced crops and livestock, said Dr Alan Dangour, principal author of the study.“But these are unlikely to be of any public health relevance.”
And he added: “Our review indicates that there is currently no evidence to support the selection of organically over conventionally produced foods on the basis of nutritional superiority.”
Here’s another case where conventional wisdom sees science intervene in traditional knowledge and pronounces it bad. Or evil. Or harmful. But ask for the evidence and the answer is usually an appeal to the natural, as if agriculture is a “natural” activity. Agriculture by its very nature reduces biodiversity. The great fertile plains and richly wooded hills of the Middle East weren’t destroyed by modern scientific agriculture.
Of course harm can be caused by inappropriate use of under-tested chemicals. But that’s true of any human activity and that’s why our societies and scientists should and do insist on evidence from properly conducted tests before unleashing these chemicals in the production of our food. The fact is that there is no evidence to support the assertion that organic food is superior to conventionally produced food.
But I think Penn & Teller do a much better job of rubbishing organic farming than I ever could.
Be sure to watch the other two parts (here and here).
-
Recommended
