| |
by George McGovern
Simon & Schuster,
Copyright © 2001 All rights reserved.
ISBN: 0-684-85334-5
Chapter One: A Strategy to Defeat World Hunger
In the blistering, heart-rending drought and depression days of
1932 I was a ten-year-old boy growing up in Mitchell, South Dakota.
Most of the time I was a contented youngster, but some memories
are not pleasant. A lifetime later, I recall the huge boiling dust
clouds that rolled across the parched Dakota plains, hiding the
sun in a darkness like midnight. The finely ground dirt not only
blackened the sky; it came hard at the crevices of our eyes, ears,
noses, and throats. The tiniest cracks or openings in windows and
doors ushered the dust inside.
The first such fearful storm that I remember happened during a
summer hike several miles east of Mitchell with my boyhood friend
Vernon Hersey. After failing efforts to grope our way in the blinding
dust to a country road, Vernon suggested that the Milwaukee railroad
tracks would lead us back to Mitchell. We followed them homeward,
listening over the howling wind for a train whistle.
When the Dakota sun was not blotted out by dust storms, it was
frequently shrouded by flying grasshopper invasions. They could
strip growing crops down to the ground in a matter of hours. Farmers
who had invested their cash and months of labor in planting and
nurturing crops would watch their harvest disappear. The voracious
pests would even devour the wooden handles of hoes and pitchforks.
My father was a Wesleyan Methodist clergyman who believed in God,
John Wesley (the founder of Methodism), and the St. Louis Cardinals.
This "Holy Trinity" helped our household get through the
Depression. I knew about the Twelve Apostles, but I knew even more
about the Cardinals' "Gashouse Gang" -- Dizzy and Daffy
Dean, Leo Durocher, Pepper Martin, Joe Medwick, Frankie Frisch --
and from that day to this, the first item I have looked for in the
morning paper is the standing of the St. Louis Cardinals. (As I
write, they are in first place in their division, of course!)
One day in the autumn of 1932, my dad took me pheasant hunting,
which included a stop at our friend Art Kendall's farm, ten miles
southwest of Mitchell. Kendall was one of my heroes, a hardworking
farmer and a devout member of my dad's congregation. I admired his
prowess in hunting pheasants, which was not only an enjoyable sport,
but also enriched our tables. Art was the best shot with a 12-gauge,
double-barreled shotgun I ever saw. He also had a sense of humor
-- of a kind. On my first trip carrying a small-gauge shotgun, he
told me that there was a rabbit just ahead of me. I saw something
move and promptly filled it with buckshot. It was a skunk, as Art
knew, and it sprayed its dreadful perfume all over me before expiring.
I was invited to ride on the outside fender of the car for the rest
of the day. I can still hear Art Kendall's laughter.
Not only did I learn about skunks that day, but I received another,
more serious lesson. When my dad and I arrived at Art's farm to
pick him up, we found him sitting on his back porch looking at a
slip of paper. As we approached him, I realized that he had been
crying. How could this be -- big, strong, brave Art Kendall crying?
It was the first time I had seen an adult cry, except for my mother
the night Grandma died. Why was he crying? Because he had just received
a check for all of his hogs barely big enough to cover the trucker's
fee for hauling them to the livestock market in Sioux City, Iowa.
Art had worked for a year feeding his corn crop to those hogs and
getting them ready for market. In the end, he netted nothing. This
was the kind of ruinous price level that choked a farmer's spirit
and sent him into bankruptcy.
Over the years, when I saw how hard farmers worked and how little
they frequently received for their labor, it broke my heart. That
happened for a long, hard decade when I was a boy. A similar downturn
has hit the farm economy during the present decade.
In the mid to late 1920s, American farmers were primed to produce.
They had geared up a magnificent agricultural machine in response
to the demand generated by World War I. Farmers were similarly primed
to produce in the mid-1990s Global demand for American agricultural
products was high, and projected to grow higher.
Farmers in the post-World War I period saw the bottom fall out
of their markets when foreign countries cinched their belts as war
debts forced them to economize. Similarly, the growth projected
for agricultural markets in the 1990s has been stunted by the Asian
financial crisis. To compound the difficulties, both the mid-1920s
and the late 1990s were characterized by larger than average crops
-- a blessing turned into a curse. Farmers were not earning enough
from the sale of their crops or animals to cover production costs
in either of these two periods.
Financial stress, then as now, accelerated the trend toward reducing
the number of farmers -- a trend that technological advances have
amplified throughout the century as more food is produced with fewer
farmers.
When Henry Wallace became secretary of agriculture in 1933, he
put his keen mind to work on crafting the most innovative package
of government farm programs ever -- a package that became a central
part of the Roosevelt administration's New Deal. Wallace's approach
was to provide incentives for farmers to cut back on production
while markets were glutted and prices were low. His plan for an
"ever normal granary" enabled farmers to protect their
markets by storing surplus grain in times of bumper crops. They
were allowed to borrow from the federal government against their
stored harvests. When production was down and prices were higher,
they could then profitably sell their grain and pay off their loans.
This ingenious approach worked and is a prime reason that Henry
A. Wallace is acknowledged by many as the most important agricultural
leader of the twentieth century. This system, or some version of
it, was the basic agricultural law of the land from the mid-1930s
for the next sixty years until Congress terminated it, I think unwisely,
in 1996. The Freedom to Farm Act of that year did give farmers more
freedom to plant as much grain as they wished, but it left them
with no price stabilization system. Once acreage restrictions were
lifted, surpluses mounted, and in the absence of any price support
floor, farm prices collapsed. I have heard more than a few farmers
describe this congressional action as the Freedom to Go Broke Act.
As a youth in South Dakota, I saw anxious parents trying to stretch
scarce dollars to feed their families. I also saw the steady stream
of hoboes who came to our door asking for food. My father and mother
never once said no to these young men, who were riding the rails
looking for work. But not until I arrived in Italy in 1944 had I
seen the kind of hunger that stunts young bodies and can end lives
prematurely.
In September that year, I was on board a troopship as it eased
into Naples harbor. In the approach to the docking area, I could
see scores of Italian children lining up and shouting to us to throw
Hershey bars, Babe Ruths, and Wrigley's gum. At this point the ship's
captain broke in over the loudspeaker and ordered us not to throw
anything to the youngsters. He explained that children in war-torn
Italy were hungry -- on the edge of starvation -- and that a few
days earlier, when American troops had thrown candy from an incoming
ship, some of it fell into the water and a number of children had
drowned scrambling for it.
I served in Italy for the next year as a bomber pilot, hitting
targets in Nazi Germany and the oil refineries of Eastern Europe.
Frequently I awakened to the sound of Italian mothers scratching
through our garbage dumps for scraps of food.
This was the beginning of my lifelong interest in finding a practical
formula for using the surplus production of American farmers to
feed needy people in America and around the world. Such a plan could
strengthen the markets of our farmers while feeding the hungry.
A decade after my experiences in wartime Italy, I was elected to
Congress with the first opportunity to translate my ideas on agriculture
and feeding the hungry into public policy.
In the 1950s, after the war, large surpluses of grain accumulated
in American storage facilities. The secretary of agriculture, Ezra
Taft Benson, began to speak publicly of "burdensome surpluses"
as the source of a serious American farm problem. I had a different
view. It seemed to me in the 1950s, as it does now, that farm surpluses
could be a blessing rather than a curse. It is true that without
positive, imaginative action, surplus crops would depress market
prices to the point where farmers would be unable even to recover
the cost of production. This is the route to bankruptcy, mortgage
foreclosures, and an agricultural depression that is damaging to
the national economy. The serious troubles in the farm belt during
the 1920s helped bring on the 1929 collapse of the New York stock
market and the Great Depression of the 1930s. When farmers quit
buying tractors, cars, appliances, tires, clothing, paint, lumber,
and a host of other items, the entire economy is dampened. But if
the government were prepared to purchase the surplus part of the
crop and distribute it carefully to hungry people in our own country
and abroad, we could both protect the markets of our farmers and
reduce the number of hungry people.
With the Cold War over and defense spending down, the U.S. government
has its first budget surplus since 1963. Some of this surplus could
be used to meet the cost of bolstering our farm economy and feeding
the hungry. In this kind of effort, we would need to be careful
not to disrupt the commercial markets of other farmers and exporters,
both in the United States and abroad. Nations that produce surplus
grain, including Canada, Australia, France, and, in due course,
India, China, and Russia, should be enlisted to share their abundance
with the world's hungry. Developed countries that do not have farm
surpluses could contribute cash, shipping, field personnel, utensils,
processed foods, and other things needed in a well-planned feeding
program.
As matters now stand, according to the most recent estimate of
the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, slightly fewer than 800
million people around the world suffer from hunger. Most of them
live in rural areas of the developing countries. They depend on
farming for both their food and their income. To attack the world's
hunger, we must move on two fronts: first, we must institute direct
special feeding programs especially for schoolchildren and pregnant
and nursing mothers and their infants; second, we must improve local
agricultural practices.
Women should be given the opportunity to play a central role both
in the direct feeding programs and in the production of food. A
number of studies by the World Food Program in Bangladesh, Angola,
and other Third World countries have demonstrated that women are
more likely than men to budget and handle food resources carefully.
The children in a family are more likely to be fed well if their
mothers are in charge of the food.
I suggest the following five-point program:
I would like to see America take the lead in working toward a school
lunch program that embraces every child in the world. Such a program
is well within the reach of the international community. We, and
other countries, have the food resources and the know-how to establish
and maintain such a program. There is no practical reason why any
child should go hungry anywhere in the world.
While writing this book I discussed the concept of a universal
school lunch program with President Clinton at the White House on
May 26, 2000. Knowing how intensely busy the President is, I had
expected only ten or fifteen minutes of his time. Instead he assembled
his top assistants -- White House Chief of Staff John Podesta, national
security advisor Sandy Berger, economic advisor Gene Sperling, Secretary
of Agriculture Dan Glickman, Deputy Aid Administrative Hattie Babbitt,
a top executive from the Budget Bureau, and Congressman James McGovern
of Massachusetts, who has long been interested in the issue of hunger.
The animated discussion lasted for an hour and a half with the
President obviously fascinated by the idea and asking frequent questions.
When I finished my presentation, he struck the cabinet room table
in front of him and exclaimed, "This is just simply a grand
idea! I want us to go forward with it."
True to his word, on July 23, 2000, while attending the G-8 Summit
in Okinawa, Japan, President Clinton announced to the seven other
heads of State that the United States will take the lead in establishing
a school lunch program for the world's children. The President then
committed an additional $300 million, largely in farm surpluses,
to launch the effort in its first year. He invited other nations
to join in this effort.
Then on July 27, 2000, Senator Richard Lugar of Indiana, chairman
of the U.S. Senate Agriculture Committee, scheduled a public hearing
on the international school lunch proposal and invited former senator
Robert Dole and me to be the lead-off witnesses. Senator Dole and
I testified as a team, which lent a strong bipartisan flavor to
the hearing. As former presidential nominees of our respective parties,
we had also established an effective bipartisan coalition in the
Senate on matters related to agriculture and nutrition. While still
testing the universal lunch idea with my colleagues in Rome, in
the spring of 2000, I telephoned Bob Dole in Washington and asked
him if he could support my effort. After asking a few questions,
he said that he would be proud to team up with me on the proposal.
He was the first person I called in the United States. It has been
reassuring and most helpful to have his support. Our former Senate
colleagues gave us the warmest, most supportive reception that I
have ever witnessed at a congressional hearing.
Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa, the ranking Democrat on the committee,
observed that "your idea is so compelling and so morally and
economically sound that I wonder why we didn't think of it a long
time ago."
Senator Tom Daschle, the Democratic Leader of the Senate, came
to the hearing to register a ringing endorsement of the proposal
as did the other South Dakota Senator, Tim Johnson, who has developed
a keenly informed knowledge of hunger issues.
Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont, a longtime member of the Agriculture
Committee, was equally forceful in his support of an international
school lunch program. Chairman Lugar planned and conducted the hearing
admirably. Also on the Republican side was a man with whom I once
served on the committee, Thad Cochran of Mississippi. He also lent
his support to the lunch idea.
Senator Richard Durbin of Illinois and Congressman McGovern followed
Senator Dole and me to the witness stand -- they've been supporters
of the school lunch concept from the moment that they first heard
it mentioned. Then came supportive testimony from Dan Glickman and
the director of the UN World Food Program, Catherine Bertini. These
two people will play crucial roles in supplying, funding, and administrating
the program. Working in concert with them will be the private voluntary
agencies such as Catholic Relief Service, Church World Service,
Lutheran World Relief, the Joint Distribution Committee, and Bread
for the World. Witnesses from these agencies completed the Agriculture
Committee hearing. I stress that we can't operate a universal school
lunch program effectively without the richly experienced and highly
motivated participation of the private voluntary agencies around
the world.
(1) Of the world's hungry people, 300 million are school-age children.
Not only do they bear the pangs of hunger but also their malnutrition
leads to loss of energy, listlessness, and vulnerability to diseases
of all kinds. Hungry children cannot function well in school --
if, indeed, they are able to attend school at all. Hunger and malnutrition
in childhood years can stunt the body and mind for a lifetime. Every
minute, more than ten children under the age of five die of hunger.
No one can even guess at the vastly larger number of older children
and adults who lead damaged lives because of malnutrition in their
fetal or infant days.
A nutritious, balanced school lunch for every child is the best
investment we can make in the health, education, and global society
of the future. After President John Kennedy appointed me in 1961
to head the U.S. Food for Peace program, I was contacted by a remarkable
Catholic priest who was stationed with the Maryknoll Fathers in
the impoverished Puno area of Peru. Father Dan McClellan convinced
me that if the United States could supply the food, the Maryknoll
Fathers could administer a school lunch program in the Puno region.
On May 12, 1961, Prime Minister Pedro Beltran of Peru came to my
office at the White House to place his signature on an agreement
for school lunches for 30,000 Puno students, to be administered
by the Maryknoll Fathers. At the prime minister's suggestion, however,
the food was given to the children as a breakfast, upon their arrival
at school. Mr. Beltran told us that the children did not receive
enough food at home to begin the day. A school breakfast would be
an incentive for students to be on time and would give them enough
energy for the day's educational activities. Perhaps a glass of
milk with a cookie or a piece of bread could be added at midday
as an energy pickup.
In the Puno area of Peru, illiteracy was 90 percent. Only a meager
fraction of the students were in school. In some schools, nine out
of ten students dropped out before completing the sixth grade. Schoolchildren
were seriously handicapped by the lethargy and drowsiness that resulted
from malnutrition. But within six months after the U.S.-assisted
school lunch program began in the fall of 1961, teachers noted that
attendance had nearly doubled and academic performance had improved
dramatically.
The signing by Prime Minister Beltran and me signaled a new emphasis
in Food for Peace on U.S.-assisted school feeding programs. This
was the first U.S. agreement of this kind. By 1964, 12 million,
or one out of three, schoolchildren in South America were being
fed a nutritious daily lunch through Food for Peace.
President Kennedy launched the Alliance for Progress in 1961. It
was a cooperative effort on the part of the United States and the
states of Latin America to raise the standard of living in Latin
America. I observed at the time that "the most important resource
of Latin America or of any continent and the one which holds the
key to the future is children. Unless the children of Latin America
can develop into healthy, educated citizens, the Alliance for Progress
will amount to very little. That is why the expanding Food for Peace
program focused more and more on the child-feeding programs. No
part of the Alliance for Progress efforts was more important."
(Food for Peace was a separate White House initiative that was launched
before the Alliance for Progress, but we coordinated our efforts
with the Alliance.)
What better investment could we make than locating a competent
institution to manage and monitor a school breakfast or lunch program,
which we could then confidently supply with our surplus foods?
Shortly after I began directing the Food for Peace program around
the world, the dean of the University of Georgia telephoned my White
House office. He told me that in his opinion the federal school
lunch program had done more than any other federal program to advance
the development of the South.
The school lunch program was launched in 1946, just after the Second
World War. The wartime draft had revealed that a shocking number
of young American men were ineligible for military service because
of poor health -- much of which appeared to be diet-related. Congress
acted in considerable part because it became convinced that the
poor health of much of our youth -- especially in the South -- threatened
our national security. This concern was enough to convince even
vigorous conservatives, traditionally opposed to more federal involvement
in the schools, that school lunches should be an exception to the
rule. Senator Richard Russell of Georgia and President Harry Truman
were key players in establishing the School Lunch Program. The Georgia
dean, a thoughtful lifetime educator, gave the federal school lunch
program major credit for improving the physical strength, the mental
alertness, the athletic ability, the self-confidence, and the productivity
of the youth of the South. "If I had to preserve one federal
program above all others, I would still choose the school lunch
program," the dean said. It should be noted that until 1968
children were required to pay most of the cost of their lunches.
Senator Dole and I were instrumental in legislation that provided
free or reduced price lunches for poor children.
In Asia, Africa, and Latin America, wherever we have experimented
with school lunches, we have seen school attendance double in a
year or so; grades have also climbed. A daily lunch is the surest
magnet for drawing children to school that anyone has yet devised.
This is a very important fact because of the world's 300 million
school-age children, 130 million are illiterate and not attending
school. If education is the key to development in the Third World,
and I believe it is, the school lunch is the key to unlocking the
education door. The lowly school lunch indirectly produces healthier
youngsters, advances education, reduces the birthrate, and provides
a profitable market for the surplus farm commodities of the United
States and other surplus-producing countries.
A school lunch every day for every child in the world would require
the labor and initiative of many people and nations. In the United
States, we would need to call on churches, synagogues, and mosques,
as well as our secular philanthropic groups. Such religious and
charitable institutions are already engaged in administering and
distributing food relief abroad. But they should be urged and enabled
to do much more. Wherever such private agencies can take the place
of government in administering and monitoring school lunches or
other food programs, they should be encouraged to do so. Also, wherever
possible, local farmers should be given an opportunity to supply
food at a fair price to the local school lunch program. When locally
produced food is available, food aid can be acquired more cheaply
from recipient or neighboring countries than from more distant sources
where shipping and handling charges would be significant. The program
will still require substantial dairy, livestock, and cereal grain
production from the United States and other surplus-producing countries,
because local supplies are not always equal to the demand. Beyond
this, private foundations, labor unions, corporations and individuals
should consider contributing to this cause. Such contributions should
go to the UN World Food Program in Rome.
I would estimate the start-up costs covering the first two years
of a school lunch program seriously intended to be universal at
$3 billion. With the United States initially in the lead, our portion
might reach half of that figure -- $1.5 billion spread out over
two years. The bulk of that would be in surplus commodities purchased
in the American market: Texas and Montana livestock; Kansas wheat;
South Dakota corn and hogs; Arkansas and North Carolina poultry;
California and Florida oranges; Wisconsin and New York dairy products;
Washington, Oregon, and Massachusetts cranberries and fish; Idaho
and Maine potatoes.
As more and more students enrolled in the program, costs would
increase, but we may hope that more and more countries would join
in helping to finance the program, so American costs would probably
not increase significantly, if at all. Also, expected contributions
from private foundations, corporations, labor unions, and individuals
should hold down government costs.
It is my hope that the receiving governments would themselves be
able to take over and finance the program within five or six years.
Meanwhile, the program would be under the instructional and monitoring
eyes of the World Food Program, which has highly capable and experienced
people in field offices within eighty countries.
(2) A second nutritional program that I would like to see go worldwide
is the American Special Supplemental Food Program for Women, Infants
and Children. This program, known as WIC ("Women, Infants,
and Children") provides food, nutrition counseling, and access
to health services for low-income pregnant and breast-feeding women,
other postpartum women, and infants and young children who are at
nutritional risk.
I had the privilege of cosponsoring the legislation establishing
WIC in 1972, with the late Senator Hubert Humphrey and Senator Bob
Dole. The program has been a dramatic success in the United States,
significantly improving the health and well-being of millions of
young mothers and their children. In doing so it has reduced the
cost of Medicaid and other medical programs.
Given our experience with WIC, Americans could lead the way in
extending this program abroad through the United Nations. Along
with a universal school lunch program, an international WIC system
would offer a mighty one-two punch against world hunger. And here
again, American farmers, ranchers, and dairymen would benefit, along
with producers in other countries.
I estimate the start-up cost for an international WIC program at
$1 billion for the first two years. With the United States in the
lead, our cost would be $500 million spread over two years. As with
the universal school lunch program, costs would rise as more and
more needy young mothers and their infants were drawn into the vitally
important WIC program. And again, I anticipate that the participation
of other U.N. member states would make unnecessary further increases
in the U.S. portion of the cost.
Some of my colleagues in Rome are a little more skeptical about
the operation of a WIC program abroad than they are about school
lunch programs. They point out that the schoolhouse and its faculty
and administrative staff provide a structure for feeding students;
no such structure exists for young mothers and their infants. One
possible answer is to set aside one hour a day when a school classroom
could be used for WIC recipients. Where there is a church or a public
meeting room, it may offer an alternative location. Mothers could
be given food rations to take home for the weekend.
(3) A third step in the battle against world hunger could be the
establishment of food reserves around the globe. The biblical story
of Joseph in Egypt building a granary to store bountiful grain harvests
for use in poor years is still a valid lesson. Countries producing
grain surpluses should be encouraged to store the surplus against
the day when crop failures, droughts, or international emergencies
call on it. In the developing world, with less experience in modern
grain storage, reserve storage facilities could be improved and
expanded and then closely monitored by the U.N. Food and Agriculture
Organization to prevent neglect or mishandling.
(4) A fourth step could be the fundamental long-term instrument
in the war against hunger: assisting developing states to improve
their own farm production, food processing, and food distribution.
Most people in Asia, Africa, Latin America, and the Middle East
live on farms or in rural villages. Agriculture is their physical
and economic lifeline. Many of them are still farming with methods
and equipment little improved since ancient times.
One ingredient in the amazing success of American agriculture has
been the technical help and improved farming methods offered farmers
by the land-grant colleges, including research on seeds, soil conservation,
better cultivation practices, pesticides, and water usage. Agricultural
experiment stations and county extension agents have also advised
farmers on improved production methods. Such know-how could greatly
lift the production and standards of life in the developing world.
How could it be supplied?
I would suggest a Farmers Corps, patterned after the Peace Corps.
Retired farmers in the United States and other developed countries
could be recruited and paid a modest salary to go abroad for six
months or more to teach improved farming methods. Each country would
pay the cost of its own Corps. Many farmers who have retired for
reasons of age or health are at a loss for how to use their retirement
years. The Farmers Corps could provide a satisfying and adventurous
outlet for such farmers. Some years ago, a treasured South Dakota
friend of mine, my wife Eleanor's uncle, Harlan Payne, retired after
a lifetime of farming. Restless, feeling useless, depressed in his
retirement, he committed suicide. I believe that the Farmers Corps
could have saved this good man's life while helping other farmers
abroad. He would have loved all of that. Farm women, too, with their
years of hard work and varied experience as partners in managing
the farm, would have valuable wisdom to share.
Young men and women who have grown up on farms in the United States
and other developed countries might also wish to do a stint in the
Farmers Corps. As farms have grown larger, there are fewer opportunities
for individual ownership for the sons and daughters of farmers.
The Farmers Corps could provide a transition for such young people,
who would also gain a new experience in a wider world.
A Farmers Corps should be administered by the Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations. As with other UN initiatives,
the United States would be expected to pay 25 percent of the cost.
Congress, of course, would have to authorize this expenditure. The
American members of the Corps could be recruited and prepared for
overseas service by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
(5) A promising fifth weapon in the war against world hunger is
the emergence of high-yield scientific agriculture, including genetically
modified crops. The gene modification controversy has obscured its
promise. Legitimate questions have been raised about some aspects
of the use of chemicals in livestock. These questions deserve honest,
scientifically sound answers. But the biotechnical improvement of
both the quality and quantity of animals and plants is a major breakthrough
in the battle against global hunger. That scientific breakthrough
enables life-sustaining plants to survive pests, salt, and dry weather
-- all with less reliance on pesticides and irrigation water. Cereal
grains can be modified to mature more quickly and yet have more
nutritional benefits.
Some of the earlier successes with modifying plant genes have resulted
in plants with greater resistance to insects. Since such plants
require less pesticide, they improve farm income while reducing
environmental damage.
Research is also moving ahead by Swiss scientists to produce a
more nutritious strain of rice, a crop that feeds nearly 2.5 billion
people. With increased Vitamin A and iron content, this newly modified
rice could potentially prevent millions of cases of blindness and
anemia among children. The modified rice is better for the overall
health of youngsters.
Every new scientific breakthrough has been greeted over the centuries
by skepticism, fear, and hostility. Such reactions are not all bad
and, indeed, can be productive: they may force a measure of caution
and proof before new methods and techniques are accepted. There
must be more research, experimentation, and discussion before the
final word is reached on the emerging biotechnology in agriculture.
The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations has
now established an intergovernmental group of experts to look into
critical issues related to biotechnology, including risk assessment,
labeling, and standards for international trade. Through this group,
some of the best minds in the world can conduct a searching inquiry
into genetically modified crops. The FAO has no ax to grind, no
agenda but to arrive at the most realistic assessment possible of
all aspects of this issue.
What we do know already is that for the past century science and
technology have played a key role in greatly augmenting the production
of American farmers and those in other advanced countries. The hybrid
seed corn developed scientifically by Henry Wallace and his family
in Iowa after 1926 was a valuable breakthrough, not only for Iowa
farmers, but for farmers around the world.
The "Green Revolution," which began in 1968, got its
name after scientists discovered through gene modification how to
increase the capacity of green plants to use sunlight, water, and
soil nutrients. This breakthrough essentially made it possible to
grow more food on less land with fewer pesticides and less water.
Since the 1960s most of the increase in food production -- notably,
an estimated three-fourths the increase has come in India and other
parts of South Asia -- has stemmed from the Green Revolution. To
the best of my knowledge, no one has been poisoned or sickened by
these modified crops. Indeed, the health of people and livestock
consuming modified grains has improved. The Green Revolution and
other crop modifications will continue to be the source of food
production increases in the next thirty years if farmers proceed
with modern scientific agriculture. This should be good for farmers,
good for consumers, and good for the environment.
It was the technology of farm machinery and the use of science
to modify plants that enabled food producers to head off the prediction
by Thomas Malthus that population growth would outstrip increases
in food production. But as we move into the twenty-first century,
population continues to grow, with shrinking per capita arable land
and irrigation possibilities. I believe that genetically engineered
crops may be an indispensable instrument in the war against hunger,
by increasing both the quality and the quantity of food produced
per acre. If so, we need to discuss openly and fairly the fears
and risks, as well as the hopes and values, of scientific farming.
Thus far, most genetically altered crops -- three fourths of the
world's total harvest -- have been grown in the United States, a
source of anxiety in France and a few other countries. We need to
promote a continuing dialogue with our European friends and the
American public about all aspects of the issue.
Meanwhile, we should keep in mind that for more than four decades,
the United States and other countries have helped keep millions
of our fellow humans alive because science has enabled us to achieve
a much higher output of corn, rice, wheat, and potatoes. We have
shared our technology of production widely with the developing world,
including the small, impoverished farmers of Asia, Africa, and Latin
America. Scientific agriculture has made American farmers the envy
of the world. I believe that the new genetic developments will prove
vital in equipping farmers to win the war against world hunger.
Dr. Norman Borlaug, the Nobel Prize-winning Distinguished Professor
of International Agriculture at Texas A & M University, writing
in the March 15, 2000, issue of the International Herald Tribune,
declares: "Science and technology are under attack in affluent
nations, where misinformed environmentalists claim that the consumer
is being poisoned by high-yielding systems of agricultural production,
including genetically modified crops."
I count myself a Borlaug fan. The father of the Green Revolution,
he is an esteemed socially conscious scientist. But I must confess
that some of my grandchildren disagree with Dr. Borlaug and me about
genetically modified crops. The headline on the Borlaug article
I have quoted reads: "Biotechnology Will Be the Salvation of
the Poorest." Not so, contend some of my bright grandchildren.
Biotech and gene modification will ruin the poorest, the richest,
and those in between, they say. Why? Because, they argue, such technologies
disrupt the natural growth of crops and no one can be certain of
the long-range results in our bodies of such manipulation of nature's
food.
Some would be so cruel as to suggest that my grandchildren are
smarter than their grandfather -- that they might even be smarter
than Dr. Borlaug. I come back at them with the eternal response
of old people to young people: "Where is your respect for the
wisdom of us old guys?" But usually I reply with an answer
that carries more weight with grandchildren: "The jury is still
out on genetic farming. Let's wait for the final verdict."
I don't add what I'm thinking: "And then you'll see that I
am right and you are wrong!"
Without the application of these new and better farming methods,
the task of defeating hunger becomes more difficult and less certain
of victory. There is reason to believe that recently developed scientific
farming methods can reduce farmers' costs, increase their production,
safeguard the environment, and provide more food for the hungry.
In defending scientific farming against the criticisms of the more
extreme environmentalists, Dr. Borlaug further notes: "Were
Asia's 1961 average cereal yields of 930 kilograms per hectare to
still prevail today, nearly 600 million hectares of additional land
of the same quality would have been needed to equal the 1997 cereal
harvest. Obviously, such a surplus of land was not available in
Asia. Moreover, even if it were, think of the soil erosion, loss
of forests and grasslands, wildlife species that would have occurred
had we tried to produce these larger harvests with low technology."
If the reader will allow another quote from Dr. Borlaug, I urge
its careful consideration: "Thirty years ago, in my acceptance
speech for the Nobel Peace Prize, I said that the Green Revolution
had won a temporary victory in man's war against hunger, which if
fully implemented, could provide sufficient food for humankind through
the end of the 20th century....
"I now say that the world has the technology...to feed a population
of 10 billion people. The more pertinent question today is whether
farmers and ranchers will be permitted to use this new technology.
"Extreme environmental elitists seem to be doing everything
they can to stop scientific progress. Small, well-financed, vociferous,
anti-science groups are threatening the development and application
of new technology, whether it is developed from biotechnology or
more conventional methods of agricultural science."
It is probably true that affluent countries can afford to reject
scientific agriculture and pay more for foods produced by so-called
natural methods. But the 800 million poor, chronically hungry people
of Asia, Africa, and Latin America cannot afford such foods. If
scientific agriculture had not been introduced to parts of these
poor continents three or four decades ago, millions of people now
alive would have died. If further efforts to bring the advantages
of science to developing countries are thwarted by ill-advised critics,
millions of poor people will pay a painful price -- perhaps making
the ultimate sacrifice, of life itself.
* * *
Shortly after I set down my thoughts on the possible role of biotechnology
in delivering humanity from hunger, Time magazine editors and scientific
writers devoted much of their July 31, 2000, issue to a cover story
on this vital subject. The article included statements from some
of the world's most renowned scientists who support the genetic
modifications of grains, as well as criticisms from some environmentalists.
Time's cover carried the picture of Ingo Potrykus, a Swiss scientist
and professor at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich,
who has been working for years in his laboratory and in the field
to alter crops so that they become more nutritious, more resistant
to pests, rot, and disease, and require less water, pesticide, and
fertilizer. In recent years he has concentrated his experiments
on rice with the collaboration of another distinguished scientist,
Professor Peter Beyer of the University of Freiburg. These two scientists
and others were aware that half of the world's 6 billion people
depend on rice as their major dietary staple. Time's editors concluded
that "these people were so poor that they ate a few bowls of
rice a day and almost nothing more." The scientists' investigations
demonstrated that the rice diet of the world's poor was deficient
in vitamin A -- so much so that it is causing a million children
to die annually.
With these grim facts to spur them on, Potrykus and Beyer sought
an acceptable way to modify rice so that it would contribute to
the health of children rather than contributing to their blindness
and deaths. After seven years of diligent research and experimentation
with the expenditure of $2.6 million supplied by the Rockefeller
Foundation, the Swiss government, and the European Union, they found
the answer. It came in the form of modified rice that has come to
be known as "golden rice" because of its yellow color
in contrast to the whitish color of conventional rice. Golden rice
supplies the vitamin A, the iron, and the overall nutritional enrichment
that is lacking in conventional rice.
Despite its life-enhancing qualities, the new rice had been assailed
by some environmentalists in Europe, followed by a small but vocal
minority in the United States. Potrykus, himself an environmentalist,
had been dismayed by the attack on his scientific findings. "It
would be irresponsible," he told Time, "not to say immoral,
not to use biotechnology to solve this problem."
As the Time editors point out, by the year 2020, the global demand
for grain is "projected to go up by nearly half, while the
amount of arable land available to satisfy that demand will not
only grow much more slowly but also, in some areas, will probably
dwindle. Add to that the need to conserve overstressed water resources
and reduce the use of polluting chemicals, and the enormity of the
challenge becomes apparent."
Gordon Conway, an agricultural ecologist and environmentalist who
heads the Rockefeller Foundation, is baffled, like every other scientist
I have interviewed or read, by those environmentalists who object
to genetically modified plants and gains. Conway told the Time research
team that "21st century farmers will have to draw on every
arrow in their agricultural quiver, including genetic engineering.
And contrary to public perception, those who have the least to lose
and the most to gain are not well-fed Americans and Europeans but
the hollow-bellied citizens of the developing world."
In the United States, the opposition to genetic farming is trying
to pressure the federal government into requiring that all foods
containing genetically modified grains be labeled. This would embrace
70 percent of all the processed food in American supermarkets. This
federal intervention is now gathering strength in Congress. My first
reaction on hearing about the food labeling movement was that it
is an unnecessary nuisance for industry and another increase in
the cost of food, but if it will ease the minds of protesters why
not do it. But as Gene Grabowski told Time: "Our data show
that 60% of consumers would consider a mandatory biotech label as
a warning that it is unsafe." Dan Eramion, a spokesman for
the Biotechnology Industry Organization added: "It is easier
to scare people about biotechnology than to educate them."
After reading widely on the potential role of scientific farming,
including the genetic input, I am convinced that if the world does
not move forward on this front, untold millions of people will die
as a consequence. I have for years admired the principles and policies
of such environmental groups as the Sierra Club and the Friends
of the Earth. I believe most of the officers and members of these
and similar groups have long endorsed my public positions. But I
believe their opposition to biotechnology as the newly emerging
handmaiden of agriculture is both ill-founded and threatening to
human survival in the poor countries of our planet. I propose a
bargain to my dissenting environmental friends: I will continue
to read any literature you make available to me on the dangers of
genetically modified grains and other foods if you will read carefully
the findings and reasonings of Professors Potrykus and Beyer.
* * *
In 1996 the World Food Summit convened in Rome under the auspices
of the U.N. Food and Agriculture organization. Virtually every country
on earth was represented, many by prime ministers and heads of state.
After extensive deliberation, the conference resolved to reduce
human hunger by half by the year 2015. By this goal, the 800 million
people suffering from hunger in 1996 would be reduced to 400 million
in the next 15 years -- a reduction of 27 million annually.
This is a difficult and complicated goal, but a reasonable and
practical one. I believe that if the United States and the international
community will adopt the five steps I suggest for feeding the hungry,
we could go further; we could eliminate all hunger within another
15 years, by 2030. The five-step formula will also promote prosperity
for the farmers of America and other surplus-producing countries,
including France, Canada, Australia, and Argentina. What could be
a greater achievement than to free the world of the ancient scourge
of hunger during the first three decades of the new millennium?
There will, of course, be problems, concerns, and risks involved
in ending world hunger while maintaining the prosperity of farmers,
livestockmen, and dairymen, respecting commercial markets, and preserving
the global environment. These and other issues will be dealt with
in the pages that follow. Understandably, some of the economic and
social issues will prove controversial. But one compelling moral
issue is clear: every major religion and ethical system commands
its adherents to feed the hungry. There is no room in Christianity,
Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, or any of the other great traditions
for those who turn their backs on the hungry. We should feed the
hungry because it is right to do so. I believe this undertaking
will enrich us all, but we should do this regardless of economic
advantage to ourselves because it is the right thing to do.
In the battle against hunger and poverty it is easy to retire to
the sidelines, complaining that not much can be done. But as Pope
John Paul II told the UN Food and Agriculture Organization on November
18, 1999: "What is needed is the more profound and infinitely
more creative power of hope." If we follow that spirit, said
the Pope, we can realize the promise of the Scriptures: "He
hath filled the hungry with good things" (Luke 1:53).
Copyright © 2001 by George McGovern
|
