This simple route of thought is seemingly benign, yet it perpetuates the myth that hunger is a food scarcity issue, therefore failing to address malnutrition as the political and distributional issue that it truly is (Lappé and Collins, 2015). These myths are not only pervasive and rooted in out-dated neo-Malthusian theory, but they also promote technological intervention, increased globalization, and the input of TNCs [transnational corporations] as the solution. This keeps us from questioning whether ‘non for profit’ endeavours such as a second green revolution (or even international food aid) are truly philanthropic, or perhaps just another vessel for capitalist aspiration. Furthermore, our willingness to depend on technology as a benevolent force to our environmental and humanitarian problems could be symptomatic of our inability to face inconvenience, and our apathy towards political and distributional issues, as we fail in opting towards tougher solutions and wait for technological revolution to save us all.   

What actually was the First Green Revolution? 

The green revolution was an agricultural project led by private funders from the 1940s to 1970s put forth as a development strategy to alleviate global hunger and food insecurity (Lappé et al., 1998). Promoted as a solution to insufficient food production and the inability of poverty-stricken countries to enter the global market, the movement proved a success, boosting agricultural output by about 2.5 fold, advancing crop-breeding genetics, and saving millions of lives (Lavelle et al., 2014).  

Hidden Agendas?

Driven by ideas of ‘western' modernity, the goal was for industrial agriculture to proliferate globally, and enable ‘third world’ development. However, many speculate the notion of the first green revolution was actually to aid third world development and bring stability to developing nations vulnerable to communist insurgency amidst a world that was becoming increasingly dominated by the Cold War. This would not only increase globalization, lower prices, and open up US markets but furthermore would combat the fomentation of communism, serving a geopolitical objective. This motivation was said to be vital in the Ford foundations decision to fund the green revolution (Greenfield and Keller, 2004; Dowie, 2001) .  

These negative impacts are the result of an over adoption of technologies in the pursuit of creating optimum conditions for HYV crops to thrive. Increased dependence on irrigation facilities and the excessive application of agrochemicals were also observed as farmers in developing nations tried to keep up with higher production costs and diminishing returns (Rahman, 2014; Briggs, 2009).

When governments subsidized the use of green revolution technologies, the environmental effects of HYV seeds disproportionally affected poor farmers who would commonly rely on fragile tropical and hillside soils (Holt-Giménez et al., 2006). HYV and modern variety crops not only displaced traditional variety crops creating genetically uniform monocultures but also increased the need for excessive fertilizer application leading to extensive soil erosion and the rapid deterioration of soil fertility. Furthermore, these monoculture trends reduce biodiversity, leaving crops vulnerable and more susceptible to pests and disease (Holt-Giménez et al., 2006). The risks of genetically uniform monocultures can be dated back to the Irish potato famine when production in 1845 was halted by the blight (Phytophthora infestans) as the homogenous potato crop lacked the genetic diversity to resist disease (Fry and Goodwin, 1997).    

concentration of land and resources, but also raked in huge profits for TNCs and agro-biotech companies such as Monsanto (Holt-Giménez et al., 2006; The Thistle, 2001). Perhaps the most tragic aspect of it all is seen in the India farmer suicide crisis, where close to 300,000 farmers plagued by debt have taken their own lives [often by drinking green revolution pesticides] (Manku and Palray, 2021). Merriott (2016) conducted an investigation stating, “research suggests that these suicides are not occurring from more organic processes such as mental health problems, but from socioeconomic and psychosocial circumstances. These circumstances are making the life of the Indian farmer much more precarious, leading many of them to such a desperate situation that they take their own lives.”    

Agendas that would likely exist within the AGRA initiative 

These socioeconomic and environmental consequences will not only persist in a second green revolution, but will be further magnified by AGRA’s intent to heavily utilize genetic engineering [GE] technology. It is likely new tech “packages” will include transgenic crops in an attempt to commercialize GE in sub Saharan Africa (Holt-Giménez et al., 2006). This desire to expand GMOs and GE is plagued by the corporate interests of agro-biotech companies such as Monsanto [who even sell GE crops specifically designed to be more resistant to chemical input in an attempt to boost herbicide sales] (The Thistle, 2001). Holt-Gimenez et al., (2006) state “The expansion of GE crops in the Global South is driven by powerful transnational corporations that are desperately attempting to expand their markets in the Global South in the face of growing public rejection of GE foods in the industrialized world.” Krebs (2006) also notes the presence of Bill Gate’s substantial private investments in GE. 

AGRA’s new tech packages will likely emulate the negative effects of mechanization in the first green revolution, with GE crops making poor farmers dependent on expensive external inputs, again leaving them vulnerable to debt and displacement. Another principle hallmark of GE crops is that they can be patented, making them the intellectual property of TNCs (The Thistle, 2001). This is problematic as the contamination of traditional crops via neighboring GE crops is impossible to control. Therefore when smallholders experience cross-pollination or contamination in regions dominated by GE crops, due to this patenting they will be forced to either adopt GE crops or pay royalties and hefty fines to these TNCs (The Thistle, 2001).  

Norman Borlaug’s Response to Criticism 
 
It is worthy to note, the purpose of this article is certainly not to disregard the success of the first revolution but to assay the pitfalls that would likely come alongside a second green revolution. Norman Borlaug responded to criticism stating that, "There are no miracles in agricultural production." Of environmental lobbyists, he goes on to state, "Some of the environmental lobbyists of the Western nations are the salt of the earth, but many of them are elitists. They've never experienced the physical sensation of hunger. They do their lobbying from comfortable office suites in Washington or Brussels. If they lived just one month amid the misery of the developing world, as I have for fifty years, they'd be crying out for tractors and fertilizer and irrigation canals and be outraged that fashionable elitists back home were trying to deny them these things" (Easterbrook, 1997). Cremer (2020) supports Borlaug’s argument by acknowledging that while criticizing is easy, offering solutions is not. Cremer (2020) then asks, "Should hundreds of millions of people have been allowed to succumb to famine? What were the more environmentally-friendly choices for ensuring an adequate food supply for mankind?" Although these questions posed were highly relevant during the first revolution, they are no longer applicable to today's debate around AGRA as they fail to take into account the misdistribution of abundant existing food supplies.    

Dispelling hunger myths - We have enough food to go round 

Food scarcity and population growth are the two common assumptions that drive global hunger anxieties. Today as 690 million people in the developing world face starvation, a common explanation for their hunger is the widely held belief that overpopulation has placed undue stress on already tenuous food supplies (Lappé and Collins, 2015; United Nations, 2020). This simple route of thought is seemingly benign, yet it perpetuates the myth that hunger is a food scarcity issue, therefore failing to address malnutrition as the political and distributional issue that it truly is. These myths are pervasive and rooted in outdated neo-Malthusian theory yet serve as the foundation driving AGRA and most other philanthropic missions today.    

This Neo-Malthusian rhetoric around hunger can be dated back to 1798 upon the release of ‘An Essay on the Principle of Population.’ In this book British economist Thomas Malthus theorized that exponential population growth would not be sustainable in conjunction with the linear growth of food supplies. He therefore speculated that if population were left unregulated large numbers of people would always suffer from starvation and poverty (Malthus, 1798). Although he was correct at the time, he failed to take into account the potential for mechanisation and technological intervention.  
   
Today for the first time in centuries food production outstrips population growth, and in 2009 the world produced enough food to feed 10 billion people (Holt-Giménez et al., 2012). In fact, globally we generate enough to feed every person nearly 2900 calories per day. This is 900 calories above the FDA recommendation (Lappé and Collins, 2015).   

Sadly 45% of grain produced does not go to direct human consumption, and much of it is diverted as livestock feed for meat production [You can read more about that in my other article here] (Plumer, 2014). What is even more alarming is the UNEP finding that 1.3 billion tonnes or 1/3 of food is wasted annually, ending up in landfill (United Nations Environment Programme, 2021).      

Furthermore, many countries with high hunger rates export more food than they import, whilst nations with higher import rates are not necessarily hungry. India, one of the world’s largest rice exporters produces enough food to outstrip its population by a third, yet 190 million of its people are starving. Similarly, Africa’s food production from 1990-2013 has outstripped its population growth by 22% yet 12 sub-Saharan African countries with high levels of starvation still export more food than they import (Lappé and Collins, 2015).     

Lappé and Collins (2015) discuss neocolonialism, attributing this food misdistribution partially to the colonial seizures of land which have enabled foreign interests to buy up agricultural land. This leads to the best land being dedicated to international exports (particularly biofuel exports). Land grabs in Africa now cover an area larger than the size of Kenya. Governments in poorer nations tend to back this export-oriented farming rather than local smallholder farming as it is more economically viable (Lappé and Collins, 2015).    

Hunger is a nuanced geopolitical and distributional issue rooted in neocolonialism, neoliberalism, and neo-Malthusian theory. Our ability to waste food is surely a testament to hyper-consumer culture in the face of growing global inequality. Our inertia represents the blatant disregard for geopolitical reform amidst humanitarian crisis. The world produces enough food to feed everyone on the planet one and a half times over. However, despite the abundance, institutions continue to circumvent change and perpetuate this myth of food scarcity. Why?    

already available. Furthermore, we should not be quick to dismiss the adverse socio-economic and environmental effects of the first green revolution. Rather than looking to technology as a benevolent ‘all savior’ force to our humanitarian issues, we must opt for tougher solutions however inconvenient they may be. Nuanced hierarchical trade dynamics, coupled with too many vested interests lead to patterns of hegemony, and the monopolization of global agriculture and food systems. Food is a basic human right and its equitable distribution should always be prioritized above geopolitical or economic agenda.