One of the main problems generated by the demographic situation in the world is the provision of food for a rapidly growing population. Every year, 90-100 million new eaters appear in the world, and the world community, with all its technological power, cannot yet adequately feed even those hungry ones that already exist. No country in the world has yet succeeded in increasing prosperity and achieving economic development without first drastically increasing food production, the main source of which has always been agriculture.

The food problem is multifaceted, it has social, economic and environmental aspects. Until the twentieth century, most people on the planet did not have enough food for a normal or even tolerable life. From hunger, an extreme manifestation of the food problem, in the 20s. 20th century 2/3 of mankind suffered. At the end of the century, this proportion was reduced to 1/4 of the world's population, but with the population explosion taken into account, the absolute number of hungry people has not decreased. According to the FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations), more than 1 billion people are currently undernourished and hungry in the world, about 10 million people die of hunger every year and 100 million are at risk of death. The number of people whose food calorie content is less than the critical norm (1400–1600 kcal/day) is about 700 million people. (For comparison, the calorie content of the food of the prisoners of Auschwitz was approximately 1700 kcal.)

Note, however, that for economically developed countries, in which less than 15% of the world's population lives, the phenomenon of hunger or malnutrition is not typical. In the USA and France, the level of food self-sufficiency exceeds 100%, in Germany it is 93%, in Italy - 78%. These countries now produce and consume more than 3/4 of the world's food. Overeating and overweight become characteristic of their inhabitants. The total number of such overeaters is estimated at 600 million people - about 10% of the world's population. In the United States, more than half of people aged 20 and over fall into this category.

Agriculture is the main source of food for humans. At the same time, fertile plowed soils serve as the main resource for agriculture. But the area of ​​arable land is constantly decreasing. This process is especially intensive at the present time - huge areas of arable land are being torn away for the construction of cities, industrial enterprises, roads, "eaten up" by ravines.

Desertification processes cause great damage to agricultural lands: deflation and erosion are accelerating, and the vegetation cover is being destroyed. As a result of unsystematic use throughout the history of civilization, about 2 billion hectares of productive land have turned into deserts: at the dawn of agriculture, productive land was about 4.5 billion hectares, and now there are about 2.5 billion hectares left.

The area of ​​anthropogenic deserts is approximately 10 million km2, or 6.7% of the entire land surface. The desertification process is proceeding at a rate of 6.9 million hectares per year and is already going beyond the landscapes of the arid zone. About 30 million km 2 (about 19%) of the land are under the threat of desertification.

The Sahara, the world's greatest desert (9.1 million km 2), is threateningly expanding its borders. According to official data from the authorities of Senegal, Mali, Niger, Chad and Sudan, the rate of annual advancement of the Sahara edge is from 1.5 to 10 m. Over the past 50 years, its area has increased by 700 thousand km 2. But relatively recently, in the III millennium BC, the territory of the Sahara was a savannah with a dense hydrographic network. Now there is a sand cover up to half a meter high.

Along with the absolute reduction in the area of ​​agricultural land, there is a relative decrease due to the rapid growth of the world's population. Currently, there are about 0.3 hectares of arable land per inhabitant of the planet. (For comparison and nourishment of patriotic feelings, we note that in Russia this value is about 0.9 hectares!)

It is believed that if 1 ton of grain is harvested per 1 person per year from 1 hectare, then there will be no problem of hunger. The six billionth population of the planet needs 6 billion tons of grain, and only about 2 billion are harvested. One of the reasons for this is the small area of ​​arable land per person and their generally low productivity. The earth today is not able to feed all its inhabitants.

There is another calculation. In the biosphere, mankind occupies the top of the ecological pyramid and therefore must form a biomass significantly smaller than the biomass of the living matter of the biosphere as a whole. According to a number of ecologists, the biosphere remains stable if there are at least 250 tons/year of living matter per capita. Taking into account the total bioproduction of the biosphere, the allowable population of our planet is 3-4 billion people.

Therefore, it is no coincidence that global environmental problems (including food) began to manifest themselves precisely after the total number of people on Earth exceeded this limit. Now every year, in the face of exponential population growth, the severity of these problems is increasing.

Until the middle of the XX century. Few people thought about the fact that production cannot increase indefinitely and will inevitably run into limitations. natural resources, including soil, necessary for Agriculture.

An analysis of the situation shows that extensive way solving the food problem by expanding the areas for agricultural products, developing the still available reserve lands is unpromising. The rate of such growth lags and will lag behind the rate of population growth. It is predicted that the world per capita indicator of the availability of arable land by the middle of this century will decrease threefold.

These circumstances are directly related to the attempt to solve the food problem. intensive way, named « green revolution» . This was the name of the breakthrough achieved in the production of food on the planet in the 1960s. The "father" of the "Green Revolution" is considered to be the American scientist-breeder Prof. Norman E. Borlaug, Nobel Peace Prize laureate in 1970 Through mechanization, chemicalization, irrigation, increasing the energy efficiency of farms, the use of new higher-yielding and more disease-resistant varieties of agricultural crops, the most productive livestock breeds, it was possible to increase agricultural production from the same and even less areas.

The "Green Revolution" temporarily removed the problem of hunger in the tropical regions of the world. With the widespread distribution of high-yielding and low-growing varieties of wheat and rice in the most food insecure tropical regions of Asia and Africa, many developing countries have been able to certain time overcome the threat of hunger.

At the World Food Conference in Rome in 1974, the decision was made to end hunger within a decade. The main hopes then were placed on the intensification of agriculture through the development of new highly productive varieties of plants and animal breeds, the chemicalization of agriculture, the use of powerful machinery and new technologies. However, exactly 10 years after the conference and 14 years after Borlaug received the Nobel Prize, in 1984, there was a sharp aggravation of the food crisis, caused primarily by the most severe drought in the Sahel region of Africa, which claimed millions of lives.

Despite the achievements of the Green Revolution, a rather difficult food situation still persists. There are more undernourished and hungry people on the globe now than ever before, and their number is growing. The famine zone covers a vast territory on both sides of the equator, including Asia, primarily its southeastern part, the countries of the Caribbean and South America almost all of sub-Saharan Africa. In the latter region, there are countries (Chad, Somalia, Uganda, Mozambique, etc.) where the proportion of hungry and malnourished people is 30-40% of the population.

Scientists and practitioners, politicians and economists involved in solving the food problem believe that the "green revolution" has bogged down, and they see several reasons for this.

Modern new varieties of cultivated plants alone cannot provide miraculous results. They need proper care, strict implementation of agrotechnical practices in accordance with the calendar and stage of plant development (fertilizer rationing, watering with moisture control, weed and pest control, etc.).

New varieties of cereals are very sensitive to fertilizers, in addition, they need more water than the old ones in order to realize their potential; they are more susceptible to disease. This means that the farmer must have special knowledge in growing new varieties, as well as funds for the purchase of fertilizers, irrigation equipment, pesticides. When all this was carried out under the guidance of specialists and within the framework of the International Agricultural Program, a positive result was evident. However, in remote areas of Asia, Africa and South America, the technologies of the Green Revolution were not available to most peasants. The rural population of the third world countries turned out to be unprepared for the technological revolution that is characteristic of agriculture in economically developed countries.

When evaluating the possibilities of an intensive path of development, one should also keep in mind that the potential for mechanization, irrigation, and chemicalization has now been largely exhausted. For example, there has been a sharp reduction in irrigated areas due to limited water resources.

The German philosopher F. Engels in his "Dialectics of Nature" warned "... not to be too deceived by our victories over nature. For each such she takes revenge on us. Each of these victories, it is true, first of all has the consequences that we expected, but secondly and thirdly, completely different, unforeseen consequences, which very often destroy the consequences of the first.

The Green Revolution also had unintended consequences. These are primarily soil salinization caused by poorly designed and maintained irrigation systems, as well as soil and surface water pollution, due in large part to the misuse of fertilizers and crop protection chemicals.

When chemicals are used for their intended purpose, it is generally not possible to prevent their release into the air, soil, or water. These substances can harm humans, animals, plants, microorganisms, as well as buildings and structures, machines and mechanisms.

The harm caused to living objects of the environment is due, in particular, to the fact that these chemicals are toxic (poisonous), carcinogenic (can cause cancer), mutagenic (can affect heredity), teratogenic (can cause deformities), etc. The consequences of simultaneous exposure of several substances to the environment are still poorly understood.

Some harmful chemical compounds, once in the natural cycle, turn into harmless ones, while others retain their properties for years and decades. These latter, even with a small degree of their concentration in the environment, having entered a living organism (human, animal or plant), are almost not removed from it or are removed very slowly. There is an accumulation of these substances, and their concentration becomes dangerous.

New varieties of cereals are very sensitive to fertilizers. In fact, high yields can only be obtained by applying a large amount of fertilizer. Especially widespread are inexpensive nitrogen fertilizers based on synthetic ammonia, which have become an integral attribute of modern crop production technologies. Today, over 80 million tons of nitrogen fertilizers are consumed annually in the world. According to experts who study nitrogen cycles in nature, at least 40% of the 6 billion people currently inhabiting the planet are alive only thanks to the discovery of ammonia synthesis. It would be completely impossible to introduce such an amount of nitrogen into the soil using organic fertilizers.

High doses of mineral fertilizers often worsen the quality of agricultural products, especially in arid regions where the mechanisms of microbiological denitrification are suppressed. The consumption of such products by animals and humans leads to indigestion, acute poisoning.

Mineral fertilizers have a direct and indirect effect on soil properties, on the development biological processes in natural waters. Studies have shown that long-term application of such fertilizers without liming causes an increase in soil acidity, the accumulation of toxic compounds of aluminum and manganese in them, which reduces fertility and leads to soil degradation.

Fertilizers are washed off the fields when they are not used rationally or, unused by plants, are washed out of the soil by heavy rains and fall into ground water and in surface waters.

Ions of nitrates, phosphates, ammonium present in fertilizers, getting into water bodies with sewage, contribute to their overgrowing with phytoplankton.

For the normal functioning of aquatic ecosystems, they must be oligotrophic, i.e. poor nutrients. In this case, there is a dynamic balance of all groups of organisms in the ecosystem - producers, consumers and decomposers. When nitrates and especially phosphates enter water bodies, the rate of production - photosynthesis of organic matter by phytoplankton - begins to exceed the rate of consumption of phytoplankton by zooplankton and other organisms. The reservoir "blooms" - blue-green algae begin to predominate in phytoplankton, some of them give the water an unpleasant smell and taste, and can release toxic substances. Favorable conditions for the life of anaerobic organisms are formed. During the decomposition of algae, as a result of a number of interrelated fermentation processes in the water, the concentration of free carbon dioxide, ammonia, and hydrogen sulfide increases. The phenomenon of water saturation with nutrients, which promotes the increased growth of algae and bacteria that consume decaying algae and absorb oxygen, and leads to the death of higher aquatic biota, is called eutrophication.

Dependence of phytoplankton growth on the content of phosphates in water

Soluble nitrogen compounds not only contribute to the overgrowth of water bodies (like phosphates), but also increase the toxicity of water, making it hazardous to human health if such water is used as drinking water. Entering the saliva and small intestine with food, nitrates are microbiologically reduced to nitrites, as a result, nitrosillions are formed in the blood, which can oxidize iron Fe (II) in blood hemoglobin to iron Fe (III), which prevents hemoglobin from binding oxygen. As a result, there are symptoms of oxygen deficiency, leading to cyanosis. With the transition of 60–80% of iron (II) hemoglobin to iron (III), death occurs.

In addition, nitrites form nitrous acid and nitrosamines (together with organic amines from animal and plant foods) in the acidic environment of the stomach, which have a mutagenic effect. We also note that the water of eutrophic reservoirs is aggressive with respect to concrete, destroys materials used in hydraulic construction, and clogs filters and pipelines of water intakes.

An integral part of the Green Revolution's program to increase crop yields was the widespread use of pesticides.

Pesticides have been used before, they were the so-called. first-generation pesticides are toxic inorganic substances, which included arsenic, cyanide, some heavy metals, such as mercury or copper. They had low efficiency and did not save from catastrophic crop losses, such as the defeat of potato late blight in almost all of Europe in the middle of the 19th century, which caused mass starvation. In addition, these pesticides altered the mineral and biotic composition of the soil in such a way that in some places it still remains barren.

They were replaced by second-generation pesticides based on synthetic organic compounds. DDT (dichlorodiphenyltrichloromethylmethane) played a special role among them. By studying the properties of this substance back in the 1930s. studied by the Swiss chemist Paul Müller.

DDT was found to be extremely toxic to many insect pests, seemingly harmless to humans and other mammals, persistent (hardly broken down and providing long-term protection against pests), and relatively cheap to manufacture. DDT has also proven to be effective in controlling insects that carry the infection. Thanks to the widespread use of DDT, organized by the UN World Health Organization (WHO), the death rate from malaria has been significantly reduced, and millions of lives have been saved.

The advantages of DDT seemed so undeniable that in 1948 Muller received for his discovery Nobel Prize. However, over the next two decades, serious negative consequences of the use of DDT were discovered. Accumulating in trophic chains, chlorinated hydrocarbons (DDT and a family of similar pesticides) became dangerous toxicants, reducing resistance to diseases, negatively affecting reproductive abilities and thermoregulation. Numerous deaths of various aquatic biota (river and marine), birds and other animals have been recorded. For example, DDT brought into the ocean by rivers killed predators that fed on the eggs of the “crown of thorns” starfish. As a result, these once rare marine creatures have multiplied in such numbers that they began to threaten the ecological balance, destroying hundreds of square kilometers of coral reefs. In the early 1970s the use of DDT was banned in most developed countries (including the USSR, where it was widely used in cotton fields).

In addition, pesticides have a detrimental effect on the health of primarily the rural population, people employed in agricultural work. WHO estimates that they still kill 20,000 people every year and poison millions of people, mostly in developing countries.

Currently, more and more attention is paid to ecological methods of combating agricultural pests, based on finding natural enemies and "set" them on the pest without affecting other species. According to entomologists, only a hundredth of the thousands known species herbivorous insects are serious pests, the populations of the rest are kept by one or more natural enemies at such a low level that they cannot cause significant damage. Thus, the first place is not pest control, but the protection of their natural enemies.

However, one should also remember about the unpredictability of artificial intervention in stable biocenoses. Here is a textbook example: immediately after the Second World War, on the recommendation of the WHO, to combat malaria on the island of Kalimantan (Indonesia), the area was sprayed with DDT. The mosquitoes that died from the insecticide were eaten by cockroaches. They themselves did not die, but became slow and were eaten by lizards in large numbers. In the lizards themselves, DDT caused nervous breakdowns, weakened reactions, and they became victims of cats.

The extermination of lizards by cats led to the reproduction of caterpillars, which began to eat the thatched roofs of the natives. The death of cats, eventually also poisoned by DDT, led to the fact that the villages were flooded with rats living in symbiosis with fleas carrying plague sticks. Instead of malaria, the inhabitants of the island got another, more terrible disease - the plague.

WHO stopped its experiment and brought cats to the island, which restored the ecological balance in its ecosystems. Cat landings to combat rats landed on the small islands of Japan in 1961 and on the islands of Malaysia in 1984 and 1989.

The failures of third world countries and international organizations that promote their development, trying to achieve an adequate return on investment in agriculture as part of the implementation of the "green revolution", indicate, according to many experts, the need second green revolution . Now the focus is on new biotechnologies, including gene (genetic) engineering.

Over the past 30 years, biotechnology has evolved into a scientific method for researching and producing agricultural products. However, the attitude towards genetic engineering is still ambiguous both among producers and consumers of agricultural products.

Proponents of genetic modification of plants argue that selection at the molecular level allows you to create varieties that are resistant to pests, diseases and herbicides, lack or excess of moisture in the soil, heat or cold. It also makes it possible to widely use local plant varieties that are most adapted to certain climatic conditions of the region, which contributes to the conservation of biological diversity as the most important factor in sustainable development. It is argued that new varieties can be given high nutritional characteristics and other properties that are beneficial to health. Opponents of the creation of genetically modified plants and genetically modified food products, belonging mainly to "green" organizations, consider this last statement the most controversial and dangerous, a threat to man and nature, since the consequences of such modifications are unpredictable. At the large-scale World Manufacturers Forum in Turin (Italy), 5,000 participants from 180 countries came to an unequivocal conclusion: GMOs (genetically modified organisms) are no good, they are harmful to the environment, to human and animal health. In the United States, where the world's first genetically modified product (tomatoes) went on sale a decade and a half ago, now 20% of the cultivated area is devoted to the production of environmentally friendly products.

According to A. Baranov, President of the National Association for Genetic Safety, the rejection of transgenic products, which is happening all over the world, is a “revolution from below”, consumers vote against them with their wallets, for environmentally friendly products not only without pesticides, but also without GMOs. But nevertheless, for 10 years now, in all boiled sausages that we buy and eat in Russia, the filler that determines both color and taste has been GM corn and GM soybeans.

Disputes about genetically modified organisms continue, they are not only applied - scientific and economic, but also philosophical and even political.

Pesticides are substances used to control agricultural pests and weeds. They are divided into groups depending on the organisms for which they are intended. For example, herbicides kill plants, insecticides kill insects.

One of the problems of human society in present stage development is the need to increase food production. This is due to the increase in the population of the planet and the depletion of its soil resources.

Temporary positive results of increasing the production of grain crops were achieved in the third quarter of the 20th century. They were achieved in countries where energy consumption increased significantly, progressive forms of agricultural technology were used, and mineral fertilizers were used. The yields of wheat, rice and corn have increased. New high-yielding varieties of plants were bred. There was a so-called green revolution. This revolution has not touched the countries that do not have enough of the necessary resources.

« Green revolution” took place both in traditionally used agricultural territories and in newly developed ones. Agrocenoses created by man in order to obtain agricultural products have low ecological reliability. Such ecosystems cannot self-repair and self-regulate.

As a result of the "Green Revolution", a great impact was made on the biosphere of the planet. Energy production was inevitably accompanied by air and water pollution. Agrotechnical measures used in soil cultivation have led to soil depletion and degradation. The use of mineral fertilizers and pesticides contributed to the atmospheric and river anthropogenic influx of nitrogen compounds, heavy metals, organochlorine compounds into the waters of the World Ocean.

Wide application organic fertilizers became possible due to the increase in their production volumes.

The objects of production and storage of fertilizers and pesticides have made a significant contribution to the treasury of biosphere pollution.

The "Green Revolution" arose as a result of the rapid growth of industry and the development of science.

During the "Green Revolution" large areas of virgin lands were developed. For several years, high yields were collected. But "nothing is given for free" according to one of the provisions of B. Commoner. Today, many of these territories are depleted endless fields. It will take more than one century to restore these ecosystems.

The increase in the productivity of ecosystems by humans has led to an increase in the cost of maintaining them in a stable state. But there is a limit to such an increase until the moment when it becomes economically unprofitable.

As a result of the "green revolution" mankind has added environmental global problems.

Story

The term was coined by former USAID director William Goud in .

The Green Revolution was initiated in Mexico in 1943 by the agricultural program of the Mexican government and the Rockefeller Foundation. The biggest success of this program was Norman Borlaug, who developed many high-performance varieties of wheat, including lodging-resistant short stems. K - Mexico fully provided itself with grain and began to export it, for 15 years the grain yield in the country has increased 3 times. Borlaug's developments were used in breeding work in Colombia, India, Pakistan, and Borlaug received the Nobel Peace Prize.

Effects

At the same time, due to the widespread use of mineral fertilizers and pesticides, environmental problems arose. The intensification of agriculture disturbed the water regime of the soils, which caused large-scale salinization and desertification. Copper and sulfur preparations, which cause soil pollution with heavy metals, were replaced by aromatic, heterocyclic, organochlorine and phosphorus compounds (karbofos, dichlorvos, DDT, etc.) by the middle of the 20th century. Unlike older preparations, these substances work at a lower concentration, which has reduced the cost of chemical processing. Many of these substances were found to be stable and poorly degraded by biota.

A case in point is DDT. This substance has even been found in animals of Antarctica, thousands of kilometers from the nearest application sites for this chemical.

John Zerzan, a prominent anarcho-primitivist ideologue and civilization denier, writes about his assessment of the Green Revolution in his essay "Agriculture: The Demonic Engine of Civilization":

Another post-war phenomenon was the Green Revolution, billed as the salvation of impoverished Third World countries with the help of American capital and technology. But instead of feeding the hungry, the Green Revolution drove millions of victims of a program that supports large corporate farms from the arable lands of Asia, Latin America and Africa. The result was a monstrous technological colonization that made the world dependent on the capital-intensive agricultural business and destroyed the former farming communities. There was a need for vast expenditures of fossil fuels and, in the end, this colonization turned into an unprecedented violence against nature.

Notes

Links

• Norman E. Borlaug"Green Revolution": yesterday, today and tomorrow // Ecology and Life, No. 4, 2000.

Wikimedia Foundation. 2010 .

See what the "Green Revolution" is in other dictionaries:

Conventional name for a phenomenon that took place in the 1960s–70s. in a number of developing countries. The "Green Revolution" was to intensify the production of grain crops (wheat, rice) in order to increase their gross yields, which was supposed to solve ... ... Geographic Encyclopedia

A term coined in the 1960s. 20th century in connection with the process of introducing new high-yielding varieties of grain crops (wheat, rice) that has begun in many countries in order to sharply increase food resources. "Green Revolution" ... ... encyclopedic Dictionary

A set of measures for a significant (revolutionary) increase in crop yields, especially cereals (wheat, rice, corn, etc.) in some countries of South Asia (in particular, India, Pakistan, the Philippines), Mexico ... Ecological dictionary

"GREEN REVOLUTION"- a term that appeared in con. 1960s in the bourgeois economy and s. X. lit. re to denote the process of introducing the achievements of scientific and technical. progress in s. x ve and to characterize the ways, methods and means of a sharp increase in productivity p. X. production, ch ... Demographic Encyclopedic Dictionary

Revolution (from late Latin revolutio turn, upheaval, transformation, conversion) is a global qualitative change in the development of nature, society or knowledge, associated with an open break with the previous state. Originally the term revolution ... ... Wikipedia

The problem of providing underdeveloped countries with food, unresolved to this day, did not arise yesterday. Attempts to solve it were constantly made at different levels. In the 40s of the 20th century, transformations began in the countries of Latin America, which were supposed to lead to an increase in productivity, which means to allow these countries to produce enough agricultural products to meet the needs of their populations. These transformations have been called the Green Revolution. Indeed, significant changes have taken place. Have they become a boon or have they further aggravated the situation of countries in need? We will discuss further.

The term "green revolution" itself was first used in 1968 by W. Goud, director of the US Agency for International Development. With this phrase, he characterized the already visible significant changes in and countries of Asia. And they began with a program adopted in the early 1940s by the Mexican government and the Rockefeller Foundation.

Main goals

The main objectives of the programs in food- needy countries were to:

• breeding new varieties with higher yields that would be resistant to pests and weather phenomena;
• development and improvement of irrigation systems;
• expanding the use of pesticides and chemical fertilizers, as well as modern agricultural machinery.

The "Green Revolution" is associated with the name of an American scientist who received the Nobel Prize in 1970 for his contribution to solving the food problem. This is Norman Ernest Borlaug. He has been developing new varieties of wheat since the beginning of the new agricultural program in Mexico. As a result of his work, a lodging-resistant variety with a short stem was obtained, and the yield in this country increased 3 times in the first 15 years.

Later, the experience of growing new varieties was adopted by other countries of Latin America, India, Asian countries, and Pakistan. Borlaug, described as "feeding the world," led the International Wheat Improvement Program and later acted as a consultant and lecturer.

Speaking about the changes that the Green Revolution brought, the scientist who stood at its origins himself said that this was only a temporary victory, and recognized both the problems in implementing programs to increase food production in the world, and the obvious environmental damage to the planet.

"Green Revolution" and its consequences

What were the results of the transformations that lasted several decades in different parts of the world? Some statistics. There is evidence that the number of calories in the daily diet of people in developing countries has increased by 25%, and many attribute this to the achievements that the Green Revolution brought. This was the result of the development of new land and increased yields of rice and wheat in already developed fields in 15 countries. Received 41 new variety wheat. With an increase in the area of ​​cultivated land by 10-15%, the increase in yield was 50-74%. However, the transformations practically did not affect the needy countries of Africa, including due to the underdevelopment of local infrastructure.

The reverse side of the coin is, first of all, the impact on the biosphere. Traces of the long-banned drug DDT are still found in Antarctica. significant damage was done to the soils, and such intensive use of the fields led to their almost complete depletion. Illiterate installation and maintenance have caused pollution of surface water bodies. Today, the resource for further development in this direction is practically exhausted, which means that the acuteness of the food problem will only increase.

There is also a lot of talk about how, in reality, as a result of the Green Revolution, developing countries have become a kind of food colonies. The level of development of agriculture in private farms is still low, and many private farmers have lost fertile land. The question of the impact on human health remains open.

As is known, the 1970s turned out to be extremely unfavorable for most developing countries - they experienced a fuel and energy crisis, large-scale natural disasters, worsening terms of foreign trade, etc.

Part of these problems was the aggravation of the food situation. Net food imports (ie imports minus exports) rose from an average of 15 million tons in 1966-1970 to 35 million tons in 1976-1979. The crisis state of agriculture significantly accelerated the green revolution in the 1970s and 1990s.

The term "green revolution" itself was first used in 1968 by W. Goud, director of the US Agency for International Development. With this phrase, he characterized the already visible significant changes in the agriculture of Mexico and Asian countries. And they began with a program adopted in the early 1940s by the Mexican government and the Rockefeller Foundation.

The green revolution is a transition from extensive farming, when the size of fields was increased to intensive farming, when productivity was increased, all kinds of new technologies were actively applied. This is the transformation of agriculture based on modern agricultural technology. This is the introduction of new varieties of crops and new methods leading to higher yields.

Programs for the development of agriculture in countries in need of food, the main tasks were the following:

breeding new varieties with higher yields that would be resistant to pests and weather phenomena;

development and improvement of irrigation systems;

expanding the use of pesticides and chemical fertilizers, as well as modern agricultural machinery .

The "Green Revolution" is associated with the name of an American scientist who received the Nobel Prize in 1970 for his contribution to solving the food problem. This is Norman Ernest Borlaug. He has been developing new varieties of wheat since the beginning of the new agricultural program in Mexico.

As a result of his work, a lodging-resistant variety with a short stem was obtained, and the yield in this country increased 3 times in the first 15 years.

Later, the experience of growing new varieties was adopted by other countries of Latin America, India, Asian countries, and Pakistan. Borlaug, described as "feeding the world," led the International Wheat Improvement Program and later acted as a consultant and lecturer.

Speaking about the changes that the Green Revolution brought, the scientist who stood at its origins himself said that this was only a temporary victory, and recognized both the problems in implementing programs to increase food production in the world, and the obvious environmental damage to the planet.

2. Results of the green revolution

Norman Borlaug developed the Mexicale wheat variety, which yielded 3 times the yield of the old varieties. Following Borlaug, other breeders began to develop high-yielding varieties of corn, soybeans, cotton, rice and other crops.

Together with these record-breaking varieties, new intensive tillage systems with soil turnover, high doses of fertilizers, irrigation, a wide variety of pesticides and monoculture, i.e. growing the same crop in the same field for many years .

Highly productive animals also appeared, for the maintenance of their health not only plentiful feed was needed, but also vitamins, antibiotics, and growth stimulants for rapid weight gain. The first green revolution was especially successful in the countries of the tropics, since with year-round cultivation of plants, the income from new varieties was especially large.

The Green Revolution developed under the influence of both the increased return on investment in the new agro-industrial complex, and the large-scale activities of the state.

It created the necessary additional infrastructure, organized the procurement system and, as a rule, maintained high purchase prices - in contrast to the initial stage of modernization in the 50s and 60s. .

As a result, in 1980-2000 in Asia, the average annual growth rate of agricultural (mainly food) production reached 3.5%.

Since such rates exceeded the natural growth of the population, in most countries this made it possible to solve the food problem.

At the same time, the green revolution unfolded unevenly and did not immediately make it possible to solve agrarian problems as a whole; they are still acute in a number of lagging states.