Mexico and the World
Vol. 4, No 3 (Summer 1999)
http://www.profmex.org/mexicoandtheworld/volume4/3summer99/sowing_seeds.html

CIMMYT scientist  and farmer examining crops Courtesy of CGIAR

Sowing The Seeds of the Green Revolution The Pivotal Role Mexico and  International Non-Profit Organizations  Play in Making Biotechnology  an Important Foreign Policy Issue for the 21st Century

Introduction

        Biotechnology and the Green Revolution will be increasingly significant foreign policy issues in the next century. At issue is how will we feed ourselves? How will scientists, politicians, and agro-businesses make use of important new genetic discoveries that are currently bio-engineering new plant species and hybrids? Agriculture accounts for 80-90% of water usage, how will nations resolve their food and water shortages in the future when they share the same water source? Both President Jimmy Carter and Nobel Peace Prize winner, Norman Borlaug are working to raise public awareness of the strategic relationship between food production, natural resources, and world peace through their efforts to support new public information efforts such as Future Harvest and the Carter Center's Global 2000 program. It is President Carter's firm belief that the "first step toward peace is eradicating hunger? There can be no peace until people have enough to eat. Hungry people are not peaceful people."¹

        The current international debate over these issues does not fall along traditional foreign North-South, East-West, or regional alliances. Instead, the parties are divided into: 1) those who believe that today's malnourished populations should acquire new farming technology in order to feed themselves and their families; 2) those who want to deter new technologies that destroy biodiversity and the environment; and 3) those who want to create new foods. The first group argues that world population has tripled since 1930 and will continue to grow reaching an estimated 8.3 billion by 2025 and possibly 10 billion by the end of the 21^st century.² There simply will not be enough resources in some countries to feed their populations with today's technology.³ Therefore, new farming techniques must be developed and spread throughout the world, especially to underdeveloped regions. The second group includes a growing number of underdeveloped countries who want to ensure sustainable development, a term that incorporates preservation of biodiversity and traditional customs. This concept was defined in Agenda 21, a document drafted at the 1992 U.N. Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro to provide an environmental action plan for the next century. Lastly, the third group encompasses the biotechnology industry, which is moving rapidly forward with new DNA experiments that are shaking the foundations of traditional agricultural science. Based on their new discoveries, food production is undergoing radical changes and it appears that this trend will only continue to accelerate.

        As this article will demonstrate, historical precedent provides guidelines for resolving this international debate. The Green Revolution has been changing food production for over close to 50 years. It began in Mexico in the 1940's with funding from the Rockefeller Foundation. By the 1970's, the Rockefeller Foundation joined with other international non-profit organizations to create a number of international agricultural centers under the umbrella organization, CGIAR. Over the decades, these international centers developed a network of scientists, agriculturists, and policymakers with a track record of developing consensus with developing nations and environmentalists. While they were developing this conscensus, they were also developing new plant hybrids using more non-DNA traditional methods that yield greater nutritional value. During the 1990's, CGIAR has been undergoing a profound restructuring. It is challenged with finding new donors for its programs, redirecting its efforts in the Post-Cold War period, and assessing the new challenges created by biotechnology. Its history provides an interesting review of the timeline of the Green Revolution and offers some important perspectives, which may shape future events and the terms of the biotechnology debate.

What is the Green Revolution?

        In the 1960's, "lifeboat" population experts predicted that the exploding world population in the underdeveloped would lead to drastic Malthusian events such as mass starvation in Asia. However, the catastrophes depicted in such best seller books as William and Paul Paddock's Famine 1975! America's Decision: Who Will Survive? and Paul Ehrlich's The Population Bomb were successfully diverted by innovative agricultural research experiments in the late 1960's and early 1970's that became known as the Green Revolution.⁴The first phase of the Green Revolution resulted from research begun in Mexico. With support from the Rockefeller Foundation, in the 1960's Nobel Peace Prize winner Norman Borlaug spread the Green Revolution to Asia and around the world.

        In the 1980's, the Green Revolution entered a second phase of development as agriculturists attempted to address the criticisms leveled against the first phase of the Green Revolution. Critics had stressed that the first phase only emphasized high-yield Western crops such as wheat and used chemical fertilizers that destroyed tropical ecosystems.⁵ Green Revolution agriculturists began diversifying in the 1970's as they dedicated new resources to rice experiments and tropical plants. They also worked diligently on seed preservation, biodiversity, and sustainable agriculture issues. By the 1990's, the explosion of gene-modified foods and the biotechnology industry shook the traditional perceptions of all professional agriculturists. Historian James Wilkie notes that these changes created new opportunities to produce and process food staples with greater amounts of nutritious vitamins, minerals, and proteins. As described in greater detail in this article, Grupo Maseca has been at the forefront of adding nutritional supplements to enrich tortillas and Norman Borlaug has been leading the way in the development of efforts to increase the quality content of protein in maize, known as QPM.⁶

        Today, the way humans grow food is being radically changed by new discoveries underwritten by a growing multi-billion dollar biotechnology industry. Astounding new discoveries are occurring on a regular basis. For example, in June 1999, Israel announced the discovery of "super plants" with technology that can accelerate tree and plant growth by 50%. This same month, NASA launched plant research experiments aboard the Discovery shuttle testing the feasibility of producing plants engineered to produce human proteins and vaccines that can be eaten. The enormous changes created by these new discoveries are rapidly restructuring the food industry. The Biotechnology Industry Organization estimates that in the United States in 1998, 25% of the corn, 38% of soybeans, and 45% of cotton was gene-modified and 33% of all dairy cows used a biotech hormone to increase milk production. Furthermore, the U.S. Grocery Manufacturers of America estimate that within a decade, "95% of all U.S. crops will probably be biotech."⁷

        As a leading agricultural exporter, the United States is actively promoting the exportation of biotech or gene-modified foods around the world. It is firmly supported by other countries such as Argentina, Chile, and Uruguay that have developed their own strong biotech industries. According to Chilean delegates at the recent February 1999 Cartagena meeting of UNCED, "bioengineering is safe, proven and an environmentally sound technology with a myriad of benefits."⁸ As debate at this United Nations meeting demonstrated, the lack of agreement over bio-engineered foods is profound. Over 600 passages of the Biosafety Protocol, a document drafted at the1992 U.N. Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro to regulate trade in genetically modified organisms such as pest-resistant food and pharmaceuticals have not been ratified.⁹ Europeans do not necessarily agree with U.S. support for the biotechology industry. European consumers are concerned that gene-modified foods will lead to health problems. These fears have prompted the international environmental movement to brand gene-modified foods as "Frankenstein foods" and their proponents "genetic imperialists."¹⁰

Mexico -- The Site of the First Green Revolution Experiments

        Mexico has been at the center of Green Revolution agricultural experiments for over 50 years. It is a tested leader in this field and therefore, well prepared to find progressive and innovative solutions to food production and sustainable development. Contemporary analysts may reason that this is because Mexico is a member of NAFTA and therefore poised to bridge the gap between the developed and underdeveloped worlds. However, history points to a much more complex relationship between the Mexican Ministry of Agriculture, the U.S. government, and such international non-profit organizations as the Rockefeller Foundation, CGIAR (the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research), and CIMMYT (International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center).

        U.S. Vice President Henry Wallace was involved in initial discussions that would make Mexico the site for the first Green Revolution experiments. As a renowned agriculturist, Wallace had served as President Roosevelt's Secretary of Agriculture from 1933-40. He followed in the footsteps of his father who had served as Secretary of Agriculture from 1921-24 under Presidents Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge. The Wallace family had a distinguished reputation for public service and agricultural expertise. They founded the hybrid seed company Pioneer Hi-Breed and for three generations published the popular Wallace Farmer's Almanac.¹¹ One of Henry Wallace's personal projects was the creation of the Office of Foreign Agricultural Relations to categorize the many different types of plant hybrids around the world.¹²
 

U.S. Vice President Henry A. Wallace En Guardia, Vol. I, No. 9, 1942

During World War II, Nelson Rockefeller and Henry Wallace joined forces to pursue their mutual interest in agricultural research. Both men shared an unshakable belief that genetic research on climate and disease resistant hybrids could lead to a solution for world hunger. As head of the Office of Inter-American Affairs (OIAA), a special wartime agency for Latin America, Rockefeller was eager to implement President Roosevelt's "Good Neighbor Policy." In March 1941, OIAA coordinated Wallace's tour of Latin America.13 After reviewing Mexico's food production resources Wallace came to the conclusion that, "if anyone could increase the yield per acre of corn and beans in Mexico, it would contribute more effectively to the welfare of the country and the happiness of its people than any other that could be devised."14

                            Later that year, with Wallace's support, Rockefeller organized the creation of the Institute for Tropical Agriculture (ITA) to coordinate scientific research within the Western Hemisphere.¹⁵ ITA's primary project was to create a new Inter-American Institute of Agricultural Science.¹⁶ Unfortunately, the project was never fully successful as President Truman terminated ITA at the end of World War II.¹⁷

        The Rockefeller family's personal and philanthropic interests in agricultural research increased after World War II. The family supported Henry Wallace's vision in a variety of ways. First, the Rockefeller Foundation established a Mexico field office to conduct agricultural experiments. Second, Nelson Rockefeller and a select group of former OIAA colleagues organized a non-profit organization, AIA to implement agricultural education programs and hybrid seed experiments. These Rockefeller projects became prime examples of President Truman's new "Point IV" policies.¹⁸ With the escalation of the Cold War, Truman announced that the U.S. would fight the expansion of Communism to Africa, Asia, and Latin America. "Point IV" called for the exportation of U.S. technical expertise and capital to the developing world stressing that the American private sector, not the U.S. government should play the leading role in transferring U.S. technology abroad.¹⁹

        Although the Rockefellers' support for the Green Revolution was philanthropically motivated, it can not be fully separated from its Cold War context. Philip Coomb's 1964 book, The Fourth Dimension Of Foreign Policy: Educational and Cultural Affairs provides a well documented review of how U.S. philanthropic activities abroad aided in the fight against Communism.²⁰
 

Dean Rusk  Rockefeller Foundation President (1952-60)and U.S. Secretary of State for U.S Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B.Johnson (1961-69) Lyndon Baines Johnson Library  NLJ, Austin, TX NLJ-WHPO-VN066

Rockefeller Foundation President Dean Rusk was a prime actor in this movement. He incorporated Cold War ideology into the organization's original mission statement noting that the "well-being of mankind" now "depended on the developing nations who lack the capital, trained leadership, educated people, and political stability."21 From 1961-69, Dean Rusk would pursue this philosophy and Cold War agenda as Secretary of State for Presidents Kennedy and Johnson. Due to his influence, the Rockefeller Foundation's funding for international program funds tripled from $6 million in 1955 to $19 million in 1966.22 A large portion of this money went to providing for fellowships.23 In addition to these changes, the

foundation shifted its support to population studies, international relations, legal and political philosophy, institutional support for the arts, historical research, and agriculture.

        The important role that the new agriculture program played within the Rockefeller Foundation's administrative structure is evident by the fact that two of its twelve Presidents have been agriculturists. As described in greater detail below, J. George Harrar was responsible for opening the Rockefeller Foundation's Mexico field office. After his tenure in Mexico from 1943-52, he returned to headquarters to serve as Deputy Director for Agriculture from 1952-55, Director for Agriculture from 1955-59, Vice President from 1959-61 and President of the foundation from 1961-72. Under his guidance, the foundation joined in cooperation with other U.S. foundations and inter-governmental organizations to form CGIAR. In April 1998, Gordon Conway, became the welfth President of the foundation.²⁴

An ecologist, he was an early critic of pesticide spraying. Several months before assuming his current position, he published The Doubly Green Revolution, Food For All In The 21st Century. This book describes his views on sustainable agriculture. He is a steadfast supporter of integrated pest management and believes that "genetically engineered, drought-tolerant and salt-resistant crops can 'green' huge areas of barren land where many of the world's poorest people eke out a living."25 Since assuming the presidency, he has provided important leadership on international agricultural matters by calling for a global forum to discuss biotechnology as an important foreign policy issue for the 21st century.26

Gordon Conway Ecologist, university administrator and current President of the Rockefeller Foundation (1998-Present). As a British citizen, he is the first non-American to serve in this capacity. "The Rockefeller Foundation www.rockfound.org.

Rockefeller Mexico Field Office

        In 1943, the Rockefeller Foundation signed a formal agreement with the Mexican Department of Agriculture to open a Mexico Field Office. This agreement was part of the Mexican government's policy between 1945-65 to increase basic food production. At the time the agreement was signed, Mexico was importing wheat and corn. Wheat yields were particularly low and the use of fertilizer virtually unknown. The Rockefeller Foundation's goal was "to help Mexico to help itself" in solving its food problem.²⁷The office was organized under the authority of the Mexican Department of Agriculture's newly created Oficina de Estudio Especiales. Its director, J. George Harrar served as Chief of Special Studies within the Mexican Department of Agriculture.²⁸ Research laboratories and greenhouses were opened at the Mexican National College of Agriculture in the Mexico City

CIMMYT scientists and farmers  examining maize crops.  Courtesy of CGIAR

suburb of Chapingo.  One of the Mexico Field Office's first projects concentrated on the collection and categorization of seeds from all over Mexico, North and South America. Experts in plant pathology, genetics, soil science, and entomology concentrated on crossbreeding seeds to create new hybrids. Their goal was to discover higher yielding crops. Experiments tested soil management, fertilizers, insecticides, fungicides, conservation measures, irrigation, farm machinery and seed varieties. By 1950, an investment of $1.5 million dollars had produced eight new hybrid corn stocks. Using these new hybrids, Mexican corn production increased by 8% with 1.5 million new acres placed into cultivation.29

The successful development of new corn hybrids prompted research on wheat, bean sorghums and soybeans. The wheat experiments and their chief agronomist, Norman Borlaug would become famous. Mexican wheat production, which had been historically limited to the state of Sonora and the Bajío region of Guanajuato, was plagued by rust and fungus problems. To combat these conditions, Rockefeller scientists adapted twelve rust-resistant varieties. In 1950, 1.2 million acres or 60% of the traditional national wheat acreage was successfully planted with these new rust-resistant strains.³⁰ In the process of this research, Borlaug achieved an important breakthrough - the development of a semi-dwarf variety that was insensitive to light.

This trait would allow the Mexican semi-dwarf varietiesto be exported around the world founding the basis of the Green Revolution. It allowed Mexico to triple its grain production in a matter of years.31In essence, "it was the unusual breadth of adaptation, combined with high genetic yield potential, short-straw, a strong responsiveness and high efficiency in the use of heavy doses of fertilizers, and a broad spectrum ofdisease resistance that has made the Mexican dwarf varieties the powerful catalyst that they have become in launching the Green Revolution."32

Harvesting wheat.  Courtesy of CGIAR

        Borlaug developed the Mexican semi-dwarf varieties by growing different wheat hybrids in two different locations. One generation was cultivated close to sea level in Sonora at 28 degrees north latitude in the fall where the days were shorter. The second generation was sown near Toluca, at 18 degrees latitude and 2500 meters above sea level during the summer when days were longer. Special attention was given to cultivating high-yielding varieties.

Norman Borlaug working in wheat field

According to Borlaug, without the light insensitive and high-yield characteristics, "the successful transplantation of the Mexican varieties into Pakistan and India would havebeen impossible, and the advent of the Green Revolution would almost certainly have been delayed many years."  His work was noted for his insistence on using what he had available to make incremental progress. He continued making improvements each season. In his opinion, "scientific perfectionists who spend a lifetime searching for the unattainable in biological perfection might consequently, during a lifetime of frustration, contribute nothing to increasing food production."33This was not his method. Today at age 83, he continues to make improvements in laboratories and fields around the world.

        In the 1950's and 1960's, the Mexico field office was used as a model for expansion. During this period, it trained a generation of Mexican agriculturists that would have significant influence throughout Latin America and the world. Starting in the mid 1940's, the Mexico field office trained 79 Mexican agriculturists. Of this initial group, 38 were given fellowships for postgraduate study in the United States at the universities of California, Kansas, Missouri, Minnesota, and Cornell. This education program was expanded so that by 1963, a total number of 550 Mexican interns had participated in agricultural research and training programs. This generation of Mexican scientists assisted with the development of plant hybrids at Colombia's National University's School of Agronomy in Medellín and an experimental station near Bogotá. In 1950, they helped create the Cooperative Colombian Agricultural Program devoted to maize, wheat, potatoes, forage grasses, and livestock research.³⁴ In 1955, they assisted Chile with the establishment of a similar program studying wheat and forage grasses known as the Cooperative Chilean Agricultural Program. In 1956, research spread to Asia when the Cooperative Indian Agricultural Program began working on maize, sorghum, and millet production.³⁵ Within Mexico, this generation created and staffed the new Mexican National Institute of Agricultural Research established in 1961.

AIA's Non-Profit Projects in Brazil and Venezuela

        As the Rockefeller Foundation was making inroads in Mexico, Nelson Rockefeller set up his own non-profit organization to pursue similar work in Brazil and Venezuela. He wanted to continue projects he had started at OIAA during World War II. He joined with several former OIAA colleagues to create AIA (American International Association for Economic and Social Development). Their objective was to transfer technology and education. They hoped to rapidly modernize basic infrastructure and services so Latin America could attain a higher quality of living. They believed that if their efforts failed, the region faced the prospect that an exploding population would decrease the standard of living. As a major stockholder in Venezuela's Creole Petroleum, Rockefeller convinced Shell, Mobil, Gulf, and various other private donors to join him in

Nelson Rockefeller, 1944 Presenting his plans for economic development  at a meeting of the Inter-American Development  Commission in New York City.  EnGuardia, 1944

underwriting AIA's projects between 1946-68.36 When Rockefeller closed AIA in 1968, it was because his projects were overlapping with USAID programs that were well funded by the Alliance For Progress. Rockefeller came to the conclusion that U.S. government foreign assistance projects were better equipped than private efforts to try to meet the infinite challenge of Latin American economic development.37 His decision was based on the overwhelming financial resources the Kennedy and Johnson administrations committed to Latin America in order to keep it from being drawn into the Communist sphere of influence.

                                                                                                          

In today's Post-Cold war period, Nelson Rockefeller's efforts serve as a historical case study of the private sector's involvement in agricultural development.

        AIA's basic goal was similar to the Mexico field office's mission in that it sought to "help people help themselves." In Venezuela and Brazil, AIA worked in rural communities to create supervised farm credit programs, extension services, demonstration services, vocational training, agricultural research centers, agricultural clubs, and development studies. These projects centered on "the man, the girl and the jeep." The man was an agricultural extensionist, the girl was the home economist and the jeep was the only vehicle that could make it through the rough country roads. Operations gradually expanded to include cattle spraying, construction of a trench silos, and medical visits from a nurse, physician, and mobile truck stocked with medical supplies. AIA also constructed community centers where it organized 4-H agricultural service clubs and home economics training on nutrition and basic sanitation principles.³⁸

        Nelson Rockefeller believed that farm credit programs could solve the problem of inefficient agricultural production. Under AIA's Brazilian and Venezuelan farm credit programs, private banks provided capital and AIA underwrote the loans guaranteeing repayment. These loans were to acquire basic new technical improvements such as better hoes, mechanized tractors, fertilizers, and hybrid seeds. AIA field personnel provided technical expertise to local farmers. In Venezuela, its farm credit system was known as CBR (Consejo de Bienestar Rural). It operated between 1948-54 until restrictive Perez Jiménez banking laws forced it to shut down.³⁹In Brazil, the farm credit program developed on a state by state basis. The first state program in Minas Gerais was known as ACAR (Associação de Crédito e Assistência Rural). It was so popular that it quickly spread to other states. Eventually the Brazilian government assumed AIA's financial responsibilities and placed all the state programs under the federal program EBATER (Empresa Brasileira de Assistência Técnica Extensão Rural).⁴⁰

        Nelson and David Rockefeller were fascinated with the possibility of developing new plant species in Brazil. In the late 1950's, Brazilian President Juscelino Kubitschek commenced construction on Brasília, a new futuristic capital on the interior plateau of the state of Goiás. Anticipating that the new capital would need to farm on the surrounding uncultivated scrub-brush lands known as the campos cerrados, AIA established agricultural experimental research stations

nearby. The challenge was toadapt traditional agricultural products to grow in the distinct aluminum toxic plateau soils.41 Executive Vice President John Camp believed that AIA could "demonstrate that these lands, with proper treatment by fertilizer and certain trace mineral elements can be made productive. The orderly opening up and development of this area offers new settlement prospects for several million families and corollary employment opportunities for millions more in related commerce and industry."42

Construction of Brasília, 1958 Arquivo Público do Distrito Federal, Brasília, Brazil

        AIA's subsidiary the IBEC Research Institute (IRI) oversaw agricultural research projects on the campos cerrados in Goías and the depleted coffee region of São Paulo state.⁴³ IRI experimented with weed control, labor use, irrigation, harvesting, chemicals, and mechanization.⁴⁴ The Goías experimental station's experiments with phosphorous and lime fertilizers demonstrated that corn and other crops could be grown in the campos cerrados.⁴⁵ IRI employees were convinced that their work would result in groundbreaking research that would change the future.⁴⁶

Fields outside of Brasília, 1970 Corbis Pictures, www.corbis.com

IRI President Jerome Harrington went so far as to declare that his organization was "doing more work on the fertility problems than anyone else in Brazil."47 As we now know, scientific research on the cerrados continued with few breakthroughs for the next 35 years. It was not until 1999 that Norman Borlaug could say, "the cerrado region of Brazil, a very large area long assumed to be infertile because of  toxic soluble aluminum in the soil, may become a breadbasket, because aluminum-resistant crop strains are being developed."48

                                                                                                                                        Significant progress was made by researchers at the University of California at San Diego this year when they published their discovery of a gene that allows plants to detoxify heavy metals that are hazardous to human health and the environment.⁴⁹ These new findings have once again renewed interested in the viability of agriculture in the cerrados region.
 

CIMMYT - International Center for the Improvement of Maize and Wheat

        In 1959, the Rockefeller Foundation's Mexico Field Office internationalized its wheat, maize and potato projects. By 1963, the Mexican Secretariat of Foreign Relations had granted these projects full international status resulting in the creation of the International Center for the Improvement of Maize and Wheat (CIMMYT). This new organization was located in El Batan on the outskirts of Mexico City. It received its original funding from the Rockefeller and Ford foundations, the Mexican government, USAID, United Nations Development Program (UNDP) and the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB).⁵⁰As described in greater detail below, CIMMYT became one of the first four international centers to form CGIAR in 1971. In the nearly three decades since its creation, CIMMYT has developed a proven record of close collaboration with Mexican research institutions such as the Secretariat of Agriculture, Livestock, and Rural Development (SAGDR). It is currently organized into 5 major research groups - maize, wheat, economics, natural resources and biotechnology. Its official mission is the development of sustainable maize and wheat systems for the poor, a problem that it believes it can solve by improving germplasm with built-in tolerance and resistance to pests, diseases and environmental stresses.⁵¹

        Norman Borlaug's initial wheat research projects conducted at the Rockefeller Foundation's Mexico Field Office were continued at CIMMYT. He was convinced that the expansion of his high-yield semi-dwarf wheat varieties throughout the world would solve world hunger problems. Between 1963-65 with population experts predicting mass starvation in India and Pakistan, Borlaug concentrated on convincing local, state and national agencies in these countries to switch to his high-yield Mexican wheat seeds.⁵²In the process of shipping his seeds to Asia from Mexico via Los Angeles harbor, Borlaug encountered numerous challenges. His seeds were held at the US-Mexico border and almost destroyed by Los Angeles' Watts Riots and a war between India and Pakistan.⁵³His 1966 book Quiet Revolution in Wheat Improvement received critical acclaim. He was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1970 for his work in Mexico and Asia.
 

Wheat Crop - Courtesy of CGIAR

Borlaug's promotion of high-yielding Mexican wheat varieties over native plants such as lentils and rice has caused controversy from the outset. During the first year's harvest in Kerala, India, hungry protesters rioted against a

switch from rice to wheat. Borlaug argued that high-yield strains ofindigenous plants simply did not exist and his Mexican wheat varieties were the best way to fight starvation. Wheat cultivation could produce the most food calories and it could be grown in nearly all environments with little pesticide.In 1969-70 approximately 6 million hectares in Pakistan and 14 million hectares in India were sown to Mexican varieties or their derivatives.⁵⁴ By 1974, India and Pakistan were on the way to becoming self-sufficient in food production. Due in great part to Borlaug's efforts, as the world added an additional 2 billion to the human population between 1965-90, food production kept pace and even exceeded demand. During this period, the global daily per capita calorie intake increased from 2,063 calories to 2,495.⁵⁵

        This first stage of the Green Revolution generated controversy because it involved the transfer of a whole new technology focused on producing plants with the highest yield possible. Some critics from developing countries decried wheat as a Western crop that uses enormous quantities of water and fertilizer. The only way to meet these demands was by developing irrigation and using organic or chemical fertilizers. Organic fertilizers require large livestock herds that eat a considerable portion of the harvest and chemical petroleum fertilizers destroy the environment.⁵⁶ Other critics protested against the pressure placed upon Third World governments to pass policies that give wheat farmers a relatively high price for their product, create special credit programs for wheat farmers, and promote the distribution of fertilizers, insecticides, weed killers and machinery.⁵⁷As described in greater detail below, these criticisms have resulted in the modification of goals at CIMMYT and other international agricultural research groups.

        Aside from Borlaug's work, CIMMYT's has been responsible for a number of other notable achievements. It has a long tradition of collecting seeds and preserving biodiversity. By the 1980's its wheat and maize germplasm accounted for approximately 80% of global production. Borlaug's original varieties were replaced with even more productive varieties that "require little or no pesticides because of their durable built-in resistance and increased efficiency in the use of soil nutrients, water and sunlight."⁵⁸ Today, more than 75% of the developing world's wheat area (excluding China) has been planted to semi-dwarf wheat developed by CIMMYT and it's national agricultural research partners. Its world renown Wellhausen-Anderson Plant Genetic Resources Center provides long term storage for close to half a million seed samples including more than 6,000 endangered farmer-developed maize varieties. CIMMYT research has also helped to rescue numerous samples held in seed banks throughout Latin America and at the National Seed Storage Laboratory in the U.S. Its International Wheat Information System (IWIS) has set global standards by providing computerized data to researchers worldwide on 1.5 million genotypes of bread wheat, durum wheat and triticale. CIMMYT has trained over 8,000 researchers working in 80 different countries.⁵⁹

CGIAR and its International Research Centers

        In 1968, the Rockefeller Foundation sponsored an important international symposium on "Strategy for the Conquest of Hunger." At the time, research was being conducted by four separate international centers including: 1) CIMMYT in Mexico for maize and wheat; 2) CIAT (the International Center For Tropical Agriculture) in Colombia for rice, bean, forage grasses and cassava; 3) IRRI (International Rice Institute) in the Philippines for rice; and 4) IITA (International Institute of Tropical Agriculture) in Nigeria to study the special foods and ecosystems related to Africa. As a result of this 1968 symposium, Richard Demuth at the World Bank's Development Services Department called a meeting in May 1971 to discuss the rapid proliferation of scientific discoveries. A group of 28 governments, organizations, and observers agreed to the establishment of CGIAR (the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research).⁶⁰

        CGIAR was an umbrella organization initially created to coordinate the efforts of the four international centers. As Table 1 and Figure 1 depict, the number of international centers increased from four to sixteen between 1971-93. According to Lowell Hardin, a Ford Foundation officer in the 1970's who raised funds to expand CGIAR's international centers, donors made bilateral grants to individual centers. In other words, grants were written to CGIAR but they did not go into a general "pot" of resources. Instead, each donor maintained a bilateral relationship with each center it supported. CGIAR provided administrative support and management reviews.⁶¹ Today, the international centers facilitate the exchange of information between national agricultural research programs. For example, CIMMYT coordinates the flow of information between the Mexican and Indian government agricultural agencies regarding wheat and maize issues. IRRI coordinates between these same government agencies on rice issues.

Table 1
CGIAR's 16 International Centers

Acronym	International Center	Location	Created
IRRI	International Rice Research Institute	Los Banos, Philippines	1960
CIMMYT	Centro Internacional de Mejoramiento de Maiz y Trigo	Mexico City, Mexico	1963
IITA	International Institute of Tropical Agriculture	Ibadan, Nigeria	1967
CIAT	Centro International de Agricultural Tropical	Cali, Colombia	1971
CIP	Centro Internacional de la Papa	Lima, Peru	1971
WARDA	West Africa Rice Development Association	Bouaké, Ivory Coast	1971
ICRISAT	International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics	Petancheru, India	1972
ILRI	International Livestock Research Institute	Nairobi, Kenya	1973
IPGRI	International Plant Genetic Resources Institute	Rome, Italy	1974
IFPRI	International Food Policy Research Institute	Washington, D.C.	1975
ICARDA	Internacional Center for Agricultural Research in Dry Areas	Aleppo, Syria	1975
ICLARM	Internacional Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management	Manila, Philippines	1977
ICRAF	International Centre for Research in Agroforestry	Nairobi, Kenya	1977
ISNAR	International Service for National Agricultural Research	The Hague, Netherlands	1979
IWMI	International Water Management Institute	Colombo, Sri Lanka	1984
CIFOR	Center for International Forestry Research	Bogor, Indonesia	1993

Figure 1
Location of 16 CGIAR international centers

Source: CGIAR [1999] http://www.cgiar.org/centers.htm

        Between 1960 and 1999, CGIAR's research agenda progressed through several different stages. In the 1960's, the original four international centers concentrated on rice, wheat, and maize. In the early 1970's, a second phase of research focused on plants in the tropics and semi-arid tropics, roots and tubers, livestock and pastures, cereals, and legumes. By the mid-1970's, work had expanded to genetic resources, plants in dry areas, and West African rice. In the 1980's, CGIAR concentrated on institutional strengthening and food policy. During this fourth phase, its mission was redefined to "increase sustainable food production in the developing countries in such a way that the nutritional level and general economic well-being of the poor are improved." This approach emphasized protecting biodiversity, land, and water.⁶² In the 1990's, the organization entered a fifth stage focusing on agro-forestry and forestry, living aquatic resources, and natural resources management.⁶³ Today, CGIAR is a world renowned resource for researchers working on biodiversity issues. It has one of the largest collections of plant genetic resources with more than 600,000 samples of over 3,000 crop, forage, and pasture species. Duplicates of these materials are provided to researchers around the world. This work is part of a global initiative that aims to promote "sustainable agricultural growth in developing countries, with special care devoted to issues such as ethics, safety, and the access of developing countries to biotechnology products."⁶⁴

Table 2
Evolving Forces and Philosophies, 1960s vs. 1990s

	1960s [Phase 1, Green Revolution]		1990s [Phase 2, Green Revolution]
1.	Communist Threat	1.	Post Cold War Complacency
2.	Fear of Famine	2.	Secure Food Supply
3.	Malthus Rediscovered	3.	Environmentalism
4.	Belief in Science	4.	Skepticism about Science, Biotechnology
5.	Public Programs, Institutions	5.	Privatization of Science, NGOs
6.	Target Growth, Income	6.	Sustainability, Equity, Poverty
7.	Technology Transfer	7.	Indigenous Knowledge
8.	Paternalistic Assistance	8.	Partnerships, Outsourcing
9.	Dedicated Donors	9.	Donor Fatigue
10.	Flexible Funding	10.	Impact Driven, Narrow Project Support

Source: Lowell S. Hardin, "Conceptual and Philosophical Bases for CIAT's Founding,"
30 Anniversary of the Foundation of CIAT 1967-1997 (Cali, Colombia: CIAT, 1998)

        CGIAR's donors and members expanded over the years to include many developing nations and international NGOs (non-governmental organizations). Their participation and influence have modified CGIAR's budget and  objectives.

ITC gene bank.  Banana clones stored under slow growth conditions at reduced temperature (16 C) and low light intensity (2000 LUX). Courtesy of IPGRI/INIBAP

As Tables 1 and 2 outline, CGIAR's first four international centers were founded at the height of the Cold War. In the 1960's and 1970's, the international organizations' priorities mirrored U.S. foreign policy objectives. Most notable was U.S. concern with the spread of Communism. Due to their anti-Communist stance, they received abundant financial support from U.S. foundations, the U.S. government and other developed countries eager to fight Communist expansion in the Third World.65 Over the decades, CGIAR's priorities have changed drastically. Today, one of the key concerns is identifying donors interested in financing the second phase of the Green Revolution. In 1999, CGIAR's budget accounted for approximately 4% of total worldwide public funding for agricultural research. As Figure 2 depicts, the organization allocated its 1998 budget to five key goals: increasing productivity, integrating natural resource management, preserving biodiversity, improving national policies, and building capacity.

Figure 2
CGIAR 1998 Budget Priorities

CGIAR's New Programs: GFAR and Future Harvest

        On the eve of the 21st century, CGIAR has created two new organizations to reflect modifications made to its agenda since the 1992 U.N. Earth Summit. One of the most significant results of this meeting was the drafting of Agenda 21, an action plan defining important global environmental issues and developing a guide for government policies in the next century. Agenda 21 ignited heated debate between developed (North) nations and underdeveloped (South) nations. The South demanded an emphasis on sustainable development issues such as water pollution, air pollution, and the degradation of agricultural lands. Underdeveloped nations expressed their outrage at the excessive "luxury" consumption patterns of the developed North and defensively noted that their consumption was "survivalistic" and based a need to eliminate poverty.⁶⁶ As the number of developing countries participating in CGIAR has increased in the 1990's, the organization's mission statement has changed to reflect their views. As a result, CGIAR has recently launched two new campaigns. GFAR (Global Forum on Agricultural Research) is an initiative aimed at modifying CGIAR's administrative structure and scientific objectives. Future Harvest is a media campaign to develop public awareness of the important links between global peace, the environment, and agriculture.

        GFAR's mission is to mobilize the various players in the global agricultural research community and make them aware of the serious problems that will be posed by poverty, food security, natural resources sustainability in the next century.⁶⁷ Structurally, GFAR is designed to increase collaboration between CGIAR's international centers, national agricultural research systems (NARS), agricultural research institutes (ARIs), universities, and private enterprises. Currently the viability and success of GFAR depends on identifying new financial donors who are willing to underwrite its goals.⁶⁸

        Future Harvest is a new public service that disseminates studies analyzing the relationship between agriculture, livestock, fisheries, forests, and public policy. Its environment, health, economics, and population experts prepare these studies. Future Harvest has also created a popular ambassador program, which enlists the support of such distinguished global leaders. These include: Oscar Arias Sanchez, President of Costa Rica from 1986-90 and 1987 Nobel Peace Prize winner; U.S. President Jimmy Carter, former governor and farmer from Georgia; Francine Cousteau wife of former Jacques Costeau and as President of The Cousteau Society promoter of global water conservation; Robert S. McNamara, an early supporter of CGIAR as president of the World Bank, and former president of the Ford Motor Company, and U.S. Secretary of Defense; Her Majesty Queen Noor of Jordan an ardent supporter of environmental conservation, peace and conflict resolution, poverty alleviation, and women's and children's issues; and Dr. Muhammad Yunus, winner of the 1994 World Food Prize for his efforts to alleviate hunger in Bangladesh.⁶⁹

2000 ISSUES

        There are several other current Green Revolution issues that underscore the leading role Mexico and international non-profit organizations play in making biotechnology an important issue for the 21st century. As discussed in greater detail below, they include:

1. The International Debate Over Gene-Modified Foods.
2. Mexico and the Biotech Bt Corn Controversy
3. Mexico's Leadership on Quality Protein Maize (QPM)
4. Mexico's Promotion of Vitamin Enriched Tortillas
5.  International Relief - Sowing "Seeds of Hope" in Central America

The International Debate Over Gene-Modified Foods

        The current international debate over gene-modified foods reflects a power struggle between international environmental groups and the biotechnology industry. Both groups have radically different perspectives on the use of resources and their responsibilities to future generations. The environmentalists protest the use of chemical fertilizers and new plant hybrids because of their fear that these will destroy the earth's ecosystem and biodiversity. They are particularly opposed to the transfer of new agricultural technology to Africa, a continent that has not begun to change its traditional farming techniques. Green Revolution agriculturists point out that the environmentalists would prefer to let people die of starvation rather than employ new technologies. They cite the case of Sub-Saharan Africa where people are dying of starvation while environmentalists campaign to ban Green Revolution activities.
 

Plants in Vitro Regeneration of control and frozen  meristem cultures of the cv. Bluggoe, 6 weeks after cryopreservation Courtesy of IPGRI/INIBAP

The biotech industry has adopted a position on the extreme opposition of the political spectrum from the environmentalists. With the largest sector of the industry based in the United States, this group has been steadfastly moving forward under the general premise that bio- engineered farming is inevitable. Their products have been on the market for less than ten years, raising questions about long-term health safety. Operating in the global free-market, there has been little discussion regarding corporate responsibility for the radical social or health changes their new technology may render. Simply stated, their objective is to fill a market need as the demand for food increases with the surge in human population.  European consumers have been the most vocal in expressing hesitation and concern over gene-modified foods. British polls in 1998 demonstrated that "85% of consumers want genetically modified foods to be segregated from organically grown products while 77% want the modified foods to be banned altogether."

Banana Musa Clones Prepared for transfer to medium term storage Courtesy of IPGRI/INIBAP

British farmers and food processors have secured government approval to allow commercial planting of gene-modified crops under strict controls.British Biscuit, Cake, Chocolate and Confectionery Alliance (BCCA) views "gene-modified food as inevitable, several products are already in the food chain, and U.S. producers do not segregate traditional from gene-modified seed."70 In response to this lack of concern for consumer opinion, BEUC (the European consumers' union) has organized a campaign to segregate gene-modified and organic food processing.71European consumer opposition has encouraged U.S. environmentalists to sue the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for its failure to ban gene-modified crops.72 Historically, American consumers have felt protected by the watchdog efforts of both the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).73 Currently, the USDA has not required testing for any gene-modified foods, noting that "they are not aware of any information that shows it is different from regular food."74

On the international level, the United Nation's Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) has remained neutral on the topic on biotechnology. In a January 1999 report issued on the topic, the FAO urged general caution. However, it also suggested that biotechnology could "provide solutions for some of the old problems hindering sustainable development and achievement of food security."⁷⁵ In light of the general lack of consensus on biotechnology issues, Rockefeller Foundation President Gordon Conway has been providing leadership on the issue. In his opinion, European consumer concerns may only serve to stop progress being made in the field.⁷⁶ As a solution, he has recommended the establishment of guidelines, testing and food labeling. In his opinion, "there must be a new culture, with appropriate systems and on-going institutional support, that provides careful monitoring, open reporting and transparency, and a place for public participation about the impact of plant biotechnology on human health."⁷⁷Conway demonstrated his commitment to structuring the terms of the international debate on the biotechnology issue by meeting with Monsanto Company executives in June 1999. As the largest biotech plant producer in the world, Conway asked them to "treat the poor as equal partners in an honest dialogue. Acknowledge that you are concerned about returns on investment, market penetration, continued growth and other commercial issues. Admit that you do not have all the answers but set out those which you do have and commit to prompt, full and honest sharing of data as you get it."⁷⁸ In May 1999, Conway called for an international forum on the issue and the Rockefeller Foundation is dedicating resources to back his efforts.
 

Mexico and the Bt Corn Biotech Controversy

        As one of the largest cultivators of bio-engineered Bt corn and home to the monarch butterflies, Mexico has emerged as the center of one of the latest environmental controversies. In the May 1999 issue of Nature, Cornell University entomology researchers reported that genetically modified Bt corn kills monarch butterfly larvae in laboratory tests.⁷⁹ Up until the release of this report, environmentalists had attributed the decline in the monarch butterfly population to excessive logging and pesticide use. Monarch caterpillars originate in Canada and the United States where they are possibly being exposed to Bt corn. After hatching, millions of the monarch butterflies fly to the western forests of Mexico and Michoacan states for the winter months. They are not an endangered species, however Mexico, Canada and the United States are responsible for their protection under the ecological provisions of NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) implemented in January 1994.⁸⁰
 

Monarch Butterfly Karen Obenhauser, Monarch Webpage [1999] www.monarchwatch.org/gallery/photo/ad2.htm

Cornell's findings are based upon initial laboratory tests. Under specific test conditions, "44% of monarch butterfly caterpillars that fed on milkweed leave dusted with Bt corn pollen died. Milkweed is the primary food source for these caterpillars." Cornell researchers admit that at this stage, their scientific conclusions are still tentative. According to Cornell entomology professor John Losey, "the study was conducted in the laboratory and, while it raises an important issue, it would be inappropriate to draw any conclusions about the risk to monarch populations in the field based solely on these initial results." In his opinion, "the proven benefitsof Bt corn outweigh the potential risks. We can't forget that Bt corn has a huge potential for reducing pesticide use and increasing yields."81Splicing genes from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis into the corn genes produces Bt corn. The Cornell researchers stressed that it poses no threat to humans or beneficial insects.82

However, French scientists at le Bouchet army research laboratories reported in the May 29, 1999 issue of New Scientist that Bt dried spores used on organic crops in Europe may be harmful to the human immune system.⁸³

         Cornell researchers acknowledge that their next series of experiments with Bt corn and declining monarch caterpillars must replicate real-life conditions. This summer, they will be heading to U.S. and Mexico cornfields to conduct additional research.⁸⁴ Bt corn has been planted in Mexico on an experimental basis in certain regions since 1993.⁸⁵ The U.S. has been planting Bt corn in the Midwest cornbelt since 1996 and its popularity has increased steadily over the past 3 years. In 1996 it accounted for 400,000 corn acres with this figure jumping to 17 million acres or 21-25% of the total planted corn acreage in 1998.⁸⁶

        The Cornell report has strengthened the activities of environmental groups such as Greenpeace Mexico, which has been active in organizing protests against genetically modified corn. According to this organization's spokesman Roberto Lopez, Mexico "is faced with a new form of domination" - genetic imperialism. He has called on the Mexican government to "defend the country's genetic diversity and the more than 300 strains of corn in the country by declaring Mexico a 'center of origin' of corn in a similar way to France having sole rights to market wine known as champagne."⁸⁷

        In response to the Cornell study and Greenpeace protests, the Biotechnology Industry Organization has publicly acclaimed the important benefits of Bt corn. According to this organization's spokesman, Dr. L. Val Giddings, "Whatever the threat to monarch butterflies posed by Bt corn pollen, we know it's less than the threat of drifting pesticide sprays."⁸⁸ Giddings noted that up until the publication of the Cornell's lab tests, the environmentalists themselves had concluded, "the primary threat to the monarch butterfly is the loss of crucial winter habitat in southern California and Mexico. ' Threats come from habitat degradation along butterfly migratory routes, pesticides, and other human activities." Rhetorically, Giddings also added, "It's not an exaggeration to say more monarchs succumb to high-velocity collisions with car windshields than ever encounter corn pollen."⁸⁹

Mexico's Leadership on Quality Protein Maize (QPM)

Mexicans have long relied on corn as a food staple. As one of the most prolific and well known of the Green Revolution agricultrists with over 50 years of field experience, Norman Borlaug has remained committed to developing new corn hybrids that yield corn ears containing high levels of protein. His non-DNA, traditional plant breeding experiments, known as the QPM (quality protein maize) project began over 35 years ago in Mexico at CIMMYT.⁹⁰ Political support and funding fo