Why didn't the green revolution in the 1960s and 1970s work like ...

[Charlie]

Why didn't the green revolution in the 1960s and 1970s work like it should have?

Question 2

You are in the supermarket with your mother and notice they now sell irradiated ground beef. Your mother tells you to stay away from it because it is radioactive and dangerous. What would you tell her to convince her otherwise?

[zhanghao]

Answer to Question 1

Governments can learn from recent history the importance of developing local agricultural technology. A major effort made in the 1960s and 1970sthe green revolutiondemonstra ted the potential for increased grain production in Asia. It was an effort to bring the agricultural technology of the industrial world to the developing countries, but the high-yielding strains of wheat and rice that were selected required irrigation, chemical fertilizers, and pesticidesall costly and beyond the economic means of too many of the farmers in the developing world.

Instead of transplanting industrial technology into the developing countries, small, efficient farms and local structures for marketing, credit, transportation, food storage, and agricultural education should be developed. International research centers need to examine the conditions of tropical countries and orient their research toward appropriate technology: labor-intensive rather than energy-intensive agricultural methods. For example, labor-intensive technology, such as the use of manual grinders for grains, is appropriate in some places because it makes the best use of human, financial, and natural resources. A manual grinder can process 20 pounds of grain per hour, replacing the mortar and pestle, which in the same time can pound a maximum of only 3 pounds. The specific technology that is appropriate varies from situation to situation.

Answer to Question 2

A common concern about irradiation is that it might alter the nutritional value of a food. The World Health Organization, along with numerous other public health agencies, points out that nutrient losses, if any, are insignificant.

That's not to say, however, that irradiation poses no risks. One of the most troublesome is that the radioactive materials used in the irradiation process may put workers and communities at undue risk. However, as with any technology, the risk of irradiation must be weighed carefully against the benefits and risks of alternate technologies. Consider spices, which typically harbor high levels of pathogens. Often, manufacturers douse them with a toxic, explosive chemical called ethylene oxide to rid them of bacteria. Yet because of its toxic, explosive nature, ethylene oxide puts workers at risk, may pollute the air, and may leave residue on the spices. In fact, the gas, which was once used to sterilize medical supplies, has been deemed so dangerous that most manufacturers now use irradiation instead. (Cotton swabs, tampons, teething rings, and a number of other consumer goods are also sterilized via irradiation.) Recently, USDA authorized irradiation of meat already inspected by the agency and approved as safe for consumption. As a result, food companies now have the option of using irradiation on raw meat and meat products (for example, ground beef, frozen hamburger patties, or frozen poultry).

The World Health Organization (WHO), the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, the Food and Drug Administration, and numerous other agencies encourage the use of irradiation in the fight against foodborne disease and food loss, and some 40 countries have approved it for use. According to WHO, each year spoilage, insect infestation, and the like lead to losses of as much as 50 percent of the world's food supplylosses that could be eliminated with irradiation. What's more, the process may help prevent deaths resulting from foodborne illness.

[Charlie]

Thanks

[zhanghao]

Welcome