Before the 1960s, masses of people were starving on the Indian subcontinent, and Mexico was importing over half of its wheat, leading to many inhabitants being priced out of the food market. Something had to be done, and it was in the form of HYVs, which kick started the green revolution.
The green revolution used high yielding varieties to help the neediest of countries become self sufficient in food production. It started in Mexico in 1943, and 13 years later it proved to be a success with a tiny percentage of Mexico's wheat being imported. It then moved to a much bigger country, India, and was massively successful in the greener regions of Utter Pradesh and Punjab.
However, solving hunger problems in some of the world's poorest regions was not without its critics, a stupid suggestion you may think, but some ideas made sense. I will only list the problems that make perfect sense, so you don't have to sift through meaningless one word reasons, such as it being 'unsustainable' without any justification. The quality of diet is an important issue, rice only carries certain nutrition values, and the Indians eat a disproportionate amount of the stuff, which could me protein and iron deficiency amongst other things. Others believe that increased use of pesticides and fertilisers could increasingly 'poison' their diets, but one of my friend's relatives, who works for a top pesticide company, insists stringent tests are carried out. Some believe that the Us did not care about how safe the HYVs were, as long as they solved the hunger crisis to get poor, yet very large nations on side during the Cold War. Some believe that the Green Revolution benefits the TNCs, as it was funded by corporate giants such as Ford and Rockefeller. Perhaps the most important issue is the compromise for water used during the growth of HYVs. The use of pesticides and fertilisers and the intense growing strategies, have seen soil degrade, which could reduce future yields. The increased revenue from the rich farmers who can afford HYVs have seen poor farmers put out of work after having their land bought up and their labour being replaced by machines. Much more clean water is used for techniques such as irrigation than is used for drinking and cleaning, which is a resolvable problem, as the farming techniques used in LEDCs are incredibly inefficient.
Still, with all these criticisms, I believe that it was a brilliant idea in the 1940s-60s, which the graph above proves, but it is desperate need of modernisation.
