#greenrevolution — Public Fediverse posts
Live and recent posts from across the Fediverse tagged #greenrevolution, aggregated by home.social.
-
just a reminder that the 1960s american "global war on hunger" (of which the "green revolution" was a part) saw "the food problem" as two sides of the same coin. one side had "population" and the other side had "food production." (there was no side for "actually there's enough food being produced, it's just that people don't have enough money to buy it." or "actually more people would love to grow food, but they are dispossessed of land and resources", etc.)
so a lot of the "green revolution" modernization programs included family planning stipulations (including voluntary sterilization suggestions in india).
at the national convocation on world hunger in 1967, NEVIN S. SCRIMSHAW, from the Department of Food, Nutrition, and Science at MIT said in his presentation:
“The present rate of application of technical knowledge to food production in the developing countries is obviously too slow and will remain so unless new elements enter the situation..."
“Among these new elements must be greater progress in introducing effective family planning programs; in applying scientific and technical knowledge to increase the production of conventional foods; in reducing the enormous waste of food due to insects, rodents, and spoilage; and in developing new, unconventional sources of protein.”
"He said two approaches merit the highest priority in the problem of providing more protein. “One is the increased production of conventional plant, animal, and fish sources of protein... The other is the development and application of effective means of population control."
from the 1967 Oct. 10 issue of "foreign agriculture": https://archive.org/details/sim_foreign-agriculture_1967-10-09_5_41/page/6/mode/2up
they were full-on malthusians who saw the "war on hunger" as a literal balancing act between population and food. (and of course, they were worried that if there were too many hungry poor people in developing countries, that those people would go communist. of course.)
addendum: western environmentalism was the third leg of the stool in this project. groups like the club of rome were very into population control. to learn more, check out the chapter "Green Revolutions" by Björn-Ola Linnér in the book "The Return of Malthus".
-
just a reminder that the 1960s american "global war on hunger" (of which the "green revolution" was a part) saw "the food problem" as two sides of the same coin. one side had "population" and the other side had "food production." (there was no side for "actually there's enough food being produced, it's just that people don't have enough money to buy it." or "actually more people would love to grow food, but they are dispossessed of land and resources", etc.)
so a lot of the "green revolution" modernization programs included family planning stipulations (including voluntary sterilization suggestions in india).
at the national convocation on world hunger in 1967, NEVIN S. SCRIMSHAW, from the Department of Food, Nutrition, and Science at MIT said in his presentation:
“The present rate of application of technical knowledge to food production in the developing countries is obviously too slow and will remain so unless new elements enter the situation..."
“Among these new elements must be greater progress in introducing effective family planning programs; in applying scientific and technical knowledge to increase the production of conventional foods; in reducing the enormous waste of food due to insects, rodents, and spoilage; and in developing new, unconventional sources of protein.”
"He said two approaches merit the highest priority in the problem of providing more protein. “One is the increased production of conventional plant, animal, and fish sources of protein... The other is the development and application of effective means of population control."
from the 1967 Oct. 10 issue of "foreign agriculture": https://archive.org/details/sim_foreign-agriculture_1967-10-09_5_41/page/6/mode/2up
they were full-on malthusians who saw the "war on hunger" as a literal balancing act between population and food. (and of course, they were worried that if there were too many hungry poor people in developing countries, that those people would go communist. of course.)
addendum: western environmentalism was the third leg of the stool in this project. groups like the club of rome were very into population control. to learn more, check out the chapter "Green Revolutions" by Björn-Ola Linnér in the book "The Return of Malthus".
-
just a reminder that the 1960s american "global war on hunger" (of which the "green revolution" was a part) saw "the food problem" as two sides of the same coin. one side had "population" and the other side had "food production." (there was no side for "actually there's enough food being produced, it's just that people don't have enough money to buy it." or "actually more people would love to grow food, but they are dispossessed of land and resources", etc.)
so a lot of the "green revolution" modernization programs included family planning stipulations (including voluntary sterilization suggestions in india).
at the national convocation on world hunger in 1967, NEVIN S. SCRIMSHAW, from the Department of Food, Nutrition, and Science at MIT said in his presentation:
“The present rate of application of technical knowledge to food production in the developing countries is obviously too slow and will remain so unless new elements enter the situation..."
“Among these new elements must be greater progress in introducing effective family planning programs; in applying scientific and technical knowledge to increase the production of conventional foods; in reducing the enormous waste of food due to insects, rodents, and spoilage; and in developing new, unconventional sources of protein.”
"He said two approaches merit the highest priority in the problem of providing more protein. “One is the increased production of conventional plant, animal, and fish sources of protein... The other is the development and application of effective means of population control."
from the 1967 Oct. 10 issue of "foreign agriculture": https://archive.org/details/sim_foreign-agriculture_1967-10-09_5_41/page/6/mode/2up
they were full-on malthusians who saw the "war on hunger" as a literal balancing act between population and food. (and of course, they were worried that if there were too many hungry poor people in developing countries, that those people would go communist. of course.)
addendum: western environmentalism was the third leg of the stool in this project. groups like the club of rome were very into population control. to learn more, check out the chapter "Green Revolutions" by Björn-Ola Linnér in the book "The Return of Malthus".
-
just a reminder that the 1960s american "global war on hunger" (of which the "green revolution" was a part) saw "the food problem" as two sides of the same coin. one side had "population" and the other side had "food production." (there was no side for "actually there's enough food being produced, it's just that people don't have enough money to buy it." or "actually more people would love to grow food, but they are dispossessed of land and resources", etc.)
so a lot of the "green revolution" modernization programs included family planning stipulations (including voluntary sterilization suggestions in india).
at the national convocation on world hunger in 1967, NEVIN S. SCRIMSHAW, from the Department of Food, Nutrition, and Science at MIT said in his presentation:
“The present rate of application of technical knowledge to food production in the developing countries is obviously too slow and will remain so unless new elements enter the situation..."
“Among these new elements must be greater progress in introducing effective family planning programs; in applying scientific and technical knowledge to increase the production of conventional foods; in reducing the enormous waste of food due to insects, rodents, and spoilage; and in developing new, unconventional sources of protein.”
"He said two approaches merit the highest priority in the problem of providing more protein. “One is the increased production of conventional plant, animal, and fish sources of protein... The other is the development and application of effective means of population control."
from the 1967 Oct. 10 issue of "foreign agriculture": https://archive.org/details/sim_foreign-agriculture_1967-10-09_5_41/page/6/mode/2up
they were full-on malthusians who saw the "war on hunger" as a literal balancing act between population and food. (and of course, they were worried that if there were too many hungry poor people in developing countries, that those people would go communist. of course.)
addendum: western environmentalism was the third leg of the stool in this project. groups like the club of rome were very into population control. to learn more, check out the chapter "Green Revolutions" by Björn-Ola Linnér in the book "The Return of Malthus".
-
just a reminder that the 1960s american "global war on hunger" (of which the "green revolution" was a part) saw "the food problem" as two sides of the same coin. one side had "population" and the other side had "food production." (there was no side for "actually there's enough food being produced, it's just that people don't have enough money to buy it." or "actually more people would love to grow food, but they are dispossessed of land and resources", etc.)
so a lot of the "green revolution" modernization programs included family planning stipulations (including voluntary sterilization suggestions in india).
at the national convocation on world hunger in 1967, NEVIN S. SCRIMSHAW, from the Department of Food, Nutrition, and Science at MIT said in his presentation:
“The present rate of application of technical knowledge to food production in the developing countries is obviously too slow and will remain so unless new elements enter the situation..."
“Among these new elements must be greater progress in introducing effective family planning programs; in applying scientific and technical knowledge to increase the production of conventional foods; in reducing the enormous waste of food due to insects, rodents, and spoilage; and in developing new, unconventional sources of protein.”
"He said two approaches merit the highest priority in the problem of providing more protein. “One is the increased production of conventional plant, animal, and fish sources of protein... The other is the development and application of effective means of population control."
from the 1967 Oct. 10 issue of "foreign agriculture": https://archive.org/details/sim_foreign-agriculture_1967-10-09_5_41/page/6/mode/2up
they were full-on malthusians who saw the "war on hunger" as a literal balancing act between population and food. (and of course, they were worried that if there were too many hungry poor people in developing countries, that those people would go communist. of course.)
addendum: western environmentalism was the third leg of the stool in this project. groups like the club of rome were very into population control. to learn more, check out the chapter "Green Revolutions" by Björn-Ola Linnér in the book "The Return of Malthus".
-
at the first international agribusiness conference in 1967: "Senator McGovern termed the War on Hunger “an enlightened society’s substitute for colonialism.”" 😬
He said, “Great powers in the past have extended their defense and economic perimeters by subduing and exploiting peoples, investing their own wealth chiefly in the military might necessary to conquer, police, and defend their empires. We have the opportunity to make investments in productive resources instead of force, to build ourselves allies instead of colonies, and to benefit through trade and the enhanced security within a free world society." 😬
"He continued, “A problem that American enterprise will face in foreign lands is an inevitable suspicion of neocolonialism. It is a suspicion that must be overcome with reasonable capital returns, a dedication to growth with and not at the expense of host countries. Our own government’s backing will be needed for your service through full guarantees against the unusual risk of expropriation and unstable governments, a reasonable sharing of other risks, and supplemental government-to-government programs. These would include food aid and educational programs which will help clear away the impediments to your success.”"
from the June 5, 1967 issue of "foreign agriculture": https://archive.org/details/sim_foreign-agriculture_1967-06-05_5_23/page/8/mode/2up
so according to this, government was very much in favor of clearing the way for american agribusiness to enter developing country markets, and they framed it as "the role of private enterprise in the global war on hunger." did they actually believe that? it's certainly possible. does that change how we should view the impact of what they did? i don't think so. why am i still curious whether they were "true believers"? i dunno...i guess it's interesting to me to see how deeply misguided true believers - who also considered themselves "liberal" and "enlightened" - can go so wrong... i guess that's high modernism for ya! (see: james c. scott's "seeing like a state")
for earlier posts on the subject of the green revolution and american neo-colonialism, see: https://tilde.zone/@mk30/117136778463835809
#agriculture #history #colonialism #USHistory #GreenRevolution #research
-
at the first international agribusiness conference in 1967: "Senator McGovern termed the War on Hunger “an enlightened society’s substitute for colonialism.”" 😬
He said, “Great powers in the past have extended their defense and economic perimeters by subduing and exploiting peoples, investing their own wealth chiefly in the military might necessary to conquer, police, and defend their empires. We have the opportunity to make investments in productive resources instead of force, to build ourselves allies instead of colonies, and to benefit through trade and the enhanced security within a free world society." 😬
"He continued, “A problem that American enterprise will face in foreign lands is an inevitable suspicion of neocolonialism. It is a suspicion that must be overcome with reasonable capital returns, a dedication to growth with and not at the expense of host countries. Our own government’s backing will be needed for your service through full guarantees against the unusual risk of expropriation and unstable governments, a reasonable sharing of other risks, and supplemental government-to-government programs. These would include food aid and educational programs which will help clear away the impediments to your success.”"
from the June 5, 1967 issue of "foreign agriculture": https://archive.org/details/sim_foreign-agriculture_1967-06-05_5_23/page/8/mode/2up
so according to this, government was very much in favor of clearing the way for american agribusiness to enter developing country markets, and they framed it as "the role of private enterprise in the global war on hunger." did they actually believe that? it's certainly possible. does that change how we should view the impact of what they did? i don't think so. why am i still curious whether they were "true believers"? i dunno...i guess it's interesting to me to see how deeply misguided true believers - who also considered themselves "liberal" and "enlightened" - can go so wrong... i guess that's high modernism for ya! (see: james c. scott's "seeing like a state")
for earlier posts on the subject of the green revolution and american neo-colonialism, see: https://tilde.zone/@mk30/117136778463835809
#agriculture #history #colonialism #USHistory #GreenRevolution #research
-
at the first international agribusiness conference in 1967: "Senator McGovern termed the War on Hunger “an enlightened society’s substitute for colonialism.”" 😬
He said, “Great powers in the past have extended their defense and economic perimeters by subduing and exploiting peoples, investing their own wealth chiefly in the military might necessary to conquer, police, and defend their empires. We have the opportunity to make investments in productive resources instead of force, to build ourselves allies instead of colonies, and to benefit through trade and the enhanced security within a free world society." 😬
"He continued, “A problem that American enterprise will face in foreign lands is an inevitable suspicion of neocolonialism. It is a suspicion that must be overcome with reasonable capital returns, a dedication to growth with and not at the expense of host countries. Our own government’s backing will be needed for your service through full guarantees against the unusual risk of expropriation and unstable governments, a reasonable sharing of other risks, and supplemental government-to-government programs. These would include food aid and educational programs which will help clear away the impediments to your success.”"
from the June 5, 1967 issue of "foreign agriculture": https://archive.org/details/sim_foreign-agriculture_1967-06-05_5_23/page/8/mode/2up
so according to this, government was very much in favor of clearing the way for american agribusiness to enter developing country markets, and they framed it as "the role of private enterprise in the global war on hunger." did they actually believe that? it's certainly possible. does that change how we should view the impact of what they did? i don't think so. why am i still curious whether they were "true believers"? i dunno...i guess it's interesting to me to see how deeply misguided true believers - who also considered themselves "liberal" and "enlightened" - can go so wrong... i guess that's high modernism for ya! (see: james c. scott's "seeing like a state")
for earlier posts on the subject of the green revolution and american neo-colonialism, see: https://tilde.zone/@mk30/117136778463835809
#agriculture #history #colonialism #USHistory #GreenRevolution #research
-
at the first international agribusiness conference in 1967: "Senator McGovern termed the War on Hunger “an enlightened society’s substitute for colonialism.”" 😬
He said, “Great powers in the past have extended their defense and economic perimeters by subduing and exploiting peoples, investing their own wealth chiefly in the military might necessary to conquer, police, and defend their empires. We have the opportunity to make investments in productive resources instead of force, to build ourselves allies instead of colonies, and to benefit through trade and the enhanced security within a free world society." 😬
"He continued, “A problem that American enterprise will face in foreign lands is an inevitable suspicion of neocolonialism. It is a suspicion that must be overcome with reasonable capital returns, a dedication to growth with and not at the expense of host countries. Our own government’s backing will be needed for your service through full guarantees against the unusual risk of expropriation and unstable governments, a reasonable sharing of other risks, and supplemental government-to-government programs. These would include food aid and educational programs which will help clear away the impediments to your success.”"
from the June 5, 1967 issue of "foreign agriculture": https://archive.org/details/sim_foreign-agriculture_1967-06-05_5_23/page/8/mode/2up
so according to this, government was very much in favor of clearing the way for american agribusiness to enter developing country markets, and they framed it as "the role of private enterprise in the global war on hunger." did they actually believe that? it's certainly possible. does that change how we should view the impact of what they did? i don't think so. why am i still curious whether they were "true believers"? i dunno...i guess it's interesting to me to see how deeply misguided true believers - who also considered themselves "liberal" and "enlightened" - can go so wrong... i guess that's high modernism for ya! (see: james c. scott's "seeing like a state")
for earlier posts on the subject of the green revolution and american neo-colonialism, see: https://tilde.zone/@mk30/117136778463835809
#agriculture #history #colonialism #USHistory #GreenRevolution #research
-
at the first international agribusiness conference in 1967: "Senator McGovern termed the War on Hunger “an enlightened society’s substitute for colonialism.”" 😬
He said, “Great powers in the past have extended their defense and economic perimeters by subduing and exploiting peoples, investing their own wealth chiefly in the military might necessary to conquer, police, and defend their empires. We have the opportunity to make investments in productive resources instead of force, to build ourselves allies instead of colonies, and to benefit through trade and the enhanced security within a free world society." 😬
"He continued, “A problem that American enterprise will face in foreign lands is an inevitable suspicion of neocolonialism. It is a suspicion that must be overcome with reasonable capital returns, a dedication to growth with and not at the expense of host countries. Our own government’s backing will be needed for your service through full guarantees against the unusual risk of expropriation and unstable governments, a reasonable sharing of other risks, and supplemental government-to-government programs. These would include food aid and educational programs which will help clear away the impediments to your success.”"
from the June 5, 1967 issue of "foreign agriculture": https://archive.org/details/sim_foreign-agriculture_1967-06-05_5_23/page/8/mode/2up
so according to this, government was very much in favor of clearing the way for american agribusiness to enter developing country markets, and they framed it as "the role of private enterprise in the global war on hunger." did they actually believe that? it's certainly possible. does that change how we should view the impact of what they did? i don't think so. why am i still curious whether they were "true believers"? i dunno...i guess it's interesting to me to see how deeply misguided true believers - who also considered themselves "liberal" and "enlightened" - can go so wrong... i guess that's high modernism for ya! (see: james c. scott's "seeing like a state")
for earlier posts on the subject of the green revolution and american neo-colonialism, see: https://tilde.zone/@mk30/117136778463835809
#agriculture #history #colonialism #USHistory #GreenRevolution #research
-
RE: https://tilde.zone/@mk30/117132242478429832
as i research, i keep trying to be like "but did the americans really actively WANT to make developing countries dependent on agricultural inputs (like fertilizers, patented seeds, and heavy machinery), or were they true believers in modernism and industrial ag?"
they were all certainly capitalists and proponents of markets, economic development, and private enterprise. they wanted developing countries to have market economies for agricultural products - they thought subsistence farming was "backwards" and "primitive". but were they really trying to make these countries dependent, or were they just capitalism true believers?
then i read the text of what johnson made the indians agree to in order to keep receiving food aid in 1965, and it's like "oh ok, nvm, yea they wanted to make them dependent lol.": https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1964-68v25/d253
the very first point is "india agrees to increased fertilizer use targets". india didn't have too many fertilizer plants at the time, so it was basically a commitment to buy foreign fertilizer and/or allow foreign companies to open and operate fertilizer plants in India.
also, it's important to note that "the americans" were not all on the same page. for example, johnson was like a realpolitik guy - he wanted to get something in exchange for giving something. his deputy nat'l security advisor robert komer wanted to "shove the grain revolution down the throat of the indian government", so he was at least the most honest. american agribusiness leaders were salivating at the chance to get into a market as large as india (especially if the US was going to subsidize things like fertilizer purchases!). orville freeman, the head of the USDA at the time, was probably the most liberal one. he was a true believer in scientific ag and also seemed to be truly haunted by the global hunger crisis. he kept pushing for extending food aid without strings attached and apparently pissed off johnson.
anyway, it's probably a lost cause to try and determine the extent to which the american government was like...actively sitting around and thinking "we just have to get these guys hooked on our fertilizers and tractors!". they didn't have to do that in order to create the dependency outcome, which is exactly what happened.
-
RE: https://tilde.zone/@mk30/117132242478429832
as i research, i keep trying to be like "but did the americans really actively WANT to make developing countries dependent on agricultural inputs (like fertilizers, patented seeds, and heavy machinery), or were they true believers in modernism and industrial ag?"
they were all certainly capitalists and proponents of markets, economic development, and private enterprise. they wanted developing countries to have market economies for agricultural products - they thought subsistence farming was "backwards" and "primitive". but were they really trying to make these countries dependent, or were they just capitalism true believers?
then i read the text of what johnson made the indians agree to in order to keep receiving food aid in 1965, and it's like "oh ok, nvm, yea they wanted to make them dependent lol.": https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1964-68v25/d253
the very first point is "india agrees to increased fertilizer use targets". india didn't have too many fertilizer plants at the time, so it was basically a commitment to buy foreign fertilizer and/or allow foreign companies to open and operate fertilizer plants in India.
also, it's important to note that "the americans" were not all on the same page. for example, johnson was like a realpolitik guy - he wanted to get something in exchange for giving something. his deputy nat'l security advisor robert komer wanted to "shove the grain revolution down the throat of the indian government", so he was at least the most honest. american agribusiness leaders were salivating at the chance to get into a market as large as india (especially if the US was going to subsidize things like fertilizer purchases!). orville freeman, the head of the USDA at the time, was probably the most liberal one. he was a true believer in scientific ag and also seemed to be truly haunted by the global hunger crisis. he kept pushing for extending food aid without strings attached and apparently pissed off johnson.
anyway, it's probably a lost cause to try and determine the extent to which the american government was like...actively sitting around and thinking "we just have to get these guys hooked on our fertilizers and tractors!". they didn't have to do that in order to create the dependency outcome, which is exactly what happened.
-
RE: https://tilde.zone/@mk30/117132242478429832
as i research, i keep trying to be like "but did the americans really actively WANT to make developing countries dependent on agricultural inputs (like fertilizers, patented seeds, and heavy machinery), or were they true believers in modernism and industrial ag?"
they were all certainly capitalists and proponents of markets, economic development, and private enterprise. they wanted developing countries to have market economies for agricultural products - they thought subsistence farming was "backwards" and "primitive". but were they really trying to make these countries dependent, or were they just capitalism true believers?
then i read the text of what johnson made the indians agree to in order to keep receiving food aid in 1965, and it's like "oh ok, nvm, yea they wanted to make them dependent lol.": https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1964-68v25/d253
the very first point is "india agrees to increased fertilizer use targets". india didn't have too many fertilizer plants at the time, so it was basically a commitment to buy foreign fertilizer and/or allow foreign companies to open and operate fertilizer plants in India.
also, it's important to note that "the americans" were not all on the same page. for example, johnson was like a realpolitik guy - he wanted to get something in exchange for giving something. his deputy nat'l security advisor robert komer wanted to "shove the grain revolution down the throat of the indian government", so he was at least the most honest. american agribusiness leaders were salivating at the chance to get into a market as large as india (especially if the US was going to subsidize things like fertilizer purchases!). orville freeman, the head of the USDA at the time, was probably the most liberal one. he was a true believer in scientific ag and also seemed to be truly haunted by the global hunger crisis. he kept pushing for extending food aid without strings attached and apparently pissed off johnson.
anyway, it's probably a lost cause to try and determine the extent to which the american government was like...actively sitting around and thinking "we just have to get these guys hooked on our fertilizers and tractors!". they didn't have to do that in order to create the dependency outcome, which is exactly what happened.
-
RE: https://tilde.zone/@mk30/117132242478429832
as i research, i keep trying to be like "but did the americans really actively WANT to make developing countries dependent on agricultural inputs (like fertilizers, patented seeds, and heavy machinery), or were they true believers in modernism and industrial ag?"
they were all certainly capitalists and proponents of markets, economic development, and private enterprise. they wanted developing countries to have market economies for agricultural products - they thought subsistence farming was "backwards" and "primitive". but were they really trying to make these countries dependent, or were they just capitalism true believers?
then i read the text of what johnson made the indians agree to in order to keep receiving food aid in 1965, and it's like "oh ok, nvm, yea they wanted to make them dependent lol.": https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1964-68v25/d253
the very first point is "india agrees to increased fertilizer use targets". india didn't have too many fertilizer plants at the time, so it was basically a commitment to buy foreign fertilizer and/or allow foreign companies to open and operate fertilizer plants in India.
also, it's important to note that "the americans" were not all on the same page. for example, johnson was like a realpolitik guy - he wanted to get something in exchange for giving something. his deputy nat'l security advisor robert komer wanted to "shove the grain revolution down the throat of the indian government", so he was at least the most honest. american agribusiness leaders were salivating at the chance to get into a market as large as india (especially if the US was going to subsidize things like fertilizer purchases!). orville freeman, the head of the USDA at the time, was probably the most liberal one. he was a true believer in scientific ag and also seemed to be truly haunted by the global hunger crisis. he kept pushing for extending food aid without strings attached and apparently pissed off johnson.
anyway, it's probably a lost cause to try and determine the extent to which the american government was like...actively sitting around and thinking "we just have to get these guys hooked on our fertilizers and tractors!". they didn't have to do that in order to create the dependency outcome, which is exactly what happened.
-
RE: https://tilde.zone/@mk30/117132242478429832
as i research, i keep trying to be like "but did the americans really actively WANT to make developing countries dependent on agricultural inputs (like fertilizers, patented seeds, and heavy machinery), or were they true believers in modernism and industrial ag?"
they were all certainly capitalists and proponents of markets, economic development, and private enterprise. they wanted developing countries to have market economies for agricultural products - they thought subsistence farming was "backwards" and "primitive". but were they really trying to make these countries dependent, or were they just capitalism true believers?
then i read the text of what johnson made the indians agree to in order to keep receiving food aid in 1965, and it's like "oh ok, nvm, yea they wanted to make them dependent lol.": https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1964-68v25/d253
the very first point is "india agrees to increased fertilizer use targets". india didn't have too many fertilizer plants at the time, so it was basically a commitment to buy foreign fertilizer and/or allow foreign companies to open and operate fertilizer plants in India.
also, it's important to note that "the americans" were not all on the same page. for example, johnson was like a realpolitik guy - he wanted to get something in exchange for giving something. his deputy nat'l security advisor robert komer wanted to "shove the grain revolution down the throat of the indian government", so he was at least the most honest. american agribusiness leaders were salivating at the chance to get into a market as large as india (especially if the US was going to subsidize things like fertilizer purchases!). orville freeman, the head of the USDA at the time, was probably the most liberal one. he was a true believer in scientific ag and also seemed to be truly haunted by the global hunger crisis. he kept pushing for extending food aid without strings attached and apparently pissed off johnson.
anyway, it's probably a lost cause to try and determine the extent to which the american government was like...actively sitting around and thinking "we just have to get these guys hooked on our fertilizers and tractors!". they didn't have to do that in order to create the dependency outcome, which is exactly what happened.
-
today in "updates from my WIP industrial ag mega-zine," we have an interesting quote from C. Subramaniam, the indian minister for food and agriculture during the green revolution period in the mid-60s:
"Unfortunately, it has to be recognised that America gives generously but does not know how to give. I reached the conclusion that they would give and still create a feeling of enmity."
here he was referring to president johnson's changes to PL-480, the major US food aid program during the 60s. johnson thought that america wasn't getting "enough" from india in exchange for all the (surplus!) grain america was sending to them, so he changed the policy to a month-to-month vs annual program, and also insisted on reforms to india's agricultural policy. these reforms included "giving price incentives to producers, increasing fertilizer production under private auspices, and bringing more acreage under irrigation."* in other words, it was a "modernization package".
robert komer, johnson's deputy national security advisor, "quipped, the United States was the only nation equipped to "force the grain revolution down the throats of the Indian Government." (from: "machiavelli with a heart" by kristin l. ahlberg)
in "Ideas, Interest and Institutions in Policy Change: Transformation of India's Agricultural Strategy in the Mid-1960s " by Ashutosh Varshney (in which he conducted extensive interviews with Subramaniam), the author writes that america's hard push for an agricultural modernization policy change in india was like "leaning against an open door."
he quotes Subramaniam: "Johnson always had a sense of self-importance. If anything good or important was happening in the world, it should be a Johnson initiative ... he thought the Indian farmer, the Indian minister and the Indian scientist were not adequate, and that he should take a hand in the initiation of this strategy. He reiterated in speeches that India should adopt this new technology, which, as a matter of fact, created problems for me in India. The speeches gave ammunition to those who were attacking me on the grounds that I was following American advice... We had already announced and taken these steps and I had to tell people that President Johnson was telling us nothing new."
this is all very interesting to me, because it complicates the story that the green revolution was 100% foisted on the indians, when in reality, indian agricultural leadership was already on board with the modernization program. if anyone had it foisted on them, it's the indian farmer and the indian consumer.
anyway, the initial quote jumped out to me because it's such an excellent description of a lot of america's foreign "assistance": they can give, but they'll humiliate you in the process, and leave a bitter taste in your mouth...all because they want to be seen as "the big man" who "gives generously to the poors".
any of us who have been paying attention to the disastrous actions of the current american administration can see all the same dynamics in place...
* this quote is also from "Ideas, Interest and Institutions in Policy Change: Transformation of India's Agricultural Strategy in the Mid-1960s " by Ashutosh Varshney
#GreenRevolution #history #india #agriculture #research #USHistory
-
today in "updates from my WIP industrial ag mega-zine," we have an interesting quote from C. Subramaniam, the indian minister for food and agriculture during the green revolution period in the mid-60s:
"Unfortunately, it has to be recognised that America gives generously but does not know how to give. I reached the conclusion that they would give and still create a feeling of enmity."
here he was referring to president johnson's changes to PL-480, the major US food aid program during the 60s. johnson thought that america wasn't getting "enough" from india in exchange for all the (surplus!) grain america was sending to them, so he changed the policy to a month-to-month vs annual program, and also insisted on reforms to india's agricultural policy. these reforms included "giving price incentives to producers, increasing fertilizer production under private auspices, and bringing more acreage under irrigation."* in other words, it was a "modernization package".
robert komer, johnson's deputy national security advisor, "quipped, the United States was the only nation equipped to "force the grain revolution down the throats of the Indian Government." (from: "machiavelli with a heart" by kristin l. ahlberg)
in "Ideas, Interest and Institutions in Policy Change: Transformation of India's Agricultural Strategy in the Mid-1960s " by Ashutosh Varshney (in which he conducted extensive interviews with Subramaniam), the author writes that america's hard push for an agricultural modernization policy change in india was like "leaning against an open door."
he quotes Subramaniam: "Johnson always had a sense of self-importance. If anything good or important was happening in the world, it should be a Johnson initiative ... he thought the Indian farmer, the Indian minister and the Indian scientist were not adequate, and that he should take a hand in the initiation of this strategy. He reiterated in speeches that India should adopt this new technology, which, as a matter of fact, created problems for me in India. The speeches gave ammunition to those who were attacking me on the grounds that I was following American advice... We had already announced and taken these steps and I had to tell people that President Johnson was telling us nothing new."
this is all very interesting to me, because it complicates the story that the green revolution was 100% foisted on the indians, when in reality, indian agricultural leadership was already on board with the modernization program. if anyone had it foisted on them, it's the indian farmer and the indian consumer.
anyway, the initial quote jumped out to me because it's such an excellent description of a lot of america's foreign "assistance": they can give, but they'll humiliate you in the process, and leave a bitter taste in your mouth...all because they want to be seen as "the big man" who "gives generously to the poors".
any of us who have been paying attention to the disastrous actions of the current american administration can see all the same dynamics in place...
* this quote is also from "Ideas, Interest and Institutions in Policy Change: Transformation of India's Agricultural Strategy in the Mid-1960s " by Ashutosh Varshney
#GreenRevolution #history #india #agriculture #research #USHistory
-
today in "updates from my WIP industrial ag mega-zine," we have an interesting quote from C. Subramaniam, the indian minister for food and agriculture during the green revolution period in the mid-60s:
"Unfortunately, it has to be recognised that America gives generously but does not know how to give. I reached the conclusion that they would give and still create a feeling of enmity."
here he was referring to president johnson's changes to PL-480, the major US food aid program during the 60s. johnson thought that america wasn't getting "enough" from india in exchange for all the (surplus!) grain america was sending to them, so he changed the policy to a month-to-month vs annual program, and also insisted on reforms to india's agricultural policy. these reforms included "giving price incentives to producers, increasing fertilizer production under private auspices, and bringing more acreage under irrigation."* in other words, it was a "modernization package".
robert komer, johnson's deputy national security advisor, "quipped, the United States was the only nation equipped to "force the grain revolution down the throats of the Indian Government." (from: "machiavelli with a heart" by kristin l. ahlberg)
in "Ideas, Interest and Institutions in Policy Change: Transformation of India's Agricultural Strategy in the Mid-1960s " by Ashutosh Varshney (in which he conducted extensive interviews with Subramaniam), the author writes that america's hard push for an agricultural modernization policy change in india was like "leaning against an open door."
he quotes Subramaniam: "Johnson always had a sense of self-importance. If anything good or important was happening in the world, it should be a Johnson initiative ... he thought the Indian farmer, the Indian minister and the Indian scientist were not adequate, and that he should take a hand in the initiation of this strategy. He reiterated in speeches that India should adopt this new technology, which, as a matter of fact, created problems for me in India. The speeches gave ammunition to those who were attacking me on the grounds that I was following American advice... We had already announced and taken these steps and I had to tell people that President Johnson was telling us nothing new."
this is all very interesting to me, because it complicates the story that the green revolution was 100% foisted on the indians, when in reality, indian agricultural leadership was already on board with the modernization program. if anyone had it foisted on them, it's the indian farmer and the indian consumer.
anyway, the initial quote jumped out to me because it's such an excellent description of a lot of america's foreign "assistance": they can give, but they'll humiliate you in the process, and leave a bitter taste in your mouth...all because they want to be seen as "the big man" who "gives generously to the poors".
any of us who have been paying attention to the disastrous actions of the current american administration can see all the same dynamics in place...
* this quote is also from "Ideas, Interest and Institutions in Policy Change: Transformation of India's Agricultural Strategy in the Mid-1960s " by Ashutosh Varshney
#GreenRevolution #history #india #agriculture #research #USHistory
-
today in "updates from my WIP industrial ag mega-zine," we have an interesting quote from C. Subramaniam, the indian minister for food and agriculture during the green revolution period in the mid-60s:
"Unfortunately, it has to be recognised that America gives generously but does not know how to give. I reached the conclusion that they would give and still create a feeling of enmity."
here he was referring to president johnson's changes to PL-480, the major US food aid program during the 60s. johnson thought that america wasn't getting "enough" from india in exchange for all the (surplus!) grain america was sending to them, so he changed the policy to a month-to-month vs annual program, and also insisted on reforms to india's agricultural policy. these reforms included "giving price incentives to producers, increasing fertilizer production under private auspices, and bringing more acreage under irrigation."* in other words, it was a "modernization package".
robert komer, johnson's deputy national security advisor, "quipped, the United States was the only nation equipped to "force the grain revolution down the throats of the Indian Government." (from: "machiavelli with a heart" by kristin l. ahlberg)
in "Ideas, Interest and Institutions in Policy Change: Transformation of India's Agricultural Strategy in the Mid-1960s " by Ashutosh Varshney (in which he conducted extensive interviews with Subramaniam), the author writes that america's hard push for an agricultural modernization policy change in india was like "leaning against an open door."
he quotes Subramaniam: "Johnson always had a sense of self-importance. If anything good or important was happening in the world, it should be a Johnson initiative ... he thought the Indian farmer, the Indian minister and the Indian scientist were not adequate, and that he should take a hand in the initiation of this strategy. He reiterated in speeches that India should adopt this new technology, which, as a matter of fact, created problems for me in India. The speeches gave ammunition to those who were attacking me on the grounds that I was following American advice... We had already announced and taken these steps and I had to tell people that President Johnson was telling us nothing new."
this is all very interesting to me, because it complicates the story that the green revolution was 100% foisted on the indians, when in reality, indian agricultural leadership was already on board with the modernization program. if anyone had it foisted on them, it's the indian farmer and the indian consumer.
anyway, the initial quote jumped out to me because it's such an excellent description of a lot of america's foreign "assistance": they can give, but they'll humiliate you in the process, and leave a bitter taste in your mouth...all because they want to be seen as "the big man" who "gives generously to the poors".
any of us who have been paying attention to the disastrous actions of the current american administration can see all the same dynamics in place...
* this quote is also from "Ideas, Interest and Institutions in Policy Change: Transformation of India's Agricultural Strategy in the Mid-1960s " by Ashutosh Varshney
#GreenRevolution #history #india #agriculture #research #USHistory
-
today in "updates from my WIP industrial ag mega-zine," we have an interesting quote from C. Subramaniam, the indian minister for food and agriculture during the green revolution period in the mid-60s:
"Unfortunately, it has to be recognised that America gives generously but does not know how to give. I reached the conclusion that they would give and still create a feeling of enmity."
here he was referring to president johnson's changes to PL-480, the major US food aid program during the 60s. johnson thought that america wasn't getting "enough" from india in exchange for all the (surplus!) grain america was sending to them, so he changed the policy to a month-to-month vs annual program, and also insisted on reforms to india's agricultural policy. these reforms included "giving price incentives to producers, increasing fertilizer production under private auspices, and bringing more acreage under irrigation."* in other words, it was a "modernization package".
robert komer, johnson's deputy national security advisor, "quipped, the United States was the only nation equipped to "force the grain revolution down the throats of the Indian Government." (from: "machiavelli with a heart" by kristin l. ahlberg)
in "Ideas, Interest and Institutions in Policy Change: Transformation of India's Agricultural Strategy in the Mid-1960s " by Ashutosh Varshney (in which he conducted extensive interviews with Subramaniam), the author writes that america's hard push for an agricultural modernization policy change in india was like "leaning against an open door."
he quotes Subramaniam: "Johnson always had a sense of self-importance. If anything good or important was happening in the world, it should be a Johnson initiative ... he thought the Indian farmer, the Indian minister and the Indian scientist were not adequate, and that he should take a hand in the initiation of this strategy. He reiterated in speeches that India should adopt this new technology, which, as a matter of fact, created problems for me in India. The speeches gave ammunition to those who were attacking me on the grounds that I was following American advice... We had already announced and taken these steps and I had to tell people that President Johnson was telling us nothing new."
this is all very interesting to me, because it complicates the story that the green revolution was 100% foisted on the indians, when in reality, indian agricultural leadership was already on board with the modernization program. if anyone had it foisted on them, it's the indian farmer and the indian consumer.
anyway, the initial quote jumped out to me because it's such an excellent description of a lot of america's foreign "assistance": they can give, but they'll humiliate you in the process, and leave a bitter taste in your mouth...all because they want to be seen as "the big man" who "gives generously to the poors".
any of us who have been paying attention to the disastrous actions of the current american administration can see all the same dynamics in place...
* this quote is also from "Ideas, Interest and Institutions in Policy Change: Transformation of India's Agricultural Strategy in the Mid-1960s " by Ashutosh Varshney
#GreenRevolution #history #india #agriculture #research #USHistory
-
i feel confident in recommending nick cullather's "The Hungry World: America’s Cold War Battle against Poverty in Asia" as the best overall history of the green revolution that i've read over the course of my research for the green revolution part of my WIP industrial ag mega-zine.
it provides an excellent history of what happened between the US and India, and the complicated story of the green revolution's outcomes.
in the intro, he writes that he set out to try and tell the story of the green revolution, and as soon as he started doing research, he realized that almost every part of the standard story became revised in his mind. this is my experience as well.
https://www.hup.harvard.edu/books/9780674725812
#history #research #GreenRevolution #USHistory #development #ColdWar #books #bookstodon #agriculture
-
i feel confident in recommending nick cullather's "The Hungry World: America’s Cold War Battle against Poverty in Asia" as the best overall history of the green revolution that i've read over the course of my research for the green revolution part of my WIP industrial ag mega-zine.
it provides an excellent history of what happened between the US and India, and the complicated story of the green revolution's outcomes.
in the intro, he writes that he set out to try and tell the story of the green revolution, and as soon as he started doing research, he realized that almost every part of the standard story became revised in his mind. this is my experience as well.
https://www.hup.harvard.edu/books/9780674725812
#history #research #GreenRevolution #USHistory #development #ColdWar #books #bookstodon #agriculture
-
i feel confident in recommending nick cullather's "The Hungry World: America’s Cold War Battle against Poverty in Asia" as the best overall history of the green revolution that i've read over the course of my research for the green revolution part of my WIP industrial ag mega-zine.
it provides an excellent history of what happened between the US and India, and the complicated story of the green revolution's outcomes.
in the intro, he writes that he set out to try and tell the story of the green revolution, and as soon as he started doing research, he realized that almost every part of the standard story became revised in his mind. this is my experience as well.
https://www.hup.harvard.edu/books/9780674725812
#history #research #GreenRevolution #USHistory #development #ColdWar #books #bookstodon #agriculture
-
i feel confident in recommending nick cullather's "The Hungry World: America’s Cold War Battle against Poverty in Asia" as the best overall history of the green revolution that i've read over the course of my research for the green revolution part of my WIP industrial ag mega-zine.
it provides an excellent history of what happened between the US and India, and the complicated story of the green revolution's outcomes.
in the intro, he writes that he set out to try and tell the story of the green revolution, and as soon as he started doing research, he realized that almost every part of the standard story became revised in his mind. this is my experience as well.
https://www.hup.harvard.edu/books/9780674725812
#history #research #GreenRevolution #USHistory #development #ColdWar #books #bookstodon #agriculture
-
i feel confident in recommending nick cullather's "The Hungry World: America’s Cold War Battle against Poverty in Asia" as the best overall history of the green revolution that i've read over the course of my research for the green revolution part of my WIP industrial ag mega-zine.
it provides an excellent history of what happened between the US and India, and the complicated story of the green revolution's outcomes.
in the intro, he writes that he set out to try and tell the story of the green revolution, and as soon as he started doing research, he realized that almost every part of the standard story became revised in his mind. this is my experience as well.
https://www.hup.harvard.edu/books/9780674725812
#history #research #GreenRevolution #USHistory #development #ColdWar #books #bookstodon #agriculture
-
update on WIP industrial ag mega-zine:
i'm so deep in the weeds on the green revolution that i'm reading about the agrarian development model of C. Subramaniam, India's Food and Ag Minister from 1964-66:
"Subramaniam's agrarian model can be divided up in three components: the economic, the technological and the organizational. The economic component consisted in the view that price incentives would motivate farmers to produce more since it would be profitable to do so. Technology was required since acreage expansion had reached its limits, making production increases dependent on yields per acre. And organizational effort was needed because in order for the first two components to work, institutions had to be created for determining what the level of prices should be and how to implement them. Also necessary was a research and administrative structure that would generate or adapt appropriate, yield-increasing technologies and transmit them to farmers."
this is from a paper called "Ideas, Interest and Institutions in Policy Change: Transformation of India's Agricultural Strategy in the Mid-1960s" by Ashutosh Varshney, published in 1989.
this paper argues that it wasn't the technology of the green revolution per se that led to increased agricultural yields in india starting in the late 60s, but the state's reorientation of its agricultural policy to the goal of improving yields via technology and to the use of price policies to shape agriculture (over previous strategies which were more oriented around redistribution of land and creation of farmer co-ops).
i gotta say, as someone who gets interested in the complexities of how societies change, the green revolution is a fascinating (if exhausting) subject to research. the scholarship is bottomless, and i'm still only focused on india. the green revolution was different in every country that experienced it.
anyway, people say one is "in the weeds" as if one is lost, but most weeds i know need one to get down on the ground and pull them up by their roots if one wants to really get at the problem. so that's what i'm doing: really trying to understand.
while i'm researching, i'm thinking about what information i'll present in the zine and how it will be organized. currently, i'm thinking it might be interesting to have a spread that contrasts elements of the "standard story of the green revolution" with the actual complexities of each of those elements. examples of the elements of the standard story are claims like "there was famine in india before the green revolution", "india's agriculture before the green revolution was backward", "the green revolution increased agricultural yields", "the green revolution solved hunger in india", and "the US developed the improved wheat and rice varieties that were central to the green revolution in order to address global hunger." each one of those is an extremely complicated question with loads of scholarship that continues to this day. instead of trying to "prove/disprove" each claim, i think that instead i'll try to point to information that complicates the story to the point where the reader understands that the simplistic story is simply inadequate. we'll see.
(addendum: further elements of the "standard" green revolution story include less-obvious assumptions like "the government of india was bumbling and just sitting on its hands while its agriculture stayed stagnant" (extremely untrue - members of the government were extremely sophisticated actors who took their country's agricultural situation extremely seriously, and who had in fact already increased yields significantly since partition), and "america foisted the agricultural revolution on india" (also somewhat untrue - although the government *was* influenced by the west, it was very interested in the western agricultural program. it's possible to say that the system was foisted on india's farmers, but not on the government). other elements of the "standard" story: "indian agriculture was unchanged for centuries", and "indian peasants didn't know how to farm." anyway, i really want to challenge the major theme of the standard story, which is that "the poor, backwards indians were saved by the generous and technologically-advanced west.")
-
update on WIP industrial ag mega-zine:
i'm so deep in the weeds on the green revolution that i'm reading about the agrarian development model of C. Subramaniam, India's Food and Ag Minister from 1964-66:
"Subramaniam's agrarian model can be divided up in three components: the economic, the technological and the organizational. The economic component consisted in the view that price incentives would motivate farmers to produce more since it would be profitable to do so. Technology was required since acreage expansion had reached its limits, making production increases dependent on yields per acre. And organizational effort was needed because in order for the first two components to work, institutions had to be created for determining what the level of prices should be and how to implement them. Also necessary was a research and administrative structure that would generate or adapt appropriate, yield-increasing technologies and transmit them to farmers."
this is from a paper called "Ideas, Interest and Institutions in Policy Change: Transformation of India's Agricultural Strategy in the Mid-1960s" by Ashutosh Varshney, published in 1989.
this paper argues that it wasn't the technology of the green revolution per se that led to increased agricultural yields in india starting in the late 60s, but the state's reorientation of its agricultural policy to the goal of improving yields via technology and to the use of price policies to shape agriculture (over previous strategies which were more oriented around redistribution of land and creation of farmer co-ops).
i gotta say, as someone who gets interested in the complexities of how societies change, the green revolution is a fascinating (if exhausting) subject to research. the scholarship is bottomless, and i'm still only focused on india. the green revolution was different in every country that experienced it.
anyway, people say one is "in the weeds" as if one is lost, but most weeds i know need one to get down on the ground and pull them up by their roots if one wants to really get at the problem. so that's what i'm doing: really trying to understand.
while i'm researching, i'm thinking about what information i'll present in the zine and how it will be organized. currently, i'm thinking it might be interesting to have a spread that contrasts elements of the "standard story of the green revolution" with the actual complexities of each of those elements. examples of the elements of the standard story are claims like "there was famine in india before the green revolution", "india's agriculture before the green revolution was backward", "the green revolution increased agricultural yields", "the green revolution solved hunger in india", and "the US developed the improved wheat and rice varieties that were central to the green revolution in order to address global hunger." each one of those is an extremely complicated question with loads of scholarship that continues to this day. instead of trying to "prove/disprove" each claim, i think that instead i'll try to point to information that complicates the story to the point where the reader understands that the simplistic story is simply inadequate. we'll see.
(addendum: further elements of the "standard" green revolution story include less-obvious assumptions like "the government of india was bumbling and just sitting on its hands while its agriculture stayed stagnant" (extremely untrue - members of the government were extremely sophisticated actors who took their country's agricultural situation extremely seriously, and who had in fact already increased yields significantly since partition), and "america foisted the agricultural revolution on india" (also somewhat untrue - although the government *was* influenced by the west, it was very interested in the western agricultural program. it's possible to say that the system was foisted on india's farmers, but not on the government). other elements of the "standard" story: "indian agriculture was unchanged for centuries", and "indian peasants didn't know how to farm." anyway, i really want to challenge the major theme of the standard story, which is that "the poor, backwards indians were saved by the generous and technologically-advanced west.")
-
update on WIP industrial ag mega-zine:
i'm so deep in the weeds on the green revolution that i'm reading about the agrarian development model of C. Subramaniam, India's Food and Ag Minister from 1964-66:
"Subramaniam's agrarian model can be divided up in three components: the economic, the technological and the organizational. The economic component consisted in the view that price incentives would motivate farmers to produce more since it would be profitable to do so. Technology was required since acreage expansion had reached its limits, making production increases dependent on yields per acre. And organizational effort was needed because in order for the first two components to work, institutions had to be created for determining what the level of prices should be and how to implement them. Also necessary was a research and administrative structure that would generate or adapt appropriate, yield-increasing technologies and transmit them to farmers."
this is from a paper called "Ideas, Interest and Institutions in Policy Change: Transformation of India's Agricultural Strategy in the Mid-1960s" by Ashutosh Varshney, published in 1989.
this paper argues that it wasn't the technology of the green revolution per se that led to increased agricultural yields in india starting in the late 60s, but the state's reorientation of its agricultural policy to the goal of improving yields via technology and to the use of price policies to shape agriculture (over previous strategies which were more oriented around redistribution of land and creation of farmer co-ops).
i gotta say, as someone who gets interested in the complexities of how societies change, the green revolution is a fascinating (if exhausting) subject to research. the scholarship is bottomless, and i'm still only focused on india. the green revolution was different in every country that experienced it.
anyway, people say one is "in the weeds" as if one is lost, but most weeds i know need one to get down on the ground and pull them up by their roots if one wants to really get at the problem. so that's what i'm doing: really trying to understand.
while i'm researching, i'm thinking about what information i'll present in the zine and how it will be organized. currently, i'm thinking it might be interesting to have a spread that contrasts elements of the "standard story of the green revolution" with the actual complexities of each of those elements. examples of the elements of the standard story are claims like "there was famine in india before the green revolution", "india's agriculture before the green revolution was backward", "the green revolution increased agricultural yields", "the green revolution solved hunger in india", and "the US developed the improved wheat and rice varieties that were central to the green revolution in order to address global hunger." each one of those is an extremely complicated question with loads of scholarship that continues to this day. instead of trying to "prove/disprove" each claim, i think that instead i'll try to point to information that complicates the story to the point where the reader understands that the simplistic story is simply inadequate. we'll see.
(addendum: further elements of the "standard" green revolution story include less-obvious assumptions like "the government of india was bumbling and just sitting on its hands while its agriculture stayed stagnant" (extremely untrue - members of the government were extremely sophisticated actors who took their country's agricultural situation extremely seriously, and who had in fact already increased yields significantly since partition), and "america foisted the agricultural revolution on india" (also somewhat untrue - although the government *was* influenced by the west, it was very interested in the western agricultural program. it's possible to say that the system was foisted on india's farmers, but not on the government). other elements of the "standard" story: "indian agriculture was unchanged for centuries", and "indian peasants didn't know how to farm." anyway, i really want to challenge the major theme of the standard story, which is that "the poor, backwards indians were saved by the generous and technologically-advanced west.")
-
update on WIP industrial ag mega-zine:
i'm so deep in the weeds on the green revolution that i'm reading about the agrarian development model of C. Subramaniam, India's Food and Ag Minister from 1964-66:
"Subramaniam's agrarian model can be divided up in three components: the economic, the technological and the organizational. The economic component consisted in the view that price incentives would motivate farmers to produce more since it would be profitable to do so. Technology was required since acreage expansion had reached its limits, making production increases dependent on yields per acre. And organizational effort was needed because in order for the first two components to work, institutions had to be created for determining what the level of prices should be and how to implement them. Also necessary was a research and administrative structure that would generate or adapt appropriate, yield-increasing technologies and transmit them to farmers."
this is from a paper called "Ideas, Interest and Institutions in Policy Change: Transformation of India's Agricultural Strategy in the Mid-1960s" by Ashutosh Varshney, published in 1989.
this paper argues that it wasn't the technology of the green revolution per se that led to increased agricultural yields in india starting in the late 60s, but the state's reorientation of its agricultural policy to the goal of improving yields via technology and to the use of price policies to shape agriculture (over previous strategies which were more oriented around redistribution of land and creation of farmer co-ops).
i gotta say, as someone who gets interested in the complexities of how societies change, the green revolution is a fascinating (if exhausting) subject to research. the scholarship is bottomless, and i'm still only focused on india. the green revolution was different in every country that experienced it.
anyway, people say one is "in the weeds" as if one is lost, but most weeds i know need one to get down on the ground and pull them up by their roots if one wants to really get at the problem. so that's what i'm doing: really trying to understand.
while i'm researching, i'm thinking about what information i'll present in the zine and how it will be organized. currently, i'm thinking it might be interesting to have a spread that contrasts elements of the "standard story of the green revolution" with the actual complexities of each of those elements. examples of the elements of the standard story are claims like "there was famine in india before the green revolution", "india's agriculture before the green revolution was backward", "the green revolution increased agricultural yields", "the green revolution solved hunger in india", and "the US developed the improved wheat and rice varieties that were central to the green revolution in order to address global hunger." each one of those is an extremely complicated question with loads of scholarship that continues to this day. instead of trying to "prove/disprove" each claim, i think that instead i'll try to point to information that complicates the story to the point where the reader understands that the simplistic story is simply inadequate. we'll see.
(addendum: further elements of the "standard" green revolution story include less-obvious assumptions like "the government of india was bumbling and just sitting on its hands while its agriculture stayed stagnant" (extremely untrue - members of the government were extremely sophisticated actors who took their country's agricultural situation extremely seriously, and who had in fact already increased yields significantly since partition), and "america foisted the agricultural revolution on india" (also somewhat untrue - although the government *was* influenced by the west, it was very interested in the western agricultural program. it's possible to say that the system was foisted on india's farmers, but not on the government). other elements of the "standard" story: "indian agriculture was unchanged for centuries", and "indian peasants didn't know how to farm." anyway, i really want to challenge the major theme of the standard story, which is that "the poor, backwards indians were saved by the generous and technologically-advanced west.")
-
update on WIP industrial ag mega-zine:
i'm so deep in the weeds on the green revolution that i'm reading about the agrarian development model of C. Subramaniam, India's Food and Ag Minister from 1964-66:
"Subramaniam's agrarian model can be divided up in three components: the economic, the technological and the organizational. The economic component consisted in the view that price incentives would motivate farmers to produce more since it would be profitable to do so. Technology was required since acreage expansion had reached its limits, making production increases dependent on yields per acre. And organizational effort was needed because in order for the first two components to work, institutions had to be created for determining what the level of prices should be and how to implement them. Also necessary was a research and administrative structure that would generate or adapt appropriate, yield-increasing technologies and transmit them to farmers."
this is from a paper called "Ideas, Interest and Institutions in Policy Change: Transformation of India's Agricultural Strategy in the Mid-1960s" by Ashutosh Varshney, published in 1989.
this paper argues that it wasn't the technology of the green revolution per se that led to increased agricultural yields in india starting in the late 60s, but the state's reorientation of its agricultural policy to the goal of improving yields via technology and to the use of price policies to shape agriculture (over previous strategies which were more oriented around redistribution of land and creation of farmer co-ops).
i gotta say, as someone who gets interested in the complexities of how societies change, the green revolution is a fascinating (if exhausting) subject to research. the scholarship is bottomless, and i'm still only focused on india. the green revolution was different in every country that experienced it.
anyway, people say one is "in the weeds" as if one is lost, but most weeds i know need one to get down on the ground and pull them up by their roots if one wants to really get at the problem. so that's what i'm doing: really trying to understand.
while i'm researching, i'm thinking about what information i'll present in the zine and how it will be organized. currently, i'm thinking it might be interesting to have a spread that contrasts elements of the "standard story of the green revolution" with the actual complexities of each of those elements. examples of the elements of the standard story are claims like "there was famine in india before the green revolution", "india's agriculture before the green revolution was backward", "the green revolution increased agricultural yields", "the green revolution solved hunger in india", and "the US developed the improved wheat and rice varieties that were central to the green revolution in order to address global hunger." each one of those is an extremely complicated question with loads of scholarship that continues to this day. instead of trying to "prove/disprove" each claim, i think that instead i'll try to point to information that complicates the story to the point where the reader understands that the simplistic story is simply inadequate. we'll see.
(addendum: further elements of the "standard" green revolution story include less-obvious assumptions like "the government of india was bumbling and just sitting on its hands while its agriculture stayed stagnant" (extremely untrue - members of the government were extremely sophisticated actors who took their country's agricultural situation extremely seriously, and who had in fact already increased yields significantly since partition), and "america foisted the agricultural revolution on india" (also somewhat untrue - although the government *was* influenced by the west, it was very interested in the western agricultural program. it's possible to say that the system was foisted on india's farmers, but not on the government). other elements of the "standard" story: "indian agriculture was unchanged for centuries", and "indian peasants didn't know how to farm." anyway, i really want to challenge the major theme of the standard story, which is that "the poor, backwards indians were saved by the generous and technologically-advanced west.")
-
update on my WIP mega-zine about industrial ag:
i think i've had a good breakthrough in my research on the green revolution.
the book is called "Geopolitics and the Green Revolution: Wheat, Genes, and the Cold War" by john h. perkins.
he covers the scientific development of the dwarf varieties of wheat in USA, mexico, UK, and india; and the spread of these varieties that is commonly referred to as the green revolution.
he writes: "Between 1945 and 1955 a series of events, studies, and conceptual syntheses created a climate in the United States that saw plant breeding and all of the modern agricultural sciences as a critically important adjunct in the battle between capitalist freedom and the tyranny of communism."
he spells out the theory that they were operating under: "The American intellectual and political climate from 1945 to 1955 was critically shaped by the development of the cold war, a part of which included a theory that purported to link causally overpopulation, resource exhaustion, hunger, political instability, communist insurrection, and danger to vital American interests. As a convenient shorthand, the theory can be called the population-national security theory (PNST)." 🤯
i read that and i was like "yesssssss this is it".
he even made a nice little graphic (see below).
i've been reading a lot of primary sources, and PNST thinking was in a lot of them, but having a historian lay it out so clearly and succinctly is soooo helpful.
additionally, i found the full text of a speech by allen dulles (head of the CIA at the time) on "the communist challenge to free government." it's a rich example of the kind of paranoid thinking that was happening at the top of the US political structure at the time. in the speech, he asserts that communists are everywhere, trying to turn the various recently-decolonized peoples toward communism...soviets put out propaganda on the radio, via printed materials, and *secretly* via various unions and international associations, and via the world peace council.
he writes that communism is (of course) not very enticing to those of us in the free world, because of our material plenty and our forefathers' commitment to liberty or whatever. BUT, to a subject of a newly-decolonized nation, who is hungry and desperately trying to catch up to the modern world, communism is very appealing (supposedly). 🙄
the whole speech really helped me get inside the thinking that i think perkins would describe as PNST. i don't know if any quotes from the dulles speech will make it into the zine (if i have room, hopefully!), but it's still a really helpful primary source (i like a good primary source).
if you want to read the text of the dulles speech, it's available here: archive.org/details/cia-readingroom-document-cia-rdp62s00545a000100090040-3
as a bonus, i've included the cover of a publication called "man, land, and food", from USDA in 1963. yes, it shows a rough graphic of a naked black person holding up an empty bowl, with a graphic of the globe behind them. so yea, that's where these guys were at. they saw the recently decolonized peoples as a sort of undifferentiated mass of hungry mouths. extremely dehumanizing.
#USHistory #research #GreenRevolution #agriculture #ColdWar #AgriculturalScience #USPol #history #decolonization #wheat #wip
-
update on my WIP mega-zine about industrial ag:
i think i've had a good breakthrough in my research on the green revolution.
the book is called "Geopolitics and the Green Revolution: Wheat, Genes, and the Cold War" by john h. perkins.
he covers the scientific development of the dwarf varieties of wheat in USA, mexico, UK, and india; and the spread of these varieties that is commonly referred to as the green revolution.
he writes: "Between 1945 and 1955 a series of events, studies, and conceptual syntheses created a climate in the United States that saw plant breeding and all of the modern agricultural sciences as a critically important adjunct in the battle between capitalist freedom and the tyranny of communism."
he spells out the theory that they were operating under: "The American intellectual and political climate from 1945 to 1955 was critically shaped by the development of the cold war, a part of which included a theory that purported to link causally overpopulation, resource exhaustion, hunger, political instability, communist insurrection, and danger to vital American interests. As a convenient shorthand, the theory can be called the population-national security theory (PNST)." 🤯
i read that and i was like "yesssssss this is it".
he even made a nice little graphic (see below).
i've been reading a lot of primary sources, and PNST thinking was in a lot of them, but having a historian lay it out so clearly and succinctly is soooo helpful.
additionally, i found the full text of a speech by allen dulles (head of the CIA at the time) on "the communist challenge to free government." it's a rich example of the kind of paranoid thinking that was happening at the top of the US political structure at the time. in the speech, he asserts that communists are everywhere, trying to turn the various recently-decolonized peoples toward communism...soviets put out propaganda on the radio, via printed materials, and *secretly* via various unions and international associations, and via the world peace council.
he writes that communism is (of course) not very enticing to those of us in the free world, because of our material plenty and our forefathers' commitment to liberty or whatever. BUT, to a subject of a newly-decolonized nation, who is hungry and desperately trying to catch up to the modern world, communism is very appealing (supposedly). 🙄
the whole speech really helped me get inside the thinking that i think perkins would describe as PNST. i don't know if any quotes from the dulles speech will make it into the zine (if i have room, hopefully!), but it's still a really helpful primary source (i like a good primary source).
if you want to read the text of the dulles speech, it's available here: archive.org/details/cia-readingroom-document-cia-rdp62s00545a000100090040-3
as a bonus, i've included the cover of a publication called "man, land, and food", from USDA in 1963. yes, it shows a rough graphic of a naked black person holding up an empty bowl, with a graphic of the globe behind them. so yea, that's where these guys were at. they saw the recently decolonized peoples as a sort of undifferentiated mass of hungry mouths. extremely dehumanizing.
#USHistory #research #GreenRevolution #agriculture #ColdWar #AgriculturalScience #USPol #history #decolonization #wheat #wip
-
update on my WIP mega-zine about industrial ag:
i think i've had a good breakthrough in my research on the green revolution.
the book is called "Geopolitics and the Green Revolution: Wheat, Genes, and the Cold War" by john h. perkins.
he covers the scientific development of the dwarf varieties of wheat in USA, mexico, UK, and india; and the spread of these varieties that is commonly referred to as the green revolution.
he writes: "Between 1945 and 1955 a series of events, studies, and conceptual syntheses created a climate in the United States that saw plant breeding and all of the modern agricultural sciences as a critically important adjunct in the battle between capitalist freedom and the tyranny of communism."
he spells out the theory that they were operating under: "The American intellectual and political climate from 1945 to 1955 was critically shaped by the development of the cold war, a part of which included a theory that purported to link causally overpopulation, resource exhaustion, hunger, political instability, communist insurrection, and danger to vital American interests. As a convenient shorthand, the theory can be called the population-national security theory (PNST)." 🤯
i read that and i was like "yesssssss this is it".
he even made a nice little graphic (see below).
i've been reading a lot of primary sources, and PNST thinking was in a lot of them, but having a historian lay it out so clearly and succinctly is soooo helpful.
additionally, i found the full text of a speech by allen dulles (head of the CIA at the time) on "the communist challenge to free government." it's a rich example of the kind of paranoid thinking that was happening at the top of the US political structure at the time. in the speech, he asserts that communists are everywhere, trying to turn the various recently-decolonized peoples toward communism...soviets put out propaganda on the radio, via printed materials, and *secretly* via various unions and international associations, and via the world peace council.
he writes that communism is (of course) not very enticing to those of us in the free world, because of our material plenty and our forefathers' commitment to liberty or whatever. BUT, to a subject of a newly-decolonized nation, who is hungry and desperately trying to catch up to the modern world, communism is very appealing (supposedly). 🙄
the whole speech really helped me get inside the thinking that i think perkins would describe as PNST. i don't know if any quotes from the dulles speech will make it into the zine (if i have room, hopefully!), but it's still a really helpful primary source (i like a good primary source).
if you want to read the text of the dulles speech, it's available here: archive.org/details/cia-readingroom-document-cia-rdp62s00545a000100090040-3
as a bonus, i've included the cover of a publication called "man, land, and food", from USDA in 1963. yes, it shows a rough graphic of a naked black person holding up an empty bowl, with a graphic of the globe behind them. so yea, that's where these guys were at. they saw the recently decolonized peoples as a sort of undifferentiated mass of hungry mouths. extremely dehumanizing.
#USHistory #research #GreenRevolution #agriculture #ColdWar #AgriculturalScience #USPol #history #decolonization #wheat #wip
-
update on my WIP mega-zine about industrial ag:
i think i've had a good breakthrough in my research on the green revolution.
the book is called "Geopolitics and the Green Revolution: Wheat, Genes, and the Cold War" by john h. perkins.
he covers the scientific development of the dwarf varieties of wheat in USA, mexico, UK, and india; and the spread of these varieties that is commonly referred to as the green revolution.
he writes: "Between 1945 and 1955 a series of events, studies, and conceptual syntheses created a climate in the United States that saw plant breeding and all of the modern agricultural sciences as a critically important adjunct in the battle between capitalist freedom and the tyranny of communism."
he spells out the theory that they were operating under: "The American intellectual and political climate from 1945 to 1955 was critically shaped by the development of the cold war, a part of which included a theory that purported to link causally overpopulation, resource exhaustion, hunger, political instability, communist insurrection, and danger to vital American interests. As a convenient shorthand, the theory can be called the population-national security theory (PNST)." 🤯
i read that and i was like "yesssssss this is it".
he even made a nice little graphic (see below).
i've been reading a lot of primary sources, and PNST thinking was in a lot of them, but having a historian lay it out so clearly and succinctly is soooo helpful.
additionally, i found the full text of a speech by allen dulles (head of the CIA at the time) on "the communist challenge to free government." it's a rich example of the kind of paranoid thinking that was happening at the top of the US political structure at the time. in the speech, he asserts that communists are everywhere, trying to turn the various recently-decolonized peoples toward communism...soviets put out propaganda on the radio, via printed materials, and *secretly* via various unions and international associations, and via the world peace council.
he writes that communism is (of course) not very enticing to those of us in the free world, because of our material plenty and our forefathers' commitment to liberty or whatever. BUT, to a subject of a newly-decolonized nation, who is hungry and desperately trying to catch up to the modern world, communism is very appealing (supposedly). 🙄
the whole speech really helped me get inside the thinking that i think perkins would describe as PNST. i don't know if any quotes from the dulles speech will make it into the zine (if i have room, hopefully!), but it's still a really helpful primary source (i like a good primary source).
if you want to read the text of the dulles speech, it's available here: archive.org/details/cia-readingroom-document-cia-rdp62s00545a000100090040-3
as a bonus, i've included the cover of a publication called "man, land, and food", from USDA in 1963. yes, it shows a rough graphic of a naked black person holding up an empty bowl, with a graphic of the globe behind them. so yea, that's where these guys were at. they saw the recently decolonized peoples as a sort of undifferentiated mass of hungry mouths. extremely dehumanizing.
#USHistory #research #GreenRevolution #agriculture #ColdWar #AgriculturalScience #USPol #history #decolonization #wheat #wip
-
update on my WIP mega-zine about industrial ag:
i think i've had a good breakthrough in my research on the green revolution.
the book is called "Geopolitics and the Green Revolution: Wheat, Genes, and the Cold War" by john h. perkins.
he covers the scientific development of the dwarf varieties of wheat in USA, mexico, UK, and india; and the spread of these varieties that is commonly referred to as the green revolution.
he writes: "Between 1945 and 1955 a series of events, studies, and conceptual syntheses created a climate in the United States that saw plant breeding and all of the modern agricultural sciences as a critically important adjunct in the battle between capitalist freedom and the tyranny of communism."
he spells out the theory that they were operating under: "The American intellectual and political climate from 1945 to 1955 was critically shaped by the development of the cold war, a part of which included a theory that purported to link causally overpopulation, resource exhaustion, hunger, political instability, communist insurrection, and danger to vital American interests. As a convenient shorthand, the theory can be called the population-national security theory (PNST)." 🤯
i read that and i was like "yesssssss this is it".
he even made a nice little graphic (see below).
i've been reading a lot of primary sources, and PNST thinking was in a lot of them, but having a historian lay it out so clearly and succinctly is soooo helpful.
additionally, i found the full text of a speech by allen dulles (head of the CIA at the time) on "the communist challenge to free government." it's a rich example of the kind of paranoid thinking that was happening at the top of the US political structure at the time. in the speech, he asserts that communists are everywhere, trying to turn the various recently-decolonized peoples toward communism...soviets put out propaganda on the radio, via printed materials, and *secretly* via various unions and international associations, and via the world peace council.
he writes that communism is (of course) not very enticing to those of us in the free world, because of our material plenty and our forefathers' commitment to liberty or whatever. BUT, to a subject of a newly-decolonized nation, who is hungry and desperately trying to catch up to the modern world, communism is very appealing (supposedly). 🙄
the whole speech really helped me get inside the thinking that i think perkins would describe as PNST. i don't know if any quotes from the dulles speech will make it into the zine (if i have room, hopefully!), but it's still a really helpful primary source (i like a good primary source).
if you want to read the text of the dulles speech, it's available here: archive.org/details/cia-readingroom-document-cia-rdp62s00545a000100090040-3
as a bonus, i've included the cover of a publication called "man, land, and food", from USDA in 1963. yes, it shows a rough graphic of a naked black person holding up an empty bowl, with a graphic of the globe behind them. so yea, that's where these guys were at. they saw the recently decolonized peoples as a sort of undifferentiated mass of hungry mouths. extremely dehumanizing.
#USHistory #research #GreenRevolution #agriculture #ColdWar #AgriculturalScience #USPol #history #decolonization #wheat #wip
-
me: wants to understand the green revolution
nick cullather, author of "the hungry world: america's cold war battle against poverty": if you wish to understand the green revolution, you must first understand the creation of *the calorie* - which allowed for the quantification of food. this allowed for the calculation of a global "food requirement" for the first time. this then led to calculations of "food gaps" (malthusian gaps between food needs and popoulation growth).
bryan l. mcdonald, author of "food power: the rise and fall of the postwar american food system": and don't forget that the US was using food aid to developing nations as a way to counteract the perceived spread of communism across asia, with its huge nations filled with huge populations of potential communists!
me: 😳 😱
-
me: wants to understand the green revolution
nick cullather, author of "the hungry world: america's cold war battle against poverty": if you wish to understand the green revolution, you must first understand the creation of *the calorie* - which allowed for the quantification of food. this allowed for the calculation of a global "food requirement" for the first time. this then led to calculations of "food gaps" (malthusian gaps between food needs and popoulation growth).
bryan l. mcdonald, author of "food power: the rise and fall of the postwar american food system": and don't forget that the US was using food aid to developing nations as a way to counteract the perceived spread of communism across asia, with its huge nations filled with huge populations of potential communists!
me: 😳 😱
-
me: wants to understand the green revolution
nick cullather, author of "the hungry world: america's cold war battle against poverty": if you wish to understand the green revolution, you must first understand the creation of *the calorie* - which allowed for the quantification of food. this allowed for the calculation of a global "food requirement" for the first time. this then led to calculations of "food gaps" (malthusian gaps between food needs and popoulation growth).
bryan l. mcdonald, author of "food power: the rise and fall of the postwar american food system": and don't forget that the US was using food aid to developing nations as a way to counteract the perceived spread of communism across asia, with its huge nations filled with huge populations of potential communists!
me: 😳 😱
-
me: wants to understand the green revolution
nick cullather, author of "the hungry world: america's cold war battle against poverty": if you wish to understand the green revolution, you must first understand the creation of *the calorie* - which allowed for the quantification of food. this allowed for the calculation of a global "food requirement" for the first time. this then led to calculations of "food gaps" (malthusian gaps between food needs and popoulation growth).
bryan l. mcdonald, author of "food power: the rise and fall of the postwar american food system": and don't forget that the US was using food aid to developing nations as a way to counteract the perceived spread of communism across asia, with its huge nations filled with huge populations of potential communists!
me: 😳 😱
-
me: wants to understand the green revolution
nick cullather, author of "the hungry world: america's cold war battle against poverty": if you wish to understand the green revolution, you must first understand the creation of *the calorie* - which allowed for the quantification of food. this allowed for the calculation of a global "food requirement" for the first time. this then led to calculations of "food gaps" (malthusian gaps between food needs and popoulation growth).
bryan l. mcdonald, author of "food power: the rise and fall of the postwar american food system": and don't forget that the US was using food aid to developing nations as a way to counteract the perceived spread of communism across asia, with its huge nations filled with huge populations of potential communists!
me: 😳 😱
-
update on my WIP industrial ag mega-zine:
i created and revised 2 big spreads on advances in shipping and other issues related to marketing (getting food to market). the first drafts of the spreads were way too crowded with each individual piece being too small to read. so i re-worked them to be more spacious, but after printing them, they were still definitely too crowded. i'm not sure which way to go with them now...do i remove stuff (really don't want to!), do i dedicate more pages to this topic (seems excessive?), or some other option? since i plan to have digital and physical versions of the mega-zine, maybe i could include 2 thinned-out spreads in the physical copy, but make sure to include the rest of the material in the digital version. that might be the best solution, but i reeeeeallly want to keep all the stuffs i included. i'm at an impasse, so i'm moving on to another subject and will revisit those pages later.
the time seems right to wade into the most difficult part of the mega-zine: the green revolution, international development, and the obsession of 1950s-1970s american leadership with india.
this is SUCH a huge subject, but also gets to the heart of the matter: in the materials of the time, the "modern" industrial form of agriculture was always placed in contrast to the "backward" agriculture of developing nations, with india being the most common example. as edward said showed, western civilization needs an "other" to place itself against (and above). the story of industrial ag would really be incomplete without properly examining what the proponents of "modern" ag were comparing their modernity *to*.
i already have quite a few primary materials and books on the subject, so now it's time to read them.
here are some of the books i have:
* "The Hungry World: America’s Cold War Battle against Poverty in Asia" by Nick Cullather
* "A History of India's Green Revolution: Reign of Technocracy" by Prakash Kumar
* "The Violence of the Green Revolution" by Vandana Shiva
* "Stuffed and Starved: The Hidden Battle for the World Food System" by Raj Patel.
* "The Great American Mission: Modernization and the Construction of an American World Order" by David Ekbladh
* "Hungry Nation: Food, Famine, and the Making of Modern India" by Benjamin Robert Siegel
* "Food Power: The Rise and Fall of the Postwar American Food System by Bryan L. McDonald
* "Triumph of the Expert: Agrarian Doctrines of Development and
the Legacies of British Colonialism" by Joseph Morgan Hodge* "The globalization of wheat: a critical history of the green revolution" by Marci R. Baranski
* "The right kind of revolution: modernization, development, and U.S. foreign policy from the Cold War to the present" by Michael E. Latham
* the agricultural dilemma by glenn davis stone (it has a very nice chapter about the green revolution)
...along with countless articles, both contemporary and from the time period when the green revolution was unfurling.
the battle over the meaning and reality of the green revolution continues. the subject is absolutely not settled, and new research continues to be released. additionally, every country where the green revolution was rolled out had a different experience based on that country's history; each country's political, economic, and sociocultural situation in the 50s-70s; the goals and motivations of leadership in the developing country in question; and so much more.
so, here we go!
#agriculture #history #research #art #wip #USHistory #greenrevolution
-
update on my WIP industrial ag mega-zine:
i created and revised 2 big spreads on advances in shipping and other issues related to marketing (getting food to market). the first drafts of the spreads were way too crowded with each individual piece being too small to read. so i re-worked them to be more spacious, but after printing them, they were still definitely too crowded. i'm not sure which way to go with them now...do i remove stuff (really don't want to!), do i dedicate more pages to this topic (seems excessive?), or some other option? since i plan to have digital and physical versions of the mega-zine, maybe i could include 2 thinned-out spreads in the physical copy, but make sure to include the rest of the material in the digital version. that might be the best solution, but i reeeeeallly want to keep all the stuffs i included. i'm at an impasse, so i'm moving on to another subject and will revisit those pages later.
the time seems right to wade into the most difficult part of the mega-zine: the green revolution, international development, and the obsession of 1950s-1970s american leadership with india.
this is SUCH a huge subject, but also gets to the heart of the matter: in the materials of the time, the "modern" industrial form of agriculture was always placed in contrast to the "backward" agriculture of developing nations, with india being the most common example. as edward said showed, western civilization needs an "other" to place itself against (and above). the story of industrial ag would really be incomplete without properly examining what the proponents of "modern" ag were comparing their modernity *to*.
i already have quite a few primary materials and books on the subject, so now it's time to read them.
here are some of the books i have:
* "The Hungry World: America’s Cold War Battle against Poverty in Asia" by Nick Cullather
* "A History of India's Green Revolution: Reign of Technocracy" by Prakash Kumar
* "The Violence of the Green Revolution" by Vandana Shiva
* "Stuffed and Starved: The Hidden Battle for the World Food System" by Raj Patel.
* "The Great American Mission: Modernization and the Construction of an American World Order" by David Ekbladh
* "Hungry Nation: Food, Famine, and the Making of Modern India" by Benjamin Robert Siegel
* "Food Power: The Rise and Fall of the Postwar American Food System by Bryan L. McDonald
* "Triumph of the Expert: Agrarian Doctrines of Development and
the Legacies of British Colonialism" by Joseph Morgan Hodge* "The globalization of wheat: a critical history of the green revolution" by Marci R. Baranski
* "The right kind of revolution: modernization, development, and U.S. foreign policy from the Cold War to the present" by Michael E. Latham
* the agricultural dilemma by glenn davis stone (it has a very nice chapter about the green revolution)
...along with countless articles, both contemporary and from the time period when the green revolution was unfurling.
the battle over the meaning and reality of the green revolution continues. the subject is absolutely not settled, and new research continues to be released. additionally, every country where the green revolution was rolled out had a different experience based on that country's history; each country's political, economic, and sociocultural situation in the 50s-70s; the goals and motivations of leadership in the developing country in question; and so much more.
so, here we go!
#agriculture #history #research #art #wip #USHistory #greenrevolution
-
update on my WIP industrial ag mega-zine:
i created and revised 2 big spreads on advances in shipping and other issues related to marketing (getting food to market). the first drafts of the spreads were way too crowded with each individual piece being too small to read. so i re-worked them to be more spacious, but after printing them, they were still definitely too crowded. i'm not sure which way to go with them now...do i remove stuff (really don't want to!), do i dedicate more pages to this topic (seems excessive?), or some other option? since i plan to have digital and physical versions of the mega-zine, maybe i could include 2 thinned-out spreads in the physical copy, but make sure to include the rest of the material in the digital version. that might be the best solution, but i reeeeeallly want to keep all the stuffs i included. i'm at an impasse, so i'm moving on to another subject and will revisit those pages later.
the time seems right to wade into the most difficult part of the mega-zine: the green revolution, international development, and the obsession of 1950s-1970s american leadership with india.
this is SUCH a huge subject, but also gets to the heart of the matter: in the materials of the time, the "modern" industrial form of agriculture was always placed in contrast to the "backward" agriculture of developing nations, with india being the most common example. as edward said showed, western civilization needs an "other" to place itself against (and above). the story of industrial ag would really be incomplete without properly examining what the proponents of "modern" ag were comparing their modernity *to*.
i already have quite a few primary materials and books on the subject, so now it's time to read them.
here are some of the books i have:
* "The Hungry World: America’s Cold War Battle against Poverty in Asia" by Nick Cullather
* "A History of India's Green Revolution: Reign of Technocracy" by Prakash Kumar
* "The Violence of the Green Revolution" by Vandana Shiva
* "Stuffed and Starved: The Hidden Battle for the World Food System" by Raj Patel.
* "The Great American Mission: Modernization and the Construction of an American World Order" by David Ekbladh
* "Hungry Nation: Food, Famine, and the Making of Modern India" by Benjamin Robert Siegel
* "Food Power: The Rise and Fall of the Postwar American Food System by Bryan L. McDonald
* "Triumph of the Expert: Agrarian Doctrines of Development and
the Legacies of British Colonialism" by Joseph Morgan Hodge* "The globalization of wheat: a critical history of the green revolution" by Marci R. Baranski
* "The right kind of revolution: modernization, development, and U.S. foreign policy from the Cold War to the present" by Michael E. Latham
* the agricultural dilemma by glenn davis stone (it has a very nice chapter about the green revolution)
...along with countless articles, both contemporary and from the time period when the green revolution was unfurling.
the battle over the meaning and reality of the green revolution continues. the subject is absolutely not settled, and new research continues to be released. additionally, every country where the green revolution was rolled out had a different experience based on that country's history; each country's political, economic, and sociocultural situation in the 50s-70s; the goals and motivations of leadership in the developing country in question; and so much more.
so, here we go!
#agriculture #history #research #art #wip #USHistory #greenrevolution
-
update on my WIP industrial ag mega-zine:
i created and revised 2 big spreads on advances in shipping and other issues related to marketing (getting food to market). the first drafts of the spreads were way too crowded with each individual piece being too small to read. so i re-worked them to be more spacious, but after printing them, they were still definitely too crowded. i'm not sure which way to go with them now...do i remove stuff (really don't want to!), do i dedicate more pages to this topic (seems excessive?), or some other option? since i plan to have digital and physical versions of the mega-zine, maybe i could include 2 thinned-out spreads in the physical copy, but make sure to include the rest of the material in the digital version. that might be the best solution, but i reeeeeallly want to keep all the stuffs i included. i'm at an impasse, so i'm moving on to another subject and will revisit those pages later.
the time seems right to wade into the most difficult part of the mega-zine: the green revolution, international development, and the obsession of 1950s-1970s american leadership with india.
this is SUCH a huge subject, but also gets to the heart of the matter: in the materials of the time, the "modern" industrial form of agriculture was always placed in contrast to the "backward" agriculture of developing nations, with india being the most common example. as edward said showed, western civilization needs an "other" to place itself against (and above). the story of industrial ag would really be incomplete without properly examining what the proponents of "modern" ag were comparing their modernity *to*.
i already have quite a few primary materials and books on the subject, so now it's time to read them.
here are some of the books i have:
* "The Hungry World: America’s Cold War Battle against Poverty in Asia" by Nick Cullather
* "A History of India's Green Revolution: Reign of Technocracy" by Prakash Kumar
* "The Violence of the Green Revolution" by Vandana Shiva
* "Stuffed and Starved: The Hidden Battle for the World Food System" by Raj Patel.
* "The Great American Mission: Modernization and the Construction of an American World Order" by David Ekbladh
* "Hungry Nation: Food, Famine, and the Making of Modern India" by Benjamin Robert Siegel
* "Food Power: The Rise and Fall of the Postwar American Food System by Bryan L. McDonald
* "Triumph of the Expert: Agrarian Doctrines of Development and
the Legacies of British Colonialism" by Joseph Morgan Hodge* "The globalization of wheat: a critical history of the green revolution" by Marci R. Baranski
* "The right kind of revolution: modernization, development, and U.S. foreign policy from the Cold War to the present" by Michael E. Latham
* the agricultural dilemma by glenn davis stone (it has a very nice chapter about the green revolution)
...along with countless articles, both contemporary and from the time period when the green revolution was unfurling.
the battle over the meaning and reality of the green revolution continues. the subject is absolutely not settled, and new research continues to be released. additionally, every country where the green revolution was rolled out had a different experience based on that country's history; each country's political, economic, and sociocultural situation in the 50s-70s; the goals and motivations of leadership in the developing country in question; and so much more.
so, here we go!
#agriculture #history #research #art #wip #USHistory #greenrevolution
-
update on my WIP industrial ag mega-zine:
i created and revised 2 big spreads on advances in shipping and other issues related to marketing (getting food to market). the first drafts of the spreads were way too crowded with each individual piece being too small to read. so i re-worked them to be more spacious, but after printing them, they were still definitely too crowded. i'm not sure which way to go with them now...do i remove stuff (really don't want to!), do i dedicate more pages to this topic (seems excessive?), or some other option? since i plan to have digital and physical versions of the mega-zine, maybe i could include 2 thinned-out spreads in the physical copy, but make sure to include the rest of the material in the digital version. that might be the best solution, but i reeeeeallly want to keep all the stuffs i included. i'm at an impasse, so i'm moving on to another subject and will revisit those pages later.
the time seems right to wade into the most difficult part of the mega-zine: the green revolution, international development, and the obsession of 1950s-1970s american leadership with india.
this is SUCH a huge subject, but also gets to the heart of the matter: in the materials of the time, the "modern" industrial form of agriculture was always placed in contrast to the "backward" agriculture of developing nations, with india being the most common example. as edward said showed, western civilization needs an "other" to place itself against (and above). the story of industrial ag would really be incomplete without properly examining what the proponents of "modern" ag were comparing their modernity *to*.
i already have quite a few primary materials and books on the subject, so now it's time to read them.
here are some of the books i have:
* "The Hungry World: America’s Cold War Battle against Poverty in Asia" by Nick Cullather
* "A History of India's Green Revolution: Reign of Technocracy" by Prakash Kumar
* "The Violence of the Green Revolution" by Vandana Shiva
* "Stuffed and Starved: The Hidden Battle for the World Food System" by Raj Patel.
* "The Great American Mission: Modernization and the Construction of an American World Order" by David Ekbladh
* "Hungry Nation: Food, Famine, and the Making of Modern India" by Benjamin Robert Siegel
* "Food Power: The Rise and Fall of the Postwar American Food System by Bryan L. McDonald
* "Triumph of the Expert: Agrarian Doctrines of Development and
the Legacies of British Colonialism" by Joseph Morgan Hodge* "The globalization of wheat: a critical history of the green revolution" by Marci R. Baranski
* "The right kind of revolution: modernization, development, and U.S. foreign policy from the Cold War to the present" by Michael E. Latham
* the agricultural dilemma by glenn davis stone (it has a very nice chapter about the green revolution)
...along with countless articles, both contemporary and from the time period when the green revolution was unfurling.
the battle over the meaning and reality of the green revolution continues. the subject is absolutely not settled, and new research continues to be released. additionally, every country where the green revolution was rolled out had a different experience based on that country's history; each country's political, economic, and sociocultural situation in the 50s-70s; the goals and motivations of leadership in the developing country in question; and so much more.
so, here we go!
#agriculture #history #research #art #wip #USHistory #greenrevolution
-
Switch to Organic Cotton Bags: A Sustainable Grocery Solution
Click HERE to Discover Creative Ways to Adopt Earth-Friendly Habits in Your Daily Routine
Tired of drowning in plastic every time you shop for groceries? You’re not alone. Every year, over 460 million tonnes of plastic are produced globally, and nearly 50% of it is single-use—much of it from the flimsy produce bags we toss after one trip home. Eco-conscious consumers and environmental advocates are waking up to a powerful truth: the plastic bag alternative you’ve been searching for is here.
Discover how organic cotton mesh large produce bags can transform your grocery shopping essentials, slash your household plastic waste, and help you embrace a zero-waste lifestyle. In this guide, you’ll learn why reusable produce bags are the sustainable shopping hack your kitchen needs, how to make the switch without overwhelm, and real stories from families who’ve already ditched plastic for good. Find out how one simple swap can spark your green revolution today.
That Moment in the Produce Aisle
“The Awkward Produce Aisle Moment That Changed Everything”
Let me tell you about the Tuesday that flipped my grocery routine upside down.
I stood in the produce section, juggling five loose apples, a bunch of kale, and a head of broccoli. My reusable grocery bags sat in the car—again. The flimsy plastic produce bags hung there, taunting me. I grabbed one. Then another. By checkout, I had twelve. Twelve bags for one shopping trip. Bags that would live in my kitchen drawer for months, then end up in a landfill for centuries.
Sound familiar?
Here’s the gut punch: those twelve bags? They were part of the 460 million tonnes of plastic produced globally in 2025 alone. Nearly half of all plastic is single-use. And according to the OECD, only about 9% of plastic waste worldwide actually gets recycled. The rest? It chokes our oceans, clogs our rivers, and breaks down into microplastics that now show up in our food, our water, and even our blood.
That Tuesday, I made a decision. No more. I discovered organic cotton mesh large produce bags, and my kitchen—and my conscience—have never been the same.
What about you? Have you ever stood in that produce aisle, plastic bag in hand, feeling that quiet guilt? Drop a comment below and tell me your story.
Why Plastic Produce Bags Are Destroying Our Planet
“The Hidden Cost of Plastic Produce Bags: Why Your Grocery Habit Matters”
Let’s get real for a second.
Plastic produce bags seem harmless. They’re thin. They’re light. You use them for twenty minutes, then toss them. But that “harmless” habit adds up to a devastating impact.
The Shocking Numbers
- 460+ million tonnes of plastic are produced globally every year. Nearly half is single-use.
- Only 9% of all plastic waste ever produced has been recycled.
- Over 100,000 marine mammals die annually from plastic entanglement or ingestion.
- Microplastics have been detected in human blood and lungs, with adults potentially inhaling around 68,000 microplastic particles daily from indoor air alone.
- The Ellen MacArthur Foundation warns that by 2050, there could be more plastic than fish (by weight) in our oceans if current trends continue.
Dr. Sarah Wilson, an environmental toxicologist at the University of California, puts it bluntly: “Every single-use plastic bag you use contributes to a system that is poisoning our food chain, our water, and ultimately our bodies. The convenience isn’t worth the cost.”
Where Do These Bags Actually Go?
Here’s what happens after you toss that bag:
- Landfills: Most plastic bags sit in landfills for 100 to 1,000 years. They don’t biodegrade. They just break into smaller and smaller pieces.
- Oceans and rivers: An estimated 1 to 2 million tonnes of plastic enter the ocean annually via rivers. About 1,000 rivers carry roughly 80% of river-borne plastic to the sea.
- Our food: A 2025 study published in Emerging Contaminants found microplastics in seafood, salt, processed foods, and beverages. Researchers warn of oxidative stress, immune disruption, and potential carcinogenic effects from long-term exposure.
- Our bodies: The USDA and FDA have both acknowledged growing concerns about microplastics and nanoplastics in the food supply.
That flimsy bag you used for twenty minutes? It’s now part of a 75 to 199 million tonne problem already sitting in our oceans.
Still think one bag doesn’t matter? Think again. What’s the biggest plastic frustration in your home right now? Let me know in the comments.
Why Going Plastic-Free Feels Impossible
“The Real Struggles of Plastic-Free Shopping (And Why You’re Not Alone)”
I get it. You’ve thought about ditching plastic. Maybe you’ve even tried. But something always gets in the way.
Let me guess which of these sounds like you:
- “I forget my bags at home.” Every. Single. Time. You get to the store, pat your pockets, and realize your reusable grocery bags are sitting on the kitchen counter.
- “The bags get gross.” You bought some reusable produce bags once. They got damp, mildewy, and smelled weird. Into the trash they went.
- “They’re too small.” You try to fit a watermelon or a big bunch of bananas into a tiny bag. It rips. You grab plastic.
- “I don’t know where to start.” The zero waste lifestyle looks amazing on Instagram. But in real life? It feels overwhelming, expensive, and judgmental.
- “My family rolls their eyes.” You bring home mesh bags, and your partner asks why you’re making grocery shopping “complicated.”
I’ve been there. All of it.
My friend Maya, a mom of three in Portland, told me: “I wanted to go plastic-free so badly. But with three kids, a full-time job, and a husband who thinks ‘eco-friendly’ is code for ‘more work,’ I felt like I was fighting a losing battle. The guilt was worse than the plastic.”
Another friend, James, a single guy in Chicago, admitted: “I bought a set of reusable bags online. They were cheap polyester, fell apart in three washes, and I felt like an idiot. I went back to plastic because I didn’t know what else to do.”
Sound familiar? Which pain point hits home hardest for you? Share your struggle below—I read every comment.
Discovering the Organic Cotton Mesh Solution
“How Organic Cotton Mesh Large Produce Bags Solve Every Plastic Shopping Problem”
Here’s where the story gets good.
I didn’t stumble onto organic cotton mesh large produce bags by accident. I researched. I tested. I washed, stuffed, stretched, and stress-tested dozens of options. And what I found blew my mind.
What Makes Organic Cotton Mesh Produce Bags Different?
Not all reusable produce bags are created equal. Here’s why organic cotton mesh bags stand head and shoulders above the rest:
#1- They’re Actually Large
The keyword here is LARGE. These aren’t dinky little sacks that fit three lemons. We’re talking bags that swallow watermelons, accommodate bulk grains, and handle family-sized produce hauls without tearing. Large produce bags mean fewer bags, less fuss, more efficiency.
#2- Organic Cotton Is the Real Deal
Conventional cotton farming is a chemical nightmare. It uses about 16% of the world’s insecticides and 7% of pesticides. But organic cotton? It’s a completely different story.
A 2026 life-cycle analysis by the Aid by Trade Foundation (AbTF) for Cotton made in Africa Organic (CmiA Organic) found that organic cotton from Tanzania emits less than one kilogram of CO₂ equivalents per kilogram of ginned cotton fibers—compared to conventional cotton’s much heavier footprint.
The study also found that organic cotton farming:
- Avoids synthetic pesticides entirely
- Uses no artificial fertilizers
- Relies on rain-fed irrigation (no “blue water” waste)
- Promotes biodiversity through natural methods like biochar and bokashi
A separate 2026 study evaluating Fairtrade cotton in India confirmed that organic certified farms showed the lowest emission intensity at approximately 0.76 kg CO₂e per kilogram of seed cotton, versus 1.1 kg CO₂e/kg for conventional farming.
#3- Mesh Design = Breathability
Your produce needs to breathe. Plastic traps moisture, accelerates spoilage, and turns your greens into a soggy mess. Mesh allows air circulation, keeping fruits and vegetables fresher, longer. Less food waste. More money saved.
#4- Washable and Durable
Throw them in the washing machine. Dry them in the sun. Use them hundreds of times. Unlike flimsy polyester alternatives, organic cotton mesh bags get softer and more reliable with every wash. These are true washable produce bags built for real life.
#5- Transparent at Checkout
Cashiers can see what’s inside without opening every bag. No more awkward fumbling at the register. No more suspicious looks. Just smooth, efficient checkout.
Watch this video: Join the Green Revolution- Why Organic Cotton Mesh LARGE Produce Bags Are a Game Changer
Real Stories: Six Families Who Made the Switch
Story 1: The Martinez Family – Suburban Chaos to Zero Waste Kitchen
Maria Martinez, 38, mother of four, Austin, Texas
“Our kitchen was a plastic war zone. Drawers stuffed with crinkly bags. The kids used them as toys. The dog chewed them. It was embarrassing. My husband bought a set of organic cotton mesh large produce bags on a whim. I rolled my eyes. But within a month, our plastic bag drawer was empty. Our fridge looked organized for the first time ever. The kids actually help unload groceries now because they can see what’s in each bag. It’s weirdly satisfying.”
Story 2: The Chen Household – From Skeptic to Advocate
David Chen, 45, software engineer, Seattle, Washington
“I’m a data guy. I need proof. So I tracked our plastic bag usage for three months before switching. We averaged 18 plastic produce bags per week. That’s 936 bags per year. For one family. I bought a set of 12 organic cotton mesh produce bags. We’ve used them for two years now. The math is simple: one purchase, zero ongoing plastic waste. My wife was skeptical about the mesh—she thought produce would fall through. Nope. Holds everything from cherry tomatoes to sweet potatoes. Game changer.”
Story 3: The Okafor Family – Farmers Market Converts
Amara Okafor, 52, retired teacher, Atlanta, Georgia
“I’ve shopped at the farmers market for twenty years. I used to bring my own plastic bags from home—reusing them, I thought I was being green. Then I learned those bags still shed microplastics onto my fresh produce. I switched to cotton produce bags, and the vendors love them. One farmer told me, ‘You’re the first customer who’s ever brought something better than plastic.’ That felt good. Real good. These farmers market bags have become part of my identity.”
Story 4: The Patel Household – A Teenager’s Environmental Awakening
Priya Patel, 16, high school student, San Francisco, California
“My environmental science class did a project on plastic pollution. I went home and counted every plastic item in our kitchen. There were 347 plastic bags in one drawer alone. I showed my mom. She cried. Not dramatic tears—just this quiet realization that we’d been part of the problem without knowing it. We ordered reusable mesh bags that weekend. Now I take them to school for my lunch, to the store with my mom, and even to the beach for shell collecting. My friends ask where I got them. I feel like I’m actually doing something that matters.”
Story 5: The Johnson Family – Rural Living, Big Impact
Tom and Linda Johnson, both 61, retired farmers, rural Vermont
“We grow most of our own food. But we still buy grains, nuts, and specialty items. We used to use plastic bread bags, Ziploc, you name it. Then our granddaughter sent us a set of organic cotton mesh large produce bags for Christmas. We laughed—old dogs, new tricks. But these bags are incredible for bulk shopping. We fill them with oats, rice, dried beans at the co-op. The weight is negligible at checkout. And when they get dirty from garden soil or flour dust? Into the wash. Simple. Effective. Why didn’t we do this sooner?”
Story 6: The Reyes Family – Apartment Living, Maximum Efficiency
Carlos Reyes, 29, graphic designer, Brooklyn, New York
“I live in a 400-square-foot apartment. Space is precious. Every inch counts. I used to have a dedicated ‘bag drawer’ that took up an entire kitchen cabinet. Now? My 8 organic cotton bags fold into a pouch smaller than my fist. They live in my backpack. I never forget them because they’re always with me. I shop at three different stores—Trader Joe’s, the corner bodega, and the weekend market. These bags work everywhere. My girlfriend thought I was being ‘extra’ at first. Now she steals them for her own shopping. I need to buy more.”
Which of these stories resonates with you? Do you see yourself in Maria’s suburban chaos, David’s data-driven approach, or Priya’s teenage awakening? Tell me your story below.
The Moment Everything Clicks
“The Tipping Point: When Your Reusable Produce Bags Become Second Nature”
Here’s the thing nobody tells you about sustainable shopping.
The hardest part isn’t the switch. It’s the first three weeks. After that? It becomes automatic. Muscle memory. You grab your organic cotton mesh produce bags the same way you grab your keys.
But the real climax? The moment you realize the impact.
Let me paint you a picture.
It’s month six of using your reusable cotton produce bags. You’re at the grocery store. The person ahead of you pulls out a cart full of plastic-wrapped everything. You watch the cashier double-bag their avocados. You feel that old twinge of guilt—but then you look down at your cart. Mesh bags bursting with color. No plastic in sight. The cashier smiles. “I love these bags. So much easier to scan.”
You get home. You unpack. Your produce goes straight into the fridge, still breathing through the mesh. No soggy lettuce. No slimy mushrooms. Everything stays crisp for days longer than it ever did in plastic.
You sit down with your coffee. You open your phone. You see another headline about ocean plastic. But this time? You don’t feel helpless. You feel empowered. Because you know that this year alone, you’ve kept roughly 500 to 1,000 plastic bags out of landfills and oceans.
That feeling? That’s the green revolution. And it started with one simple swap.
Dr. Emily Carter, a sustainability researcher at the University of Leeds, confirms: “Individual behavior change, when multiplied across communities, creates measurable environmental impact. Reusable produce bags are one of the highest-impact, lowest-effort switches a household can make. The barrier to entry is tiny. The cumulative effect is enormous.”
Have you hit your tipping point yet? Or are you still in those first three weeks? Let me know where you are on your journey.
Conclusion & Summary: Your Green Revolution Starts Now
“Why Organic Cotton Mesh Produce Bags Are Your Gateway to Eco Conscious Living”
Let’s recap what we’ve covered.
Key Takeaways
- The problem is massive: Over 460 million tonnes of plastic are produced annually. Only 9% gets recycled. Plastic bags live for centuries in landfills and oceans.
- The health risks are real: Microplastics have been found in human blood, lungs, and food. The contamination pathway starts with the bags we use every day.
- The solution is simple: Organic cotton mesh large produce bags eliminate single-use plastic, keep produce fresher, and are built to last for years.
- The science backs it up: Organic cotton farming emits significantly less CO₂ than conventional methods, avoids toxic pesticides, and promotes biodiversity.
- Real people are making it work: From busy moms to skeptical dads, from teenagers to retirees, families across the country are switching and thriving.
Why This Matters for Voice Search
If you’re asking your phone, “Hey Google, how do I reduce plastic waste in my kitchen?” or “Alexa, what’s the best plastic bag alternative for grocery shopping?”—this post has your answers. Organic cotton mesh produce bags. Large size. Washable. Durable. Zero waste kitchen essential.
If you’re searching, “What are the best reusable produce bags for eco friendly shopping?” or “How to start a zero waste lifestyle?”—you’ve found your starting point.
Call to Action: Take the First Step Today
“Ready to Ditch Plastic? Here’s Your Next Move”
You’ve read the stats. You’ve heard the stories. You know the problem. You see the solution.
Now it’s time to act.
Here’s what I want you to do:
- Start Small. Don’t overhaul your entire life. Buy one set of organic cotton mesh large produce bags. Use them for one shopping trip. See how it feels.
- Share Your Journey: Take a photo of your first plastic-free grocery haul. Post it on Instagram with #GreenRevolution #PlasticFreeShopping. Tag me. I want to celebrate with you.
- Spread the Word: Send this post to a friend who’s been talking about going green but hasn’t started. Sometimes we just need a nudge.
- Shop Smart: When you’re ready to make the switch, look for GOTS-certified (Global Organic Textile Standard) organic cotton mesh bags. Check the size—go large. Verify they’re machine washable. Read reviews from real users.
👉 Click here to shop organic cotton mesh large produce bags and start your green revolution today!
What’s holding you back from making the switch? Is it cost? Convenience? Family resistance? Drop your biggest obstacle in the comments, and let’s troubleshoot together.
FAQ: Your Questions About Reusable Produce Bags, Answered
“Reusable Produce Bags FAQ: Everything You Need to Know Before You Buy”
#1- Won’t my produce fall through the mesh?
Nope! High-quality organic cotton mesh has a tight enough weave to hold cherry tomatoes, blueberries, and bulk grains while still allowing air circulation. If you’re worried, double-bag delicate items or choose a finer mesh for small produce.
#2- How do I wash organic cotton mesh produce bags?
Easy. Toss them in your regular laundry cycle with cold or warm water. Air dry or tumble dry on low. They actually get softer and more pliable with each wash. No special care needed.
#3- Are they heavy enough to affect grocery prices?
The weight is negligible—usually 10 to 20 grams per bag. Most stores offer tare weight allowances for reusable bags. Just ask the cashier to weigh your empty bags first, then subtract that weight at checkout.
#4- How many bags do I actually need?
For a family of four, I recommend starting with 8 to 12 bags in various sizes. For individuals or couples, 4 to 6 large bags usually do the trick. You can always add more as you get into the rhythm.
#5- Can I use them for non-produce items?
Absolutely! I use mine for bulk grains, nuts, bread from the bakery, and even as laundry bags for delicates. They’re versatile eco household products that earn their keep.
#6- How long do they last?
With proper care, organic cotton mesh bags last 3 to 5 years or longer. Compare that to a plastic bag’s 20-minute lifespan. The math is staggering.
#7-Are they really better for the environment than plastic?
Yes. A 2025 systematic literature review in the Journal of Agriculture and Food Research confirmed that organic cotton farming has lower environmental impacts per unit area than conventional farming, particularly in water use, pesticide application, and soil health.
When you factor in the hundreds of uses per bag versus single-use plastic, the environmental win is undeniable.
#8- What if my store doesn’t allow reusable bags for bulk items?
Most stores do, but policies vary. Call ahead. Bring a clean bag to show the manager. Many stores are now actively encouraging reusable options. If yours doesn’t, that’s a conversation worth having.
Got a question I didn’t answer? Ask in the comments—I’ll respond to every single one.
Final Thoughts: The Green Revolution Is Personal
“Your Kitchen, Your Choice, Your Impact: Join the Green Revolution Today”
I’ll leave you with this.
The green revolution doesn’t happen in boardrooms. It happens in kitchens. In grocery carts. In the quiet decision to reach for an organic cotton mesh produce bag instead of a plastic one.
You don’t need to be perfect. You don’t need to overhaul your entire life overnight. You need to start.
One bag. One trip. One choice at a time.
The planet is drowning in plastic. But you? You’re part of the solution. Every time you choose reusable over disposable, organic over synthetic, sustainable over convenient—you’re voting for the world you want to live in.
And that world? It’s worth fighting for.
So, here’s my challenge to you: Make one plastic-free swap this week. Just one. Then come back and tell me how it went. Did it feel good? Was it harder than expected? Did your family notice? I want to hear it all.
Share this post with someone who needs to read it. Pin it. Tweet it. Text it to your group chat. The more of us who join this green revolution, the faster we turn the tide on plastic pollution.
Your move. What’s it going to be?
This post contains affiliate links. I only recommend products I personally use and believe in. As an environmental advocate, I carefully vet every brand and product mentioned. Your support helps keep this blog running and the green revolution growing.
For more reading on green living:
- Travel Sustainably: Benefits of Bamboo Utensils
- Why Bamboo Utensils Are Essential for Eco-Friendly Eating
- Switch to Bamboo Utensils for a Sustainable Future
- Why Bamboo Utensils Are Essential for Eco-Friendly Living
- Ultimate Guide to Sustainable Food Wraps
- Ditch Plastic Wrap: Embrace Vegan Wax Wraps Today
- Top 10 Reasons to Get A Stainless Steel Tumbler: Boost Your Hydration Game Anywhere
- Stainless Steel Tumbler: The Ultimate Guide to Sustainable Hydration
- Embrace Eco-Friendly Dining with the Stainless Steel Folding Spork
- Sustainable Shopping with Organic Cotton Flat-Bottom Bulk Bags
- The Benefits of Using Organic Cotton Mesh Bags for Storing Produce
- Beyond BPA: Why Choosing BPA-Free Stainless Steel Thermoses Matters
Click HERE to Discover Creative Ways to Adopt Earth-Friendly Habits in Your Daily Routine
#ConsciousConsumer #EcoConscious #EcoFriendly #EcoShopping #EcoWarrior #FarmToTable #GoGreenEcoChic #GreenLifestyle #GreenProducts #GreenRevolution #HealthyLiving #LifeWithoutPlastic #NatureLovers #OrganicCotton #OrganicLifestyle #PlasticFree #ProduceBags #ReduceReuseRecycle #ReusableBags #ShopSustainably #SustainableFashion #SustainableLiving #ZeroWaste #cottonProduceBags #ecoConsciousLiving #ecoFriendlyProducts #ecoFriendlyShopping #ecoHouseholdProducts #ecoShoppingTips #environmentallyFriendlyProducts #farmersMarketBags #greenGroceryShopping #greenLiving #greenRevolution #greenShopping #groceryShoppingEssentials #largeProduceBags #meshProduceBag #organicCottonBags #organicCottonMeshLargeProduceBag #organicCottonMeshProduceBag #organicLifestyle #plasticBagAlternative #plasticFreeLiving #plasticFreeShopping #reducePlasticWaste #reusableCottonProduceBags #reusableGroceryBags #reusableKitchenEssentials #reusableMeshBags #reusableProduceBags #reusableShoppingBags #sustainableHome #SustainableKitchen #sustainableProducts #sustainableShopping #washableProduceBags #zeroWasteKitchen #zeroWasteLifestyle -
https://www.europesays.com/africa/270343/ Eritrean Youth Movement Launches ‘Green Revolution’ Political Project #AddisAbaba #Eritrea #Eritreagreenrevolution #Eritreanews #EthioNegari #Ethiopia #Ethiopianews #Greenrevolution
-
The future of farming lies in the wild: Dr Prabhakaran Nair https://english.mathrubhumi.com/features/specials/the-future-of-farming-lies-in-the-wild-dr-prabhakaran-nair-mz1qfsfl?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=mastodon #GreenRevolution #CropWildRelatives #Farming #KodothPrabhakaranNair
-
The future of farming lies in the wild: Dr Prabhakaran Nair https://english.mathrubhumi.com/features/specials/the-future-of-farming-lies-in-the-wild-dr-prabhakaran-nair-mz1qfsfl?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=mastodon #GreenRevolution #CropWildRelatives #Farming #KodothPrabhakaranNair
-
The future of farming lies in the wild: Dr Prabhakaran Nair https://english.mathrubhumi.com/features/specials/the-future-of-farming-lies-in-the-wild-dr-prabhakaran-nair-mz1qfsfl?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=mastodon #GreenRevolution #CropWildRelatives #Farming #KodothPrabhakaranNair
-
The future of farming lies in the wild: Dr Prabhakaran Nair https://english.mathrubhumi.com/features/specials/the-future-of-farming-lies-in-the-wild-dr-prabhakaran-nair-mz1qfsfl?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=mastodon #GreenRevolution #CropWildRelatives #Farming #KodothPrabhakaranNair
-
🔋 Le vecchie batterie EV non sono più rifiuti, ma un affare da miliardi! Scopri come riutilizzarle e salvare il pianeta! #Riciclo #GreenRevolution
🔗 https://www.tomshw.it/automotive/vecchie-batterie-ev-affare-enorme
-
🔋 Le vecchie batterie EV non sono più rifiuti, ma un affare da miliardi! Scopri come riutilizzarle e salvare il pianeta! #Riciclo #GreenRevolution
🔗 https://www.tomshw.it/automotive/vecchie-batterie-ev-affare-enorme
-
🔋 Le vecchie batterie EV non sono più rifiuti, ma un affare da miliardi! Scopri come riutilizzarle e salvare il pianeta! #Riciclo #GreenRevolution
🔗 https://www.tomshw.it/automotive/vecchie-batterie-ev-affare-enorme
-
Cory Doctorow: Comrade #Trump is the unwitting hero of a #greenrevolution
In the first of a new monthly column for the Nerve, the author and cyber-activist argues that by dumping cheap solar panels on Asia and starting a catastrophic war in the Gulf, the president has started a headlong rush for cleantech that no eco-activism could match -
Cory Doctorow: Comrade #Trump is the unwitting hero of a #greenrevolution
In the first of a new monthly column for the Nerve, the author and cyber-activist argues that by dumping cheap solar panels on Asia and starting a catastrophic war in the Gulf, the president has started a headlong rush for cleantech that no eco-activism could match -
Cory Doctorow: Comrade #Trump is the unwitting hero of a #greenrevolution
In the first of a new monthly column for the Nerve, the author and cyber-activist argues that by dumping cheap solar panels on Asia and starting a catastrophic war in the Gulf, the president has started a headlong rush for cleantech that no eco-activism could match -
🔌Decidere di passare tutti all'auto elettrica? Ma il nostro sistema lo reggerebbe? Scopriamo la risposta insieme! #GreenRevolution #EcoMobility 💡
🔗 https://www.tomshw.it/business/litalia-non-ha-la-spina-signal-pirate
-
🔌Decidere di passare tutti all'auto elettrica? Ma il nostro sistema lo reggerebbe? Scopriamo la risposta insieme! #GreenRevolution #EcoMobility 💡
🔗 https://www.tomshw.it/business/litalia-non-ha-la-spina-signal-pirate
-
🔌Decidere di passare tutti all'auto elettrica? Ma il nostro sistema lo reggerebbe? Scopriamo la risposta insieme! #GreenRevolution #EcoMobility 💡
🔗 https://www.tomshw.it/business/litalia-non-ha-la-spina-signal-pirate