and prevented the development of their own resources. Above all it has prevented their taking measures for the control of their populations, resulting in this distortion we have already mentioned that even though you make some progress in profit, the population growth has outrun the profit in the very poor communities. India is the best example of that.

Dr. HANNAH. Mr. Chairman, India in the years from 1967 to 1972, food grain production was up 32 percent, population is up 13 percent. While India has had a bad drought and they have had a reduction in their cereal grain production this year as compared to last year, their total production of food was greatly increased and it is greatly increased in large part due to the agricultural universities which were built up by the Indians in cooperation with six U.S. universities. These universities educated plant scientists and experts on soils and fertilizers and carried out experiments and demonstrations. It has been possible for India to take Mexican wheat seed varieties and the International Rice Research Institute seed varieties and adapt them to conditions in India. This is how India made its thrust in food production. The same is true in other parts of the world.

DANGER OF WORLDWIDE FOOD SHORTAGE

The CHAIRMAN. I have an article quoting the director general of the FAO, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization. It says, "The director general of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization [FAO] said today that people are eating more grain than they are growing and he warned there is a danger of a worldwide food shortage.

Director Addeke H. Boerma told FAO's 34-nation council: "It now seems clear that the least foreseeable wheat requirements in the 197374 season cannot be covered from 1973 production."

He said this means that wheat stocks in exporting countries-now down to their lowest level in 20 years-will drop still further.

"The world, whose population grew 50 percent over the same period of about 20 years, will thus be left with even less protection in the 1974-75 season," Mr. Boerma said.

He added that export supplies of rice were also expected to fall about 2 million tons short of foreseeable import needs.

Mr. Boerma said the food shortage results from galloping population and "alarmingly slow" growth in agriculture production in developing countries.

I will put the whole article in the record. This is from the Journal of Commerce of Tuesday, June 12.

[The article referred to follows:]

[From the Journal of Commerce, Tuesday, June 12, 1973]

WORLDWIDE FOOD SHORTAGE SEEN

(By FAO Director General)

ROME, June 11.-The director general of the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) said today that people are eating more grain than they are growing and he warned there is a danger of a worldwide food shortage. Director Addeke H. Boerma told FAO's 34-nation council: "It now seems clear that the lowest foreseeable wheat requirements in the 1973-74 season cannot be covered from 1973 production."

He said this means that wheat stocks in exporting countries-now down to their lowest levels in 20 years-will drop still further.

EVEN LESS PROTECTION

"The world, whose population grew 50 percent over the same period of about 20 years, will thus be left with even less protection in the 1974-75 season,” Mr. Boerma said.

He added that export supplies of rice also were expected to fall about two million tons short of foreseeable import needs.

"If there were to be a further deterioration in crop conditions in North America or the Far East," Mr. Boerma said, "there could well be a worldwide grain shortage. The period from now until the end of September is the critical one during which we shall continue to live in an atmosphere of troubled uncertainty assuming that uncertainty is not brutally cut short by a sudden disaster."

Mr. Boerma said the food shortage resulted from galloping populations and the "alarmingly slow" growth in agricultural production in developing countries. Drought and other weather adversities over the past two years also contributed, he said, and the surplus grain stocks which for the past two decades had provided the world with a "cushion against adversity" have more or less disappeared.

"The major exporting countries have been successfully applying national supply management policies to reduce surpluses which are to them a costly burden," Mr. Boerma said. "They have no intention of continung to be counted on to provide the world's reserve supplies."

"To complement this," he added, "there has been the massive entry of the Soviet Union into world markets. In addition, there have been reports of drought in China although we do not know what effect this will have on their import requirements for grain next year."

Mr. Boerma warned that for the foreseeable future the world "may have to live through and with a series of sometimes violent fluctuations in agricultural supplies made sharper by the increase in population."

The CHAIRMAN. I would think that there is no more objective and better qualified witness than the head of the FAO. Would you dispute his statement?

Dr. HANNAH. No, I do not dispute that there is a food shortage. There have been severe droughts and floods throughout most of Asia affecting India, Thailand, and Indonesia. They have had reduced crop production. We have had droughts in much of the rest of the world. We used up the great surpluses we had in other countries though a combination of droughts and floods and reduced production. But I think, Mr. Chairman, he could have also written a more encouraging article by emphasizing the progress that has been made in increasing production.

EFFORTS TOWARD SOLVING WORLD FOOD PROBLEM

What I would like to say, sir, that there are so many things that this Government has done that could be a source of satisfaction and pleasure to you, the Members of Congress and the American people, if you could ever get them called to their attention.

Now, number one is this worldwide network of international agricultural research institutions. Work was started by the Rockefeller Foundation in Mexico many years ago. In the beginning, they were concerned with wheat and beans. Out of it, of course, came the production of the short straw wheats that revolutionized cereal grain production in this country. Later, Rockefeller was joined by Ford. Four years ago, it was clear that they had limited resources. As a result, there has now developed a network of six or seven international institutions. The International Rice Institute in the Philip

pines is concerned with rice. The center for wheat and maize and some other crops is based in Mexico. There are two tropical agricultural centers, one in Bogota, in Colombia-high altitude-one in Nigeria, in low altitude. There are two associated animal centers in Africa, one in the east and one in the west, and one in Sarema, and one in Nairobi. The last one of these centers is a dry land institution in India which is concerned primarily with increasing the yield on rain-fed lands, dry lands where there is not much rain.

Now, the significant thing here is that instead of attacking these problems on a country-by-country basis, we harness scientists all over the world, American and elsewhere. The centers are financed, onequarter by Rockefeller, one-quarter by the Ford Foundation, onequarter by U.S./AID, and the fourth quarter pooled by the other bilateral aid programs. What has actually happened in technology is making it possible to develop new crop varieties. The potential for solving the world food problem is very great indeed. This is an interesting and encouraging story that it has a very great potential for the people of this country and the people of the world.

PROGRESS IN SOLVING WORLD FOOD PROBLEMS QUESTIONED

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Hannah, I see they are calling a quorum and I have to go. But there obviously is a very profound difference of views to the facts. I will put some articles in the record. I will read just a bit from a couple of them and then I will have to turn you over to my colleagues.

This is from the U.S. News & World Report, March 5, 1973. The headline is: "Asia's Trouble Returns: Too Many Babies, Too Little Food."

Then down in one or two paragraphs, it says:

After years of rising hopes that a "green revolution" would succeed in feeding the world's hungry, the specter of famine once again hangs over the peoples of Asia.

I will skip.

Instead of a glut of rice-confidently predicted only a year ago-analysts are talking of a food crisis seemingly on the way in a half dozen countries.

What went wrong? From the very beginning, many experts now contend, there was overoptimism about the green revolution. Too much reliance was placed on dubious statistics, short-range comparative gains, and on paper plans which never became reality.

"Miracle" wheat varieties do well only with optimum water and fertilizer. So less than one-third of India's wheatland is planted with new, improved seeds. And it goes on.

The CHAIRMAN. There is a picture underneath which it says, "Grain harvest, however, failed to keep up with the growth of Indian population."

All of this seems to be directly contrary to your statements or views. There is another article. The whole article I will put in the record. Another one from the Wall Street Journal of June 6, 1973. The headline is: "In India, Many Are Hungry, More Will Be Unless the Rains Come," and it goes on to say,

Whether or not the monsoon comes, India intends to fight its own battlewithout foreign assistance. Buoyed by victory in the war with Pakistan in December 1971, India has determined to go it alone and has rejected any further food aid from the United States and other nations.

98-358-73-6

"Self-reliance became a phrase constantly repeated," a foreign relief worker says. "The Indians would rather get to rock bottom than beg again. It would be humiliating to turn to the United States again." And so on.

Other observers feel that a degree of official bumbling and private greed, of official stubbornness and private distrust of government, combined with the devastating effects of the drought, leaves questionable the government's contention that it can feed the millions of people who live in areas where no crops are growing.

[The articles referred to follow:]

[From U.S. News & World Report, Mar. 5, 1973]

ASIA'S TROUBLE RETURNS: Too MANY BABIES, Too LITTLE FOOD

Just about everything has been tried to rescue Asians from continuing hunger from "miracle" rice to birth control. A fresh on-the-spot survey tells why prospects are grim.

After years of rising hopes that a "green revolution" would succeed in feeding the world's hungry, the specter of famine once again hangs over the peoples of Asia.

The green revolution was ushered in during the mid-1960s with a fanfare of promises that new "miracle" grains-rice and wheat-would vastly increase yields on Asian crop lands.

This planned surge in the supply of basic foods-combined with widespread efforts at population control-was seen by world experts as ending the chronic hunger of millions of Asians.

That dream has faded. Food output did increase, but not nearly enough. Now, the situation is this:

Across the face of Asia there are deepening food shortages.

In India, there is fear of a famine-although the Government has banned official use of the word.

Starvation deaths have been reported from Indonesia.

Efforts to lower the birth rate in overpopulated nations are now judged as having come too late, and having achieved too little.

The population bomb, instead of being defused, is ticking away faster than ever. The techniques for keeping birth rates down are available. The difficulty is in getting them implemented in an effective way.

Instead of a glut of rice-confidently predicted only a year ago-analysts are talking of a food crisis seemingly on the way in a half dozen countries. Nor is this crisis likely to be only a one-time affair.

A. H. Boerma, director-general of the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization, warns that current harvest failures "cannot be shrugged off as a temporary misfortune."

What went wrong. From the very beginning, many experts now contend, there was overoptimism about the green revolution. Too much reliance was placed on dubious statistics, short-range comparative gains, and on paper plans which never became reality.

Agriculture experts say this:

Technically, modern science can grow food even for populations that swell 2 to 3 per cent a year-so long as the weather is moderately good.

What modern science has not been able to do is remove bureaucracy, corruption and inefficiency that have been as much responsible as bad weather for the present food shortages.

Far too typical is a current Indonesian scandal: Tons of fertilizer, some shipped in two years ago, have been discovered in Tjirebon warehouses while farmers 20 miles from the coastal town were paying black-market prices for fertilizer essential for their "miracle" rice seeds.

Nor can science provide impoverished masses with income to buy food the land is capable of producing. Ironically, in hungry India farmers lack incentive to produce more because consumers do not have money to buy their production. The Indian experience. India probably offers the best example of how the green-revolution dream faded.

A year ago, Indian officials proclaimed that the nation had achieved selfsufficiency in food grains. This year, they are importing 2 million tons of grain.

India's agricultural gains were indeed impressive over the past half decade. The wheat crop doubled in six years, achieving a record surplus in early 1972. Food aid from the U.S. was ended by New Delhi's order. In a chronically hungry country, a reserve stock of 9 million tons of grain was piled up.

Then reality set in. Last summer's monsoon rains were late, and other things began to go wrong.

Much of the gain in wheat output, it was realized, had come from expanding land under cultivation-a self-limiting situation because little additional land is available without massive investment in irrigation and fertlizer. India does not have the money for that.

"Miracle" wheat varieties do well only with optimum water and fertilizer. So less than one third of India's wheatland is planted with new, improved seeds. Record wheat harvests from 1969 to 1971 benefited by three of the best seasons, climatically, since World War II. In the five years before 1972, India had five good monsoon-rain seasons in a row. It was an almost unparalleled weather performance, but Indian planners began to count on it as "normal."

Planning failures. A Western farm authority makes this comment about India's experience:

"Realistic economists now are putting the blame as much on failures in planning and implementation of plans as on the weather failure."

Throughout India, fertilizer is in short supply, partly because bids by private industry to build fertilizer factories have been consistently rejected by the Government. And even Government officials are admitting that plans to extend irrigation are far behind schedule.

Wheat vs. rice. In India and elsewhere, the green revolution's greatest success was with wheat, not the rice which is the staple food for most Asians. The reason is that miracle rice, even more than the new wheat seeds, requires great investment in technology to succeed. In the Philippines, where miracle rice was started, it has been estimated that total growing costs increase tenfold, to as much as $120 an acre, if the new seeds are used properly. Few Asian farmers can afford it.

The new strains of rice have not succeeded in areas that get only natural, rainfall watering-and 60 per cent of the land planted to rice in Asia is rainfed. not irrigated.

Says one American authority in India :

"The seed experimenters better get to work on rice for common cultivation. They have gotten carried away with spectacular increases under growing conditions governments don't have the money to create on any wide scale."

In 1970, output of food per person in the developing non-Communist countries of South and Southeast Asia attained the highest level in modern times. Spurred by the "green revolution"-the introduction of high-yield seeds and improved farming practices food production was growing so rapidly that hopes rose for an easing of perennial hunger in the area.

But since 1970

Food output: Barely increased in 1971, and, from preliminary estimates, declined in 1972.

Population: Increased by more than 5 per cent from 1970 to 1972, and shows no sign of slowing in years ahead.

Result: Per capita production of food dropped by 2 per cent in 1971, and seems certain to show another decrease when final figures are in for 1972.

What's needed: For a real revolution, experts say, Asia's antiquated agricultural structures will have to be reshaped. This does not necessarily mean "land reform" in the sense of simply redistributing land to more people. It means modernizing distribution systems, upgrading government extension services, making fertilizer and pesticides widely and cheaply available and assuring more stable water supplies.

During the 1960s the World Bank calculates, Asian agricultural and food production rose at an average rate of about 2.8 per cent a year-barely enough to keep pace with population growth.

From now until 1985, food production will have to increase more than 4 per cent yearly just to hold consumption at present levels for people already born or who inevitably will be born during that time span.

And by the end of this century, according to a recent study by the Economic Commission for Asia and the Far East, Asia's population will nearly double to 3.8 billion people, more than the total world population today.