William S. Gaud Quotes

Civilization depends on our expanding ability to produce food efficiently, which has markedly accelerated thanks to science and technology.

The Green Revolution is neither.

The Second Green Revolution, as the world's population grows to over 9 billion by 2050, is the new revolution we have to have to lift food production by another 75 percent.

There is talk about the need for a second Green Revolution. However, such a revolution is nowhere in sight.

Even as the population doubled from three to six billion, we managed to race ahead with all kinds of technological and scientific events in agriculture - from using more fertilizers to mechanization to advanced plant breeding.

All the people of the earth could be fed from the land within a circle of a thousand mile radius [of Kansas City.]

We have already broken the link between food production and population. This will soon be complete.

When the Nobel Peace Prize Committee designated me the recipient of the 1970 award for my contribution to the 'green revolution,' they were in effect, I believe, selecting an individual to symbolize the vital role of agriculture and food production in a world that is hungry, both for bread and for peace.

Large-scale deforestation can be prevented while increasing food production through better, smarter agriculture.

After the Green Revolution, I came up with the concept of the Evergreen Revolution. In this we will see increase in farm productivity but without ecological harm.

It's clear that agriculture, done right, is the best means the world has today to simultaneously tackle food security, poverty and environmental degradation.

To achieve a Green Revolution, African farmers, must have access to land and security of tenure. They also need access to markets, technology and improved infrastructure.

In a world of growing food demand, Africa is home to two-thirds of the world's unexploited arable land.

Why should conservationists have a positive interest in... farming? There are lots of reasons, but the plainest is: Conservationists eat.

We have six-and-a-half-billion people on the planet, going rapidly towards seven. We're going to need a lot of inventiveness about how we use water and grow crops.

Food and the way we grow it and produce it are a major cause of environmental degradation.

Cereal production in the rain-fed areas still remains relatively unaffected by the impact of the green revolution, but significant change and progress are now becoming evident in several countries.

Almost all the knowledge required to produce more food than eroding soil is available today - we just need to use that knowledge within a holistic paradigm - managing agriculture holistically, forming the policies that undergird it holistically.

To make agriculture sustainable, the grower has got to be able to make a profit.

We need the humbleness and clarity to see that our food, while benefitting from technological advances, has benefitted even more from free ecological resources: Cheap energy, lots of water everywhere, and a stable climate.

How we grow food has enormous effects on the environment - climate change as well as pollution of air, water, and soil.

My real emphasis is on the farmers who are taking care of the land, the farmers who are really thinking about our nourishment.

There doesn't seem to be any other way of creating the next green revolution without GMOs.

The Industrial Revolution did not spell the end of agriculture, or even the end of food production, in the United States. It just meant that a much smaller percentage of Americans had to work on farms to feed the population.

We discuss the potential drawbacks of genetic testing or genetic modification of crops. We do not discuss the suffering and environmental damage that will be caused by holding back innovation…. The debate is unbalanced here because it is complacent about the imperfect present.