Green Revolutions aren't easy. Photo: Thatcher Cook for Mercy Corps

Some at the UN Food Summit are suggesting a second green revolution is needed to curb soaring food prices. “The underlying problem is the decline in agricultural productivity growth," said the UN's Lennart Bage. "Unless we reverse that, we’ll be back in the same situation in a few years' time.”

The first Green Revolution transformed developed-country agricultural practices from the 1940s to 1960s and led to increased production. Huge investments in seed research, infrastructure development and technological advancements fueled this transformation.

Increases in output are especially needed in Africa, which is in dire need of updating its farming techniques, improving agricultural technology and increasing the biodiversity of crop output. According to The Economist, several countries at the Summit promised to meet these needs by investing in seed research, building irrigation canals, and promoting the use of fertilizer.

Regulation reform and infrastructure upgrades are also needed. The International Food Policy Research Institute recently released a report saying prices could be cut if governments enforced market regulations. They also suggested African governments should dedicate 10 percent of their budgets to agriculture, and improve poor roads that hinder farmers' ability to get their crops to market.

However, Financial Times points out why a green revolution in Africa may not be easy to pull off. It would most likely require the cultivation of genetically modified crops in a region where many countries have resisted GMO foods. Other concerns involve Africa's diversity of climate and landscapes — farming techniques that work in some places might not work in others. Increasing output would also mean huge investments in irrigation systems. A dependence on rainwater and a lack of irrigation infrastructure has hindered many small farms in Africa.

The first Green Revolution took years to increase agricultural output in developing countries. It may be needed, but engineering a second Green Revolution is a daunting task.

Photo: Reuters/Finbarr O'Reilly

A controversial article in a recent Economist refers to further evidence of the advantages of genetically modified crops (GMOs).

"The Next Green Revolution" discusses long-standing opposition to GMOs in Europe — many on the continent "have yet to touch or taste them," the article reads — but points out that rising GMO production means it will become increasingly more expensive for Europe to avoid importing them.

I have long been concerned about the Europeans' stance on GMOs — not because Europeans are denying themselves more cost-effective food products, but because of the impact that their position has had on the poor, particularly in Africa. A number of African countries have followed Europe's lead by banning imports of GMOs. I find it to be very sad when the poor and sometimes starving are denied access to less-expensive food because of short-sighted logic in Europe.

The fact that GMOs can provide cheaper food has long been generally accepted. But critics have argued against GMOs on the basis that the crops might have long-term risks. But these risks are vague and unspecified, so to deny the advantages never seemed logical to me. Now that the possible disadvantage to GMOs has been put to rest in many parts of the world, I hope the poor and hungry in Africa and elsewhere can finally access this money-saving solution to an important problem.