88 



This oversight has been widely criticized. For example, in his 

 recent re\dew of teciniical assistance needs in agriculture, Roger 

 Revelle said : 



A dostruotivo fallacy of the postwar nra has been the notion that the agricul- 

 tural technology of the developed countries in the temperate zone could be easily 

 adapted for use in the poor countries of the tropics and subtropics. The standard 

 approach for technical assistance has been: "We know how and we can show how." 

 The fact is that we do not know how. 



Western technicians can help with design of irrigation works and fertilizer plants; 

 surveys of soil and water resources; and identification and analysis of country 

 problems. But at least part of the technology for raising fields in each locality must 

 be created through applied local research and this research must be continuous." 



The problems cited by Revelle were not anticipated in 1950 hy the 

 framers of the ])oint IV program. The bulk of testimony relating to 

 agriculture in the hearings before the House and Senate committees 

 came from spokesmen for the Department of Agriculture. In state- 

 ments before the House, Charles F. Brannan, Secretary of Agriculture, 

 like other administration spokesmen, extolled the ability of American 

 experts to assist their less fortunate counterparts. He also stated that 

 the United States had a long and valuable history of aiding the under- 

 developed areas and thus had much experience to bank on: 



The Department of Agricidture is eager to share with Congress and others who 

 are building this program the experience we have had in the past 10 years in ex- 

 changing technical help and know-how with Latin American countries. 



Our experience to date clearly demonstrates the desirability and workability 

 of extending this type of international cooperation to all parts of the world that are 

 willing to receive it. As a matter of fact, the point 4 program, so far as agriculture 

 is concerned, is a natural outgrowth of our internal program for farmers.*** 



Secretary Brannan's testimony recounted past successes of U.S. 

 agricultural technical assistance programs in Latin America and 

 elsewhere. Cited were valuable experiences gained in the discovery of 

 desmodium in Guatemala, a plant formerly believed to be a weed with 

 no nutritive value, and its subsequent cultivation and used as a feed 

 for poultry. He also stressed the value of developing kenaf fiber in 

 Cuba; rotenone roots in Peru for use as insecticides, and the advances 

 given to other commodities such as rubber, coffee, and cacao, which 

 returned benefits to U.S. homes and industries. Brannan's testimony 

 ended with the observation that all of these extremely effective 

 programs had "* * * cost only about $1,200,000 a year.'' ^^ And he 

 stated that their extension under point IV would yield a "100-to-l 

 return" in food production efforts in the underdeveloped world. ^° 



Nongovernmental agricidtural witnesses who testified did not chal- 

 lenge these contentions. Then- testimony related primarily to the need 

 to develop agricultural extension services. 



Hmdsight shows us that the strategy of attempting to increase 

 yield per acre is only one answer to the problem of feeding people. 

 Other alternatives were known and being developed in 1950. For 

 example, an approach which was widely discussed within the agricul- 

 tural community, but not treated in Congress — was the natural or 

 synthetic production of food substances such as proteins, fats, and 

 vitamins from algae and mmerals. These programs had been widely 



s" Roger Revelle. "On Technical Assistance and Bilateral Aid". Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (March 

 1968), p. 17. 



ss Statement of Hon. Charles F. Brannan, Secretary of Agriculture. House. International Cooperation 

 Act of 1949. Hearings, pt. I, op. cit., pp. 43-44. 



89 Ibid., pp. 44-45. 



«» Ibid., pp. 59-60. 



