The Green Revolution refers to the dramatic increase in the production of dietary calories that occurred with the following advances: I) the selective breeding of high-yielding crops, which also show greater resistance to common diseases; (ii) the widespread use of fertilizers and pesticides; (iii) mechanization of crop harvesting. Beginning in the 1940s, the Green Revolution successfully overcame ongoing famines in many developing countries and has enabled significant population increases around the world.
Large-scale industrial agriculture has greatly reduced the cost of food production, creating shared economic benefits for consumers and large corporations. Scientific progress in genetic engineering, coupled with industry-specific investments, has further improved crop productivity through the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). The primary use of GMOs has been to provide food crops with resistance to toxic chemicals, which can then be used to prevent the growth of competing weeds. These toxic chemicals (pesticides) are liberally applied to crop fields, until such time as some of the weeds acquire the same protective genes. Food crops then require further genetic modification to resist the newer pesticides that weeds are susceptible to, at least for a period of time. Another government-permitted use of GMOs has been to restrict the viability of seeds produced by “proprietary” crops. The widespread contamination of all farmland with toxic pesticides puts organic farming at a competitive disadvantage, but the decision to use GMO-modified seeds creates a dependency on industry and the risk of perpetual financial abuse.
Not only may there be widespread pesticide contamination on other farmland, but traces of the toxins may soon appear in grazing animals, domestic animals, and humans. It is especially problematic that pesticides can now be easily detected in the umbilical cord blood of newborns, as well as in municipal drinking water.
Fertilizer use also has the disadvantage that the only relevant criterion of success is overall productivity in terms of calories. In addition to nutrients that are essential for growth, many plant species will, under natural conditions, produce secondary metabolites with no apparent significant benefit to the plant, but significant benefit to animals and humans. Several vitamins and a diverse range of trace elements fit into this category. Its levels in plants grown in highly fertilized soils are significantly lower than in organic crops. The consequence that many foods are deficient in various micronutrients has not been realistically addressed by either industry or government.
While contributing to an unhealthy environment, agriculture has also been harmed by industrial pollution from mining, manufacturing, and waste disposal. Instead of supporting and promoting plant growth, some sources of irrigation water are now considered to be the cause of stunted growth. Relatively large amounts of toxic water are now sequestered as useless forever for irrigation.
For progress to be made, unintentional practices that lead to unsustainable agriculture must be replaced by a more reasoned and sensible approach. The following three areas are of utmost importance. I) Reduce the use of pesticides and instead rely on the natural interplay of competing living organisms to devise non-toxic methods that encourage the growth of food crops. ii) Reduce the use of nutrient-restricted fertilizers and ensure the availability of a full range of micronutrients and trace minerals in soils. iii) Increase the kinetic activity of water used to support plant growth and apply the same principle of activating water to help decontaminate currently unusable water supplies. Each approach will be briefly described:
1. The web of life includes interactive dependencies and competitions between various organisms. Decreased food production can result from the overgrowth of particular microorganisms that can cause direct damage to a food crop or from competing plants, such as weeds, that can outcompete the food crop. The answer to both problems is to understand the biology and natural predators of the offending species. Efforts can then be devised to reduce the relative performance of these natural predators so that competitive advantage returns to the food crop. An underlying principle is that the advantage will go to the species that has the best alternative cellular energy (ACE) pathway, as this pathway appears to provide a somewhat universal defense against many pathogens. The ACE pathway is expressed as a dynamic activity of water within and bathing living cells. Dynamic activity is defined as KELEA (kinetic energy limiting electrostatic attraction). It can be transmitted to crops through the use of KELEA activated water or it can be directly attracted to the plant from the environment. The feasibility of the first approach with rice and sugar cane has been demonstrated and published, while initial efforts are underway to develop the second approach.
2. Replenishment of overfertilized fields with trace minerals and with the chemicals needed for micronutrients can be achieved using a variety of products such as humic/fulvic acids and diverse natural vegetation, not currently grown with fertilizers, respectively. The possibility of using Kudzu as a source of the latter is worth considering.
3. The usefulness of KELEA activated water to improve the productivity of food crops extends far beyond the question of increasing defense against infectious agents. KELEA adds to the overall productivity of plants, including in some cases delayed senescence. It can also greatly extend the shelf life of harvested plants. The other potential benefit of activating water with KELEA is that it loosens the intermolecular hydrogen bonds that lead to the separation of many toxic chemicals from the water molecules so that the chemicals can be more easily removed.
KELEA water and plant activation methods are being actively researched to determine which ones are most suitable for various applications. Essentially, the methods are inexpensive and relatively easy to apply, even in large-scale settings. The effort goes against the vested interests of manufacturers of fertilizers, pesticides and GM crops. It is also inappropriate for the effort to be restricted by commercial entities wishing to benefit from an urgent humanitarian need. The enormity of the scope is beyond that of a single philanthropic organization. However, sharing responsibility for a common project is of little interest to these organizations, as they rely on single themes to exclusively attract dedicated donors. The source of funding to implement these studies must be newly printed by the Federal Reserve, essentially being a capital tax on currency.