Radiant Agriculture for the Developing World: Negotiating Grain Irradiation Technology at the United Nations

The United Nations proposed a variety of technological solutions for the problems facing the developing world, including irradiation of grain, foodstuffs, and insects to improve agricultural output. The UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), with its motto Fiat Panis, devoted itself to securing the world’s food supply in the most effective way possible. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), by contrast, promised to bring nuclear power to those most in need, in whatever manner possible. These visions clashed in the cold war collaboration between FAO and IAEA to develop grain irradiation programs in developing countries. Both organizations made expansive promises, yet each differed on what was the right “path” of development. FAO resisted IAEA’s desire to send the atom to lands that often lacked other agricultural fundamentals, such as ready access to water. Meanwhile both agencies’ attitudes were linked to American foreign policy initiatives: “Atoms for Peace” and “Food for Peace.” Such links emboldened critics who complained that the UN encouraged a global, integrated capitalist economy focused on preserving export grains rather than foods consumed by local communities. Such policies, they argued, decreased local food security and increased dependence on European and American technology. Further, high-tech solutions buttressed American propaganda, and were not the best means of serving the developing world. Advocates for grain irradiation often have looked to the IAEA-FAO collaboration as evidence that the “international community” condoned the practice, but doing so has masked a heated dispute within the UN. Drawn from documents in the FAO archives, this paper analyzes the UN quarrel about grain irradiation, an untried yet prestigious technology with strong links to American foreign policy. The controversy, which led to the ouster of one of the leading figures in both organizations, highlighted the profound political implications of technological choice in cultivating the land.