of the U.S. Congress were told, "crop destruction is understood to be the more important purpose ... but the emphasis is usually given to the jungle defoliation in public mention of the program." The first official acknowledgment of the programs came from the State Department in March 1966. When crops were destroyed, the Viet Cong would compensate for the loss of food by confiscating more food from local villages. Some military personnel reported being told they were destroying crops used to feed guerrillas, only to later discover, most of the destroyed food was actually produced to support the local civilian population. For example, according to Wil Verwey, 85% of the crop lands in Quang Ngai province were scheduled to be destroyed in 1970 alone. He estimated this would have caused famine and left hundreds of thousands of people without food or malnourished in the province. According to a report by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the herbicide campaign had disrupted the food supply of more than 600,000 people by 1970. Many experts at the time, including Arthur Galston, opposed herbicidal warfare because of concerns about the side effects to humans and the environment by indiscriminately spraying the chemical over a wide area. As early as 1966, resolutions were introduced to the United Nations charging that the U.S. was violating the 1925 Geneva Protocol, which regulated the use of chemical and biological weapons. The U.S. defeated most of the resolutions, arguing that Agent Orange was not a chemical or a biological weapon as it was considered a herbicide and a defoliant and it was used in effort to destroy plant crops and to deprive the enemy of concealment and not meant to target human beings. The U.S. delegation argued that a weapon, by definition, is any device used to injure, defeat, or destroy living beings, structures, or systems, and Agent Orange did not qualify under that definition. It also argued that if the U.S. were to be charged for using Agent Orange, then the United Kingdom and its Commonwealth nations should be charged since they also used it widely during the Malayan Emergency in the 1950s. In 1969, the United Kingdom commented on the draft Resolution 2603 (XXIV): "The evidence seems to us to be notably inadequate for the assertion that the use in war of chemical substances specifically toxic to plants is prohibited by international law." A