As a scientist, I think (based on very little knowledge of him) , Borlaug was interested in sustainability and open to criticism.
The problem of sustainability can be addressed by various forms of science - Borlaug probably doesn't deserve to be a lightening rod. The politicization of agriculture (and the sustainability debate) is industrial farming techniques are sometimes (obviously) in conflict with ecologically "holistic" practices - that is, the model of the systems are different, and both models get things wrong.
My two cents:
Profit clouds science as much as fear or ignorance.
Which is what I call environmental extremism - the non-extreme variety has people first, and seeks sustainability for our entire, well fed population.
I agree partly - starving now or later - is the problem.
Isn't humanity just a startup?™ - industrial agriculture has "technological debt". We either pay the debt now, or face bigger debt later.
Borlaug, I don't think, was trying to define and deal with debt - and I think sustainability/ecology does.