Lessons From the Aftermaths of Green Revolution on Food System and Health (2024)

Introduction

The production of food within India was insufficient in the years from 1947 to 1960 as there was a growing population, during which a famine was also anticipated (Nelson et al., 2019). Food availability was only 417 g per day per person (Ghosh, 2002). Many farmers were in debt, and they had become landless laborers. Political situations that prevailed also had a negative impact on the food system. There was a severe shortage of food crops as well as commercial crops. At the same time, Norman Borlaug, an agronomist, contributed to the green revolution significantly, and this had set out its effects throughout the world. He provided new seeds for cultivation, which were stocky, disease-resistant, fast-growing, and highly responsive to fertilizers. In India, the green revolution was launched under the guidance of geneticist Dr. M. S. Swaminathan (Somvanshi et al., 2020). It started around 1960s and helped in increasing food production in the country. The green revolution's primary aim was to introduce high-yielding varieties (HYVs) of cereals to alleviate poverty and malnutrition (Nelson et al., 2019). Not to deny, the green revolution was capable of mitigating hunger and malnutrition in the short term as well (Davis et al., 2019).

What Is the Green Revolution?

The green revolution led to high productivity of crops through adapted measures, such as (1) increased area under farming, (2) double-cropping, which includes planting two crops rather than one, annually, (3) adoption of HYV of seeds, (4) highly increased use of inorganic fertilizers and pesticides, (5) improved irrigation facilities, and (6) improved farm implements and crop protection measures (Singh, 2000; Brainerd and Menon, 2014) and modifications in farm equipment. There was a high investment in crop research, infrastructure, market development, and appropriate policy support (Pingali, 2012). Efforts were made to improve the genetic component of traditional crops. This included selection for higher yield potential; wide adaptation to diverse environments; short growth duration; superior grain quality; resistance to biotic stress, insects, and pests; and resistance to abiotic stress, including drought and flooding (Khush, 2001). After the green revolution, the production of cereal crops tripled with only a 30% increase in the land area cultivated. This came true all over the world, with a few exceptions. In addition, there were significant impacts on poverty reduction and lower food prices. Studies also showed that without the green revolution, caloric availability would have declined by around 11–13%. These efforts benefitted all consumers in the world, particularly the poor. There were further improved returns to the crop improvement research. It also prevented the conversion of thousands of hectares of land for agriculture (Pingali, 2012). The green revolution helped India move from a state of importing grains to a state of self-sufficiency (Brainerd and Menon, 2014). Earlier, it was the ship-to-mouth system, i.e., India depended on imported food items (Ramachandran and Kalaivani, 2018). There are undoubtedly positive effects on the overall food security in India. Correspondingly, useful and elaborate evidence in support of the positive impact of the green revolution is available. However, after a certain period, some unintended but adverse effects of the green revolution were noticed. This paper introspects the negative impacts of the green revolution on the food system in India. Studies by the departments of conventional agriculture, social sector development, etc. bring out the positive impacts of the green revolution, such as increased yield and reduced mortality and malnutrition (Somvanshi et al., 2020; von der Goltz et al., 2020). On the other hand, studies conducted by the environmental and public health departments suggest that to mitigate the negative impacts, a reduced usage of pesticides is sufficient (Gerage et al., 2017). There are many studies being conducted to find out the extent of the impacts of pesticides and insecticides and other similar chemicals.

Although there are many studies that focused on this topic, this paper makes an effort to inform policy by asserting that many interventions, beneficial for the shorter term, such as the green revolution, without the consideration of ecological principles, can be detrimental and irreversible in the long run (Clasen et al., 2019). Efforts to recover from environmental damage would require extensive efforts, time, and other resources as compared with the destruction of the environment. Hence, any new intervention needs to be checked for its eco-friendliness and sustainability features.

Carrying forward intensified usage of pesticides is not advisable in an ever-deteriorating environment, and alternative solutions that can promote economic growth, increased yield, and less harm to the environment can be implemented. The vicious cycle of problem-solution-negative impacts has to be broken at some point of time. For example, a second green revolution is focused on in various countries (Ameen and Raza, 2017; Armanda et al., 2019). Instead of this, techniques to promote sustainable agriculture can be considered. Hence, there has to be a wake-up call before the repetition of history.

Impacts of the Green Revolution

Impacts on Agriculture and Environment

Pests and Pesticide

There has been a significant increase in the usage of pesticides, and India became one of the largest producers of pesticides in the whole of Asia (Narayanan et al., 2016). Although this has contributed to a lot of economic gains (Gollin et al., 2018), it is found out that a significant amount of pesticides is unnecessary in both industrialized and developing countries. For instance, it is reported that the presence of pesticides within freshwater is a costly concern with detected levels exceeding the set limits of pesticide presence (Choudhary et al., 2018). Although the average amount of pesticide usage is far lower than in many other countries, there is high pesticide residue in India. This causes a large amount of water pollution and damage to the soil. Another major issue is the pest attack, which arises due to an imbalance in the pests. Due to increased pesticide usage, the predator and prey pests are not in balance, and hence there is an overpopulation of one kind of pest that would attack certain crops. This leads to an imbalance in the production of those kinds of crops. These crops would need stronger pesticides or pesticides of new kinds to tackle the pests attacking those. This also has led to the disruption in the food chain (Narayanan et al., 2016).

Water Consumption

India has the highest demand for freshwater usage globally, and 91% of water is used in the agricultural sector now (Kayatz et al., 2019). Currently, many parts of India are experiencing water stress due to irrigated agriculture (Davis et al., 2018). The crops introduced during the green revolution were water-intensive crops. Most of these crops are cereals, and almost 50% of dietary water footprint is constituted by cereals in India (Kayatz et al., 2019). Since the crop cycle is less, the net water consumed by these crops is also really high. The production of rice currently needs flooding of water for its growth1 (International Rice Research Institute). Canal systems were introduced, and there were irrigation pumps that sucked out water from the groundwater table to supply the water-intensive crops, such as sugarcane and rice (Taylor, 2019). Punjab is a major wheat- and rice-cultivating area, and hence it is one of the highest water depleted regions in India2 (Alisjahbana, 2020). It is predicted that Punjab will have water scarcity in a few years (Kumar et al., 2018). Diminishing water resources and soil toxicity increased the pollution of underground water. The only aim of the green revolution was to increase food items' production and make it sufficient to feed everyone. The environmental impacts were not taken into account (Taylor, 2019). Based on the previous allocation of budget, irrigation was allotted 9,828 crore INR as compared with 3,080 crore INR for agriculture, excluding irrigation. This pattern has been persistent in the past 3 years (NABARD, 2020). Overall, the GDP from agriculture is 380,239 crore INR (16.5% of GDP) (Economics, 2020; India, 2020). This indicates that there has been a higher investment on irrigation of water due to its increased need in comparison with the other inputs required for agriculture.

Air Pollution

Air pollution introduced due to the burning of agricultural waste is a big issue these days. In the heartland of the green revolution, Punjab, farmers are burning their land for sowing the crops for the next cycle instead of the traditionally practiced natural cycle. The next crop cycle arrives very soon because the crop cycle is of short duration for the hybrid crops introduced in the green revolution. This contributes to the high amount of pollution due to the burning of agricultural waste in parts of Punjab (Davis et al., 2018). This kind of cultivation can lead to the release of many greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, methane, nitrogen oxides, etc. (de Miranda et al., 2015).

Impacts on Soil and Crop Production

There was a repetition of the crop cycle for increased crop production and reduced crop failure, which depleted the soil's nutrients (Srivastava et al., 2020). Similarly, as there is no return of crop residues and organic matter to the soil, intensive cropping systems resulted in the loss of soil organic matter (Singh and Benbi, 2016). To meet the needs of new kinds of seeds, farmers used increasing fertilizers as and when the soil quality deteriorated (Chhabra, 2020). The application of pesticides and fertilizers led to an increase in the level of heavy metals, especially Cd (cadmium), Pb (lead), and As (arsenic), in the soil. Weedicides and herbicides also harm the environment. The soil pH increased after the green revolution due to the usage of these alkaline chemicals (Sharma and Singhvi, 2017). The practice of monoculture (only wheat–rice cultivation) has a deleterious effect on many soil properties, which includes migration of silt from the surface to subsurface layers and a decrease in organic carbon content (Singh and Benbi, 2016). Toxic chemicals in the soil destroyed beneficial pathogens, which are essential for maintaining soil fertility. There is a decrease in the yield due to a decline in the fertility of the soil. In addition, the usage of tractors and mechanization damaged the physicochemical properties of the soil, which affected the biological activities in the soil. In the traditional methods, soil recovers in the presence of any kind of stressors (Srivastava et al., 2020). However, this does not happen with these modern methods. In a study conducted in Haryana, soil was found to have waterlogging, salinity, soil erosion, decline, and rise of groundwater table linked to brackish water and alkalinity, affecting production and food security in the future (Singh, 2000).

Although for around 30 years there was an increase in the production of crops, the rice yield became stagnant and further dropped to 1.13% in the period from 1995 to 1996 (Jain, 2018). Similarly with wheat, production declined from the 1950s due to the decrease in its genetic potential and monoculture cropping pattern (Handral et al., 2017). The productivity of potato, cotton, and sugarcane also became stagnant (Singh, 2008). Globally, agriculture is on an unsustainable track and has a high ecological footprint now (Prasad, 2016).

Extinction of Indigenous Varieties of Crops

Due to the green revolution, India lost almost 1 lakh varieties of indigenous rice (Prasad, 2016).

Since the time of the green revolution, there was reduced cultivation of indigenous varieties of rice, millets, lentils, etc. In turn, there was increased harvest of hybrid crops, which would grow faster (Taylor, 2019). This is indicated in Figure 1. There is a large increase in the cultivation of wheat, soybeans, and rice. In addition, there is a large decrease in the cultivation of sorghum, other millets, barley, and groundnuts. The increase in certain crops was due to the availability of HYVs of seeds and an increase in the area of production of these crops (Singh, 2019). The preference of farmers also changed in terms of the cultivation of crops. The native pulses, such as moong, gram, tur, etc., and some other oilseed crops, such as mustard, sesame, etc., were not cultivated further on a larger scale than it was before. Traditionally grown and consumed crops, such as millets, grow easily in arid and semi-arid conditions because they have low water requirements. However, there was the unavailability of high-yielding seeds of millets, and hence farmers moved to only rice and wheat (Srivastava et al., 2020).

FIGURE 1

Lessons From the Aftermaths of Green Revolution on Food System and Health (1)

Figure 1. Changes in area harvested of the crops from the years 1961 to 2018 (data source: FAOSTAT; FAO, 2020).

Impacts on Human Health

Food Consumption Pattern

Traditionally, Indians consumed a lot of millets, but this became mostly fodder after the green revolution (Nelson et al., 2019). The Cambridge world history of food mentions that the Asian diet had food items, such as millets and barley (Kiple and Ornelas, 2000). As already mentioned, after the period of the green revolution, there were significant changes in food production, which in turn affected the consumption practices of Indians. The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) has recorded that over the years 1961–2017, there are a decrease in the production of millets and an increase in the production of rice (Food and Agricultural Organisation, 2019; Smith et al., 2019); thus, rice became the staple diet of the country. Though the green revolution made food available to many, it failed to provide a diverse diet but provided increased calorie consumption.

Health-Related Impacts on the General Population

Most of the pesticides used belong to the class organophosphate, organochlorine, carbamate, and pyrethroid. Indiscriminate pesticide usage has led to several health effects in human beings in the nervous, endocrine, reproductive, and immune systems. Sometimes, the amount of pesticide in the human body increases beyond the capacity of the detoxification system due to continuous exposure through various sources (Xavier et al., 2004). Of all, the intake of food items with pesticide content is found to have high exposure, i.e., 103-105 times higher than that arising from contaminated drinking water or air (Sharma and Singhvi, 2017).

Impacts on Farmers

Most of the farmers who use pesticides do not use personal protective gear, such as safety masks, gloves, etc., as there is no awareness about the deleterious effects of pesticides. Pesticides, applied over the plants, can directly enter the human body, and the concentration of nitrate in the blood can immobilize hemoglobin in the blood. Organophosphates can also develop cancer if exposed for a longer period. Since it is in small quantities, the content may not be seen or tasted; however, continuous use for several years will cause deposition in the body. Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) was a very common pesticide used in India, now banned internationally as it is found to bioaccumulate and cause severe harmful effects on human beings (Sharma and Singhvi, 2017). However, there is still illegal use of DDT in India. In India, women are at the forefront of around 50% of the agricultural force. Hence, most of these women are directly exposed to these toxins at a young age and are highly vulnerable to the negative impacts including effects on their children. It is proven that there is a significant correlation between agrochemical content in water and total birth defects. The damaging impact of agrochemicals in water is more pronounced in poor countries, such as India (Brainerd and Menon, 2014).

Discussion

Efforts are underway to produce genetic variants of millets that can withstand biotic and abiotic stresses. Earlier, the introduction of genetic variants of rice and wheat and pesticides was the solution for malnutrition, but it led to environmental destruction in a few years. In the short term, food scarcity might rise again due to increased water depletion and soil damage. Any new interventions should be carefully introduced not to disrupt other systems to prevent future adversities. A domino effect is expected to occur when there is any disruption in the ecosystem, such that if even one link in the food chain is affected, it affects other parts of the chain also. Most of the ecological disruption is by human intervention (Vaz et al., 2005). Pesticides used for agricultural activities are released to the environment through air drift, leaching, and run-off and are found in soil, surface, and groundwater. This can contaminate soil, water, and other vegetation. Pesticide residues are found to be present in almost all habitats and are detected in both marine and terrestrial animals (Choudhary et al., 2018). The mechanisms include absorption through the gills or teguments, which is bioconcentration, as well as through the consumption of contaminated food, called biomagnification or bioamplification. In marine systems, seagrass beds and coral reefs were found to have very high concentrations of persistent organic pollutants (Dromard et al., 2018). It also affects the activities of insects and microbes. It kills insects and weeds, is toxic to other organisms, such as birds and fish, and contaminates meat products, such as chicken, goat, and beef. This can lead to bioaccumulation in human beings along with poor food safety, thus impairing nutrition and health. Repeated application leads to loss of biodiversity (Choudhary et al., 2018). Consumption of pesticide-laden food can lead to loss of appetite, vomiting, weakness, abdominal cramps, etc. (Gerage et al., 2017). There is a decline in the number of pollinators, for instance, the destruction of bumblebee colonies that are an important group of pollinators on a global scale (Baron et al., 2017). There is an extinction of honeybee populations, and it poses a great threat to the survival of human beings (Hagopian, 2017). The residue level of these pesticides depends on the organism's habitat and position in the food chain. This is a serious issue because the predicted usage of pesticides is that it will be doubled in the coming years (Choudhary et al., 2018).

In addition, it is not nearly possible to get back the lost varieties of indigenous rice. Likewise, further advancements should not lead to the extinction of the other indigenous varieties of grains, such as millets.

In conclusion, the effects of the green revolution are persisting. The green revolution, which was beneficial in ensuring food security, has unintended but harmful consequences on agriculture and human health. This requires new interventions to be tested and piloted before implementation, and continuous evaluation of the harms and benefits should guide the implementation. An already fragile food system is affected due to the aftermaths of the green revolution. The potential negative impacts are not part of the discourse as it can affect the narratives of development and prosperity. Developments introduced due to necessity may not be sustainable in the future. Organic ways of farming need to be adopted for sustainable agricultural practices. Similarly, alternative agriculture techniques, such as intercropping, Zero Budget Natural Farming (ZBNF) with essential principles involving the enhancement of nature's processes, and elimination of external inputs, can be practiced (Khadse et al., 2018). The government of Andhra Pradesh (AP), a Southern state in India, has plans to convert 6 million farmers and 8 million hectares of land under the state initiative of Climate Resilient Zero Budget Natural Farming because of the positive outputs obtained in the ZBNF impact assessments in the states of Karnataka and AP (Reddy et al., 2019; Koner and Laha, 2020) In AP, it was observed that yield of crops increased to 9% in the case of paddy and 40% in the case of ragi. Net income increased from 25% in the case of ragi ranging to 135% in the case of groundnut (Martin-Guay et al., 2018; Reddy et al., 2019). There is a need for a systems approach in dealing with food insecurity and malnutrition and other similar issues. Like the already mentioned example, the green revolution was brought in to reduce the problem of reduced yield. Now, there is a green revolution 2 that is planned. Before such interventions are taken, environmental risk assessments and other evaluation studies should be conducted for a sustainable future.

Author Contributions

DJ conceived the idea. DJ and GB contributed to the writing of the article. Both the authors contributed to the review, proofreading, and finalizing the manuscript.

Funding

This MAASTHI cohort was funded by an Intermediate Fellowship by the Wellcome Trust DBT India Alliance (Clinical and Public Health research fellowship) to GB (grant number IA/CPHI/14/1/501499). The funding agency had no role in the design and conduct of the article, review and interpretation of the data, preparation or approval of the manuscript, or decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Footnotes

References

Alisjahbana, A. S. (2020). Asia-Pacific Response to COVID-19 and Climate Emergency Must Build a Resilient and Sustainable Future. UN ESCAP.

Google Scholar

Ameen, A., and Raza, S. (2017). Green revolution: a review. Int. J. Adv. Sci. Res3, 129–137. doi: 10.7439/ijasr.v3i12.4410

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Armanda, D. T., Guinée, J. B., and Tukker, A. (2019). The second green revolution: Innovative urban agriculture's contribution to food security and sustainability–a review. Global Food Security 22, 13–24. doi: 10.1016/j.gfs.2019.08.002

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Baron, G. L., Jansen, V. A., Brown, M. J., and Raine, N. E. (2017). Pesticide reduces bumblebee colony initiation and increases probability of population extinction. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 1, 1308–1316. doi: 10.1038/s41559-017-0260-1

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Brainerd, E., and Menon, N. (2014). Seasonal effects of water quality: the hidden costs of the Green Revolution to infant and child health in India. J. Dev. Econo. 107, 49–64. doi: 10.1016/j.jdeveco.2013.11.004

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Chhabra, V. (2020). Studies on use of biofertilizers in agricultural production. Eur. J. Mol. Clin. Med. 7, 2335–2339. Available online at: https://ejmcm.com/article_4918_a96670a81e10246d9ffdf586d6ec2089.pdf

Google Scholar

Choudhary, S., Yamini, N. R., Yadav, S. K., Kamboj, M., and Sharma, A. (2018). A review: pesticide residue: cause of many animal health problems. J. Entomol. Zool. Stud. 6, 330–333. Available online at: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Sanjay_Choudhary10/publication/325314814_A_review_Pesticide_residue_cause_of_many_animal_health_problems/links/5b063a710f7e9b1ed7e8314f/A-review-Pesticide-residue-cause-of-many-animal-health-problems.pdf

Google Scholar

Clasen, B., Murussi, C., and Storck, T. (2019). “Pesticide contamination in Southern Brazil,” in Pollution of Water Bodies in Latin America, ed L. M. Gómez-Oliván (Paraná: Springer), 43–54. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-27296-8_3

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Davis, K. F., Chhatre, A., Rao, N. D., Singh, D., Ghosh-Jerath, S., Mridul, A., et al. (2019). Assessing the sustainability of post-Green Revolution cereals in India. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 116, 25034–25041. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1910935116

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Davis, K. F., Chiarelli, D. D., Rulli, M. C., Chhatre, A., Richter, B., Singh, D., et al. (2018). Alternative cereals can improve water use and nutrient supply in India. Sci. Adv. 4:eaao1108. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.aao1108

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

de Miranda, M. S., Fonseca, M. L., Lima, A., de Moraes, T. F., and Rodrigues, F. A. (2015). Environmental impacts of rice cultivation. Am. J. Plant Sci. 6, 2009–2018. doi: 10.4236/ajps.2015.612201

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Dromard, C. R., Bouchon-Navaro, Y., Cordonnier, S., Guén,é, M., Harmelin-Vivien, M., and Bouchon, C. (2018). Different transfer pathways of an organochlorine pesticide across marine tropical food webs assessed with stable isotope analysis. PLoS ONE 13:e0191335. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0191335

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Economics, T. (2020). India GDP. Available online at: https://tradingeconomics.com/india/gdp (accessed April 01, 2021).

Google Scholar

FAO (2020). FAOSTAT. Available online at http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QC

Google Scholar

Food Agricultural Organisation (2019). Crops. FAOSTAT: Food and agricultural organisation. Available: http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QC/visualize (accessed March 01, 2020).

Google Scholar

Gerage, J. M., Meira, A. P. G., and da Silva, M. V. (2017). Food and nutrition security: pesticide residues in food. Nutrire 42:3. doi: 10.1186/s41110-016-0028-4

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Ghosh, J. (2002). Social Policy in Indian Development. U.N.R.I.f.S. Development (UNRISD).

Google Scholar

Gollin, D., Hansen, C. W., and Wingender, A. (2018). Two Blades of Grass: The Impact of the Green Revolution. Cambridge, CA: National Bureau of Economic Research. doi: 10.3386/w24744

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Hagopian, J. (2017). Death and Extinction of the Bees. Global Research.

Google Scholar

Handral, A. R., Singh, A., Singh, D., Suresh, A., and Jha, G. (2017). Scenario of Changing Dynamics in Production and Productivity of Major Cereals in India. New Delhi: ICAR-Indian Agricultural Research Institute.

Google Scholar

India, P. (2020). Economic Survey 2019-20. P. India. Available online at: https://www.prsindia.org/ (accessed January 06, 2021).

Google Scholar

International Rice Research Institute. How to Manage Water? Knowledge Bank: International Rice Research Institute. Available online at: http://www.knowledgebank.irri.org/step-by-step-production/growth/water-management (accessed July 01, 2020).

Google Scholar

Jain, A. (2018). Analysis of growth and instability in area, production, yield and price of rice in India. J. Soc. Change Dev. 2, 46–66. Available online at: http://www.okd.in/downloads/jr_18_july/article_4.pdf

Google Scholar

Kayatz, B., Harris, F., Hillier, J., Adhya, T., Dalin, C., Nayak, D., et al. (2019). “More crop per drop”: exploring India's cereal water use since 2005. Sci. Total Environ. 673, 207–217. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.03.304

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Khadse, A., Rosset, P. M., Morales, H., and Ferguson, B. G. (2018). Taking agroecology to scale: the zero budget natural farming peasant movement in Karnataka, India. J. Peasant Stud. 45, 192–219. doi: 10.1080/03066150.2016.1276450

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Khush, G. S. (2001). Green revolution: the way forward. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2, 815–822. doi: 10.1038/35093585

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Kiple, K. F., and Ornelas, K. C. (2000). Cambridge World History Of Food. Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CHOL9780521402149

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Koner, N., and Laha, A. (2020). Economics of zero budget natural farming in Purulia District of West Bengal: Is it economically viable? Stud. Agric. Econ. 122, 22–28. doi: 10.7896/j.1924

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Kumar, R., Vaid, U., and Mittal, S. (2018). Water crisis: issues and challenges in Punjab. Water Resour. Manage. 78, 93–103. doi: 10.1007/978-981-10-5711-3_7

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Martin-Guay, M.-O., Paquette, A., Dupras, J., and Rivest, D. (2018). The new green revolution: sustainable intensification of agriculture by intercropping. Sci. Total Environ. 615, 767–772. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.10.024

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

NABARD (2020). Annual Report. M.o. Finance. Available online at: https://nabard.org/ (accessed January 06, 2021).

Google Scholar

Narayanan, J., Sanjeevi, V., Rohini, U., Trueman, P., and Viswanathan, V. (2016). Postprandial glycaemic response of foxtail millet dosa in comparison to a rice dosa in patients with type 2 diabetes. Indian J. Med. Res. 144, 712. doi: 10.4103/ijmr.IJMR_551_15

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Nelson, A. R. L. E., Ravichandran, K., and Antony, U. (2019). The impact of the Green Revolution on indigenous crops of India. J. Ethnic Foods 6:8. doi: 10.1186/s42779-019-0011-9

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Pingali, P. L. (2012). Green revolution: impacts, limits, and the path ahead. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 109, 12302–12308. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0912953109

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Prasad, S. C. (2016). Innovating at the margins: the System of Rice Intensification in India and transformative social innovation. Ecol. Soc. 21:7. doi: 10.5751/ES-08718-210407

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Ramachandran, P., and Kalaivani, K. (2018). Nutrition transition in India: Challenges in achieving global targets. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 84, 821–833. doi: 10.16943/ptinsa/2018/49450

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Reddy, B., Reddy, V., and Reddy, M. S. (2019). Potential and constraints of Zero Budgeted Natural Farming (ZBNF): a study of Andhra Pradesh. Indian J. Agric. Econ. 74, 321–332. Available online at: http://isaeindia.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/03-Article-M-Srinivasa-Reddy.pdf

Google Scholar

Sharma, N., and Singhvi, R. (2017). Effects of chemical fertilizers and pesticides on human health and environment: a review. Int. J. Agric. Environ. Biotechnol. 10, 675–680. doi: 10.5958/2230-732X.2017.00083.3

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Singh, I. (2019). Changes of agriculture production in india after Green Revolution. J. Gujarat Res. Soc. 21, 2290–2294. Available online at: http://gujaratresearchsociety.in/index.php/JGRS/article/view/2967

Google Scholar

Singh, M. V. (2008). “Micronutrient deficiencies in crops and soils in India,” in Micronutrient Deficiencies in Global Crop Production, ed B. J. Alloway (Springer), 93–125. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4020-6860-7_4

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Singh, R. (2000). Environmental consequences of agricultural development: a case study from the Green Revolution state of Haryana, India. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 82, 97–103. doi: 10.1016/S0167-8809(00)00219-X

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Singh, S., and Benbi, D. K. (2016). Punjab-soil health and green revolution: a quantitative analysis of major soil parameters. J. Crop Improv. 30, 323–340. doi: 10.1080/15427528.2016.1157540

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Smith, J. C., Ghosh, A., and Hijmans, R. J. (2019). Agricultural intensification was associated with crop diversification in India (1947-2014). PLoS ONE 14:e0225555. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0225555

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Somvanshi, P. S., Pandiaraj, T., and Singh, R. P. (2020). An unexplored story of successful green revolution of India and steps towards ever green revolution. J. Pharmacogn. Phytochem. 9, 1270–1273. Available online at: https://www.phytojournal.com/archives/2020/vol9issue1/PartU/9-1-256-412.pdf

Google Scholar

Srivastava, P., Balhara, M., and Giri, B. (2020). “Soil health in India: past history and future perspective,” in Soil Health, eds B. Giri and A. Varma (New Delhi; Noida: Springer), 1–19. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-44364-1_1

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Taylor, M. (2019). Hybrid realities: making a new Green Revolution for rice in south India. J. Peasant Stud. 47, 483–502. doi: 10.1080/03066150.2019.1568246

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Vaz, M., Yusuf, S., Bharathi, A., Kurpad, A., and Swaminathan, S. (2005). The nutrition transition in India. South Afr. J. Clin. Nutr. 18, 198–201. doi: 10.1080/16070658.2005.11734065

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

von der Goltz, J., Dar, A., Fishman, R., Mueller, N. D., Barnwal, P., and McCord, G. C. (2020). Health impacts of the Green Revolution: evidence from 600,000 births across the developing world. J. Health Econ. 74:102373. doi: 10.1016/j.jhealeco.2020.102373

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Lessons From the Aftermaths of Green Revolution on Food System and Health (2024)

FAQs

What lessons can we learn from the Green Revolution? ›

The key lessons learned from the Green Revolution are:

(iii) It promoted an excessive of use of pesticides that are harmful to the environment. As countries became self sufficient in food, government investments declined in the agricultural sector and in science and technology across the region.

How did the Green Revolution affect food? ›

After the green revolution, the production of cereal crops tripled with only a 30% increase in the land area cultivated. This came true all over the world, with a few exceptions. In addition, there were significant impacts on poverty reduction and lower food prices.

How does the Green Revolution affect the food supply and the environment? ›

The Green Revolution involved the widespread use of chemicals in agriculture that had adverse environmental impacts. The interrelationships between water resources, erosion, pesticides and fertilizers, deforestation, population pressure, and biodiversity, and farmers are individually addressed.

What was the Green Revolution and why the Green Revolution was important to grain and food production around the world? ›

American Experience: What was the Green Revolution and what were its goals? Ray Offenheiser: The Green Revolution was the emergence of new varieties of crops, specifically wheat and rice varietals, that were able to double if not triple production of those crops in two countries.

What are 3 positives of Green Revolution? ›

The revolution facilitated the creation of high-yielding crop varieties to solve the food problem. The initiative sparked significant improvements in rice and wheat production. Farmers could further raise their yields by using agrochemicals and synthetic fertilizers.

What are the benefits and problems of the Green Revolution? ›

The Green Revolution made it possible for farmers to produce more from their existing fields, creating bigger harvests with the same amount of work. That lowered production costs, which ultimately lowered consumer costs, while profits actually rose.

How did the agricultural revolution change the food we eat? ›

For the first time, people began staying in one place to grow grains and vegetables. Gradually, farming replaced hunting and gathering as the main source of food. At the same time, people began to domesticate (duh • MEHS • tih • kayt), or tame, animals for human use.

What is Green Revolution in food? ›

green revolution, great increase in production of food grains (especially wheat and rice) that resulted in large part from the introduction into developing countries of new, high-yielding varieties, beginning in the mid-20th century. Its early dramatic successes were in Mexico and the Indian subcontinent.

Did the Green Revolution help world hunger? ›

The GR contributed to widespread poverty reduction, averted hunger for millions of people, and avoided the conversion of thousands of hectares of land into agricultural cultivation.

What has the biggest impact on the environmental impacts of the food system? ›

Industrial agriculture harms the environment through pollution of air, soil and water. Air emissions from livestock operations make up 14.5 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions. Conventional crop production degrades soil health and causes soil erosion.

Do you think the Green Revolution had a positive or negative effect on food production for the human population? ›

The Green Revolution had a number of positive impacts, including increased food production, improved living standards, and economic growth. However, it also had negative impacts, including environmental degradation, the displacement of small-scale farmers, and the loss of biodiversity.

Which of the following was a positive consequence of the Green Revolution? ›

It caused an increase in food production, even as populations increased.

Who benefited from the Green Revolution? ›

In addition to Mexico, Pakistan, India, and the Philippines, countries benefiting from the Green Revolution included Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, China, Indonesia, Iran, Kenya, Malaya, Morocco, Thailand, Tunisia, and Turkey.

Where has the Green Revolution had the greatest impact? ›

The Green Revolution was successful in Mexico and India. Some of the benefits of the Green Revolution were that it increased yields, made countries self-sufficient, created jobs, and provided a higher caloric intake, amongst others.

How has the Green Revolution negatively impacted agriculture? ›

The Green Revolution has also been widely criticized for causing environmental damage. Excessive and inappropriate use of fertilizers and pesticides has polluted waterways, poisoned agricultural workers, and killed beneficial insects and other wildlife.

What were 5 positive impacts of the Green Revolution? ›

The green revolution led to high productivity of crops through adapted measures, such as (1) increased area under farming, (2) double-cropping, which includes planting two crops rather than one, annually, (3) adoption of HYV of seeds, (4) highly increased use of inorganic fertilizers and pesticides, (5) improved ...

Was the Green Revolution helpful or harmful? ›

Undoubtedly the Green Revolution saved huge areas of forest, wetlands, and hillsides from being converted into cropland. Up to the mid-20st century, higher production could only be achieved by cultivating more acres.

How did the Green Revolution affect population growth? ›

The Green Revolution took place in the mid-twentieth century. It is estimated that it led to a population increase of between one to two billion people. The majority of this population growth took place in Asia, particularly in countries like India, China, Vietnam, and Bangladesh.

What is the greatest benefit of the green revolution quizlet? ›

The Green Revolution increased food production (output/acre) tremendously by developing high yielding varieties of major food crops and providing them with fertilizers and irrigation to boost growth, and pesticides to reduce loss to pests.

What were the positive effects of the green revolution quizlet? ›

It created more farmers and farming jobs. More jobs = less poverty! It created more harvest from a single field. Getting the most food from that one field!

What problem did the green revolution attempt to solve? ›

What problem did the Green Revolution attempt to solve? The Green Revolution attempted to save third-world countries from starvation by using ingenuity in the field of agriculture.

How does agriculture affect our food? ›

Agriculture impacts society in many ways, including: supporting livelihoods through food, habitat, and jobs; providing raw materials for food and other products; and building strong economies through trade.

What impact did the Agricultural Revolution have on population and food supply? ›

The agricultural revolutions affected how people worked and got their food. The first caused people to grow crops and raise animals for food. The second caused people to move into cities and work in factories. The third led to an increase in human population.

How did food surpluses change the way of life in early human settlements? ›

Having surplus food also allowed more people to be fed, so the population of the world began to grow rapidly. As the population increased, settlements grew into towns. People did not have to spend all of their days producing food.

What food was first Green Revolution? ›

Bankrolled by the rockefeller and Ford Foundations in the 1960s — and subsequently by publicly funded institutions and governments — the “Green revolution” promoted the use of high yielding seed varieties, irrigation, mechanization, fertilizers and pesticides.

What are the positive effects of agriculture on the environment? ›

Pasture and cropland occupy around 50 percent of the Earth's habitable land and provide habitat and food for a multitude of species. When agricultural operations are sustainably managed, they can preserve and restore critical habitats, help protect watersheds, and improve soil health and water quality.

What were the effects of the agricultural revolution? ›

The Agricultural Revolution brought about experimentation with new crops and new methods of crop rotation. These new farming techniques gave soil time to replenish nutrients leading to stronger crops and better agricultural output. Advancements in irrigation and drainage further increased productivity.

How does agriculture help world hunger? ›

It increases food supply, which lowers food prices. Poor people benefit the most because they spend a much greater share of their income on food. Increasing the productivity of smallholder farmers also raises their incomes, improving their ability to cope.

Did the Green Revolution save lives? ›

The late agronomist's work in developing new varieties of wheat starting in the 1940s spawned the “Green Revolution,” and is credited with saving at least a billion lives.

What are 4 environmental influences on your food influences? ›

Environmental factors can also have an influence on our food choices. These are aspects of a setting, atmosphere, or location that influence an individual's choices. Layout, marketing, climate, weather, price, and availability are examples of environmental factors.

How the environment affects the food system? ›

First, before food production even begins, natural habitats and ecosystems are destroyed to clear land that will be used for agriculture. Habitat loss is one of the leading causes of population declines among wildlife species, eventually leading to extinction in many cases.

How does the food system impact the environment? ›

Food needs to be grown and processed, transported, distributed, prepared, consumed, and sometimes disposed of. Each of these steps creates greenhouse gases that trap the sun's heat and contribute to climate change. About a third of all human-caused greenhouse gas emissions is linked to food.

What changes did the Green Revolution bring and what were its positive and negative effects? ›

Increased crop yield and quantity, reduction in need for pesticides, and increased profits are all potential benefits. and 3 potential drawbacks/risks of Genetically Modified foods. Whereas safety, effects on biodiversity, and mis-labeling of foods are all negative effects of modified foods.

Where was the Green Revolution not successful? ›

The Green Revolution failed in Africa for reasons that remain major obstacles today. Absent research, roads, storage, extension capacity, credit and subsidies — high-yield maize will produce little, or its gains will go only to wealthier farmers.

How has the Green Revolution led to some conflicting outcomes for the population of the earth? ›

Environmentally the Green Revolution negatively affected the genetic diversity of crops, which led to the pollution of the agricultural environment. The revolution also led to the need for increased irrigation, which has caused conflict and violence.

What were the social effects of the Green Revolution? ›

The Green Revolution has facilitated institutional and social changes in rural areas and provided opportunities for self-sustaining economic growth and reduced poverty.

Which of the following was not a positive result of the Green Revolution? ›

The correct option is C Increase in urban employment.

What is the Green Revolution summary? ›

American Experience: What was the Green Revolution and what were its goals? Ray Offenheiser: The Green Revolution was the emergence of new varieties of crops, specifically wheat and rice varietals, that were able to double if not triple production of those crops in two countries.

What is one lesson from the Green Revolution? ›

Governments have an interest securing a sufficient food supply. The discoveries of the Green Revolution gave farmers tools to provide more food for a growing population.

Which class benefited the most from the Green Revolution? ›

Farmers with more than 10 hectares of land benefitted the most from the green revolution.

Who benefited most from the Green Revolution and why? ›

What areas of the world benefited most from the Green Revolution? It staved off famine in Asia and enabled India to become self-sufficient in grain production.

What was one impact the Green Revolution had on the environment? ›

The Green Revolution involved the widespread use of chemicals in agriculture that had adverse environmental impacts. The interrelationships between water resources, erosion, pesticides and fertilizers, deforestation, population pressure, and biodiversity, and farmers are individually addressed.

How did the green revolution increased food production? ›

The green revolution led to high productivity of crops through adapted measures, such as (1) increased area under farming, (2) double-cropping, which includes planting two crops rather than one, annually, (3) adoption of HYV of seeds, (4) highly increased use of inorganic fertilizers and pesticides, (5) improved ...

What are the toxic consequences of the green revolution? ›

A second study, also made public this past year, found widespread contamination of drinking water with pesticide chemicals and heavy metals, all of which are linked to cancer and other life-threatening ailments.

What are the unintended consequences of the green revolution? ›

Unintended consequences in water use, soil degradation, and chemical runoff have had serious environmental impacts beyond the areas cultivated (59). The slowdown in yield growth that has been observed since the mid-1980s can be attributed, in part, to the above degradation of the agricultural resource base.

What is Green Revolution in your own words? ›

The green revolution is the increase in agricultural production that has been made possible by the use of new types of crops and new farming methods, especially in developing countries.

What is the Green Revolution and what is its purpose? ›

The Green Revolution refers to a transformative 20th-century agricultural project that utilized plant genetics, modern irrigation systems, and chemical fertilizers and pesticides to increase food production and reduce poverty and hunger in developing countries.

What is the greatest benefit of the Green Revolution quizlet? ›

The Green Revolution increased food production (output/acre) tremendously by developing high yielding varieties of major food crops and providing them with fertilizers and irrigation to boost growth, and pesticides to reduce loss to pests.

What is the overall goal of the Green Revolution? ›

Goal of Green Revolution was to increase the yield by use of improved agronomic technology. It allowed developing countries to overcome food defects.

What were some impacts of the Green Revolution? ›

After the green revolution, the production of cereal crops tripled with only a 30% increase in the land area cultivated. This came true all over the world, with a few exceptions. In addition, there were significant impacts on poverty reduction and lower food prices.

What problem did the Green Revolution attempt to solve? ›

What problem did the Green Revolution attempt to solve? The Green Revolution attempted to save third-world countries from starvation by using ingenuity in the field of agriculture.

What is the green food revolution? ›

The Green Revolution, also known as the Third Agricultural Revolution, was a period of technology transfer initiatives that saw greatly increased crop yields and agricultural production. These changes in agriculture began in developed countries after World War II and spread globally till the late 1980s.

What four things did humans start to use much more of during the Green Revolution? ›

The revolution brought new irrigation techniques, hybrid seeds, fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, and mechanization.

Was The Green Revolution a good or bad thing? ›

Undoubtedly the Green Revolution saved huge areas of forest, wetlands, and hillsides from being converted into cropland. Up to the mid-20st century, higher production could only be achieved by cultivating more acres.

Which best summarizes the main positive outcome of the Green Revolution? ›

A) The green revolution was successful because of selective breeding, which improved nutritional value and crop yield to increase food production.

What is one of the advantages of the Green Revolution? ›

One of the main advantages of the Green Revolution is that it has helped to increase crop yields through the use of high-yielding varieties of seeds, improved fertilizers, and mechanization. This increased yield has helped to reduce hunger and starvation in many parts of the world.

Which characteristic is fundamental to the Green Revolution? ›

The core of the Green Revolution is a series of cultivars, mainly grain crops, called “High Yielding Varieties,” or HYVs. HYVs differ from normal crop varieties in that they will not maintain their desirable characteristics by normal on-farm reproduction.

What is the Green Revolution and how did it affect the developing world quizlet? ›

The green revolution was a global effort to eliminate hunger by bringing modern agricultural technology to developing countries in Asia. Industrial agriculture made the green revolution possible by making agriculture production more beneficial and fast-paced.

In what way have science and technology changed the lives of people today? ›

By drastically changing our means of communication, the way we work, our housing, clothes, and food, our methods of transportation, and, indeed, even the length and quality of life itself, science has generated changes in the moral values and basic philosophies of mankind.

Top Articles
Latest Posts
Article information

Author: Mr. See Jast

Last Updated:

Views: 6237

Rating: 4.4 / 5 (55 voted)

Reviews: 86% of readers found this page helpful

Author information

Name: Mr. See Jast

Birthday: 1999-07-30

Address: 8409 Megan Mountain, New Mathew, MT 44997-8193

Phone: +5023589614038

Job: Chief Executive

Hobby: Leather crafting, Flag Football, Candle making, Flying, Poi, Gunsmithing, Swimming

Introduction: My name is Mr. See Jast, I am a open, jolly, gorgeous, courageous, inexpensive, friendly, homely person who loves writing and wants to share my knowledge and understanding with you.