case study on green revolution

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

We're Hiring!
Help Center

Green Revolution in India : A Case Study

Related Papers

Shreya Sethi

TATuP - Zeitschrift für Technikfolgenabschätzung in Theorie und Praxis

Dr. Somidh Saha

Partition of British India in 1947 triggered a huge refugee crisis in India. In addition, low agricultural yield and high population growth fueled food insecurity. The fear of the Bengal Famine of 1943 was still fresh and the Indian Government wanted to prevent further famines. The philanthropic organizations of the USA (Rockefeller and Ford Foundation) collaborated with Indian policymakers and scientists that helped in the groundwork of the Green Revolution. Jack Loveridge explains how technology and international cooperation contributed to India's Green Revolution and what lessons can be learned for the future. The challenges related population control, environment, social and economic inequality in the Green Revolution were highlighted. Interview by Somidh Saha (ITAS-KIT).

International Journal of Health Sciences (IJHS)

Emil Stepha

Arunav Chetia

Journal of Ethnic Foods

Kavitha Ravichandran

The Green Revolution in India was initiated in the 1960s by introducing high-yielding varieties of rice and wheat to increase food production in order to alleviate hunger and poverty. Post-Green Revolution, the production of wheat and rice doubled due to initiatives of the government, but the production of other food crops such as indigenous rice varieties and millets declined. This led to the loss of distinct indigenous crops from cultivation and also caused extinction. This review deals with the impacts the Green Revolution had on the production of indigenous crops, its effects on society, environment, nutrition intake, and per capita availability of foods, and also the methods that can be implemented to revive the indigenous crops back into cultivation and carry the knowledge to the future generation forward.

isara solutions

International Research Journal Commerce arts science

Agriculture has always been the backbone of the Indian economy and despite concerted industrialization in the last six decades, agriculture still occupies a place of pride. It provides employment to around 60per cent of the total work force in the country. That’s why taken all steps for development of agriculture are important….like green revolution…

Irrigation and Drainage

Avinash Tyagi

International Res Jour Managt Socio Human

Food security will remain a concern for the next 20 years and beyond, globally. There has been no significant increase in crop yield in many areas, despite of HYV of seeds and chemical fertilizers stressing the need for higher investments in research and infrastructure, as well as addressing the issue of water scarcity. Climate change is a crucial factor affecting food security in many regions including India.

Sachin Shirnath

Agrarian Change and Development Planning in South Asia

Robert Chambers

RELATED PAPERS

Aleksandar Petrovic

International Journal of Public Health

Jesús Rodriguez Marín

Trends in Sciences

Yutthana Tirawanichakul

Revista de estudios brasileños

Rodrigo Rodrigues-Silveira

PeerJ Computer Science

Muzaffer Aslan

Firman Budi pratama

Jurnal AgroBiogen

adi pancoro

Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine

Lidija Latifovic

Western Journal of Emergency Medicine

Christopher Tainter

Brazilian Journal of Animal and Environmental Research

ARNALDO JÚNIOR

Reynaldo Charrier

Toxicology Letters

Sabrina Moro

一模一样lu学位证书拉夫堡大学毕业证文凭证书实拍图Leter Offer原版一模一样

The Prostate

Fouad K Habib

Rhomeo Porto

Advances in Electrical and Electronic Engineering

KATIA KOUZI

Fujio Naito

André Cavalcante

Interiority

Azizi Bahauddin

Journal of Heuristics

Phương Khánh

Green Revolution: Impacts, limits, and the path ahead

Author contributions: P.L.P. wrote the paper.

A detailed retrospective of the Green Revolution, its achievement and limits in terms of agricultural productivity improvement, and its broader impact at social, environmental, and economic levels is provided. Lessons learned and the strategic insights are reviewed as the world is preparing a “redux” version of the Green Revolution with more integrative environmental and social impact combined with agricultural and economic development. Core policy directions for Green Revolution 2.0 that enhance the spread and sustainable adoption of productivity enhancing technologies are specified.

The developing world witnessed an extraordinary period of food crop productivity growth over the past 50 y, despite increasing land scarcity and rising land values. Although populations had more than doubled, the production of cereal crops tripled during this period, with only a 30% increase in land area cultivated ( 1 ). Dire predictions of a Malthusian famine were belied, and much of the developing world was able to overcome its chronic food deficits. Sub-Saharan Africa continues to be the exception to the global trend.

*All websites accessed June 20, 2012.

Much of the success was caused by the combination of high rates of investment in crop research, infrastructure, and market development and appropriate policy support that took place during the first Green Revolution (GR). I distinguish the first GR period as 1966–1985 and the post-GR period as the next two decades. Large public investment in crop genetic improvement built on the scientific advances already made in the developed world for the major staple crops—wheat, rice, and maize—and adapted those advances to the conditions of developing countries ( 2 ).

The GR strategy for food crop productivity growth was explicitly based on the premise that, given appropriate institutional mechanisms, technology spillovers across political and agroclimatic boundaries could be captured. However, neither private firms nor national governments had sufficient incentive to invest in all of the research and development of such international public goods. Private firms operating through markets have limited interest in public goods, because they do not have the capacity to capture much of the benefit through proprietary claims; also, because of the global, nonrival nature of the research products, no single nation has the incentive to invest public resources in this type of research.

International public goods institutions were needed to fill this gap, and efforts to develop the necessary institutional capacity, particularly in plant breeding, were a central part of the GR strategy. Based on the early successes with wheat at the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Centre (CIMMYT) in Mexico and rice at the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) in the Philippines, the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) was established specifically to generate technological spillovers for countries that underinvest in agricultural research, because they are unable to capture all of the benefits of those investments ( 3 ). After CGIAR-generated knowledge, invention, and products (such as breeding lines) were made publicly available, national public and private sectors responded with investments for technology adaptation, dissemination, and delivery.

Despite that success, in the post-GR period, investment in agriculture dropped off dramatically into the mid-2000s ( 4 ). However, the need for continued investments in agricultural innovation and productivity growth is as important today as it was in the early years of the GR. Low income countries and lagging regions of emerging economies continue to rely on agricultural productivity as an engine of growth and hunger reduction ( 5 – 7 ). However, sustaining productivity gains, enhancing smallholder competitiveness, and adapting to climate change are becoming increasingly urgent concerns across all production systems.

Since the mid-2000s and heightened after the 2008 food price spikes, there has been renewed interest in agricultural investment, and there are calls for the next GR, including those calls made by the former Secretary General of the United Nations Kofi Annan and Sir Gordon Conway ( 3 , 8 ). Simultaneously, there is recognition of the limitations of the first GR and the need for alternative solutions that correct for those limitations and unintended consequences ( 5 ). GR 2.0 must address these concerns both where the GR was successful and in low income countries and lagging regions, where agricultural productivity is still low. This paper reviews the evidence on the diffusion and impact of GR crop genetic improvements and the limitations and unintended environmental, social, and institutional consequences of the GR strategy for productivity growth. Then, I turn to the current period and the renewed interest and investment in agricultural development, and I give the technology and institutional priorities for a GR 2.0.

First GR: Diffusion and Impact of Crop Genetic Improvements

Positive impacts on poverty reduction and lower food prices were driven in large part by crop germplasm improvements in CGIAR centers that were then transferred to national agricultural programs for adaptation and dissemination. The productivity gains from crop germplasm improvement alone are estimated to have averaged 1.0% per annum for wheat (across all regions), 0.8% for rice, 0.7% for maize, and 0.5% and 0.6% for sorghum and millets, respectively ( 9 ). Adoption rates of modern varieties in developing countries increased rapidly, reaching a majority of cropland (63%) by 1998 ( 9 – 15 ).

However, global aggregates mask great geographic disparities. In Asian countries (including China), the percentage of area planted to modern varieties was 82% by 1998, whereas improved varieties covered only 27% of total area planted in Africa ( 16 ). This difference may be, in part, because of the later introduction of CGIAR research programs focused on Africa as well as the lag in breeding efforts for the orphan crops—crops that did not benefit from a backlog of research conducted before the GR period but had improvement that came during the GR and post-GR periods, such as cassava, sorghum, and millets—which are of greater relative importance to the African poor ( 10 ). For instance, the first CIMMYT maize program focused on Africa only began in the late 1980s. Although the International Institute for Tropical Agriculture research for cassava started in 1967, its impact was felt only since the 1980s ( 10 ). Although it lagged behind in the GR period, Africa has witnessed positive growth in the post-GR period. Adoption of improved varieties across sub-Saharan Africa reached 70% for wheat, 45% for maize, 26% for rice, 19% for cassava, and 15% for sorghum by 2005 ( 17 ).

Impact on Productivity and Food Prices.

The rapid increase in agricultural output resulting from the GR came from an impressive increase in yields per hectare. Between 1960 and 2000, yields for all developing countries rose 208% for wheat, 109% for rice, 157% for maize, 78% for potatoes, and 36% for cassava ( 18 ). Developing countries in southeast Asia and India were the first countries to show the impact of the GR varieties on rice yields, with China and other Asian regions experiencing stronger yield growth in the subsequent decades ( 19 ). Similar yield trends were observed for wheat and maize in Asia ( 20 ). Analysis of agricultural total factor productivity (TFP) finds similar trends to the partial productivity trends captured by yield per hectare [TFP is defined as the ratio of total output to total inputs in a production process ( 20 )] ( 21 ). For the period 1970–1989, change in global TFP for agriculture was 0.87%, which nearly doubled to 1.56% from 1990 to 2006 ( 21 ).

Crop genetic improvement focused mostly on producing high-yielding varieties (HYVs), but the decrease in time to maturity was also an important improvement for many crops, allowing for an increase in cropping intensity. The rapid spread of the rice–wheat system in the Indo-Gangetic plains (from Pakistan to Bangladesh) can be attributed to the shortening of the crop growing period ( 22 ). Other improved inputs, including fertilizer, irrigation, and to a certain extent, pesticides, were also critical components of the GR intervention. Asia had already invested significantly in irrigation infrastructure at the start of the GR and continued to do so throughout the GR and post-GR periods ( 2 ).

Widespread adoption of GR technologies led to a significant shift in the food supply function, contributing to a fall in real food prices ( 23 , 24 ). Between 1960 and 1990, food supply in developing countries increased 12–13% ( 25 ). Estimates suggest that, without the CGIAR and national program crop germplasm improvement efforts, food production in developing countries would have been almost 20% lower (requiring another 20–25 million hectares of land under cultivation worldwide) ( 26 , 27 ). World food and feed prices would have been 35–65% higher, and average caloric availability would have declined by 11–13% ( 28 ). Overall, these efforts benefited virtually all consumers in the world and the poor relatively more so, because they spend a greater share of their income on food ( 29 ).

Access to Crop Genetic Improvements.

The CGIAR’s numerous crop improvement networks allowed for the best breeding materials and knowledge to be widely and freely available and used across the developing world ( 30 , 31 ). National Agricultural Research Systems (NARS) in developing countries generally used varieties or crosses from CGIAR centers as parents and then adapted those varieties for particular agroecological environments or preferences. Enabling such adaptive transfers significantly improved research efficiency, reduced research costs, and greatly expanded the pool of genetic resources and varieties available to the national programs. Such an uninhibited system of germplasm exchange with the best international materials allowed countries to make strategic decisions about investing in plant breeding capacity ( 32 ). In general, large NARSs engaged in adaptive transfers rather than direct use of CGIAR-generated varieties and crosses, whereas small NARSs used the material directly ( 33 ). The CGIAR content of modern varieties was high for most food crops; 36% of all varietal releases were based on CGIAR crosses, although it varies greatly by crop ( 34 ). In addition, 26% of all modern varieties had a CGIAR-crossed parent or other ancestor ( 9 ).

Returns to Crop Improvement Research Investment.

The returns to research investments in the GR strategy of germplasm improvement have been measured in great detail by several economists over the last few decades ( 10 ). These studies have found high rates of returns that, for the most part, compare favorably with alternative public investments. A recent metareview of trends and characteristics of the rates of return to agricultural research and development, examining 292 case studies with 1,900 estimated rates of returns, found a median annual rate of return estimate ranging from 40% to 60%, consistent with the broad literature. More importantly, it found no evidence that the rates of return to research had declined over time ( 35 ). The overall benefits of CGIAR contributions to crop genetic improvement are estimated in billions of dollars—mostly because of the benefits from the improved three main staples ( 10 ). Spring bread wheat, rice (in Asia only), and maize (CIMMYT contribution only) have produced estimated benefits of $2.5, $10.8, and $0.6–0.8 billion, respectively ( 36 ).

As these studies show, there is evidence of continuing high rates of return for crop breeding improvements that have wide adaptability, such as those improvements for wheat, rice and maize. The more recent evidence also shows high returns for improvements in orphan crops in the post-GR period ( 10 ). No studies have found evidence of significant decline in rates of return to agricultural research in the post-GR period, likely because of continued investment in breeding for improved stress tolerance in addition to yield growth. For example, a recent estimate of the total benefits of resistance to all types of wheat rust was estimated to generate between $600 million and $2 billion per year ( 37 ). The spread of crop genetic improvement for marginal production environments and orphan crops adds to the continued high returns that have been observed in the post-GR period. In Africa, for instance, the internal rates of return to CGIAR investments from 2000 to 2020 in the dual purpose cowpea, which was developed through a collaboration between International Institute for Tropical Agriculture and the International Livestock Research Institute, have been estimated between 50% and 103%, depending on the assumptions used ( 10 ).

Limitations of GR-Led Growth Strategies

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. At the same time, the GR also spurred its share of unintended negative consequences, often not because of the technology itself but rather, because of the policies that were used to promote rapid intensification of agricultural systems and increase food supplies. Some areas were left behind, and even where it successfully increased agricultural productivity, the GR was not always the panacea for solving the myriad of poverty, food security, and nutrition problems facing poor societies.

Poverty and Food Insecurity Persisted Despite the GR Success.

There is a large econometric literature that uses cross-country or time series data to estimate the relationship between agricultural productivity growth and poverty. These studies generally find high poverty reduction elasticities for agricultural productivity growth ( 2 ). In Asia, it has been estimated that each 1% increase in crop productivity reduces the number of poor people by 0.48% ( 38 ). In India, it is estimated that a 1% increase in agricultural value added per hectare leads to a 0.4% reduction in poverty in the short run and 1.9% reduction in the long run, the latter arising through the indirect effects of lower food prices and higher wages ( 39 ). For low income countries in general, the impact on the poverty headcount has been found to be larger from agricultural growth relative to equivalent growth in the nonagriculture sector at a factor of 2.3 times. In sub-Saharan Africa, agriculture’s contribution to poverty reduction was estimated to be 4.25 times the contribution of equivalent investment in the service sector ( 40 ).

Because the GR strategy was based on intensification of favorable areas, its contribution to poverty reduction was relatively lower in the marginal production environments. In South Asia, the poorest areas that relied on rain-fed agriculture were also the slowest to benefit from the GR, contributing to widening interregional disparities and an incidence of poverty that still remains high ( 34 , 41 ). Technologies often bypassed the poor for a number of reasons. Among these reasons were inequitable land distribution with insecure ownership and tenancy rights; poorly developed input, credit, and output markets; policies that discriminated against smallholders, such as subsidies for mechanization or crop and scale bias in research and extension; and slow growth in the nonfarm economy that was unable to absorb the rising numbers of rural unemployed or underused people ( 42 ). Migration from less-favored rural areas has been cited as a strategy for poverty reduction; however, when migration out of rural areas occurs faster than the growth in employment opportunities, only a transfer of poverty results rather than true poverty reduction associated with agricultural transformation ( 43 ).

Sex played a major role in determining the distribution of benefits from the GR. Women farmers and female-headed households are found to have gained proportionally less than their male counterparts across crops and continents ( 44 , 45 ). Technology transfer largely focused on male farmers, with few measures to address women’s technology needs or social conditions, and thus, they largely missed women farmers ( 46 ). Cross-country empirical evidence shows that women farmers are no less efficient than their male counterparts when using the same productive assets; however, women consistently face barriers to accessing productive resources and technologies ( 47 ).

Nutrition: Calorie Availability Increases but Micronutrient Intake Is Still Lagging.

Between 1960 and 1990, the share of undernourished people in the world fell significantly ( 25 ). Improved availability and decreased staple food prices dramatically improved energy and protein consumption of the poor ( 2 ). The pathways through which the GR improved nutritional outcomes depended on whether a household was a net producer or net consumer; however, for virtually all consumers, the supply shifts and GR-driven rise in real incomes had positive nutritional implications ( 48 , 49 ). A 10-y study in southern India found that increased rice production resulting from the spread of HYVs accounted for about one-third of the substantial increase in energy and protein consumption of both farmers and landless workers, controlling for changes in nonfarm income sources ( 50 ).

The fall in staple prices as a result of the GR also allowed for more rapid diet diversification, even among poor populations, because savings on staple food expenditures improved access to micronutrient-dense foods ( 51 ). In Bangladesh, for example, the steady fall in real rice prices from 1992 to 2000 led to greater expenditures per capita on nonrice food and a significant improvement in child nutrition status. The amount of rice consumed did not change, but households spent more on nonrice foods as their rice expenditures declined ( 51 ).

Nutritional gains of the GR have been uneven; although overall calorie consumption increased, dietary diversity decreased for many poor people, and micronutrient malnutrition persisted. In some cases, traditional crops that were important sources of critical micronutrients (such as iron, vitamin A, and zinc) were displaced in favor of the higher-value staple crops ( 25 ). For example, intensive rice monoculture systems led to the loss of wild leafy vegetables and fish that the poor had previously harvested from rice paddies in the Philippines ( 52 ). Price effects of such supply shifts also limited access to micronutrients, because prices of micronutrient-dense foods rose relative to staples in many places ( 53 , 54 ). In India, the increasing price of legumes has been associated with a consequent decline in pulse consumption across all income groups ( 25 ).

Policy and structural impediments, as well as a weak private sector, limited the supply responsiveness for vegetables and other nonstaples. Policies that promoted staple crop production, such as fertilizer and credit subsidies, price supports, and irrigation infrastructure (particularly for rice), tended to crowd out the production of traditional nonstaple crops, such as pulses and legumes in India ( 55 ). More recent evidence does suggest that diets are shifting in urban and rural Asia to include fewer cereals and more milk, meat, vegetables, and fruits. Evidence from India shows a marked increase in protein and fat intake between 1975 and 1995 across all income groups, suggesting that all consumers have benefitted from some nutritional improvements ( 56 ). However, micronutrient deficiencies among the poor persist, indicating that this dietary shift has not yet fully compensated for the decline in vitamin intake associated with cereal-dominant diets ( 2 ). Biofortification (breeding micronutrients into staple crops, such as the vitamin A-enhanced, orange-fleshed sweet potato) offers a new solution for improving nutrition outcomes, particularly for the rural poor, who depend on their own production for a large proportion of their daily caloric intake ( 57 ).

Environment: Impacts Have Been Mixed.

GR-driven intensification saved new land from conversion to agriculture, a known source of greenhouse gas emissions and driver of climate change, and allowed for the release of marginal lands out of agricultural production into providing alternative ecosystem services, such as the regeneration of forest cover ( 58 ). HYVs more responsive to external inputs were central to the productivity achievements; however, in many cases, appropriate research and policies to incentivize judicious use of inputs were largely lacking ( 29 ). 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. These environmental costs are widely recognized as a potential threat to the long-term sustainability and replication of the GR’s success ( 25 , 60 ).

The environmental consequences were not caused by the GR technology per se but rather, the policy environment that promoted injudicious and overuse of inputs and expansion of cultivation into areas that could not sustain high levels of intensification, such as the sloping lands. Output price protection and input subsides—especially fertilizer, pesticide, and irrigation water—distorted incentives at the farm level for adopting practices that would enhance efficiency in input use and thereby, contribute to sustaining the agricultural resource base. Where the policy incentives were corrected, farmers quickly changed behavior and adopted more sustainable practices. For example, the removal of pesticide subsides in Indonesia in the early 1990s led to a dramatic drop in insecticide use ( 46 , 58 ).

Marginal Production Environments.

The original purpose of the GR was to intensify where returns would be high, with a focus on irrigated or high rainfall areas. The international breeding programs aimed to provide broadly adaptable germplasm that could then be grown across a wide set of geographies, but adoption was greatest in favorable areas. Technologies in the GR period did not focus on the constraints to production in more marginal environments, especially tolerance to stresses such as drought or flooding. Whereas HYVs of wheat provided yield gains of 40% in irrigated areas with modest use of fertilizer, in dry areas, gains were often no more than 10% ( 61 ). Almost full adoption of wheat and rice HYVs had been achieved in irrigated environments by the mid-1980s, but very low adoption in environments with scarce rainfall or poor water control (in the case of rice) had been achieved ( 62 ). In India, specifically, adoption was strongly correlated with water supply ( 3 ). Worldwide, improved seed–fertilizer technologies for wheat were less widely adopted in marginal environments and had less of an impact there than in favored environments ( 63 ).

More often than not, marginal environments were left behind, because the climate and resource constraints were such that returns to investment in GR varieties were low. Despite relatively low adoption of improved varieties, people living in marginal environments benefitted from the GR through consumption and wage linkages, such as lower food prices ( 64 ). Farm employment and growth in the nonfarm rural economy provided labor benefits to the landless rural poor and those people living in marginal production environments. Multicountry case studies of rice environments in Asia show that labor migration to more productive environments resulted in wage equalization and was one of the primary means of redistributing the gains of technological change from favorable to marginal areas ( 65 ). Similar results were found for wheat grown in high- and low-potential environments in Pakistan ( 66 ). There is also a growing body of evidence of spillovers from the productive regions that benefit the more marginal environments. These spillovers involve not only technology transfer and capital investments but also the software of development, such as local institutions, property rights, and social capital ( 67 ).

Poorly endowed environments, nevertheless, pose a tremendous challenge to researchers and policymakers alike to identify new agricultural research and development (R&D) opportunities and facilitate adoption of technologies and appropriate institutions to meet the needs of the poor living there. In the post-GR period, new investments in R&D for stress-tolerant crops and increased demand for feed grains have changed the prospects for agricultural production in marginal areas. Drought- and pest-resistant varieties, such as submergence-tolerant rice and drought-tolerant maize, provide options that reduce farmers’ risk and improve incentives to invest in productivity-enhancing technologies ( 68 ). Changing market contexts also create new opportunities for farmers in more marginal areas to produce for the feed and biofuel markets ( 17 ).

Gains in Africa Lag Significantly but Are Catching Up.

Africa was the main exception to the success of the GR in the developing world. The GR strategy was not appropriate where population densities were low and/or market infrastructure was poor. Also, the agricultural resource base could not sustainably support productivity growth, and the poor depended largely on orphan crops rather than the three main staple cereals. The package of innovations that spurred GR success in Asia was largely inappropriate for the African context at that time ( 25 , 69 ). However, emerging success stories of agricultural productivity growth in recent decades show that ( i ) the context for agricultural development has shifted dramatically and ( ii ) investments in research to address the crops and constraints relevant to the continent’s agriculture yield high returns.

First, during the GR period, the demand for intensification in Africa was quite low, because land was relatively abundant ( 9 ). Farmers had little incentive to intensify land use, because they had no incentive to save on land costs ( 69 ). However, there are some areas in Africa today where the land/labor ratios are now similar to what they were in Asia during the GR ( 70 ). For instance, in eastern and southern Africa, the amount of arable land has risen only marginally, but the percentage of households engaged in agriculture has grown threefold ( 71 ). The demand for yield-enhancing technologies is consequently rising in the region.

Second, improvements in rice, wheat, and maize largely addressed the main food security concerns in Asia. Africa, however, has huge diversity of cropping systems, and many orphan crops are central to food security ( 27 ). Even where the major cereals are grown in Africa, few suitable varieties were available for those agroecologies until the end of the GR and beginning of the post-GR period. In the 1960s and 1970s, national and international programs may have sought to short cut the varietal improvement process in sub-Saharan Africa by introducing unsuitable varieties from Asia and Latin America. This pattern remained until the 1980s, when more suitable varieties finally became available—based on research specifically targeted to African conditions ( 9 ). Improved varieties of sorghum, millet, and cassava also started to emerge around the middle to late 1980s ( 9 ). The productivity gains from such investments are now starting to emerge; benefits from CGIAR investments in Africa for maize alone are estimated to exceed $2.9 billion ( 10 ). Yields growth for roots and tubers rose sharply between 1980 and 2005, increasing 40% during this period ( 17 ).

To a GR 2.0

GR 2.0 is already beginning to take place, and it is happening in low income countries as well as emerging economies. Low income countries, many of them in sub-Saharan Africa, still have very low productive agricultural systems. In these areas, chronic hunger and poverty continue to be daunting problems, and they face the age-old constraints to enhancing productivity growth, such as the lack of technology, poor market infrastructure, inappropriate institutions, and an enabling policy environment ( 17 ). Emerging economies, including much of Asia where gains from the first GR were concentrated, are well on their way to agricultural modernization and structural transformation ( 72 ). The challenge for agriculture now is to integrate smallholders into value chains, maintain their competitiveness, and close the urban–rural income gap ( 43 ). Enhancing staple crop supplies and sustaining productivity gains continue to be important, despite declining per capita cereal consumption, to meet the demands of population growth and demand for feed grain.

A confluence of factors has come together in recent years to generate renewed interest in agriculture and spur the early stages of GR 2.0. In the low income countries, continued levels of food deficits and the reliance on food aid and food imports have reintroduced agriculture as an engine of growth on the policy agenda. African leaders have acknowledged that agriculture plays a critical role in their development process and that lack of investment in the sector would only leave them farther behind. The Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Program (the agricultural program of the New Partnership for Africa’s Development, an initiative of the African Union) declaration of 2006 and resulting pledges by African Heads of State to increase agricultural investments showed their commitment to improve the agriculture sector. There is also an increasing awareness of the detrimental impacts of climate change on food security, especially for tropical agriculture systems in low income countries ( 73 – 77 ).

In the emerging economies, growing private sector interest in investing in the agricultural sector has created an agricultural renaissance ( 43 ). Supermarkets are spreading rapidly across urban areas in emerging economies and encouraging national and multinational agribusiness investments along the fresh produce value chains in these countries ( 78 ). Consequently, traditional staple crop systems are diversifying into high-value horticulture and livestock production ( 79 ). Private sector has also made significant investments in other commercial crops for fiber and biofuel ( 80 ). For example, private R&D and supply chains have been the primary driver behind the rapid rise of Bt cotton production across Asia and Latin America ( 81 ). Despite these positive developments, interregional differences in productivity and poverty persist in many emerging economies. Rising demand for feed and biofuels and technological advances in breeding for stress tolerance could result in a revitalization of these areas. The rapid rise of hybrid maize production in eastern India is a case in point ( 82 ).

Finally, at the global level, there has been an increased tightening of food markets driven by population and income growth as well as diversion of food grain for biofuel and livestock feed. As a consequence, the long-term declining trend in real food prices, observed worldwide since 1975, leveled off by 2005 ( 5 ). The food price crisis of 2008, sustained high prices, and more recent peaks observed in 2011 and 2012 have brought agriculture back onto global and national agendas ( 83 ).

By 2050, global population is projected to increase by about one-third, which will require a 70% increase in food production ( 84 ). To meet this need, GR 2.0 must continue to focus on shifting the yield frontier for the major staples. Increasing cereal productivity not only meets demand for staples, it also allows for the release of land to diversify into high-value crops and movement of labor out of agriculture, where other economic opportunities provide greater returns. GR 2.0 must also focus on improving tolerance to stresses, both climatic and biotic (pest and disease). Improved varieties that are tolerant to drought or submergence enhance smallholder productivity in marginal environments and provide tools to adapt to climate change. Epidemics such as the recent UG-99 wheat stem rust infestation, a new virulent strain resistant to improved varieties that emerged at a time when research on rust resistance had largely stopped (assuming that the problem had been solved), underscore the necessity of continued investments to maintain resistance to pests and diseases to avoid future shocks ( 3 ). Finally, technologies to increase input use efficiency and improve management practices are necessary to ensure the competitiveness and sustainability of production systems.

International public goods research continues to play a critical role, but in contrast to the first GR, the context in which the CGIAR operates has changed significantly. NARSs in many emerging countries have become research leaders in their own right, which is especially true of China and Brazil ( 85 ). The multinational life sciences companies are now the leading source of innovation in agricultural science, especially biotechnology ( 86 ). New partnerships can channel the expertise of the private sector and advanced national programs in emerging countries to benefit the low income countries.

In 2007 the CGIAR began a major reform process to better address this changing context. It is still too early to say whether the system itself will be able to reorient itself, but there are definite signs that individual centers are starting to work innovatively. For example, IRRI partnered with the Beijing Genomics Institute to carry out genetic fingerprinting of IRRI’s entire gene bank collection, which will then become publicly available data. Similarly, CIMMYT is developing drought-tolerant maize for Africa through a partnership with Monsanto, which provided proprietary germplasm that CIMMYT incorporated into high-yielding maize varieties adapted to African conditions (see textbox below).

There are also emerging examples of advanced NARSs leading global public good efforts with the CGIAR as a partner and collaborator. Exemplary cases include the partnership between IRRI and China to develop photosynthesis-efficient C4 rice as well as the global cassava partnership for genetic improvement, an international alliance of research institutes (see textbox below). The CGIAR also needs to become clearer in terms of the work on which it focuses and when it is hands off to the NARS. For instance, the CGIAR centers could hand over improved breeding material to the NARS and leave it up to them to complete the adaptation and varietal development process. The CGIAR should also devolve the activities associated with technology diffusion to the NARS, private sector, and nongovernmental organization partners ( 61 ).

The CGIAR has had limited success in generating and diffusing technologies and practices that enhance resource and input use efficiency, thereby contributing to improved competitiveness and sustainability ( 61 ). The call in the work by Conway ( 3 ) for a “Doubly Green Revolution,” which is repeated in his latest book, is important for the CGIAR and the NARSs to heed ( 3 ). The point that this work ( 3 ) repeatedly makes is that understanding the underlying science is crucial to developing effective solutions. Improved understanding of tropical and subtropical agroecologies is an important global public good that contributes to innovation and new sustainable resource management practices. The emphasis of global public good research in resource management must be on such strategic knowledge generation rather than development of location-specific techniques and products.

The emerging Digital Revolution provides new opportunities for smarter use of agricultural resources. Remote sensing and spatial mapping technologies allow for better targeting and monitoring of agricultural investments. Cell phones and other information and communication technologies can contribute to smarter application of water, fertilizers, and other inputs. The adaptation of precision agriculture techniques for developing country smallholder agriculture conditions could have significant global public good benefits.

Conclusions

Developing country agriculture is faced with a growing set of challenges: meeting the demands of diet diversity resulting from rapidly rising incomes; feeding rapidly growing urban populations; accessing technologies that are under the purview of proprietary protection; and gearing up for the projected negative consequences of climate change. Even as it absorbs the new challenges, the food policymaking community continues to grapple with its traditional preoccupation of the persistence of hunger and poverty in low income countries, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, and lagging regions of emerging economies.

Harnessing the best of scientific knowledge and technological breakthroughs is crucial for GR 2.0 as we attempt to reestablish agricultural innovation and production systems to meet today’s complex challenges. New global public goods are needed that focus on shifting the yield frontier, increasing resistance to stress, and improving competitiveness and sustainability.

The number of alternate suppliers of agricultural technologies, specifically seed-based technologies, has expanded rapidly over the last two decades. Strong NARSs and the private sector have become major players in the research, generation, and release of new varieties. Even nongovernmental organizations and civil society organizations are becoming active in developing community seed systems. Innovative partnerships are needed across the entire R&D value chain to channel the varied expertise to enhancing smallholder productivity growth.

At the country level, public policy can play an important role in ensuring that new innovations reach and benefit smallholders and encouraging the sustainable use of natural resources. This role requires policies that ( i ) emphasize agriculture as an engine of growth and poverty reduction, ( ii ) enhance competitiveness of modernizing agricultural systems, and ( iii ) focus on sustaining the resource base by correcting distortions that create incentives for unsustainable use. Both infrastructure investments and institutional reform can help create the enabling environment for smallholder productivity growth. Furthermore, a probusiness policy environment that includes intellectual property protection, reduced trade barriers, and a transparent biosafety procedure will lead to additional private sector research investments in the emerging economies.

However, the opportunities to meet these needs are not without concurrent challenges in the areas of international coordination of public good research, weak R&D and policy capacity among low income developing countries, and increasing demands for immediate results. Climate change will also stress agricultural systems in poor countries as well the capacity of the suppliers of public good R&D. Implementing a GR 2.0 will have to contend with all of these challenges and sequence innovations over time to succeed in achieving sustainable change.

Acknowledgments

I thank Kate Schneider for her valuable assistance.

Conflict of interest statement: All the reviewers suggested are grantees of the Gates Foundation. It is hard to find reviewers who are not grantees. None of the reviewers have any connections with the work in the paper.

This article is a PNAS Direct Submission.

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Without cookies your experience may not be seamless.

Technology and Culture

The Green Revolution in India: A Case Study of Technological Change

Govindan Parayil
Johns Hopkins University Press
Volume 33, Number 4, October 1992
pp. 737-756
10.1353/tech.1992.0006
View Citation

Additional Information

Project MUSE Mission

Project MUSE promotes the creation and dissemination of essential humanities and social science resources through collaboration with libraries, publishers, and scholars worldwide. Forged from a partnership between a university press and a library, Project MUSE is a trusted part of the academic and scholarly community it serves.

2715 North Charles Street Baltimore, Maryland, USA 21218

+1 (410) 516-6989 [email protected]

Now and Always, The Trusted Content Your Research Requires

Built on the Johns Hopkins University Campus

Review article
Open access
Published: 01 October 2019

The impact of the Green Revolution on indigenous crops of India

Ann Raeboline Lincy Eliazer Nelson 1 ,
Kavitha Ravichandran 1 &
Usha Antony 1

Journal of Ethnic Foods volume 6 , Article number: 8 ( 2019 ) Cite this article

137 Citations

330 Altmetric

Metrics details

Introduction

India holds the second-largest agricultural land in the world, with 20 agro-climatic regions and 157.35 million hectares of land under cultivation [ 1 ]. Thus, agriculture plays a vital role with 58% of rural households depending on it even though India is no longer an agrarian economy. A report by the Department of Agriculture, Cooperation and Farmers Welfare estimates that the food grain production in India will be 279.51 million tonnes during the 2017–2018 crop year. Although India is self-sufficient in food production, its food production between 1947 and 1960 was so bad that there were risks for the occurrence of famine. Therefore, the Green Revolution was initiated in the 1960s in order to increase food production, alleviate extreme poverty and malnourishment in the country, and to feed millions. In spite of these measures, India has one quarter of the hungry population of the world with 195.9 million undernourished people lacking sufficient food to meet their daily nutritional requirements; 58.4% of children under the age of five suffer from anemia, while in the age group of 15–49, 53% of women and 22.7% of men are anemic; 23% of women and 20% of men are thin, and 21% of women and 19% of men are obese [ 2 , 3 ].

The major crops cultivated in the era preceding the Green Revolution were rice, millets, sorghum, wheat, maize, and barley [ 4 , 5 ], and the production of rice and millets were higher than the production of wheat, barley, and maize combined all together. But the production of millets has gone down, and the crops that were once consumed in every household became a fodder crop in just a few decades after the Green Revolution. Meanwhile, a number of traditional rice varieties consumed prior to the Green Revolution have become non-existent, and the availability of local rice varieties have decreased to 7000 and not all of these varieties are under cultivation. Thus, India has lost more than 1 lakh varieties of indigenous rice after the 1970s that took several thousand years to evolve [ 6 ]. This loss of species is mainly due to the focus given to the production of subsidized high-yielding hybrid crops and the emphasis of monoculture by the government.

The measures initiated by the government increased the production of rice, wheat, pulses, and other crops leading to the self-sufficiency of food in the country. But it also destroyed the diversified gene pool available. The productivity of the crops was increased by the use of fertilizers, pesticides, and groundwater resources. However, mismanagement and overuse of chemical fertilizers, pesticide, and lack of crop rotation caused the land to become infertile, and loss of groundwater became a common occurrence in agricultural areas. These impacts made the farmers even more miserable, due to the increased expenditure spend on the cultivation of crops to overcome these shortcomings.

This review focuses on the genesis of the Green Revolution and its impacts and effects on the production of indigenous crops, society, environment, nutrition intake, and per capita availability of foods. Furthermore, the methods that can be implemented to revive the indigenous crops back into cultivation and carry the knowledge to the future generation forward is also discussed in detail.

Green Revolution

The word “Green Revolution” was coined by William S. Gaud of United States Agency for International Development (USAID) in 1968, for the introduction of new technology and policies implemented in the developing nations with aids from industrialized nations between the 1940s and the 1960s to increase the production and yield of food crops [ 7 , 8 ]. Many high-yielding varieties (HYVs) were introduced as part of the Green Revolution to increase agricultural productivity. These genetically improved varieties of wheat and rice were developed by the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Centre (CIMMYT), Mexico, and the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), Philippines, respectively. The HYVs had 20% more grain than its earlier cultivars and were more responsive to the nitrogen fertilizers. The yield potential doubled due to the incorporation of several traits and specific genes for short stature in HYVs [ 9 , 10 ]. The incorporation of the gene responsible for photo-insensitivity in rice and wheat enabled cultivation possible throughout the year; regardless of day length of the region, it was cultivated [ 11 , 12 ]. Furthermore, the reduced cropping period increased the cropping intensity to 2–3 crops per year. For instance, the newly introduced IR-8 took 130 days to mature, and the varieties later developed such as IR-72 took 100 days to mature while the traditional rice cultivars took 150 to 180 days to mature [ 9 ]. The period between 1960 and 1985 saw the doubling of yield per hectare, total productivity, and total food production in developing countries [ 7 ]. Accordingly, the global production of cereals increased by 174% between 1950 and 1990 while the global population increased by 110% [ 13 ]. The increased production of cereals enabled the nations to feed their growing population and averting the Malthusian scenario predicted in the 1960s [ 14 , 15 ].

When India became independent in 1947, 90% of its population lived in 600,000 villages depending mainly on agriculture for their subsistence. For a few centuries, Indian agriculture remained unchanged without any technological changes in agricultural practices [ 16 ]. The technologies employed in agriculture were the seeds cultivated by the farmers having a genetic makeup that went back thousands of years and the involvement of wooden plows, waterwheels, and bullock carts, along with the agricultural practices driven by the energy provided by animals and humans. Therefore, failure of the agriculture sector to meet the demands of India after 1947 until 1965 reflected negatively in the growth of the industrial sector. The lack of proper technological change and land reforms combined with droughts brought India to the verge of massive famine in the mid-1960s. However, this situation was averted by massive shipments of subsidized food grains mainly wheat by the USA. This measure, in turn, depleted the reserves of the nation. So, in order to save the reserves and to increase the productivity of cereals, all the stakeholders and donor agencies decided to induce changes in agricultural technology and practices [ 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 ].

The HYVs of rice suitable for cultivation in tropical climatic conditions of South Asia were developed by the IRRI in the 1960s, based on the genetic materials drawn from China, Taiwan, and Indonesia. The most famous rice variety introduced as a part of the Green Revolution in India was IR-8. It was developed based on experience in developing the Norin variety of Japan and Ponlai variety of Taiwan. IR-8 was short, stiff strawed, and highly responsive to the fertilizers. In India, the yield of IR-8 was 5–10 t per hectare [ 8 , 21 ].

Semi-dwarf wheat varieties developed in Japan in the 1800s were used to develop the HYVs of wheat. The two varieties namely Akakomugi and Daruma of Japan were used for the international breeding programs of wheat [ 22 ]. Norin 10 was developed by crossing Daruma and native American varieties. In 1948, the US scientists crossed Norin 10 with Brevor, a native American variety to give rise to Norin-Brevor cross. This cross was taken to CIMMYT, Mexico, in 1954; there several HYVs of wheat were developed by Norman Borlaug and others, and these varieties were transferred to India in the 1960s [ 8 , 21 ].

The HYVs of wheat and rice were tested by the Indian scientists in 1962 and 1964 respectively. Later, these tested varieties were introduced throughout the nation during the crop year of 1965–1966 [ 20 , 23 ]. Thus, the Green Revolution involved the use of HYVs of wheat and rice and adoption of new agricultural practices involving the use of chemical fertilizers, pesticides, tractors, controlled water supply to crops, mechanical threshers, and pumps [ 19 , 24 ]. The combination of these techniques was commonly termed as “high-yielding variety technology (HYVT).” This technology was responsible for the increased growth rate of food-grain output from 2.4% per annum before 1965 to 3.5% after 1965. Initially, the major increase in food production was due to increased production of wheat that increased from 50 million tonnes in 1950 to 79 million tonnes in 1964 and later to 95.1 million tonnes in 1968 [ 24 ]. Since then, importing food grains has declined considerably.

The success of the Green Revolution in India in terms of crop yield is attributed to the government of India, international agricultural research institutions (IRRI and CIMMYT), multilateral and bilateral donor agencies (Ford Foundation, Rockefeller Foundation, and USAID), and the farmers. The Ministry of Food and Agriculture and the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) meticulously executed the smooth transmission and distribution of new technology [ 19 , 25 ].

Ecological and societal impacts

In the past, Indian farms were small plots of land protected by windbreaks and tree cover. For centuries, the farmers employed several methods of organic husbandry, crop rotation, and leaving fields fallow for long periods of time in order to allow the soil to retain its nutrients. These practices lowered the demand on the land and maintained the equilibrium of soil [ 26 , 27 ].

Though the high-yielding monohybrid crops were introduced as a part of Green Revolution, the major problem with indigenous seeds was not the fact that they were not high yielding, but their inherent inability to withstand the chemical fertilizers used. On the contrary, new varieties were created to produce higher yields in conjunction with the use of chemical fertilizers and very intense irrigation [ 24 , 28 ]. The amount of chemical fertilizers used post-advent of the Green Revolution was quite high, and the increase in the consumption of chemical fertilizers for the cultivation of crop can be seen in Fig. 1 , which elucidates the steep increase in the use of fertilizers since 1981–1982. The overuse of chemical fertilizers to get high yield causes physical and chemical degradation of the soil by altering the natural microflora and increasing the alkalinity and salinity of the soil [ 30 ]. The excessive use of groundwater for irrigation depleted the water table in many parts of the country.

Consumption of fertilizers (N, P, and K) post-Green Revolution period [ 29 ]. The consumption of N, P, and K fertilizers increased steadily post-Green Revolution era. In particular, the period after 2000–2001 saw increased consumption of inorganic fertilizers, as the application of inorganic fertilizers influenced crop yield. Nitrogen-based fertilizers such as urea, ammonia, and nitrate were widely used. The uncontrolled use of these N, P, and K adversely affected the fertility of the soil and altered the microbiota of the soil

The newly introduced high-yielding seeds had a very narrow genetic base as compared to the indigenous species. The sole cultivation of monohybrid crops in the field by the farmers caused the removal of several indigenous species from cultivation [ 19 , 27 ]. Besides, the instability of the acquired traits in modern varieties such as high-yielding rice varieties, hybrids, and genetically engineered rice and the associated environmental degradation with its cultivation has caused a regular decline in yields and quality of food grains produced. For example, in the 1960s, the high yield was recorded in the newly introduced varieties IR-8 and ADT-27 in the Cauvery Delta, Tamil Nadu, and it was publicized as a conquest of high-yielding varieties over the low-yielding indigenous varieties. Although the yields were high initially, later it declined and disappeared from cultivation within few years of its introduction [ 31 ].

The major ecological and societal impacts of the Green Revolution can be summarized as follows: (1) loss of landraces that were indigenous to our country, (2) the loss of soil nutrients making it unproductive, (3) excessive use of pesticides increases the presence of its residues in foods and environment [ 24 , 32 , 33 , 34 ], (4) the farmers shift to unsustainable practices to obtain more yield, (5) increased rates of suicide among farmers, (6) unable to withstand the increasing expenses for farming and debts small farmers sold their lands to large commercial farmers, and (7) unable to withstand the food inflation and economic crisis the farmers left farming resorting to other occupation.

Impact on the cultivation of food grains

Post-Green Revolution, the area under cultivation increased from 97.32 million hectares in 1950 to 126.04 million hectares in 2014 [ 1 ]. The area under cultivation of coarse cereals decreased drastically from 37.67 million hectares to 25.67 million hectares since the 1950s. Likewise, the area under cultivation of sorghum decreased from 15.57 million hectares to 5.82 million hectares and that of pearl millet decreased from 9.02 million hectares to 7.89 million hectares [ 1 ]. But the area under the cultivation of rice, wheat, maize, and pulses increased from 30.81 million hectares to 43.95 million hectares, 9.75 million hectares to 31.19 million hectares, 3.18 million hectares to 9.43 million hectares, and 19.09 million hectares to 25.23 million hectares respectively [ 1 ]. The trends in the production of food grains influenced the availability and consumption of food grains in rural and urban households (Fig. 2 ).

The trend in the production of food crops in India from 1950 to 2017 (in million tonnes) [ 1 , 35 ]. The period after initiation of the Green Revolution by introducing mono-hybrid crops in India saw increased production of crops such as rice and wheat. But the production of millets decreased as the Green Revolution did not focus on the minor cereals to increase the food production of the country. The production of minor cereals and pulses were almost stationary while the production of rice and wheat in 2010–2017 surpassed its own production during 1950–1959 crop year by 4 and 11 times respectively

Impact on the availability and consumption of food grains

The per capita net availability of food grains increased over the years. The per capita net availability of rice increased from 58.0 kg/year in 1951 to 69.3 kg/year in 2017. The per capita net availability of rice was an all-time high in 1961. Similarly, the per capita net availability of wheat increased from 24.0 kg/year in 1951 to 70.1 kg/year in 2017. However, the per capita net availability of other cereal grains such as millets and pulses decreased over the years. This led to the change in the consumption pattern over the years and the shift in focus from the minor cereals and pulses to the major cereals, rice and wheat (Fig. 3 ).

The per capita net availability of food grains in India since 1951 [ 1 , 74 ]. The per capita net availability of food stands for the availability of amount (kg) of food per person per year in the nation. Figure 3 indicates an increase in the availability of rice and wheat per person and a decrease in the availability of pulses and millets per person after the Green Revolution. The decrease in the availability of millets and pulses per person is mainly due to the focus given to the production of rice and wheat alone during the Green Revolution. Although pulses did not lose the importance among the consumers like millets, per capita availability decreased from 22.1 kg/year in 1951 to 19.9 kg/year in 2017

The trends in percentage composition of consumer expenditure since 1987 (Table 1 ) reveal that cereals played a major role in both rural and urban households in 1987. But the composition of cereals on consumer expenditure decreased from 26.3 to 12.0% in rural households whereas the percentage in urban households dipped to 7.3 from 15.0%. The consumption of cereal substitutes such as coarse cereals and millets was stationary at 0.1% in rural households since 1987 but dipped to zero in urban areas after 1993–1994, only to be revived back to 0.1% in 2011–2012. Similarly, the consumption of pulses declined in both urban and rural households. Furthermore, it also indicates the shift in expenditure spend on cereals to non-food items in both rural and urban households with years; this may be attributed to the change in lifestyle.

Impact on nutrition

Millets are rich in protein, vitamins, and minerals. Singh et al. [ 36 ] report proteins in millets as a good source of essential amino acids, including histidine, isoleucine, leucine, methionine, phenylalanine, tryptophan, and valine, lacking lysine and threonine. They are also rich in methionine and cysteine that contains sulfur. Furthermore, millets are also a very good source of dietary minerals such as phosphorus, calcium, iron, and zinc, especially finger millet which contains nine- to tenfold higher calcium than others.

Rough rice contains more amount of riboflavin, thiamine, niacin, calcium, phosphorus, iron, and zinc than the milled (polished) rice (Table 2 ). The milled rice loses its nutrients during polishing, and the nutrient content present in it varies with the degree of polishing. Brown rice undergoes minimal processing, so it retains nutrients such as thiamine, niacin, riboflavin, calcium, phosphorus, and iron. Barnyard millet has the highest amount of crude fiber among the cereals. Furthermore, the colored rice varieties such as red rice and black rice are also a good source of protein and fat.

The consumption of major cereals such as rice and wheat along with pulses and decrease in the addition of coarse cereals, foods of animal origin, and fruits and vegetables in the diet lead to deficiency of micronutrients such as iron, zinc, calcium, vitamin A, folate, and riboflavin among the population causing anemia, keratomalacia, blindness, and infertility in severe cases. Surveys conducted by the National Nutrition Monitoring Bureau and others also conclude the same that the Indian diets based on cereal pulse are qualitatively deficient in micronutrients [ 47 ].

Anemia due to iron deficiency is the most serious health issue among all other deficiency disorders. A report by the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) states anemia due to iron deficiency may cause an impaired immune system (resistance to fight against infections), reduced reproductive health and related problems such as premature birth, low birth weight, and perinatal mortality, and affect cognitive and motor development and physical performance. According to the Indian National Science Academy (INSA), malnutrition and deficiency of micronutrients in India, particularly among women, children, and adolescents, need immediate attention [ 48 ].

Indigenous crops

The indigenous crops are popular and culturally known native varieties. Every region of the world has unique traditional foods that are widely consumed by a group of people, or by a particular community, for instance, consumption of black walnut, wild rice, pecan, palmetto berries, squash, succotash , sofkee , and fajitas by the native American tribes; Kyo - no - dento - yasai , ishiru , yamato persimmon, and katsura - uri by the Japanese; and kolo , kita , dabo , beso , genfo , chuko , tihlo , shorba , kinche , and injera by the Ethiopians [ 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 ]. The traditional foods and cereal-based products that once occupied a part of the regular Indian diet are lost in time due to the emphasis on mono-cropping post-Green Revolution. The indigenous crops of India include several varieties of rice such as colored rice, aromatic rice, and medicinal rice varieties: millets, wheat, barley, and maize. The indigenous varieties of rice and millets are resistant to drought, salinity, and floods. For example, Dharical , Dular , and Tilak Kacheri of Eastern India are adaptable to different topology, climate, and soils [ 54 ]. The coarse cereals include sorghum, pearl millet, maize, barley, finger millet, and small millets like barnyard millet, foxtail millet, kodo millet, proso millet, and little millets [ 1 ].

The traditional rice cultivars have high nutrition than hybrid rice varieties [ 55 ]. They are a good source of minerals and vitamins such as niacin, thiamine, iron, riboflavin, vitamin D, calcium, and possess higher fiber. Furthermore, these cultivars possess several health benefits such as reducing the risk of developing type II diabetes, obesity, and cardiovascular diseases by lowering the glycemic and insulin responses [ 56 ].

Kumbhar et al. [ 57 ] report Tulshi tall , a landrace from Western Ghat zone of Maharastra, India, and Vikram , a landrace from Konkan region of Maharastra, showed moderate similarity in distinct differences in allelic combinations from other modern varieties. This report also suggests that landraces and local genotypes and Basmati rice of India have a long and independent history of evolution, which makes these indigenous species more distinct from the modern varieties. Landraces are unique and well adapted to agro-climatic conditions of its original area of cultivation. For example, Tulaipanji , an aromatic rice variety cultivated originally in cooler northern districts of West Bengal, India, lost its aroma when cultivated in the relatively warmer southern districts [ 58 ].

Jatu rice of Kullu valley, Himachal Pradesh, is prized for its aroma and taste. Matali and Lal Dhan of Himachal Pradesh are used for curing fever and reducing the elevated blood pressure. Kafalya is a popular red rice variety from the hills of Himachal Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh, used in treating leucorrhoea and complications from abortion [ 59 ]. In Karnataka, Kari Kagga and Atikaya are used to regulate body heat and also in preparation of a tonic whereas Neelam Samba of Tamil Nadu is given to lactating mothers [ 60 ]. Maappillai Samba of Tamil Nadu is given to newly wedded groom to increase fertility [ 61 ]. Assam/North East parts of India use Assam black rice due to anti-cancer properties while its bran is used to soothe inflammation due to allergies, asthma, and other diseases. The varieties of Kerala such as Karinjan and Karimalakaran are rich in fiber and are known to reduce the risk of diabetes; Mundakan is consumed to increase the stamina; Vella chennellu and Chuvanna chennellu are consumed by pubescent, pregnant, and menopausal women, as it reduces problems associated with hormonal imbalances; Chuvanna kunjinelu is boiled with water and given to people who are suffering from epileptic fits; and Vellanavara and Rakthashali are consumed across India for its health benefits [ 62 ].

Sourirajan [ 63 ] reports on certain varieties of Tamil Nadu such as Kar arici and Vaikarai samba imparts strength, Karunguruvai acts as an antidiuretic, Puzhugu samba quenches intense thirst, Senchamba increases appetite, and Kodai samba reduces rheumatic pain. Jonga and Maharaji varieties of Bihar and Chhattisgarh are given to lactating mothers to increase lactation. Bora of Assam is used in the treatment of jaundice. Karhani of Chhattisgarh and Jharkhand is used as a tonic in the treatment of epilepsy. Layacha is consumed by pregnant women to prevent unborn children from contracting Laicha disease. Gudna rice is used to treat gastric ailments [ 64 ]. These are some of the benefits of the few reported varieties, while many remain undocumented and unexplored. Foods such as roti, idli , dosai , puttu , aval , dhokla , khaman , selroti , adai , sez , kulcha , naan , and kurdi ; sweets such as adirasam , anarshe , and jalebi ; snacks such as murukku , and vadai ; and infant formulations are made from major cereals.

Millets are resistant to drought, pests, and diseases [ 65 ]. The growing season of millets is short, and the consumption of water for its cultivation is very less when compared to other cereals. Foods such as roti, dosai , and kuzh (porridge), snacks such as murukku , baby foods, ambali , wine, and health mix are made from millets. The polyphenols present in millets acts as antioxidant and boost immunity [ 66 ]. Lei et al. [ 67 ] report fermented millet products as a natural probiotic used for treating diarrhea in young children as the whole grain possesses prebiotic activity, increasing the population of good bacteria in the gut to promote digestion. Millets provide protection against obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, and cancer. Though millets possess various health benefits, the anti-nutrients present in millets weaken the absorption of nutrients. However, the anti-nutrients present in millets can be inactivated or reduced by soaking, cooking, germination, malting, removal of the seed coat, and fermentation, among others.

The revival of indigenous crops

From this research, it is evident that necessary measures should be carried out to conserve the indigenous species of the nation and also to carry knowledge to the future generations by reviving the crops back into cultivation. The government of India may initiate the acquisition and management of germplasm of all indigenous varieties by the Indian National Genebank at the National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources (NBPGR), New Delhi. Furthermore, the primary factors that contribute to the revival of indigenous crops include the passion of farmers, administrative measures initiated by the stakeholders, and the marketing strategies of vendors. Additionally, the knowledge about the health benefits of indigenous crops may also prevent its extinction and ensure the availability of these foods in local markets and the methods of cooking for future generations [ 52 ].

Nevertheless, the revival of indigenous crops is possible only when all the stakeholders define and bring these crops under a special category similar to the one initiated in Kyoto, Japan. In Kyoto Prefecture, the “native varieties” are categorized into “ Kyo - no - dento - yasai ,” and outside the prefecture, it is called “ Brand - Kyo - yasai ” [ 52 ]. Additionally, traditional food products of India may be collectively registered with the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization’s (UNESCO) Food Heritages as Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity similar to the registrations obtained for the washoku , a traditional dietary culture of Japan; the kimjang and kimchi of Republic of Korea; the Le repas gastronomique des Français (the gastronomic meal) of France; the Mediterranean diet; traditional Mexican foods; and the ceremonial keşkek of Turkey [ 68 ]. India may also adopt a geological indication (GI) for the traditional products like the one followed in the European Union and Japan [ 69 , 70 ] to provide the farmers with better access to the willingness of their consumers to try the traditional food products [ 71 ].

Advantages and challenges

The benefits of indigenous crops over the introduced HYVs include (1) cultivation of indigenous crops can make agriculture more genetically diverse and sustainable, (2) consumption of domestically cultivated indigenous crops can reduce the carbon footprints [ 72 ] and imports, (3) the indigenous crops are highly adapted to the climatic conditions of the land, and (4) consumption of indigenous foods contribute to food diversity and enrichment of diet with micronutrients provides health benefits due to the interactions between the inherited genes and food nutrients [ 73 ].

However, there may be few challenges in reviving indigenous species, which may include (1) farmers’ willingness in the propagation of indigenous varieties, (2) identifying the farmers with traditional knowledge of crop cultivation, (3) encouraging the farmers with large landholdings to cultivate indigenous crops, (4) awareness among the consumers and stakeholders about the ecological and health benefits of indigenous varieties, (5) support of the government to the farmers for the propagation of these crops in small and large scale, and (6) development of mechanization suitable for processing indigenous crops, as the existing machines are designed for the HYVs, and employing the same techniques for the processing of indigenous crops may lead to the loss of micronutrients and phytochemicals.

The measures discussed above may be initiated by the stakeholders to revive the indigenous crops, and it is imperative that food security must also ensure nutrition security of the nation. Thus, proper planning and intensive collaborative research work should be initiated by the stakeholders for the conservation of the traditional varieties and the inclusion of these varieties and practices into the food and nutrition security plans for the nation owing to their nutritional benefits.

Availability of data and materials

Not applicable

Directorate of Economics and Statistics (DES), Ministry of Agriculture, India. 2014. https://eands.dacnet.nic.in/PDF/Glance-2016.pdf .

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nation. The state of food security and nutrition in the world. 2018. http://www.fao.org/3/i9553en/i9553en.pdf .

Google Scholar

International Institute for Population Sciences (IIPS) and ICF. National Family Health Survey (NFHS-4), 2015-16: India. Mumbai: IIPS; 2017. http://rchiips.org/nfhs/NFHS-4Reports/India.pdf .

Hall WF. Agriculture in India. Regional Analysis Division, Economic Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture, 1964. p. 13. https://archive.org/details/agricultureinind64hall .

US Department of Agriculture - Economic Research Service, Regional Analysis Division. The 1964 Far East, Communist China, Oceania Agricultural Situation: Supplement No. 4 to the 1964 World Agricultural Situation. 1963. p. 49–50. https://archive.org/details/1964fareastcommu74unit .

The Hindu. From 1,10,000 varieties of rice to only 6,000 now. India: The Hindu; 2012. http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/karnataka/from-110000-varieties-of-rice-to-only-6000-now/article3284453.ece

Conway G. The doubly green revolution: food for all in the 21st century. London: Penguin Books; 1997.

Dalrymple DG. The adoption of high-yielding varieties in developing countries. Agric Hist. 1979;53:704–26.

Davies WP. An historical perspective from the green revolution to the gene revolution. Nutr Rev. 2003;61(6 Pt 2):S124–34.

Khush GS. Green revolution: preparing for the 21st century. Genome. 1999;42:646–55.

Borlaug NE. Wheat breeding and its impact on world food supply. Proc Int Wheat Geneti Symp. 1968;3:1–36.

Rajaram S, Braun HJ. Half a century of international wheat breeding. Linnean. 2001;3:137–63.

Otero G, Pechlaner G. Latin American agriculture, food, and biotechnology: temperate dietary pattern adoption and unsustainability. In: Otero GA, editor. Food for the few: neoliberal globalism and biotechnology in Latin America. University of Texas Press: USA; 2008. p. 31–56.

Ehrlich PR. The population bomb. New York: Ballantine Books; 1968.

Myrdal G. Asian Drama: an inquiry into the poverty of nations. New York: Pantheon; 1968.

Lockwood B, Mukherjee PK, Shand RT. The High Yielding Varieties Programme in India, Part 1. Programme Evaluation Organization, Planning Commission of India and Department of Economics, and Research School of Pacific Studies, Australian National University, Canberra. 1971.

Baker CJ. Frogs and farmers: the Green Revolution in India, and its murky past. In: Bayliss-Smith T, Wanmali S, editors. Understanding Green Revolutions: Agrarian Change and Development Planning in South Asia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1984. p. 37–52.

Brown LR. Seeds of change. The Green Revolution and development in the 1970’s. London: Pall Mall Press; 1969.

Parayil G. The green revolution in India: a case study of technological change. Technol Cult. 1992;33(4):737–56.

Subramaniam C. The new strategy in Indian agriculture: the first decade and after. New Delhi: Vikas Publishing; 1979.

Chandler RF. The scientific basis for the increased yield capacity of rice and wheat. In: Poleman, Thomas T, Freebairn DK, editors. Food, population, and Employment: The Impact of the Green Revolution. New York: Praeger; 1973.

Dalrymple DG. Changes in wheat varieties and yields in the United States, 1919-1984. Agric Hist. 1988;62(4):20–36.

Lele U, Goldsmith AA. The development of National Research Capacity: India’s experience with the Rockefeller Foundation and its significance for Africa. Econ Dev Cult Chang. 1989;37:305–44.

Bowonder B. Impact analysis of the green revolution in India. Technol Forecast Soc Chang. 1979;15:297–313.

Mohan R, Evenson R. The Indian agricultural research system. Econ Polit Wkly. 1973;8:A21–6.

Das RJ. Geographical unevenness of India’s green revolution. J Contemp Asia. 1999;29(2):167–86.

Shiva V. The violence of the green revolution: third world agriculture, ecology and politics. 2nd ed. Zed Books Ltd. London, UK; 1993.

Newman B. A BITTER HARVEST: Farmer suicide and the unforeseen social, environmental and economic impacts of the Green Revolution in Punjab, India. 2007. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/dacb/5aeaa16704a5e50b3b2469368d57e760f227.pdf?_ga=2.106311680.2094921914.1568185786-498432928.1568185786 .

Department of Fertilizers and Department of Agriculture, Cooperation & Farmers Welfare (DAC&FW). India. 2017 http://agricoop.nic.in/sites/default/files/Krishi%20AR%202017-18-1%20for%20web.pdf .

Singh RB. Environmental consequences of agricultural development: a case study from the green revolution state of Haryana, India. Agric Ecosyst Environ. 2000;82(1–3):97–103.

Ashraf AM, Lokanadan S. A review of rice landraces in India and its inherent medicinal values -the nutritive food values for future. Int J Curr Microbiol App Sci. 2017;6(12):348–35.

Abhilash PC, Singh N. Pesticide use and application: an Indian scenario. J Hazard Mater. 2009;165(1–3):1–12.

Rekha, Naik SN, Prasad R. Pesticide residue in organic and conventional food–risk analysis. J Chem Health Saf. 2006;13:12–9. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1074909805000262 .

Yadav IC, Devi NL, Syed JH, Cheng Z, Li J, Zhang G, Jones KC. Current status of persistent organic pesticides residues in air, water, and soil, and their possible effect on neighboring countries: a comprehensive review of India. Sci Total Environ. 2015;51(1):123–37.

Agricultural Statistics Division, Third Advance Estimates of Production of Food grains for 2016-17, Department of Agriculture, Cooperation and Farmers welfare, India. 2017. https://eands.dacnet.nic.in/Advance_Estimate/3rd_Adv_Estimates2016-17_Eng.pdf .

Singh KP, Mishra A, Mishra HN. Fuzzy analysis of sensory attributes of bread prepared from millet-based composite flours. LWT-Food Sci Technol. 2012;48:276–82.

Devi GN, Padmavathi G, Babu VR, Waghray K. Proximate nutritional evaluation of Rice ( Oryza sativa L.). J Rice Res. 2015;8(1):23–32.

Hulse JH, Laing EM, Pearson OE. Sorghum and the millets: their composition and nutritive value. New York: Academic Press; 1980.

Juliano BO, Bechtel DB. The rice grain and its gross composition. In: Juliano BO, editor. Rice chemistry and technology. American Association of Cereal Chemists: Eagan, MN, USA; 1985. p. 17–57.

Longvah T, Ananthan R, Bhaskarachary K, Venkaiah K. Proximate principles and dietary fibre. In: Indian Food Composition Tables, National Institute of Nutrition, Department of Health Research, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, Hyderabad. 2017.

Pedersen B, Eggum BO. The influence of milling on the nutritive value of flour from cereal grains. Plant Food Hum Nutr. 1983;33:267–78.

Saikia S, Dutta H, Saikia D, Mahanta CL. Quality characterisation and estimation of phytochemicals content and antioxidant capacity of aromatic pigmented and non-pigmented rice varieties. Food Res Int. 2012;46(1):334–40.

Sompong R, Siebenhandl-Ehn S, Linsberger-Martin G, Berghofer E. Physicochemical and antioxidative properties of red and black rice varieties from Thailand, China and Sri Lanka. Food Chem. 2011;124:132–40.

United States Department of Agriculture/Human Nutrition Information Service (USDA/HNIS). Composition of foods: cereal grains and pasta. Agriculture Handbook No. 8–20. Washington, DC; 1984.

National Research Council. United States-Canadian Tables of Feed Composition: Nutritional Data for United States and Canadian Feeds. Third Revision. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 1982. https://doi.org/10.17226/1713 .

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). Sorghum and millets in human nutrition. FAO, Rome, Italy; 1995.

National Nutrition Monitoring Bureau (NNMB). Prevalence of micronutrient deficiencies. Technical report No.22, National Institute of Nutrition, ICMR; 2003.

INSA. Micro-nutrient security for India - priorities for research and action. India: Indian National Science Academy; 2011. http://insaindia.res.in/download%20form/Micronutrient_final_with_cover.pdf

Dalar A, Uzun Y, Turker M, Mukemre M, Konczak I. Health attributes of ethnic vegetables consumed in the eastern Anatolia region of Turkey: antioxidant and enzyme-inhibitory properties. J Ethn Foods. 2016;3:142–9.

Kohsaka R, Matsuoka H, Uchiyama Y. Capturing the relationships between local foods and residents: a case in the Noto region, Japan. J Ethn Foods. 2016;3:86–92.

Mohammed J, Seleshi S, Nega F, Lee M. Revisit to Ethiopian traditional barley-based food. J Ethn Foods. 2016;3:135–41.

Nakamura T, Nakamura Y, Sasaki A, Fujii M, Shirota K, Mimura Y, Okamoto S. Protection of Kyo-yasai (heirloom vegetables in Kyoto) from extinction: a case of Sabaka-daikon (Japan’s heirloom white radish, Raphanus sativus) in Maizuru, Japan. J Ethn Foods. 2017;4(2):103–9.

Sasaki A, Nakamura Y, Kobayashi Y, Aoi W, Nakamura T, Shirota K, Suetome N, Fukui M, Shigeta T, Matsuo T, Okamoto S, Park EY, Sato K. A new strategy to protect Katsura-uri (Japan’s heirloom pickling melon, Cucumis melo var. conomon) from extinction. J Ethn Foods. 2017;4(1):44–50.

Richharia RH, Govindasamy S. Rices of India. Karjat: Academy of Development Science; 1990.

Bhat FM, Riar CS. Health benefits of traditional Rice varieties of temperate regions. Med Aromatic Plants. 2015;4(3):198.

Umadevi M, Pushpa R, Sampathkumar KP, Bhowmik D. Rice-traditional medicinal plant. India J Pharmacogn Phytochem. 2012;1(1):6–12.

Kumbhar SD, Kulwal PL, Patil JV, Sarawate CD, Gaikwad AP, Jadhav AS. Genetic diversity and population structure in landraces and improved rice varieties from India. Rice Sci. 2015;22(3):99–107.

Deb D. Folk rice varieties of West Bengal: agronomic and morphological characteristics. In: Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology, New Delhi; 2000.

Ahuja U, Ahuja SC, Chaudhary N, Thakrar R. Red rices-past, present, and future. Asian Agri-History. 2007;11(4):291–304.

Arumugasamy S, Jayashankar N, Subramanian K, Sridhar S, Vijayalakshmi K. Indigenous rice varieties. Centre for Indian Knowledge System, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India; 2001. p.74.

Sulochana S, Singaravadivel K. A study on phytochemical evaluation of traditional rice variety of Tamil Nadu - ‘Maappillai Samba’ by GC-MS. Int J Pharma Biosci. 2015;6(3):606–11.

Nagarajan S. Indigenous rice varieties make a comeback. The Hindu, India. 2018. http://www.thehindu.com/life-and-style/food/thanals-save-our-rice-is-reviving-indigenous-rice-varieties/article22420554.ece

Sourirajan M. ‘Pathartha Gunapadam – Palporul vilakkam (in Tamil)’. Saraswati Mahal Press, Thanjavur, Tamil Nadu, India; 2000. p. 322-328.

Rahman S, Sharma MP, Sahai S. Nutritional and medicinal values of some indigenous rice varieties. Indian J Tradit Knowl. 2006;5(4):454–8.

Devi PB, Vijayabharathi R, Sathyabama S, Malleshi NG, Priyadarisini VB. Health benefits of finger millet (Eleusine coracana L.) polyphenols and dietary Fiber: a review. J. Food Sci Technol. 2014;51(6):1021–40.

Chandrasekara A, Shahidi F. Content of insoluble bound phenolics in millets and their contribution to antioxidant capacity. J Agric Food Chem. 2010;58:6706–14.

Lei V, Friis H, Michaelsen KF. Spontaneously fermented millet product as a natural probiotic treatment for diarrhea in young children: an intervention study in northern Ghana. Int J Food Microbiol. 2006;110:246–53.

Kohsaka R. The myth of washoku: a twisted discourse on the “uniqueness” of national food heritages. J Ethn Foods. 2017;4(2):66–71.

Gugerell K, Uchiyama Y, Kieninger PR, Penker M, Kajima S, Kohsaka R. Do historical production practices and culinary heritages really matter? Food with protected geographical indications in Japan and Austria. J Ethn Foods. 2017;4(2):118–25.

Kajima S, Tanaka Y, Uchiyama Y. Japanese sake and tea as place-based products: a comparison of regional certifications of globally important agricultural heritage systems, geopark, biosphere reserves, and geographical indication at product level certification. J Ethn Foods. 2017;4(2):80–7.

Sylvander B, Isla A, Wallet F. Under what conditions geographical indications protection schemes can be considered as public goods for sustainable development? Territorial governance, Physica-Verlag, Heidelberg 2011:185–202.

Smith A, Watkiss P, Tweddle G, McKinnon A, Browne M, Hunt A, Treleven C, Nash C, Cross S. The validity of food miles as an indicator of sustainable development. Final report produced for Defra - report ED50254. AEA Technology Environment: London, UK; 2005.

Neeha VS, Kinth P. Nutrigenomics research: a review. J Food Sci Technol. 2013;50(3):415–28.

Department of Agriculture, Cooperation and Farmers Welfare, India. 2017. http://agricoop.nic.in/sites/default/files/pocketbook_0.pdf

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the anonymous reviewers for their valuable inputs and comments.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Centre for Food Technology, Department of Biotechnology, Alagappa College of Technology, Anna University, Chennai, 600025, Tamil Nadu, India

Ann Raeboline Lincy Eliazer Nelson, Kavitha Ravichandran & Usha Antony

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed equally to this study and write/revise the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kavitha Ravichandran .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Eliazer Nelson, A.R.L., Ravichandran, K. & Antony, U. The impact of the Green Revolution on indigenous crops of India. J. Ethn. Food 6 , 8 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1186/s42779-019-0011-9

Download citation

Received : 03 January 2019

Accepted : 04 September 2019

Published : 01 October 2019

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s42779-019-0011-9

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Indigenous varieties

Journal of Ethnic Foods

ISSN: 2352-619X

Submission enquiries: Access here and click Contact Us
General enquiries: [email protected]

Reference Manager
Simple TEXT file

People also looked at

Mini review article, lessons from the aftermaths of green revolution on food system and health.

1 Public Health Foundation of India, Bangalore, India
2 Head-Lifecourse Epidemiology, Public Health Foundation of India, Bangalore, India

Food production has seen various advancements globally in developing countries, such as India. One such advancement was the green revolution. Notably, the World Bank applauds the introduction of the green revolution as it reduced the rural poverty in India for a certain time. Despite the success of the green revolution, the World Bank reported that health outcomes have not been improved. During the post-green revolution period, several notable negative impacts arose. Exclusive studies were not conducted on the benefits and harms before the introduction of the green revolution. Some of such interventions deviate from the natural laws of balance and functioning and are unsustainable practices. To avoid the adverse effects of some of these developments, a review of these interventions is necessary.

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 growth 1 (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 India 2 ( 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 . 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., 10 3 -10 5 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) .

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.

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.

1. ^ http://www.knowledgebank.irri.org/step-by-step-production/growth/water-management

2. ^ https://www.unescap.org/op-ed/asia-pacific-response-covid-19-and-climate-emergency-must-build-resilient-and-sustainable

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. Res 3, 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Xavier, R., Rekha, K., and Bairy, K. (2004). Health perspective of pesticide exposure and dietary management. Malaysian J. Nutr. 10, 39–51. Available online at: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Rathinam_Xavier/publication/225300572_Health_perspective_of_pesticide_exposure_and_dietary_management/links/561c813708aea8036724416d/Health-perspective-of-pesticide-exposure-and-dietary-management.pdf

PubMed Abstract | Google Scholar

Keywords: green revolution, sustainability, food system, agriculture, India

Citation: John DA and Babu GR (2021) Lessons From the Aftermaths of Green Revolution on Food System and Health. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 5:644559. doi: 10.3389/fsufs.2021.644559

Received: 21 December 2020; Accepted: 13 January 2021; Published: 22 February 2021.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2021 John and Babu. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Giridhara R. Babu, giridhar@iiphh.org

This article is part of the Research Topic

Climate Change, Variability and Sustainable Food Systems

The Green Revolution

Living reference work entry
First Online: 08 April 2021
Cite this living reference work entry

Atrayee Saha 4 &
Eswarappa Kasi 5

38 Accesses

Green Revolution is a process by which the state has encouraged the farmers to use advanced technologies in the cultivation of hybrid seeds, chemical fertilizers, and pesticides. In other words, it is a technology through which farmers could produce high yielding varieties (HYVs) of crops especially wheat and rice. It is also called as a farming technique used by the farmers to produce HYVs and generate sizeable income to their families.

Introduction

The Green Revolution is considered to be one of the most important agrarian reforms in India, Pakistan, and other South Asian countries. It has had a major role in boosting agricultural production from India to the Philippines. However, not all states in India have received equal benefits through technology transfer. Punjab and Haryana have benefited largely because of their huge amounts of land and favorable weather conditions, which are suitable for the development of high-yielding variety (HYV) seeds. The import of seeds and...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

Adams, J. (2001). Culture and economic development in South Asia. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 573 (1), 152–175. https://doi.org/10.1177/000271620157300108 .

Article Google Scholar

Cheng, Z. (2006). Green revolution in China: Past and future . China Agricultural University. https://www.worldfoodprize.org/documents/filelibrary/images/borlaug_dialogue/2006/transcripts/Chen_ppt06_9444AACF05E03.pdf/

Corsi, M. (2006). Communalism and the green revolution in Punjab. Journal of Developing Societies, 22 (2), 85–109. https://doi.org/10.1177/0169796X06065798 .

Dasgupta, S. (2013). New seed policy as a source of oppression or liberation? A political economy perspective from Chhattisgarh agriculture post 1990. IFFCO Bulletin, 1 , 36–48.

Google Scholar

Davis, K. F., Chhatre, A., Rao, N. D., Singh, D., Ghosh-Jerath, S., Mridul, A., Poblete-Cazenave, M., Pradhan, N., DeFries, R. (2019). Assessing the sustainability of post-green revolution cereals in India. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS), 116 (50), 25034–25041. http://www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1910935116/

Eisenman, J. (2017). Building China’s 1970s green revolution: Responding to population growth, decreasing arable land, and capital depreciation. In P. Roberts & O. Westad (Eds.), China, Hong Kong, and the long 1970s: Global perspectives. Cambridge imperial and post-colonial studies series (pp. 55–82). Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-51250-1_3 .

Chapter Google Scholar

Hazell, B. R. P. (2009). The Asian green revolution (IFPRI Discussion Paper 00911). https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/6257689.pdf

Kasi, E. (2013). Role of sericulturists in the development of a village: An anthropological case from post-green revolution South India. South Asian Survey, 20 (1), 114–136. https://doi.org/10.1177/0971523114559820 .

Kumar, M. D., Bassi, N., Sivamohan, M. V. K., & Venkatachalam, L. (2013). Agriculture in West Bengal: Can the new policies trigger a second green revolution? Review of Development and Change, 18 (1), 37–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/0972266120130103 .

Nagaraj, K. (2008). Farmers suicides in India: Magnitudes, trends and spatial patterns (pp. 1–29). Madras: Madras Institute of Development Studies. https://www.macroscan.org/anl/mar08/pdf/Farmers_Suicides.pdf . Retrieved 15 Apr 2020.

Pingali, P. L. (2012). Green revolution: Impacts, limits, and the path ahead. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS), 109 (31), 12302–12308. http://www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.0912953109/

Pray, E. C. (1981). The green revolution as a case study in transfer of technology. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 458 (1), 68–80. https://doi.org/10.1177/000271628145800106 .

Ross, E. B. (2002). Malthusianism, capitalist agriculture, and the fate of peasants in the making of the modern world food system. Review of Radical Political Economics, 35 (4), 437–461. https://doi.org/10.1177/0486613403257801 .

Saha, A. (2019). Caste inequality, land relations and agrarian distress in contemporary agrarian economy of Bardhaman, West Bengal. Contemporary Voice of Dalit, 11 (2), 182–193. https://doi.org/10.1177/2455328X19866997 .

Scott, J. C. (1983). Everyday forms of class struggle between ex-patrons and ex-clients: The green revolution in Kedah, Malaysia. International Political Science Review, 4 (4), 537–556.

Sen, A. (1992). Economic liberalisation and agriculture in India. Social Scientist, 20 (11), 4–19. https://doi.org/10.2307/3517776 .

Stone, G. D., & Glover, D. (2016). Disembedding grain: Golden rice, the green revolution, and the heirloom seeds in the Philippines. Agriculture and Human Values–Journal of the Agriculture, Food, and Human Values Society, 34 (1), 87–102. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-016-9696-1 .

Verma, A., Singh, G., & Singh, B. (2010). An analysis of socio-cultural and economic changes in migrant agricultural labourers. Social Change, 40 (3), 275–301. https://doi.org/10.1177/004908571004000303 .

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Sociology, Muralidhar Girls’ College, Calcutta University, Kolkata, India

Atrayee Saha

Department of Tribal Studies, Indira Gandhi National Tribal University (IGNTU), Amarkantak, India

Eswarappa Kasi

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

University of Alberta, Alberta, AB, Canada

Scott Romaniuk

University for Peace, San Jose, Costa Rica

Manish Thapa

Nemzetkozi Tanulmanyok Intezet, Rm 503, Corvinus Univ, Inst of Intl Studies, Budapest, Hungary

Péter Marton

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this entry

Cite this entry.

Saha, A., Kasi, E. (2021). The Green Revolution. In: Romaniuk, S., Thapa, M., Marton, P. (eds) The Palgrave Encyclopedia of Global Security Studies. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-74336-3_410-1

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-74336-3_410-1

Received : 12 May 2020

Accepted : 10 December 2020

Published : 08 April 2021

Publisher Name : Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-319-74336-3

Online ISBN : 978-3-319-74336-3

eBook Packages : Springer Reference Political Science and International Studies Reference Module Humanities and Social Sciences Reference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Find a journal
Track your research

The Green Revolution

The Green Revolution, a period of intense technological change in global agriculture during the latter half of the twentieth century, grew from a combination of political agendas, financial support, scientific advances, and changes to farming. A part of the Research, Ethics, and Society project, this case can be used to address the social responsibilities of researchers, particularly those concerning cross-cultural contexts, and understanding knowledge and technological systems as an important tool for acting on social responsibilities.

How can researchers contribute to reducing hunger in cultures and countries far removed from their laboratories?

The Green Revolution, a period of intense technological change in global agriculture during the latter half of the twentieth century, is often associated with the Rockefeller and Ford Institutes, and Norman Borlaug. In 1944, Borlaug, a PhD plant pathologist and geneticist, took a position with the Rockefeller Foundation's Mexican hunger project. His initial research in Mexico, as adopted by governments, international institutions, and local farmers, soon led to worldwide changes in agriculture. It helped India and Pakistan avoid mass starvation and, later, become self-sufficient in wheat and rice production. Borlaug's work highlights how combining science with public policy can address social responsibilities.

How did Norman Borlaug get involved?

Borlaug began his research career as a bench scientist but quickly took what he learned in the laboratory to address his growing concern for people in countries confronting chronic hunger. In research, he worked mainly on approaches for producing high quality and high quantity grains. The first few years of Borlaug's work were a massive undertaking. He was directly involved with:

Finding locations for and planting experimental wheat fields
Maintaining and harvesting wheat
Recruiting farmers
Training young Mexican scientists and technicians

By 1956, Borlaug and his colleagues had developed forty new pest-resistant, high-yielding wheat varieties that provided a starting point for making Mexico self-sufficient in wheat production. Hesser, L. F. (2006). The man who fed the world: Nobel peace prize laureate Norman Borlaug and his battle to end world hunger. Dallas: Durban House.

Turning Individual Concern into Broad Social Responsibility

In the early 1960s, the Rockefeller Foundation, based on success in Mexico, shifted its attention to an international agriculture program. Borlaug's work helped the Rockefeller Foundation inaugurate the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) and the International Center for Maize and Wheat Improvement (CIMMYT). Borlaug trained young scientists in research and production methods, and he strongly advocated sharing all of CIMMTY's data and materials worldwide, free of charge.

Borlaug proposed a hands-on apprenticeship program for scientists from the Middle East and South Asia. He knew that making his agricultural projects self-sustaining would best serve science and social progress. Borlaug insisted on training local scientists and technicians in order to establish national agricultural research systems in developing countries.

Engaging with the Public

Along with fieldwork, institution building, and educating, Borlaug also acted on his social responsibilities by becoming involved with public policy. As a scientist and practical humanitarian, Borlaug looked beyond Mexico to India and Pakistan. Farmers in this region, and society more broadly, initially resisted the new high-yield crop management practices. Borlaug met with prime ministers, ministers of agriculture, economists, and farmers from India and Pakistan to:

Open dialogue and to convince officials and farmers to follow his wheat and rice-growing guidelines
Offer his expertise when others' suggestions were ignored and convince both countries to adopt policies that would encourage farmers to use the new production technologies

Because of Borlaug's insistence on meeting with farmers and working side-by-side with them, he understood the systems—both social and technical—of wheat and rice farming. By the late 1960s Pakistan had ceased its dependency on wheat imports from the U.S. India also produced enough grain to support its population, becoming self-sufficient in wheat and rice and tripling its wheat production between 1961 and 1980. Glaeser, B. (Ed.). (2010). The green revolution revisited. London: Routledge.

The Green Revolution has both proponents and critics. Some circles lauded the changes as a successful intertwining of science and public policy that helped save several countries from mass starvation. Proponents pointed out that the changes:

Raised farmers' incomes
Slowed increases in rural poverty
Improved the nutritional value of wheat, maize, and rice
Decreased starvation rates
Helped avert worldwide famine in the late twentieth century

Critics responded that the changes:

Caused environmental harm through substantial use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides
Made agriculture in the developing world dependent on Western agribusiness products such as hybrid seed and fertilizers
Disrupted long-standing social systems in rural areas
Advocated a blanket solution to agricultural problems rather than regional approaches
Significantly undermined regional foods and genetic biodiversity Tilman, D. (1998). The greening of the green revolution. Nature, 396 (6708), 211–212.

Recognition

From 1944 through 1979, Borlaug worked as a Rockefeller Foundation field scientist. Even after retiring, Borlaug remained active in agriculture research and acted as a liaison between governments and farm workers. The 1970 Nobel Peace Prize committee recognized Borlaug for his role in helping modernize agriculture in developing countries.

Additional Resources

Shiva, V. (1991). The violence of the green revolution: Third world agricultures, ecology, and politics . New Jersey: Third World Network.
Evenson, R. E. & Gollin, D. (2003). Assessing the impact of the green revolution, 1960 to 2000. Science , 300(5620), 758–762.

This case is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. 1033111. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

Our project team and advisory board read many drafts and provided important insights. Project team: Heather Canary, Joseph Herkert, Jameson Wetmore, Ira Bennett, and Jason Borenstein. Advisory board: Joan Brett, Jim Svara, Richard Fish, Juergen Gadau, Shelli McAlpine, Timothy Newman, Byron Newberry, Patrick Phelan, and Petra Schroeder.

Related Resources

Submit Content to the OEC Donate

This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Award No. 2055332. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

Architecture and Design
Asian and Pacific Studies
Business and Economics
Classical and Ancient Near Eastern Studies
Computer Sciences
Cultural Studies
Engineering
General Interest
Geosciences
Industrial Chemistry
Islamic and Middle Eastern Studies
Jewish Studies
Library and Information Science, Book Studies
Life Sciences
Linguistics and Semiotics
Literary Studies
Materials Sciences
Mathematics
Social Sciences
Sports and Recreation
Theology and Religion
Publish your article
The role of authors
Promoting your article
Abstracting & indexing
Publishing Ethics
Why publish with De Gruyter
How to publish with De Gruyter
Our book series
Our subject areas
Your digital product at De Gruyter
Contribute to our reference works
Product information
Tools & resources
Product Information
Promotional Materials
Orders and Inquiries
FAQ for Library Suppliers and Book Sellers
Repository Policy
Free access policy
Open Access agreements
Database portals
For Authors
Customer service
People + Culture
Journal Management
How to join us
Working at De Gruyter
Mission & Vision
De Gruyter Foundation
De Gruyter Ebound
Our Responsibility
Partner publishers

Your purchase has been completed. Your documents are now available to view.

Red Revolution, Green Revolution

Scientific farming in socialist china.

Sigrid Schmalzer
X / Twitter

Please login or register with De Gruyter to order this product.

Language: English
Publisher: University of Chicago Press
Audience: Professional and scholarly;
Main content: 320
Other: 10 color plates, 30 halftones
Keywords: science ; scientific ; farm ; farming ; work ; socialism ; socialist ; government ; theory ; theoretical ; china ; chinese ; asia ; asian ; eastern ; far east ; usaid ; 1960s ; green ; revolutionary ; change ; hunger ; starving ; activism ; aid ; help ; modernization ; contemporary ; modern ; agriculture ; environmental ; mao ; era ; time period ; justice ; injustice ; academic ; scholarly ; research
Published: January 20, 2016
ISBN: 9780226330297

IMAGES

(PDF) Case Study-Green Revolution in Punjab
🌷 Green revolution and its impact on environment. The Green Revolution
(PDF) Green Revolution: Impacts, limits, and the path ahead
Green Revolution: Nurturing India Since 1967
Advantages And Disadvantages Of Green Revolution
Green Revolution in India Advantages, Impacts & Achievements

VIDEO

Case Study
Green Revolution #short #globalknowledge
Case study green technology ( reusable bag )
MDB
Online Marketing Case Study: Green Apple Strategy
Impacts Of Green Revolution In English

COMMENTS

Green Revolution: Impacts, limits, and the path ahead
A detailed retrospective of the Green Revolution, its achievement and limits in terms of agricultural productivity improvement, and its broader impact at social, environmental, ... examining 292 case studies with 1,900 estimated rates of returns, found a median annual rate of return estimate ranging from 40% to 60%, consistent with the broad ...
Green Revolution in India : A Case Study
Statistical Results of the Green Revolution 1) The Green Revolution resulted in a record grain output of 131 million tons in 197879. This established India as one of the world's biggest agricultural producers. No other country in the world, which attempted the Green Revolution recorded such level of success.
Green Revolution: a Case Study of Punjab
Jashandeep Singh Sandhu. (The phenomenon of Green Revolution, which was the cumulative result of a series of research, development, innovation and technology transfer initiatives, happening between the 1940s and the late 1960s, that increased the agriculture production. manifold worldwide, and in particular the developing world was due to ...
Green Revolution: Impacts, limits, and the path ahead
A detailed retrospective of the Green Revolution, its achievement and limits in terms of agricultural productivity improvement, and its broader impact at social, environmental, and economic levels is provided. ... examining 292 case studies with 1,900 estimated rates of returns, found a median annual rate of return estimate ranging from 40% to ...
Green Revolution in India
The Green Revolution was a period that began in the 1960's during which agriculture in India was converted into a modern industrial system by the adoption of technology, ... Parayil, Govindan. 1992. "The Green Revolution in India: A Case Study in Technological Change," Technology and Culture 33 (October 1992): 737-56. Saha, Madhumita. "The ...
Green Revolution
Studies show that the Green Revolution contributed to widespread eradication of poverty, averted hunger for millions, raised incomes, reduced greenhouse gas emissions, reduced land use for agriculture, and contributed to declines in infant mortality. ... its neighbor Mexico was an important experimental case in the use of technology and ...
Green Revolution and Sustainable Development
Singh B (1993) Pesticide residues in the environment: a case study of Punjab. In: Sengupta S (ed) Green revolution impact on health and environment, pp 21-28. Google Scholar Singh RB (2000) Environmental consequences of agricultural development: a case study from the Green Revolution state of Haryana, India.
The Green Revolution and the Apotheosis of Technology*
The twentieth century."1 Over the next ten years, Green Revolutionaries took credit for saving the world from a Malthusian catastrophe. India, Pakistan, the Philippines, Malaysia, and Indonesia declared self-sufficiency in food, and agricultural technology received praise for reversing the economic fortunes of one of the world's poorest regions.
Project MUSE
The Green Revolution in India: A Case Study of Technological Change GOVINDAN PARAYIL The term "Green Revolution" is generally taken to mean the in crease in cereal productivity experienced in some Third World coun tries as a result of the change in agricultural technology during the 1960s and 1970s.1 In this article, my objective is to ...
The past, current, and future of the Africa Green Revolution: The case
The study found that the Green Revolution is far from reaching its initial targets as there is increasing hunger and poor crop productivity. Some studies proposed agro ecology, green technology innovation and smart farming, efficient irrigation, drainage and water management, and adaptation to climate change.
The Green Revolution as a Case Study in Transfer of Technology
The Green Revolution as a Case Study in Transfer of Technology By CARL E. PRAY ABSTRACT: The green revolution was a transfer of the idea of fertilizer-responsive grain varieties and the capacity to develop them from temporate countries to the countries of South and South-east Asia, the Middle East, and Latin America. Key actors in this
The impact of the Green Revolution on indigenous crops of India
Singh RB. Environmental consequences of agricultural development: a case study from the green revolution state of Haryana, India. Agric Ecosyst Environ. 2000;82(1-3):97-103. Google Scholar Ashraf AM, Lokanadan S. A review of rice landraces in India and its inherent medicinal values -the nutritive food values for future.
Frontiers
Lessons From the Aftermaths of Green Revolution on Food System and Health. Daisy A. John 1 Giridhara R. Babu 2*. 1 Public Health Foundation of India, Bangalore, India. 2 Head-Lifecourse Epidemiology, Public Health Foundation of India, Bangalore, India. Food production has seen various advancements globally in developing countries, such as India.
Understanding India's Green Revolution: A Case Study for Contemporary
places in which is was introduced (Shiva, 1991, 1993, 2000). This paper argues that in the case of India, the Green Revolution's lack of regional. specificities, both on a global and a national scale, is to blame for the program's disruptive. outcomes; however, responsible agrarian reform is possible, so long as the appropriate.
The Green Revolution
Definition. Green Revolution is a process by which the state has encouraged the farmers to use advanced technologies in the cultivation of hybrid seeds, chemical fertilizers, and pesticides. In other words, it is a technology through which farmers could produce high yielding varieties (HYVs) of crops especially wheat and rice.
Green Revolution: Impacts, limits, and the path ahead
A detailed retrospective of the Green Revolution, its achievement and limits in terms of agricultural productivity improvement, and its broader impact at social, environmental, and economic levels is provided. ... examining 292 case studies with 1,900 estimated rates of returns, found a median annual rate of return estimate ranging from 40% to ...
The Green Revolution
Description. The Green Revolution, a period of intense technological change in global agriculture during the latter half of the twentieth century, grew from a combination of political agendas, financial support, scientific advances, and changes to farming. A part of the Research, Ethics, and Society project, this case can be used to address the ...
PDF Green Revolution in India : A Case Study
Green Revolution in India : A Case Study Why Green Revolution? The world's worst recorded food disaster happened in 1943 in British-ruled India. Known as the Bengal Famine, an estimated four million people died of hunger that year alone in eastern India (that included today's Bangladesh). The initial theory put forward to 'explain' that ...
The Green Revolution in Mexico
The Green Revolution in Mexico
The Green Revolution in India: A Case Study of Technological Change
The Green Revolution in India: A Case Study of Technological Change. The term "Green Revolution" is generally taken to mean the increase in cereal productivity experienced in some Third World countries as a result of the change in agricultural technology during the 1960s and 1970s.'. In this article, my objective is to reconstruct the history ...
(PDF) Case Study-Green Revolution in Punjab
Case Study-Green Revolution in Punjab. July 2020. International Journal for Modern Trends in Science and Technology 6 (7):61-68. DOI: 10.46501/IJMTST060709. Authors: Shalini Jaiswal. Amity ...
Study of Technological Change
The Green Revolution in India: A Case Study of Technological Change GOVINDAN PARAYIL The term "Green Revolution" is generally taken to mean the in-crease in cereal productivity experienced in some Third World coun-tries as a result of the change in agricultural technology during the 1960s and 1970s.' In this article, my objective is to ...
Red Revolution, Green Revolution
In 1968, the director of USAID coined the term "green revolution" to celebrate the new technological solutions that promised to ease hunger around the world—and forestall the spread of more "red," or socialist, revolutions. Yet in China, where modernization and scientific progress could not be divorced from politics, green and red revolutions proceeded side by side. In Red Revolution ...

Green Revolution in India​ ​ : A Case Study

Related Papers

RELATED PAPERS

RELATED TOPICS

Green Revolution: Impacts, limits, and the path ahead

First GR: Diffusion and Impact of Crop Genetic Improvements

Impact on Productivity and Food Prices.

Access to Crop Genetic Improvements.

Returns to Crop Improvement Research Investment.

Limitations of GR-Led Growth Strategies

Poverty and Food Insecurity Persisted Despite the GR Success.

Nutrition: Calorie Availability Increases but Micronutrient Intake Is Still Lagging.

Environment: Impacts Have Been Mixed.

Marginal Production Environments.

Gains in Africa Lag Significantly but Are Catching Up.

To a GR 2.0

Conclusions

Acknowledgments

The Green Revolution in India: A Case Study of Technological Change

Additional Information

Project MUSE Mission

The impact of the Green Revolution on indigenous crops of India

Introduction

Ecological and societal impacts

Impact on the cultivation of food grains

Impact on the availability and consumption of food grains

Impact on nutrition

Indigenous crops

The revival of indigenous crops

Advantages and challenges

Availability of data and materials

Acknowledgements

Author information

Contributions

Corresponding author

Ethics declarations

Additional information

Rights and permissions

About this article

Share this article

Journal of Ethnic Foods

People also looked at

Introduction

What Is the Green Revolution?

Impacts of the Green Revolution

Water Consumption

Air Pollution

Impacts on Soil and Crop Production

Extinction of Indigenous Varieties of Crops

Impacts on Human Health

Health-Related Impacts on the General Population

Impacts on Farmers

Author Contributions

Conflict of Interest

This article is part of the Research Topic

The Green Revolution

Introduction

Access this chapter

Further Reading

Author information

Editor information

Rights and permissions

Copyright information

About this entry

Download citation

Site Search

The Green Revolution

How did Norman Borlaug get involved?

Turning Individual Concern into Broad Social Responsibility

Engaging with the Public

Recognition

Additional Resources

Related Resources

Red Revolution, Green Revolution

IMAGES

VIDEO

COMMENTS

Green Revolution in India : A Case Study