Talk:Green Revolution

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Agriculture (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Agriculture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of agriculture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject History of Science (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Sociology (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Anti-Malthusian Bias?[edit]

The section on "Malthusian criticism" spends most of its time criticizing the theory, not presenting it in a neutral encyclopedic tone with no weasel words. Ehrlich himself has said that when he wrote The Population Bomb the fruits of the Green Revolution had not yet come to pass and he was talking about "present conditions". I don't feel this section is appropriate, since by grouping Ehrlich in with "Malthusians" it seems mostly concerned with defending GR against any criticism that food supplies are finite. This seems a bit silly considering our history, and the specific example used; how perilous a situation India was in at the time, and in several degrees more ominous, still remains to this day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:50, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

The references to Malthus here are written by someone who has never read Malthus. So nothing unusual there. (talk) 13:20, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


Damn, I've never seen an article with such a bad infestation of the [citation needed] weevils. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

What about some pictures in this article? Seems like just some pictures of grain would liven it up a bit.

Edit explanation[edit]

I removed this line from the intro:

"The Green Revolution is sometimes mis-interpreted to apply to present times; in fact, many regions of the world peaked in food prooduction in the period 1980 to 1995 and are presently in decline, since desertification and critical water supplies, in part or wholly caused by the Green Revolution, have become limiting factors in a number of world regions."

It lacks citation and as is specific enough to not belong in the introduction.

I also removed the section on sustainability because it was a bunch of questions raised by an anonymous third person rather than statements about the sustainability of the Green Revolution.



Just wondering why there are no mentions about the fact that soil using GR techniques seems to be degrading over time. Check out and :// Are they wrong?

RESPONSE: yes, they're wrong. It's a difficult thing to investigate, but one great book on this is: Wmasters 16:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)Wmasters


World production of coarse grain, 1961-2004.png

This graph has no numbers! It is meaningless. Someone should fix it.

-- In fact, it is worse than meaningless. It could show a tenfold increase or a 10 per cent increase. And it is a sign of the times that such a graph will then get picked up by others and included in their own "scholarly" treatises. (As has already happened.) It should be removed. Rosecrans 19:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


Regarding edit 123843923 by Greenuprising, the quote in the second paragraph currently says, "It is not a violet Red Revolution...". It seems to me that this should say "It is not a violent Red Revolution...", but I could only find one such reference to that form on Google.

Ken g6 18:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

HYV versus hybrids[edit]

Removed this section from Technologies "One criticism of HYVs is that they were developed as F1 hybrids, meaning they need to be purchased by a farmer every season rather than saved from previous seasons, thus increasing a farmer’s cost of production.". It's misleading. The green revolution "HYVs" were not hybrids (not in the sense that seed must be purchased each year). IR8 is an inbred line derived from the mentioned cross, but it breeds true season after season, so seed can be saved and used for subsequent plantings.

Would it be right to say that such breeding reduces the ability of a resultant crop to be raised true from last year's seed? (talk) 15:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

No, that would not be true, no more than the non-selected crops would be. Of course, a farmer could make poor choices in selecting seed to keep, but that would not be a reflection on the quality of the crop originally planted. Kerani (talk) 18:07, 5 October 2012 (UTC)


I edited this line for readability. The original version was quite confusing. Can someone with the right expertise please check that this is factually correct? The original version claims that the genes were "cloned and identified", so this is what I've put down, but now I'm wondering if they actually just meant "isolated and subsequently bred for".

"With advances in molecular genetics, the mutant genes responsible for reduced height(rht), gibberellin insensitive (gai1) and slender rice (slr1) in Arabidopsis and rice were identified as cellular signaling components gibberellic acid (a phytohormone involved in regulating stem growth via its effect on cell division) and subsequently cloned."

'Cloning' is the correct term for what you call 'isolation'. The genes were bred for BEFORE they were identified and cloned. Actually, the phenotype (physical trait) was bred for, the genes causing the phenotype were unknown. In the sense used here, cloning means isolating the gene - this is usually done by inserting the gene into a bacterial vector. Once in the vector it can be copied and characterised using various molecular techniques (eg, sequencing). This is the process of 'cloning' (copying) a gene. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Graph removal[edit]

I am removing the graph of World Production (see above) from this page due to the fact that its lack of numbers renders it meaningless--and perhaps very misleading. The citation also does not take you to the source of the graph. This issue was brought up some time ago by a couple of us and, given the lack of discussion, I would assume the community assents to its removal. Rosecrans 14:07, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Section removal[edit]

Someone undid the removal of the lengthy essay previously found at the bottom of this article. My reasons for removing it are many.

To start with, the section drew conclusions from non-existant data. For instance: It is being said that genetic erosion coupled with genetic pollution is destroying that needed unique genetic base thereby creating an unforeseen hidden crisis which will result in a severe threat to our food security for the future This statement cannot be demonstrated, any more than the claim "the sun will not rise next sunday". The wiki encodes our current knowledge, not what the author believes that will be at some future time.

Then it adds an entire section on GMO, but there is absolutely nothing in this article about GMOs. The cultivars being discussed here are not GMO, and including this section seriously clouds the issue, implying that the HYV's are GMO, which they simply are not. Nevertheless, it goes on to make several unsupported claims about GMO "pollution" in grasses, using weasle words no less.

Adding to my concern was that all of the references come from various eco-groups. There's nothing wrong with this, per-se, but it displays a complete lack of balance. Had this section included counterarguments, fine, but it didn't, and is NPOV by definition.

And then to add to it all, what the heck is with that section title?

Re-inclusion of a version not seriously modified to address these concerns will be RVed. If you wish to see this section in the article, you need to explain why it has to be separate -- there's already sections covering most of this -- and include a much more balanced view with more refs from mainstream sources.

Maury 21:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

ideological bias[edit]

There is a great deal of ideological bias in this article. The green revloution was one of the greatest achievements of humankind, yet the bulk of this article is devoted to criticism of it, much of it misinformed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I highly disagree with statement. I find that there is a strong ideological bias for the Green Revolution. The criticism that is offered is very valid, but is much too easily countered. Vandana Shiva wrote extensively about the Green Revolution in her book The Violence of the Green Revolution: Third World Agriculture, Ecology and Politics. This article is severly lacking in that it lacks input from a writer who has dedicated so much effort into studying the Green Revolution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the disagreement, the balance of the article is towards what is important to most people, while covering the basic info well. (talk) 15:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the article is too positive for the Green Revolution. (The GR helped to increase the crops yields per square acre, but it did NOT help countries to combat famine or to become self-sustaining). In the introduction is suggested that Mexico became a net exporter in 1964. This is only partially true. There was indeed a net export from 1965 until 1970, but it was so little that it can be neglected. From 1970 on, it turned again into a net importer (both for wheat AND maiz, mainly from the USA) and hasn't ceased to be an importer since then. See the FAO statistics! (few months ago I added that source, but it has been deleted again). The example of Mexico in the introduction should be deleted or explained better. A very good review of the GR, including both praise and criticism, appeared in Nature To the contrary, Vandana Shiva, although she has some interesting viewpoints, is not a neutral source I think. She is more activist than researcher. Ian.xerl (talk) 09:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

removal of a chunk of the food security section?[edit]

Why was the alternative interpretations of food security removed? it was imperfect and it's placement would probably have better in the criticisms section, but now the norman borloug quote doesn't make sense. anyway, i'm going to put it back in under the criticism section. it's amusing at the least.

anyway, i know this article is a mess overall, but it is better than it was last week. hopefully we can gradually make it better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

what happened to the history section?[edit]

why was the history section removed? if there are no objections, i'm going to put it back in. (talk) 15:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Environmental Impact[edit]

I think that the environmental impact section needs to be expanded. Additions could include soil nutrient depletion and soil erosion as a result of monoculture. Maybe some more about water use and efficiency of irrigation? I'm no expert, but I really think a lot could be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

This article needs comparative pictures of the pre revolution and post revolution crops[edit]

Images would be a big improvement in understanding. Avram Primack (talk) 18:52, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Removal of 'medieval Green Revolution' disambig[edit]

This page is about the Green Revolution of the 20th century. For the earlier medieval Green Revolution, see Muslim Agricultural Revolution.

I have removed the disambig link for 'medieval Green Revolution'. This term is not widely used, and may be misleading. Though it appears in an early 1980s paper by A. M. Watson, it does not appear to have current use in valid or relevant sources.

Dialectric (talk) 01:03, 9 November 2008 (UTC) According the research that I have been doing on the Green Revolution, Pakistan was one of the main countries involved. It was around the same time as India's. However, in this entire article, Pakistan is not even mentioned one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

What does "consensus" mean?[edit]

Could please someone explain what is meant by the following sentence in the introductory paragraph:

"The consensus of some agronomists is that the Green Revolution has allowed food production to keep pace with worldwide population growth."

As I use the term, either this really is a consensus opinion, in which case it should be shared by most agronomists (this is a necessary but not sufficient condition!), or it is the opinion of some agronomists. Therefore, I find that the sentence contradictory.

Another question: If we talk about scientists in general (as opposed to agronoms), the statements by the academies of sciences, coordinated through their InterAcademy Panel (IAP) could be considered as a kind of "official consensus". In the IAP statement on population growth from 1994, the academies claim the following:

"In the last decade food production from both land and sea declined relative to world population growth."

(However, the development since then should be more relevant.) If there are any scientists, agronoms or others, who have criticised this IAP statement explicitly, I'd like to get a reference, in order to include it in the article on the statement. JoergenB (talk) 20:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

[[File:Example.jpg75 7]]4197 '[\=['\=[-o-0 —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Identify and explain two arguments in praise of the changes brought about by the Green Revolution.[edit]

???????????????????????????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I agree with all the ????????????? This talk section seems to be asking for 2 positive arguments "for" the green revolution, rather than looking for specific information missing from that article. Remove from talk page? (talk) 15:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Introduction is biased - the example of Mexico is misleading![edit]

Mexico FAO maize wheat.png

The sentence in the introduction that states that Mexico became self-sustaining and net exporter after 1964 is misleading. It is true that yields increased and that from 1965-1969 Mexico was a net exporter. But those exports were very small and from 1970 on Mexico became again a major importer of both maize and wheat (mainly from the US). This is clear from FAO data. Maybe this graph (showing Mexico's import, export and consumption of wheat and maize, based on FAO data) should be included in the criticism section. Ian.xerl (talk) 10:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


Green revolution and cancer should be merged into this article, as it doesn't need to be an article of its own. — Hex (❝?!❞) 11:31, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely agree. The topic is an interesting, albeit comparatively minor compared to other aspects of the GR, issue, and should be placed within the larger article. ~ Amory (talk) 10:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Great idea! I think that after reading through both articles that both are very, very similar, and that it would be a good idea to put the info in one place for easier access and less confusion. (Proud Gamer (talk) 23:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC))
Oppose, in principle, I think... which I know is not very strong opposition! I mean that if the Green Revolution was the major aritcle it should be, then a section on all the possible dissadvantages, including health questions, would be a section of it. The GR should be a big page, where millions of tons of food, millions of peoples lives, many naitons prosperity etc. are discussed and a wide range of substantial examples are given. Then, on that scale, if there is enough information about specifically cancer, and the Green Revolution, then a seperate page on the subject would help ensure that the page size for Green Revolution does not get out of hand. I think that the Green Revolution page as it stands should not have a whole lot of information about just cancer issues merged in with it, as if that was half of what the GR is about. What is practicle in the here and now, though? I'm not so sure.

IceDragon64 (talk) 23:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and done the merge, a section on health impact has more scope and can be spun off into its own article in the future. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 10:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

New green revolution[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was not moved. Jafeluv (talk) 20:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Green Revolution1945 Agriculture improvement — A remark on the new green revolution (see ) should be made. Also, please add in intro that the "green" revolution doesnt cover the meaning of green as it is today (also mentioned in latter article) I also propose to rename the article to 1945 Agriculture improvement — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Oppose - Izzedine (talk) 12:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Green Revolution is the correct name for this movement as it is the proper name for this movement, and seeing as how I have never heard of it as being reffered to under any other name i think it meets WP:COMMONAME criteria. The article you have provided does not seem to indicate another set of agricultural improvements independently known as "The Green Revolution" are underway; Rather it draws on the popularity of the term for 20th century movement and indicates that the world population is in need of something similar. This source refers to the 20th century movement by name as "The Green Revolution" so it cannot be seen as contesting this title. As for the proposed retitle it is somewhat inaccurate. It indicates these changes all occured rapidly in 1945 when in fact the events we identify as "The Green Revolution" occured through the entire middle and into the later 20th century. As stated before "Green Revolution" is the common name for this topic and any other title would only confuse and fluster users attempting to look it up. Solid State Survivor (talk) 07:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - agree with above by SSS --Karl.brown (talk) 17:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Another set of agricultural improvements ARE underway. Read trough the entire article, not just page 1. I however do agree that the name wasnt completely OK, it should be 1945-1970 Agricultural improvement (or 1945-2015 Agricultural improvement?); not sure, this document indicates the first. NGM article stated something else I believe
As was said earlier Green Revolution is clearly the common name. If future events cause something else to become the common name we can change it but not before. Neither of the names you mention are good choices.-- (talk) 20:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Jfeldman's purge[edit]

Almost the whole talk page was deleted (without archiving) by User:Jfeldman (Justin) in March, 2010, with the following motivation:

I cleared most of this discussion page as many of the comments were old and also because I feel that this article needs a major rewrite. I basically cleared this article and rewrote it a few years ago and it has deteriorated since. I will try to contribute little by little but don't currently have the time. Please help redo this article, but take care to avoid the issues that plague the current article:
- While there is no shortage of literature lauding the Green Revolution as an unequivocal 'success' that prevented mass famine, this is not the only point of view that exists and these statements do not necessarily cite scientific data (except perhaps through national grain yield figures). An article that complies with NPOV must take this into account. The heading "Indian Successes" does not comply with NPOV.
- Critiques of the Green Revolution should not be general critiques of industrial agriculture. This article is not the place for that. We should stick to literature that has specifically critiqued the Green Revolution and its effects.
- Cite sources, and try to use decent sources, i.e. not a random PowerPoint presentation on someone's website.
This is an important article and I think we can do good things with it!
Justin (talk)

This is unacceptable. Justin has the full right to criticise criticism he considers badly sourced; but not to eliminate that criticism. To the extent that the discussion is old and no longer relevant, it may be archived, with a clear and visible reference to the archive. I therefore reverted his removal. JoergenB (talk) 18:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Environmental Impact Section[edit]

One part of that has no sources and has been tagged as such since 2008. That's really shameful, considering the section is one of import, and it would be a shame to have to delete it (per Wikipedia's policy of not being a publisher of original thought). It seems someone mentions Pfieffer as a quote, perhaps they can be properly referenced instead? Peter Deer (talk) 06:46, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. Jafeluv (talk) 09:31, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Green Revolution (agriculture)Green Revolution — To restore the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC after it was moved here a few days ago. The "Green Revolution" is a major change in human history, and is linked by hundreds of articles. The only other contender is the recent Green Revolution (Iran), which is one of many names for the 2009–2010 Iranian election protests given by its supporters. JaGatalk 05:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Support per nom. Mhiji (talk) 18:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


Can anyone with knowledge about this add some information about erosion and loss of areable land. This would interest me and other readers a lot I think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanbruystelghem (talkcontribs) 10:17, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Article needs to talk about soil conservation[edit]

The article needs to say whether Soil conservation techniques, including Contour plowing were part of the Green Revolution. And if possible, why or why not. If not, when and where they were advocated before or after? Lentower (talk) 20:34, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe it would be interesting to note the affects of crop dusting on individuals living in these areas. Things were green, er, maybe than they should have been? I spent my first 10 years in a farming community in the late 50's and all through the 60's. I used to watch the crop dusting planes, and I still remember the smell. I'm fine. Just that I have an allergy problem. I'm allergic to just about every pollen, tree, and grass there is. I always wondered if it was related to the dust cropping. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChooChooXP (talkcontribs) 21:39, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

punjab + sikkim[edit]

sorry to the editors adding the information on punjab and sikkim. It seems interesting and well sourced, but this is simply not the right article for it. The level of detail given is not manageable in an overview article such as this. It could go in Agriculture in India or a sub-article, but the information as presented gives undue weight to the specifics of agricultural development in Sikkim and Punjab. If it could be distilled or made more universal it could be a valuable addition to the article. As it stands it threatens to overwhelm the article. Thanks for your help anyway, sorry to seem ungrateful. Peregrine981 (talk) 22:01, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I have also found the article Green Revolution in India which would seem to be an ideal home for the info. Peregrine981 (talk) 22:05, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Lock the page[edit]

It's getting messed up, likely by anti-science people.

Why does pesticides and cancer start "He he he."? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:00, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

The "New" Green Revolution[edit]

I added a new section, with following text:

Although the Green Revolution has been able to improve agricultural output in many regions, there was and is still room for improvement. As a result, many organizations continue to invent new ways of how to improve on the techniques allready used in the Green Revolution. Frequently quoted inventions are the System of Rice Intensification[1], MutMap[2], genetic improvements in carp and tilapia, [3], agroecology[4] ...

I'm thinking however that we need to mention the discarding of animal husbandry as well, see Vegan_organic_gardening, or at least mention that keeping animals for their flesh can only occur in a integrated approach, such as with Integrated multi-trophic aquaculture, and Integrated Rice and Duck Farming[5]

KVDP (talk) 12:25, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your contribution. As for "eliminating animal husbandry" you were correct to leave that out. Unlike the things you did discuss, eliminating animal husbandry is not an active, actual program of any major development body. It is most certainly a goal of many activists, but Wikipedia is not a place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS - we describe what is. Jytdog (talk) 12:44, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Red Revolution?[edit]

Red revolution is a social revolution and has no place here to compare with green revolution. Practices of the Soviet production can be discussed though in comparison with capitalist countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vagr7 (talkcontribs) 21:58, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


Although the term ‘Green Revolution’ was coined in 1968 by USAID’s Administrators taking into account experiments in Mexico led by Norman Borlaug since 1943, it’s an acknowledged fact that its scientific foundations had already been laid decades before. Since 1904 to the world war II Nazareno Strampelli created a true ‘revolution’ in plant breeding doubling the Italian wheat production. Borlaug’s innovative approach was in fact based on the work of Strampelli, who thirty years before the American, imposed and followed a path that originated experimental wheat varieties that made miracle to Italy at the turn of the two world wars. That miracle has since been labeled “Battle of Grains”.

[...] “Some of Strampelli's wheats, such as Mentana, Ardito and San Pastore, were used as parents in the breeding programmes of several countries [Russia, Canada, United States, Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, etc] after the Second World War; they also had a key role in the first phase of Norman Borlaug's Green Revolution, being instrumental in the development of the high-yielding varieties” [...] S. Salvi, O. Porfiri and S. Ceccarelli.

Even though he was clearly the forerunner of the Green Revolution and Bourlag’s programmes were undoubtedly based on his studies I can’t find a single mention for Strampelli and his work. Regards. In Ratio Veritas (talk) 19:22, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

There are several sources that explain Strampelli's contribution to the Green Revolution. This one here ( acknowledges a great deal of it. Regards. In Ratio Veritas (talk) 13:47, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Green Revolution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:23, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

3rd World Economic Sovereignty - questionable content and over reliance.[edit]

Hello all, relatively unskilled editor here so apologies in advance if I don't realize something. Just inform so I can fix it up when I'm editing later articles.

Regarding this section, I have a few questions and points to highlight.

Firstly, should the title remain under the heading of '3rd world' or should it be supplemented with 'Developing Nations', or any more appropriate term?

Secondly, it's regarding the article itself. Generally, it seems to be written in a tone not consistent from what I've read across some 'better' wikipedia articles, which I shall highlight.

"A case study is found in India, where farmers are buying Monsanto BT cotton seeds -- sold on the idea that these seeds produced 'natural insecticides'."

Firstly, I feel that the linking to Monsanto and describing somewhat vaguely 'Bt cotton seeds' as seeds 'sold on the idea', is somewhat misleading, only implying that it works and placing a suspicion of whether it really does manufacture Bt toxin, which it's reassured that it does. Furthermore, that last line seems to implicate to me that it's suggesting that Bt toxin is not effective in its goals, but that may just be my interpretation. Reworded the segment, removing [Monsanto] and linking to Bacillus thuringiensis.

"In reality, they need to still pay for expensive pesticides and irrigation systems, needing to borrow from money lenders to finance their expensive change from traditional seed varieties."

Loose words, it seems. Expensive pesticides? Where's the evidence that it's expensive to the farmers, all that's cited is a documentary which seems to be citing anecdotal evidence, and I feel that had there been any scientific literature from there, then it can be posted to reinforce the statement. Currently, it seems weak and not strongly sustained in the segment. Furthermore, the segment mentioning that 'they need to still pay for pesticides and irrigation systems' is confusing. I'm not seeing the clear relevance to the previous statements, and it's outright misleading to mention insecticides and say that pesticides, an umbrella term featuring insecticides, are still being used, implying that the crop isn't doing what it needs to do. Furthermore, the same statement regarding a transition from 'expensive change from traditional seed varieties' seems a bit vague. What were the traditional seed varieties? How long ago was it and is it relevant? Is it actually expensive. Removed the segment due to its seeming irrelevance to the prior statements.

"Many farmers are not able to pay for the expensive technologies, and especially if they have a bad harvest, they cannot pay back their debts, and many have committed suicide (600-700 a year in 2006/2007)."

The link between suicides and of how Bt cotton may have played resulting in an increase in suicides has not been strongly supported by evidence such as [6], with the discussion of the cited article stating "Still, our analysis is sufficiently well documented to discredit the possibility of a naıve direct causal or reciprocal relationship between Bt cotton and farmer suicides". Quite frankly, that statement is not quite valid. Regarding the idea of debt, that is also quite a loose and vague statement in regards to the use of the previously mentioned 'Bt cotton', that if they're in debt and they have a bad harvest, then it's due to the adoption of that particular crop. And regarding the statement of it being an 'expensive technology', compared to what? I have deleted that segment from that section, due to it not really being that reliable and relevant of a segment.

"This can allow larger farms, even foreign owned farming operations, to buy up the local small farms."

No citation, is such a statement worth keeping? Added [citation needed] tag.

"Vandana Shiva notes that this is the "second Green Revolution""

Does this belong in Green Revolution or Second Green Revolution?

I'd appreciate discussion on this part, and have also contributed a new line to it from a source I found. Please don't bite that hard, gimme a few thousand more words before that,

Ini7 (talk) 10:28, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^ SRI as part of the new green revolution
  2. ^ MutMap as part of the new green revolution
  3. ^ FAO on the new green revolution
  4. ^ Agroecology as part of the new green revolution
  5. ^
  6. ^