The Green Revolution:The Rise of Industrial Agriculture and its Social and Ecological Repercussions

By: Stormy Canning Smith

In the Spring of 1945, three young men worked tirelessly, planting by hand one hundred and ten thousand wheat seeds across dozens of acres of farmland in Mexico’s Northern Yaqui Valley. 1 Among them was Norman E. Borlaug. An American agronomist, graduate of the College of Agriculture and former member of the United States Forest Service, Borlaug had moved south to Mexico from his home in the rural Midwest earlier that year. 2 He had been hired by the Rockefeller Foundation, a wealthy philanthropic organization which had, in collaboration with the Mexican and American governments, determined a focused plan to increase food production in rural Mexico. The Mexican government had sent the United States an official plea for economic aid.3 This effort was an attempt to liberate the country’s citizens from crippling poverty which contributed to tension between the rural poor and central government–a dynamic which the United States was becoming increasingly wary of in the wake of the unstable political landscape of the mid twentieth century. 4 Borlaug’s mission was to defeat the infamous stem rust, a fungus known as “one of the oldest enemies of the human race.”5 The disease had been wiping out half of Mexico’s wheat crop for several years. Borlaug, a new and relatively inexperienced member of the team, was assigned wheat, as, unlike corn and beans, it wasn’t one of Mexico’s main crops.6 6 Mann, “The Man Who Tried to Save the World,” of American Experience 5 Mann, “The Man Who Tried to Save the World,” of American Experience 4 Nick Cullather, Tore Olsson “The Man Who Tried to Save the World,” of American Experience 3 Alan Anderson Jr. "The Green Revolution Lives: The Green Revolution." (New York Times (1923-), Apr 27, 1975) 2 Gregory Pence, “Norman E. Borlaug: (25 March 1914–12 September 2009)” (American National Biography, April, 2016) 1 Charles C. Mann, “The Man Who Tried to Save the World,” from American Experience, (Public Broadcasting Service, December 21, 2022) Borlaug had collected thousands of different varieties of wheat from the area hoping some strains of wheat would survive the onslaught of stem rust that was sure to decimate most of the plants. Of the more than one hundred thousand plants sewn by Borlaug and his team of two local college graduates, Pepe Rodriguez and Jose Guevara, by harvest time, only four plants had survived.7 Some may have seen this as defeat, but Borlaug took this as a sure sign he’d found his life’s mission. He wrote to his wife, Margaret, “Can you imagine trying to feed a family? . . . We’ve got to do something.”8 For the next two decades, Borlaug worked tirelessly to develop various disease-resistant strains of wheat.9 His work was an unprecedented success. He managed to successfully defeat stem rust, a catalyst achievement which led to what would later become known as the Green Revolution: a massive increase in agricultural productivity worldwide as a result of various advancements in agricultural methods. Borlaug’s methods would spread to developing countries across the globe, feeding hungry populations, earning him the title of ‘The man who saved a billion lives,’ and eventually, in 1970, the Nobel Peace Prize, among other accolades.10 Undoubtedly, Borlaug and his work had an extraordinary impact on the world. However, this revolutionary change came at a significant cost, giving rise to environmental devastation, exasperated inequality, and social unrest in the world’s most vulnerable communities. Borlaug was born in Saude, Iowa to Norwegian immigrants and grew up on his family farm. In 1933, encouraged by his grandfather to pursue education, Borlaug enrolled in the University of Minnesota. Unfortunately, the Great Depression took its toll, and in 1935 Borlaug left his studies to focus on making money. He took a job with the Civilian Conservation Corps 10 “The man who saved a billion lives” Feature (University of Minnesota Twin Cities, November 20, 2016) 9 Mann, “The Man Who Tried to Save the World,” of American Experience 8 Narrator, “The Man Who Tried to Save the World,” from American Experience 7 Mann, “The Man Who Tried to Save the World,” of American Experience (CCC) where he became an eyewitness to the effects of starvation. This experience moved him greatly, and would become a pivotal point in his life, inspiring the immense success he would meet decades later. 11 In 1944 Borlaug began his work for The Mexican Agriculture Project (MAP). Mexico was emerging from years of revolution and civil war stemming from tension between the poor, rural class, and wealthy elites. The rural labor class had a somewhat disconnected and volatile relationship with Mexico’s central government, and this unrest, in combination with its dangerous proximity to the United States, aroused concern within the U.S. Government. Borlaug set out to create high-yield, disease resistant wheat. With a method he called “shuttle breeding,” he would decrease the time it’d take him to select for the most successful wheat strains. In the North, wheat is grown at a different time of year than it is in the South. To speed up his process, he would grow wheat in one area during the winter, then take the seeds of the most successful plants, bring them South, and plant them in the spring.12 Borlaug then began to cross-breed his four successful wheat plants with other successful varieties. By 1948, he had developed a strain resistant to stem rust and able to produce vast quantities of high-quality wheat. Even more impressive, his hybrid plant could be grown anywhere, during any season.13 These new hybrid varieties could produce huge amounts of grain, just as was intended, however, they required heavy chemical fertilizer use, and large quantities of water, much more than traditional wheat crops.14 Nevertheless, his achievement was seen as an extraordinary success. Borlaug’s work, which marked the beginning of an agricultural revolution, had been a product of its time, sparked by the tensions brewing globally after the second World War.

Following the Communist Revolution in China, the fear of Communism spread throughout the world. To the United States and other world powers, the nations most vulnerable to infiltration by Communist ideals were the weaker, developing countries, particularly ones riddled with inequality, economic disparities, and famine. Anywhere in the world where there were significant groups of poor laborers, unhappy with their government or the state of inequality, the United States and other powers thought might turn to the Communist Soviet Union for a solution.15 Poor, undeveloped, rural communities became “ideological battlegrounds”.16 In particular, groups of unsatisfied “peasants” posed a threat. The United States saw appeasing these groups as a logical route to settle the potential for uprisings. They sought to improve the quality of life of poor and marginalized groups around the world as a defensive strategy against the potential global spread of Communist ideology. 17 Suddenly Borlaug’s work became vitally important as a political tool. As a part of this strategy, the United States, in tandem with private organizations like the Rockefeller and Ford foundations began more programs to develop agricultural practices intended to increase crop yield, hoping to improve the lives of people who lived in poor, rural, agricultural areas, and in turn, neutralizing any “insurgent leftist tendencies.”18 Their logic: “no one becomes a Communist on a full belly.”19 Borlaug’s work in Mexico took on a new significance. Their mission became farther reaching than the campesino farmers of rural Mexico. Instead, Borlaug’s wheat was becoming an instrument for political influence that could be used in developing nations across the globe.20 20 Raj Patel “Caught Up in the War on Communism: Norman Borlaug and the ‘Green Revolution’” from American Experience 19 Raj Patel “Caught Up in the War on Communism: Norman Borlaug and the ‘Green Revolution’” from American Experience 18 Raj Patel, “Caught Up in the War on Communism: Norman Borlaug and the ‘Green Revolution’” from American Experience, (Public Broadcasting Service, April 3, 2020) 17 Mann, “The Man Who Tried to Save the World,” of American Experience 16 Mann, “The Man Who Tried to Save the World,” of American Experience 15 Mann, “The Man Who Tried to Save the World,” of American Experience Thus, the ‘Green Revolution’ got its name. USAID Administrator, William Gaud stated, “These and other developments in the field of agriculture contain the makings of a new revolution. It is not a violent Red Revolution like that of the Soviets, nor is it a White Revolution like that of the Shah of Iran. I call it the Green Revolution.”21 Through coordination with private philanthropy organizations like the Rockefeller and Ford foundations, foreign Ministries of Agriculture, as well as funding from government organizations like the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), the United States Government supported the development of new agricultural practices which sought to drastically increase crop yields.22 In addition to directly and indirectly funding these programs, in 1961, Congress passed the Food for Peace Act, stating: “It is the policy of the United States to use its abundant agricultural productivity to promote the foreign policy of the United States by enhancing the food security of the developing world through the use of agricultural commodities and local currencies accruing under this chapter to—(1) combat world hunger and malnutrition and their causes; (2) promote broad-based, equitable, and sustainable development, including agricultural development; (3) expand international trade; (4) foster and encourage the development of private enterprise and democratic participation in developing countries; and (5) prevent conflicts.”23 This act promoted the development of agricultural practices in countries identified to be struggling with resource management, population growth, inequity, or social unrest. 23 “7 USC Ch. 41: FOOD for PEACE.” (House.gov. 2024.) 22 “USAID at 60: An Enduring Purpose, a Complex Legacy.” (American Foreign Service Association, 2021.) 21 Andrew Natsios. “Foreign Aid in an Era of Great Power Competition.” (National Defense University Press. June 11, 2020.) After the success in Mexico, the Rockefeller Foundation expanded its program to Colombia in 1950, and Chile in 1955.24 By 1963, Borlaug was on his way to New Delhi, India.25 India had gained independence from British rule in 1947, and as a new democratic nation, played an important role in the tense geopolitical landscape during the Cold War. India was a stark representation of the concerns the United States had about resources, population management, and urbanization in developing countries with struggling citizens and volatile social dynamics.26 Author Chester Barnard wrote, “The problem of the ratio of developed resources to population is one of the basic problems of all unindustrialized countries. Moreover, India is of central strategic importance. If RF could make a real contribution toward raising this ratio in countries such as India… it would serve its times fundamentally.”27 After achieving independence from Britain and violently separating from Pakistan, a period of political turmoil consumed the country, but its stance as a democratic nation was important in defending against the spread of Communism from surrounding East Asian countries. 28 In the aftermath of World War II, India suffered from extreme food shortages. During the war, a famine in Bengal killed between 1.5 and 3 million people, and later, in 1947, the central food supply was disrupted when territory divisions between India and Pakistan were made. In the 1960s, the country was faced with a series of severe droughts, leading to more shortages.29 The dire state of India’s agriculture and food systems warranted foreign aid, and Borlaug’s work became of interest to the struggling nation. To implement Borlaug’s method, however, would require a drastic ideological shift in the thinking behind agriculture in India. Traditional Gandhian thought which influenced agriculture, spoke about restraint, lack of greed, and agriculture as a means of subsistence. This ideology directly contradicted Borlaug and Swaminathan’s plan.30 Borlaug’s practices required heavy water, fertilizer, and pesticide use, and were based fundamentally on the goal of producing the most amount of food possible. According to historian Prakash Kumar, “It was the brute capitalism of the Norman Borlaug model that was irreconcilable with Gandhian thought.”31 Unable to convince the stubborn traditional farmers to adopt modern methods, the United States offered help more directly. During the Cold War, the United States stepped in and provided the struggling nation with massive concessions in the form of cereal grain–which the U.S. was now producing massive amounts of. Between the years of 1950 and 1971, the Indian government received ten billion dollars worth and fifty million tons of wheat from the now abundant United States supply. It was predicted that at the rate by which India’s population was expanding, the one fifth of America’s wheat crop which India consumed in 1965 would grow to one half by 1970.32 At this rate, the country would need ten million tons of grain per year by the 1980s.33 While these concessions provided a short term solution for mass starvation and malnutrition, with India’s rapidly growing population, the import of such vast quantities of food wouldn’t serve as a sustainable remedy for the country’s increasing problem. India’s increasing reliance on American products began to pose a threat to the U.S. market. Still, without any luck in swaying the tradition of Indian farmers, the United States resorted to more forceful tactics. 33 Laljeet Sangha, “Revisiting the Impacts of the Green Revolution in India.” Virginia Tech Institute for Policy and Governance 32 Narrator, “The Man Who Tried to Save the World,” from American Experience 31 Prakash Kumar,“The Man Who Tried to Save the World,” from American Experience 30 Narrator, “The Man Who Tried to Save the World,” from American Experience The U.S. had a powerful grasp on India’s food system, and used this leverage to force India into agricultural reform by halting grain exports to the country during their most vulnerable point of drought.34 With millions of lives at risk, India had no choice. Now, Borlaug’s program represented a way out of foreign reliance, and a path towards self-sufficiency.

In 1963, Borlaug flew with seven hundred and fifty pounds of high yield wheat seeds to New Delhi. There, he met Dr. M.S. Swaminathan, an Indian agronomist determined to help the country overcome its crippling food shortages, and even, become a country capable of exporting its own food.35 In addition to imports of seed, fertilizer was distributed throughout the country. In order to support this new method of agriculture, modernized infrastructure was necessary. Processing factories were built, irrigation systems were put in place, and government subsidies sought to support economic growth in the agricultural industry. 36 India was becoming self-sufficient. Borlaug’s wheat was planted across over a million acres. By the spring of 1968, India had become “buried in grain.” Silos were overwhelmed, and schools were closed and classrooms filled with wheat. The harvest of 1968 was one and a half times larger than the previous record.37 One farmer in Punjab, a region which the revolution particularly thrived in, expressed gratification about the newly implemented system, saying, "Everyone has gained from the green revolution. Workers' wages have gone up, shopkeepers have sold more fertilizer, every farmer has his own well."38 He continues, “Certainly the Green Revolution is a breakthrough. But it’s just a beginning. It’s quite a relative term. The process has just started.”39 The successful implementation of Borlaug’s methods in India prompted further expansion of Green Revolution practices. Borlaug’s Indian colleagues made developments in a variety of 39 D. Kirk. "Punjab's 'green revolution' saves India from starvation." 38 D. Kirk. "Punjab's 'green revolution' saves India from starvation." (Chicago Tribune July 8, 1973.) 37 Narrator, “The Man Who Tried to Save the World,” from American Experience 36 Narrator, “The Man Who Tried to Save the World,” from American Experience 35 Narrator, “The Man Who Tried to Save the World,” from American Experience 34 Narrator, “The Man Who Tried to Save the World,” from American Experience crops, creating high yield varieties of other staple grains like corn, rice, and oats. Modern practices began to spread throughout Asia in countries like South Korea, Taiwan, the Philippines, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Malaysia, South Vietnam, Cambodia, and Indonesia.40 This expansion required extensive funding which came from private and government organizations as well as the World Bank. USAID Administrator, William Gaud reported that fifty percent of the agency’s budget in the 1960’s was spent on the development of Green Revolution practices in Asia.41 While the Green Revolution provided food necessary for combating hunger worldwide and helped to develop struggling economies, it had significant unintended social consequences. For one, the transition from traditional agriculture to modernized practices proved difficult for rural agricultural communities. Laljeet Sangha writes, “The new seeds/crops replaced thousands of locally indigenous species and the agricultural systems they had sustained. In addition to adopting widespread chemical fertilizer and pesticide use, Punjab’s farmers replaced their traditional sustainable farming practices, involving diverse cropping and leaving fields fallow periodically to allow for the regeneration of nutrients, with monocropping. As the national and state governments achieved their targets for food production and security and shifted their focus to other areas, however, Punjabi farmers found themselves coping with the aftermath of these changes.”42 Not only were Asian farmers forced to reverse their traditional beliefs about agriculture entirely, they had to adapt economically as well, suddenly forced to purchase vast amounts of chemicals and irrigation to facilitate growth of high-yield variety crops.43 Many farmers ended up taking out loans, and ultimately were left with extensive debt.44 44 Laljeet Sangha, “Revisiting the Impacts of the Green Revolution in India.” 43 Laljeet Sangha, “Revisiting the Impacts of the Green Revolution in India.” 42 Laljeet Sangha, “Revisiting the Impacts of the Green Revolution in India.” 41 Andrew Natsios. “Foreign Aid in an Era of Great Power Competition.” 40 Andrew Natsios. “Foreign Aid in an Era of Great Power Competition.” Government subsidization of staple crops like wheat, corn, rice, and oats contributed to the rise of industrial agriculture and a monopoly-run food system. This system has forced out small farms, promoted consolidation and an economy which favors large-scale, corporation-run farms. Sukhwinder Pappi, a member of the Association for Democratic Rights (an NGO working closely with farmers in Punjab, a region in India particularly impacted by the revolution), says “The Green Revolution brought a banking system with it . . . Before, when people farmed naturally, they would grow a little corn, cotton or sugarcane. They wouldn’t need much money. It was a natural model of agriculture. But the Green Revolution destroyed the natural model and replaced it with a capitalist one.”45 Ultimately, the Green Revolution led to America’s current centralized food system, one riddled with inequity and corruption, and entirely disconnected from consumers. With the adoption of this system, the Green Revolution did exactly the opposite of what it first set out to do: help poor farmers. The movement resulted in massive economic gain for the farmers who could afford to keep up with advancing technology. Those who couldn’t, however, were outcompeted, unable to survive in the market, now dominated by large farms with the funds to purchase fertilizer, tilling machines, and other resources that industrial agriculture depends on.46 Author Brian King writes, “Affluent farmers have further prospered from the Green Revolution, yet the majority of farmers who need help have not gained from the revolution and in fact have been harmed by it. The results have been deepened class divisions and social problems in some societies as minority groups, women, and indigenous peoples have been displaced.”47 Large-scale farms take over the market and the land, pushing out poorfarmers, not only economically, but socially as well, displacing people and leading to mass migration and urbanization. In some marginalized communities, the Green Revolution has even worsened food availability and nutrition. Author Raj Patel points out that, “Hunger isn't just about an absence of food, it's an absence of money. And look who goes hungry: in the United States, seven out of the 10 worst-paying jobs are in the food system, and globally the people most likely to be hungry are farm workers.”48 Industrial agriculture has created a cycle in which the same communities we sought to help in the first place are exploited, and in bitter irony, are often the ones whom food is less available to. The Green Revolution also had an immense impact on human health. The surge in production of just a few staple crops (like wheat, corn, rice) shifted food consumption patterns, particularly in places where the Green Revolution provided necessary relief from starvation. Where new agricultural methods were implemented in developing countries, effort and money were devoted to mass production of these basic crops. Inevitably, this shift in what was being grown led to a similar shift in what was being eaten.49 This particular impact of the Green Revolution remains evident today, although many are likely unaware of their connection. The green revolution which took place in India contributed to a shift away from diets rich in millets and barley, and towards a rice-heavy diet. While today rice is commonly associated with India and its cuisine, the extent of its prevalence is due in large part to the advancements of the Green Revolution which shifted focus to large-scale monoculture of rice and other starchy grains.50 The mass production of rice and other crops led to a decrease in diversity of crops being grown, and 50 John, Daisy A., and Giridhara R. Babu.“Lessons from the Aftermaths of Green Revolution on Food System and Health.” 49 John, Daisy A., and Giridhara R. Babu.“Lessons from the Aftermaths of Green Revolution on Food System and Health.” Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, (2021) 48 Raj Patel “Caught Up in the War on Communism: Norman Borlaug and the ‘Green Revolution’” in turn, a generally less varied diet. In other words, while monoculture did increase average calorie consumption, it failed to maintain diverse sustenance.51 This growth in calorie consumption, and abundance of the starchy, carbohydrate-rich foods contributed to a rise in chronic diseases, like diabetes, in developing countries. While diseases like this before the revolution would have been considered “rich country diseases,” the change in crop production led to a double burden, of malnutrition and starvation, as well as rising rates of obesity. 52 In addition to the large-scale shift in food consumption patterns, the development and widespread use of chemical fertilizers and pest- and herbicides had a negative impact on human health. In order to maintain high-yield and support modified strains of grain, scientists introduced highly toxic chemical pesticides like parathion and endrin. Many of the communities where agricultural advancements took place were poor, rural, and inadequately prepared to manage the heavy use of such hazardous chemicals in a safe manner. 53 Many of the chemical compounds in pesticides used at this time are known to impact the human endocrine, nervous, immune and reproductive systems.54 Farmers who were exposed first-hand to these chemicals were at particular risk of the negative health effects of these hazardous materials, since they can be absorbed directly through skin, and the majority of farmers, particularly in poorer communities lacked proper protective gear. 55 Exposure to pesticides can cause detrimental harm to the body. If pesticides enter the blood, concentrated levels of nitrate can immobilize 55 John, Daisy A., and Giridhara R. Babu.“Lessons from the Aftermaths of Green Revolution on Food System and Health.” 54 John, Daisy A., and Giridhara R. Babu.“Lessons from the Aftermaths of Green Revolution on Food System and Health.” 53 Ayanthi Karunarathne, David Gunnell , Flemming Konradsen, Michael Eddleston, “How many premature deaths from pesticide suicide have occurred since the agricultural Green Revolution?” (National Library of Medicine, September 9, 2019) 52 Kartini Shastry, Sheetal Sekhri, “The Green Revolution and the Rise in Chronic Disease,” (VoxDex, June 17, 2024) 51 John, Daisy A., and Giridhara R. Babu.“Lessons from the Aftermaths of Green Revolution on Food System and Health.” hemoglobin. Although now banned internationally, Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane, or DDT, is a known hormone disruptor which can lead to reproductive issues in women, and increase the risk of birth defects. Despite its use being prohibited, DDT is still used illegally in India.56 While farmers who handle these chemicals daily are at particular risk, the dangers of chemical use aren’t limited to those who work in agriculture. People who consume pesticides are significantly affected as well. In fact, oral consumption of food products with chemical pesticide content leads to high exposure to these toxic compounds, about 10³-10⁵ times greater than from drinking exposed water or breathing in pesticide-polluted air. 57 Overall, the heavy usage of toxic chemicals that came with the Green Revolution had overwhelming negative effects on agricultural communities and consumers. In addition to impacting the health of people, the Green Revolution had an immense long-term impact on the environment, particularly affecting soil health and surrounding ecosystems due to heavy chemical usage and destructive farming techniques. After the agricultural revolution took place, the global production of cereal grains increased three fold, while the amount of land used for its production increased by less than one third.58 The revolution had accomplished its goal of efficiency, producing high yield in smaller acreage, however, in doing this, the health of the soil was sacrificed. The use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides dramatically increased when high-yield variety seeds were introduced. In order to be as productive as Borlaug intended, much more water and fertilizer was needed than in traditional agriculture. While the transition to heavy chemical usage was economically beneficial, it has had detrimental environmental impacts, contributing to habitat disruption and loss in surrounding ecosystems, soil degradation and destruction of the crucial soil microbiome, as well as water and air pollution, both of which can cause disease in humans and other animals.59 The practice of monoculture, which was a main farming principle adopted during the Green Revolution began a cycle which led farmers to buy and use more chemicals and pesticides to counteract the intensifying negative effects of monoculture cropping.60 More chemical usage damages the soil more, creating a greater need for chemicals. This feedback loop has immediate as well as long-term impacts on soil health and renders land barren and unsuitable for plant growth. The destruction of land not only has negative implications for the environment and surrounding ecosystems, but also impacts the land's potential for use, and therefore impacts surrounding communities. The legacy of the Green Revolution is complicated, defined by both profound success and devastating loss. There is no denying that Norman Borlaug and the movement he sparked are responsible for the saving of millions of lives around the world. His work led to important economic and social advancement in developing nations, yet it’s just as important to realize that in many ways, the revolution perpetuated the issues it sought to address in the first place. Further than its physical agricultural impact, as Borlaug said in his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech, in choosing him to receive the award, “they were in effect, I believe, selecting an individual to symbolize the vital role of agriculture and food production in a world that is hungry, both for bread and for peace.”61 The Green Revolution was a solution for a difficult and tense time in history, in which the world was afraid of disaster, and must be understood as a multifaceted 61 Pence, “Norman E. Borlaug: (25 March 1914–12 September 2009)” 60 Laljeet Sangha, “Revisiting the Impacts of the Green Revolution in India.” 59John, Daisy A., and Giridhara R. Babu.“Lessons from the Aftermaths of Green Revolution on Food System and Health.” turning point in history. The Green Revolution saved millions of lives and promoted economic growth in developing nations, but it failed to solve the deeper issues that led to the state of crisis the world faced in the first place.

Bibliography Primary Sources

“7 USC Ch. 41: FOOD for PEACE.” 2024. House.gov. 2024. https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title7/chapter41&edition=prelim. Jr, Alan Anderson.1975. “The Green Revolution Lives: The Green Revolution.” The New York Times Magazine. ProQuest. https://www.proquest.com/docview/120587115/A7141D157D4C4E6DPQ/1?accountid=36348& sourcetype=Historical%20Newspapers. D. Kirk. "Punjab's 'green revolution' saves india from starvation." (Chicago Tribune July 8, 1973.) https://exeter.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/historical-newspapers/punjabs-g reen-revolution-saves-india-starvation/docview/170465188/se-2 Secondary Sources “A Pattern of Farmer Suicides in Punjab: Unearthing the Green Revolution.” (KALW. December 4, 2018.) https://www.kalw.org/show/crosscurrents/2018-12-04/a-pattern-of-farmer-suicides-in-pun jab-unearthing-the-green-revolution#stream/0.. Andrew Natsios. “Foreign Aid in an Era of Great Power Competition.” (National Defense University Press. June 11, 2020.) https://ndupress.ndu.edu/Media/News/News-Article-View/Article/2217683/foreign-aid-in-an-era -of-great-power-competition/. Ayanthi Karunarathne, David Gunnell, Flemming Konradsen, and Michael Eddleston. “How Many Premature Deaths from Pesticide Suicide Have Occurred since the Agricultural Green Revolution?” Clinical Toxicology 58 (4): 227–32. (2019) https://doi.org/10.1080/15563650.2019.1662433. Barbara Shubinski. “The Rockefeller Foundation’s Agriculture Program in India.” (REsource. January 4, 2022.) https://resource.rockarch.org/story/the-rockefeller-foundations-agriculture-program-in-in dia-1950s-1960s/. Brian King, “Green Revolution.” from Encyclopedia of American Environmental History, Second Edition (American History, 2024) online.infobase.com/Auth/Index?aid=14531&itemid=WE52&articleId=211407. Danielle Nierenberg.“‘No Silver Bullet Solution’: Norman Borlaug and the Green Revolution | American Experience | PBS.” Www.pbs.org. April 3, 2020. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/no-silver-bullet-solution-norman-borlau g-and-green-revolution/. Gregory E. Pence, "Borlaug, Norman Ernest (25 March 1914–12 September 2009)." American National Biography. 1 Apr. 2016; Accessed 8 May. 2025. https://www.anb.org/view/10.1093/anb/9780198606697.001.0001/anb-9780198606697-e-13026 91. John, Daisy A., and Giridhara R. Babu.“Lessons from the Aftermaths of Green Revolution on Food System and Health.” Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, (2021) https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2021.644559. Kartini Shastry and Sheetal Sekhri, “The Green Revolution and the Rise in Chronic Disease.” (VoxDev. June 17, 2024.) https://voxdev.org/topic/health/green-revolution-and-rise-chronic-disease. Laljeet Sangha, “Revisiting the Impacts of the Green Revolution in India.” (Virginia Tech Institute for Policy and Governance) https://ipg.vt.edu/DirectorsCorner/re--reflections-and-explorations/Reflections101520.html. Raj Patel, “Caught up in the War on Communism: Norman Borlaug and the ‘Green Revolution’ | American Experience | PBS.” (Public Broadcasting Service April 3, 2020.) https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/caught-war-on-communism-norman-borl aug-and-green-revolution/. Kartini Shastry, Sheetal Sekhri, “The Green Revolution and the Rise in Chronic Disease,” (VoxDex, June 17, 2024) https://voxdev.org/topic/health/green-revolution-and-rise-chronic-disease. “The Man Who Saved a Billion Lives.” (University of Minnesota Twin Cities. November 20, 2016.) https://twin-cities.umn.edu/news-events/man-who-saved-billion-lives. “The Man Who Tried to Feed the World | American Experience | PBS.” (Public Broadcasting Service, December 21, 2022.) https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/films/man-who-tried-to-feed-the-world/#transcri pt. “USAID at 60: An Enduring Purpose, a Complex Legacy.” (American Foreign Service Association, 2021.) https://afsa.org/usaid-60-enduring-purpose-complex-legacy.