Viewpoint: Why criticism of the Green Revolution is misplaced

Norman Borlaug, 1970, in a Mexican wheat field, holding the wheat variety that he developed by crossing a native Mexican strain with a Japanese dwarf variety. Credit: Arthur Rickerby/National Portrait Gallery/Smithsonian
Norman Borlaug, 1970, in a Mexican wheat field, holding the wheat variety that he developed by crossing a native Mexican strain with a Japanese dwarf variety. Credit: Arthur Rickerby/National Portrait Gallery/Smithsonian

The wheat varieties developed by Norman Borlaug and his Mexican team [during the Green Revolution] swept over Asia in the 1960s, making Pakistan and India self-sufficient in wheat by the end of the decade. He was a hero to farmers in those and other countries, and his accomplishments gained worldwide attention. 

Mis- and disinformation are distorting science and public policy. Subscribe to our Daily and Weekly Digests for incisive coverage of ‘disruptive’ innovations in AI, agricultural biotechnology, food, chemicals, nuclear energy, vaccines, and other disruptive innovations.

There were unintended consequences, however, and critics eagerly attacked. According to author Charles Mann, (The Wizard and the Prophet), “Between 1970 and 1989, more than three hundred academic studies of the Green Revolution appeared. Four out of five were negative.”

There were social costs and environmental costs. Mann enumerates them: “The intensive fertilization mandated by the Green Revolution has heavily contributed to nitrogen problems on land and water. Pesticides have wreaked havoc on agricultural ecosystems and sometimes poisoned sources of drinking water. Poorly constructed and managed irrigation systems have drained aquifers. Soils have become waterlogged or, worse, loaded with salts when water evaporated.”

These problems are not problems of the Green Revolution, per se. They are soil and water management problems. Farmers need to be educated on how to match fertilizer and water needs with expected yields.

This is an excerpt. Read the original post here.

Related Articles

Infographic: Global regulatory and health research agencies on whether glyphosate causes cancer

Infographic: Global regulatory and health research agencies on whether glyphosate causes cancer

Does glyphosate—the world's most heavily-used herbicide—pose serious harm to humans? Is it carcinogenic? Those issues are of both legal and ...

Most Popular

ChatGPT-Image-Mar-10-2026-01_39_01-PM
Viewpoint—“Miracle molecule” debunked: Why acemannan supplements don’t work
Neon Syringe Portrait with BPC-157
Viewpoint: Peptides and medical freedom: The MAHA obsession that can damage your health
Screenshot 2026-10-28 at 10.11
We're likely over-consuming the world's most profitable nutrient – and it’s wrecking our waistlines.
Screenshot-2026-10-29-at-10.31.49-AM
Solar engineering to cool the planet might well work. Could it touch off a geoengineering arms race?
Screenshot 2026-07-29 at 10.40
The COVID vaccine turbo cancer scare is back. Science still proves it’s wrong.
Strawberry Clamshell with Warning Sticker
Viewpoint: Activists hype ‘dangerous level’ of pesticide residues in Driscoll berries: Separating health concerns from fear-mongering
Screenshot 2026-10-27 at 10.32
“Do your own research”: What Medicare’s annual open enrollment circus teaches us about the seductive trap of DIY health and science
Diet Soda with Measuring Tape 2
Science challenges anti-soda activists: No, sodas won’t make you fat
glp menu logo outlined

Get news on human & agricultural genetics and biotechnology delivered to your inbox.