Urban Agriculture: Connecting Environmental Justice to our food systems

Annotated Bibliography Devin Myers Anthropology Major

In America today, there is a rising concern over the future of food. Communities around the country are taking action in what could be a crisis in the near future. Large-scale agricultural farmers are seeing that their way of life is becoming more and more unsustainable, unprofitable, riskier, and dangerous to their health. America has to re-examine the food choices it makes. Food affects people and we are seeing that changes must be made soon. Food is becoming more expensive. People are wondering where the food comes from, to who they are supporting when they purchase food, examining the cultural values of our food choices, and identifying how food affects our place in life. Food is not only essential; it gives us a sense of who we are because our food choices affect the larger world. Most of the people in America live in the cities. About 82%1 of the population in the US lives in urban areas which means there is a high demand for resources in selected areas. One of the biggest issues is food insecurity in urban areas due to poverty and is a rising issue. The federal government released a report titled, Household Food Security in the United States 2008 that reported food insecurity rates went up. The amount of households that were food insecure went from 13 million in 2007 to 17 million or approximately 14.6 percent of the US population in 2008. This indicates there are rising food stresses and changes will be needed. Since over fourfifths of the country lives in urban areas, there needs to be a stronger emphasis on access to food in urban areas. The majority of Americans is disconnected from the production of food and therefore is not self-reliant on their own food. Rural farmers are becoming less profitable as they are fighting the rising costs of input costs while food prices have remained relatively the same. This has caused farmers to sink into debt as many cannot pay off the initial costs that go into farm production. Many mid-size farmers go bankrupt even with subsidies that are supposed to help
1

Nord, Mark & Andrews, Margaret & Carlson, Steven http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/ERR83/ERR83fm.pdf

offset the costs. Those subsidies instead help the biggest industrial agricultural corporations who exploit the environment, workers, and the public. The industrial consolidation of agriculture was led by a push in large-scale intensive agriculture that produced high yields. This created problems early. Chemical fertilizers were used to have maximum unnatural production yields by suppressing pests and weeds. It caused soil to degrade and lose biological diversity by heavily promoting monoculture, a practice of producing only one kind of agricultural crop. Over time, more and more fertilizers had to be applied, adding costs to farmers to maintain them. Eventually with other associated costs, it became prohibitive for large-scale farmers to continue their practice. Also the federal government has given little incentive for mid-size farmers to continue, fueling the greed for the largest farmers. Large agricultural farmers often take over mid-size farms, capitalizing on their debts. This trend however, is unsustainable. With peak oil approaching, conventional monocrop agriculture would become too expensive for the public to bear. Also ironically, with increased food production that the large industrial agricultural systems in place, there is also increased hunger2. Large agricultural corporations receive heavy subsidies, with little competition from others. Also with the rising costs of food, people in poverty are paying more of their income on food leaving less income to pay for other necessities. It is one of the reasons that localized agriculture will continue to become popular. The alternatives to such catastrophic conventional American farming would prove to be much better. One alternative to monoculture cropping is polyculture cropping which means having multiple types of crops producing in a given area. The practice of organic farming is an

http://www.foodfirst.org/media/opeds/2000/4-greenrev.html

option for those that dont want to use chemical and can more cost-effective since there is no chemical fertilizer application. Creating stronger local food systems that empowers communities of all color and all classes would reduce the inequality in communities. There are many hard-working people who are food-insecure. Expanding local food systems such as kitchen gardens, urban farms, and community gardens can reduce the costs of food for people who cant afford conventional food in grocery stores. There are also potential opportunities to create jobs and long-term security for those who get involved in sustainable urban agriculture. For communities that dont have a lot of economic activity or live in blighted communities, creating urban farms can raise the value and richen the lives of farmers who sell their produce. People in the community can opt to buy produce from their local community rather than going to a grocery store not knowing where their food came from. Having a localized food system is more sustainable, healthier, and can create stronger community ties. People can reconnect to food as well as to the soil, to work (and labor), to history, or to placebut to self-interest and personal appetite.3 People in the environmental justice movement are at the forefront at this issue because directly affects them. They are the ones who are experiencing the environmental risks by living in hazardous places, working for little pay, often with little access to healthy food, and experiencing structural violence. Gaining food sovereignty by marginalized groups who are often poor, uneducated, not fluent, and of ethnicity in a white-dominated country is something that make their lives better. Most of all, they want equality. Gaining food sovereignty means they have the independence to get access to food rather than being dependent on accessing food.

Delind, Laura. Are local food and the local food movement taking us where we want to go? Or are we hitching our wagons for the wrong stars?

We should support a local-based food system model. It can help deal with the rising inequality, the structural violence of communities, and create healthier lives. Local food is about restoring a public culture of democracy and engaging in the continual creation, negotiation, and re-creation of identity, memory, and meaning.4 This idea means that having a food garden requires cooperation and one that requires a resilience to continue to fight for justice so that marginalized groups of people experience the same equal risks and opportunities as everyone else. Food is life. It is what sustains people. If people do not have food, then people will starve to death. In order to address the issue properly, we need to understand that there is a food crisis. In the US, there is an unsustainable agricultural food system that takes up a large share of total food consumption. With the rising costs of inputs and loss of agricultural productive land, it is increasingly harder to maintain it. Localized food systems offer an alternative realistic solution. Having food in our communities means that its less damaging on the environment, it will be healthier, we have a stronger connection to the food, it can offer long-term security such as a job, and provide resilient communities to fight for their lives. It will also address the issue of food insecurity, because individuals would grow their own food rather than depending on others. It will require strong public support for a strong localized food system. Once the issue of access, availability, and affordability of food has been addressed, then people has found the solution to food justice.

Delind, Laura. Are local food and the local food movement taking us where we want to go? Or are we hitching our wagons for the wrong stars?

Works Cited: Delind, Laura. 2010. Are local food and the local food movement taking us where we want to go? Or are we hitching our wagons for the wrong stars? East Lansing, MI: Springer+Business Media B.V.

Rosset Peter. 2000. Lessons from the Green Revolution. December 15, 2010, from http://www.foodfirst.org/media/opeds/2000/4-greenrev.html

U.S. Department of Agriculture. Economic Research Service. 2008. Measuring Food Security in the United States: Household Food Security in the United States, 2008. Washington, DC: Food Assistance & Nutrition Research Program Retrieved December 13, 2010 (http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/ERR83/ERR83fm.pdf)

Annotated Bibliography: Urban Agriculture and its effects on minority communities in the US Article: Using Urban Organics in Agriculture by Paul Relis and Howard Levenson Source: BioCycle Apr 97, Volume 38 Issue 4 Pg. 86 This article is about the state of California promoting the use of compost in urban areas. Many agricultural lands in California have been converted to urban development which creates a loss in produce. However, at the same time, an organics recycling revolution is taking place of the loss. It describes the benefits of compost in that it can increase yields, reduce input costs, and reduce pollution. The author mentions there are barriers that make compost less than ideal. The farmer must invest for the long-term because benefits of composting might not be seen immediately. The author also mentions the financial costs associated to composting which make it prohibitive and some question the quality of composting in which some believe contain toxic material. However, it still promotes the expanded use of compost on urban farms. Provisions in the Federal Farm Bills create incentives for farmers to conserve and use compost. Grain. "World Bank report on land grabbing: beyond the smoke and mirrors." http://www.grain.org/articles/?id=70. The World Bank which is arguably the most powerful global organization in the world publishes a report about global farmland grab. The article says the report was a failure for its lack of information on large scale land acquisitions. These land acquisitions has significant consequences. It takes advantage of weak governance and uneducated local farmers who end up worse off than to begin with. Communities often get the shaft with the empty promise of jobs, with no real compensation, and food insecurity. The report is deceptive that it does not disclose information about whos investing in the land acquisition or give updated information about new acquisitions in affected developing countries. It also argues that the report has insufficient data on land acquisitions. It was supposed to research 30 countries and ended up only researching 14 countries. The article advocates for a public disclosure of investor-state agreements. The World Bank, corporate interests, and governments has access to such documents to agreements but local communities, NGOs and the rest of the public has little access to such documents which makes it difficult for local communities to evaluate the land acquisitions. Some countries advocate an end to foreign land ownership and promote domestic partnership because local communities often pay the ultimate price in losing their land. The only critique I have for this article is what local communities are saying about such issues. The producer of this article is a NGO and they didnt provide information about what many local people are saying about the loss of their agricultural land. It only has the perspective of the World Bank and their own. Deelstra, Tjeerd and Herbert Girardet. 2000. Urban Agriculture and Sustainable Cities. Thematic Paper 2. 43-65pp. In brief, the paper discusses the importance of urban agriculture in cities. Populations are rising in urban areas and the ecological demands for food are rising. They recommend that cities develop plans to become more self-reliant in food production and become less dependent on food brought in from elsewhere. They mention the constraints such as lack of space for food but offer many more benefits. Benefits include improvement in microclimate, improved soils, improved water management, and incentive to composting.

Pena, Devon G. 2005. Mexican Americans and the Environment. The University of Arizona Press. 212pp. (Ch. 7) This chapter discusses the impact of the environmental justice movement. Marginalized and poor communities in North America have experienced environmental racism associated to where they work, live, and spend their free time. It discusses the environmental risks that farm workers faced and their resistance to fight for better working conditions. It also discusses the fight for land rights, food security, and environmental justice. Boyce, James K. and Barry G. Shelley. 2003. Natural Assets: Democratizing Environmental Ownership. Island Press. 332 pg. This chapter discusses how efforts are being made to incorporate natural assets can be made in the cities. Understanding the importance of different environmental qualities such as air, water, and open space will allow for cities to take effective action for future planning. The author describes community initiatives for urban revitalization to address issues in cities. This is important in making urban agriculture successful as the fight for property rights impedes efforts to benefit marginalized communities in cities. Agyeman, Julian. 2005. Sustainable Communities and the Challenge of Environmental Justice. New York University Press. 244pp. This book provides a background on the environmental justice movement including the history of the movement, their principles, and their purposes. It argues that [e]environmental justice is the equal protection and meaningful involvement of all people with respect to the development, implementation and enforcement of environmental laws, regulation and policies and the equitable distribution of environmental benefits (pg. 26). It provides a number of case studies and how it is often an example of environmental injustice with populations who are often poor and marginalized ethnic communities experience more environmental risks or exposures. It also offers a number of recommendations of how to approach environmental justice. It gives recommendations in research, policymaking, to committing to activism. It also discusses how to build sustainable communities in the Environmental Justice framework. The book interprets sustainability as the need to ensure a better quality of life for all, now and into the future, in a just and equitable manner, while living within the limits of supporting ecosystems (Pg. 43). The book also provides a variety of concepts that relate to sustainability and how that knowledge can be translated into creating solutions in the real world. A sustainable community seeks to protect and enhance the environment [such as] protect the diversity of nature, meet social needs such as protecting human health, and promote economic success that makes opportunities for culture, leisure, and recreation readily available to all (pg. 63). The book provides a number of case studies around the US of the accomplishments of the EJM. One particular example was the Alternatives for Community and Environment (ACE) organization based in Boston, Massachusetts. It mentioned the number of accomplishments that they were able to achieve for the greater good. Mares, Teresa & Pea, Devon. 2010. Urban agriculture in the making of insurgent spaces in Los Angeles and Seattle. Pp. 253-267 in Insurgent public space: guerrilla urbanism and the remaking of contemporary cities, edited by J. Hou. New York, NY: Routledge. This chapter focuses on the struggles for food sovereignty in urban areas. The authors focus on two case studies: South Central Farmers in Los Angeles and the Marra Farm in Seattle.

It briefly outlines the history of U.S. urban agriculture with its history dating back to the late 19th century. It grew more popular during the wartime period and the national government marketed agriculture using slogans such as war gardens and victory gardens. The authors disputed that the urban agriculture had largely dried out after the wartime period in which many ethnic and immigrant families continued their agricultural and horticultural traditions which has made it successful today. The South Central Farm in Los Angeles had a strong ethnic background in which at its height, 360 families had their own farming plot before it was demolished in 2006 during an intense battle over land-use rights. It was located in a heavily industrialized area but the families grew a strong sense of community that was able to band together to resist the notion of neoliberalization. Their urban farm had used a self-governing body that was able to maintain itself. Some reasons why the participants did it were to grow their own food, manage their budget better by farming themselves, and to learn more about other cultural food. Some food that was grown there was maize, avocado, banana, herbs, and medicine for the gardeners. The Marra Farm located in West Seattle is a 4 acre organic farm that is owned by the city of Seattle but is organized by local non-profits and local farmers who are all diverse in the sense they contain strong ethnic ties from Latin countries. It is subject to tension since the site is changing to a city park and is owned by them. Like the previous South Central Farm, it is located in a highly polluted area and poor area with lower incomes compared to other areas in the city of Seattle. It is involved very heavily in the community with its food donation, cooking classes, selling food, and to learn agricultural entrepreneurial ship. The authors assert that urban farms are important because it represents the struggle for self-reliance in the environmental justice movement. If local communities keep fighting for rights, to gain control over their place, to gain food sovereignty, and maintain cultural identities, then it makes a strong case to continue to think about creating open spaces into agricultural places. Soule, Judith & Piper, Jon. 1992. Ecological Crisis of Modern Agriculture. Pp. 11-50 in Farming in Natures Image: an ecological approach to agriculture, edited by J. Soule & J. Piper. Washington DC: Island Press. This article elaborates on the many problems with our current agricultural system looking at soil erosion, loss of genetic diversity, energy use, water resource use, chemical contamination, pesticide use, and food safety. Soil use has become a concern of soil loss stemming from soil erosion. Since the start of intensive agricultural production, soil quality has degraded. There has been evidence that agricultural production has dropped from the sustained lost soil, with physical changes of the soil, with catastrophic erosion exasperating the problem in a myriad of ways, and irrigation damaging agricultural land. Genetic diversity has been impacted by the promotion of large-scale monoculture production. Genetic diversity is essential because decliningdiversity threatens the sustainability of agriculture and the resiliency of the ecosphere. With the loss of many landraces, the limited genetic variety is susceptible to crop destruction. Having more variety means there is a greater resilience to food production. The energy section discusses the inefficiencies in the modern agricultural system. It mentions that if one includes all the energy costs to ship, process, and prepare food for the table; nearly ten units of energy are spent to obtain each unit of food energy in the United

States. It recommends that we take a drastic approach to become more sustainable in how we produce food. Agriculture requires a lot of water. The chapter discusses how we are using the water unsustainably and there are concerns that water supplies are diminishing that farming becomes more expensive and harder to do. There are concerns over groundwater use for irrigation, that supplies are declining and water tables from aquifers are not being replenished. Also mentioned is how irrigation increases the salinity of water due to water evaporation. It recommends improving irrigation efficiency by growing crops during the appropriate seasons and work within the bounds of the earths natural water-recharge cycles. Regarding contamination of water supplies, it mentions the overuse of nitrogen in fertilizer application. It is so inefficient that about 50 percent of the fertilizer applied in the United States is not used by crops. As a result, it has caused pollution and health problems. Pesticides have also contaminated groundwater and are a threat to humans with its heavy concentrations and toxicity. While there has been some coverage over food safety, there has been less coverage over the workers and people being affected by pesticide exposure. It has been noted that those who are poorer and from less developed countries experience higher rates of exposure due to less stringent inspection laws. Those working on farms and work with pesticides experience higher rates of unsafe exposure that has corresponded to health risks. Delind, Laura. 2010. Are local food and the local food movement taking us where we want to go? Or are we hitching our wagons for the wrong stars? East Lansing, MI: Springer+Business Media B.V.

This article gives a little background on the modern local food movement as well as providing critique on the shortcoming of the movement. The author argues that the movement concerns over Dahlbergs three Es which are equity, ethics, and ecology. This idea is based on achieving a contextual analysis where people can re-connect in their communities (civic agriculture) in which collaboration and participation is vital to create more sustainable local food system. The author mentions that you can achieve a regenerative food system by contextualizing a system that is built at the smallest level, one in which you are connected to and part of rather than not being part of the food making. The author also promotes diversity and redundancy rather than uniformity to sustain the process of local food and to never let choices become limited by larger entities. The author is asking that we reconnectto the soil, to work (and labor), to history, or to placebut to self-interest and personal appetite. The author is critical of the movement. Since the movement has become popular, there is the notion that others are only joining the bandwagon to buy local food rather than individuals empowering themselves to produce local food. The main idea is to encourage everyone to participate in the movement, to make their own choices, not just through their pocketbook. There is also the notion that the local has become a commodity. It doesnt have a concern for the notion of regenerative food systems to empower communities, but rather used only for market competition. It has a capitalist approach, big companies joining and attempting to control the local marketplace and leave local farmers marginalized. Corporations such as McDonalds and Wal-Mart have the ability to dictating standards, varieties, quantities, growing conditions, and ultimately purchase price. Corporations have found an incentive to purchase locally and it has led them to think seasonal, to organic, to miles traveled, to time spent traveling, to carbon

footprint, to knowing farmers name-are used to distinguish local products from their conventional counterparts. While the local food movement has flaws in the sense that it has become commoditized, it provides a future in which can potentially get more individuals to be part of. While it requires hard work, there are many benefits such as eating healthier, building equity, living more sustainably, and building a stronger sense of community. Altieri, Miguel. (1995). Organic Farming. Pp. 179-204 in Agroecology, edited by M. A. Altieri. Berkeley, CA: Westview Press. This chapter gives a basic background on organic farming. It starts by discussing the characteristics of organic farming vs. conventional farming. The major difference between organic farming and conventional farming is that organics dont use chemical fertilizers or pesticides. It explains the benefits of organic farming such as being more energy-efficient than conventional farms which means it conserves more natural resources and does a better job of protecting the environment. It also discusses some of the farming methods that farmers do to maintain their practices. To control weeds, farmers use cultural techniques such as cultivation, crop rotation, smother crops, trap crops, irrigation, and solarization (mulching with plastic sheets) with a balanced soil organic matter program and biological control agents to manage pests and disease (Pg. 184). To maintain soil fertility, farmers often make sure that there is enough nitrogen in the soil. Sometimes they use organic matter such as manure to keep it productive. It also gives some case studies of what organic agriculture looks like. It mentions the organic rice production in which it practices crop rotation. Their yields are lower than conventional farms but they often earn a profit due to the premium price they obtain for the organic rice (Pg. 188). Altieri mentions that organic farming increases diversity in crop types and smaller fields, benefiting many non-game and game birds (Pg. 194). It can result in increased biological control of certain pests and provide an extra source of income and nutrition if farmers practice selective hunting (Pg. 194). -constraints are labor productivity is less -limited availability of organic fertilizer Henry, Sarah. 2010. Berkeleys New School Food Study: A Victory for Alice Waters. The Atlantic, Sept. 23. December 13, 2010 (http://www.theatlantic.com/food/archive/2010/09/berkeleys-new-school-food-study-avictory-for-alice-waters/63465/) Educators in a Berkeley elementary/middle school system has been experimenting with a curriculum to get children to participate in cooking and gardening. It was to hope children will start making healthier food choices. The program led by Alice Waters instructs cooking and gardening integrated into their classroom lessons along with improvements in school food and the dining environment. There have been noticeable improvements in childrens knowledge in nutrition, making healthier food preferences, and improvements in their diets when taught with a food curriculum. The results were analyzed from food diaries, questionnaires, and other data which indicated that students had a preference in leafy greens such as kale, spinach, and chard than in schools that didnt have a food education. Waters argues that we can finally prove that

what we feed kids and what we teach them about food really does make a difference. The criticism I have what is the average income for the student's family? Many people in Berkeley are well-educated and well off financially, which I think makes it unfairly skewed that those with access or even the education to food is limited to certain areas. My question is, can this be applied to all parts of America? Flanagan, Caitlin. 2010. Cultivating Failure. The Atlantic, January/February. December 13, 2010 (http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/01/cultivating-failure/7819/1/) This article gives a strong critique to Alice Waters food education curriculum. Flanagan argues that if students are taught in a food education curriculum, then students wouldnt be able to pass in other subjects such as math and English. One particular example: the Berkeley Martin Luther King middle school is proficient in English and math at a dismal 30 percent and 29 percent, respectively. These numbers are lower than the California state average; more than 39 percent of Latinos are proficient in English and 44 percent in math. Flanagan argues that if students cant get an education with the necessary skills to pass the state exams, then they will end up working something similar to what illegal workers do. I think Flanagan makes a compelling argument in that those who are semi-illiterate will not become educated enough to get themselves out of poverty. I think a well-rounded education is important, but it is more important to know the fundamental standards of literacy, numeracy and civic understanding because that is how America is run by. Unfortunately, Flanagan seems to argue that you cant get far with having a strong education in only learning how to garden and not knowing how to read or write. There is the notion that Waters ideals are well-intentioned but it does hint ideas of white supremacy. Flanagan argues that, this patronizing agenda were promulgated in the Jim Crow South by a white man who was espousing a sharecropping curriculum for African American students, we would see it for what it is: a way of bestowing field work and low expectations on a giant population of students who might become troublesome if they actually got an education. This is an interesting article that talks about how we can educate children to learn how to grow food and hopefully educate them to make healthier food choices. I think the idea can work, but not in a full-curriculum fashion. I think it definitely should be encouraged because studies have shown that nutrition education lowers obesity rates and children make healthier food choices. It should be an extra-curricular activity by students or possibly an elective course for those who are interested about making food. I do think it does seem ludicrous to make it a school-wide policy because it ends up making students more dependent on society because they lack the necessary skills that could help them get into college and in life. McFarland, P. & McFarland K. Food Justice in the City: Overcoming the violences of Justice. December 13, 2010, from http://ejfood.blogspot.com/search/label/Food%20justice This article discusses some of the structural violence that we see in our cities. This particular example is in the city of Chicago. The author writes how the death of a high school student was caused by the injustice of poverty. The author writes about the community living in a food desert in which access to healthy food is limited and how that community often resorts to other forms of violence such as stealing because of economic inequality.

The basis is capitalism drives inequality. Capitalism seeks to profit others, finding the cheapest labor which creates inequality. Inequality drives envy and greed, the economic sources of anger, frustration and violence. Rather the authors support the notion of biocentric economy that would empower communities. A biocentric economy is radically local and democratic. Those who live in a given community make decisions about land usageEconomic activity would slow so that every community members primary needs of food, clothing and shelter would be cared for first before leisure and other commodities are produced. In this way, also, the violence of inequality would be checked as the gaps in wealth would be largely eliminated. Since capitalism requires consumerism, biocentrics oppose because massive consumption requires massive exploitation of people, nature and fossil fuels. It would also eliminate violence in the city through providing economic and political self-determination for the working classes and people of color and through eliminating the sources of greed and envy. The authors also makes mention that this violence is caused by mens identity of his masculinity. Their masculinity illustrate power; physical, financial, sexual. Thus, a capitalist masculinity requires men to dominate others. It is a sad fact that many men seek only this because it is what society has taught them that is what we desire and that is what is we want. To overcome the problems of food injustice, the authors support the idea of community gardens as a way to develop and teach biocentric ethics. The particular example was the Green Lots Project in which they emphasize education, governance, community, and collaboration. They value local decision making, local knowledge, education, and working together to form strong communities.

Pothukuchi, Kameshwari & Kaufman, Jerome. 1999. Placing the food system on the urban agenda: The role of Municipal institutions in food systems planning. Madison, WI: Agriculture and Human Values 16: 213-224. This paper discusses the issues of food in urban areas. It discusses how community development can spur more localized food systems because of rising poverty, food insecurity, increasing awareness, and political support. It briefly discusses how food in urban areas are less visible because food is prevalent is supermarkets and most urban people dont spend their time involved in the food process. They just see the food at the store, not knowing where it came. This is a concern, not knowing where our food came from means we are not food sovereign. This also likely means we dont know if the food is safe or healthy to eat. Education can play an important role to get more people aware of the food choices that they make. The paper illustrates the difficulties in planning for urban food systems. It has to take into consideration the impacts of the citys economy, public health, environment, land use, and other communitys systems. The paper emphasizes that policy at the local level would be most helpful. Leadership is needed to spur interest and to get the public to recognize an alarming issue that will continue to get worse over time.

Rosset Peter. 2000. Lessons from the Green Revolution. December 15, 2010, from http://www.foodfirst.org/media/opeds/2000/4-greenrev.html

This article outlines the failures of the Green Revolution in India and gives reason why we shouldnt have another Green Revolution in Africa. It mentions the big chemical companies using propaganda to get the message that the population is rising and there are more people hungry. However the Green Revolution failed to help the poor become more food secure. It argues that food production does not necessarily result in food security-that is, less hunger. Current hunger can only be alleviated by "redistributing purchasing power and resources toward those who are undernourished." It argues that poor farmers are getting squeezed out because they have less means to get more while the large corporate farmers get discounts for buying more. Indian farmers who were at the forefront of the first Green Revolution ended in massive debt and many had committed suicide. It was a vicious cycle that has doomed India agriculture. The one last major issue it provided was that agricultural land was not ecologically sustainable. Yield have been dropping, contributed by soil degradation and less fertile land.