The notion of the “Green Revolution” is fading, especially with recent events in the Persian Gulf. The Strait of Hormuz has nearly shut down since March 2026, impacting oil and LNG shipments. As a result, India’s urea production has taken a hit. This situation highlights how industrial agriculture is closely tied to the oil industry.
For years, farmers have depended on gas from West Asia for synthetic nitrogen. Now, with global urea prices rising by 20% in just a week, it’s clear this dependency is risky. Norman J Church pointed out back in 2005 that oil and gas are at every stage of food production. Everything we consume is part of an energy-intensive process that’s fragile.
In response to supply chain disruptions, the Indian government is promoting Nano Urea, a liquid fertilizer developed by the Indian Farmers Fertiliser Cooperative (IFFCO). Marketed as a breakthrough for self-reliance, one 500 ml bottle claims to replace a hefty 45 kg bag of traditional urea. However, this claim is misleading. While traditional urea builds nutrient-rich soil, Nano Urea acts like a quick energy boost, only addressing immediate needs without nurturing the soil.
Soil fertility, like composting and nitrogen-fixing crops, is a lasting asset. In contrast, Nano Urea requires consistent purchases. This shift highlights a move from commodity dependency to proprietary reliance, meaning farmers would depend on patented substances rather than natural soil health.
The February launch of Bharat-VISTAAR, an AI platform designed to guide 140 million farmers, is another layer in this complex situation. Farmers can receive real-time advice through a chatbot named ‘Bharati,’ but to utilize this help, they must share their personal data through the AgriStack ID system. This raises concerns over privacy and control, as farmers risk losing their autonomy to an algorithm.
Farmers’ groups, like the Samyukta Kisan Morcha (SKM) and the All India Kisan Sabha (AIKS), are pushing back against this digital control. Their March 2026 Charter of Demands included a call for non-cooperation with AgriStack, highlighting the need for transparency in data use and pushing for AI that supports sustainable practices rather than corporate interests.
Historical perspective reminds us that our reliance on oil has shaped modern civilization. According to Norman Pagett, the era of cheap energy has allowed us to replace labor in agriculture, but this also means we are more vulnerable. The UK imports 40% of its food; similarly, India is promoting Nano Urea while keeping its food security at risk.
Understanding the energy return on investment (EROI) is crucial. The conventional model of farming uses 10 to 15 calories of fossil fuel to grow just 1 calorie of food. Nano Urea’s proponents argue for efficiency, yet producing nanoparticles is energy-intensive. When we include the energy costs for digital infrastructure, such as server farms and AI processing for Bharat-VISTAAR, the energy input may increase instead of decrease.
Labeling these methods as “precision agriculture” can be misleading. While they appear eco-friendly, they often create greater dependency on technology and external systems. In contrast, a decentralized agroecological approach emphasizes sustainable practices like using cover crops and local distribution, lowering energy input while relying on natural processes for fertility.
In conclusion, if we seek genuine food security, we must prioritize democratic control over our soil, water, and seeds. The call is clear: we should replace opaque systems like Bharat-VISTAAR with open-source solutions that foster sustainability and empower farmers.
Colin Todhunter is an independent researcher. For more on the global food system, check out his work here.
