Advertisement

Agronomy for Sustainable Development

, Volume 28, Issue 1, pp 21–32 | Cite as

Genetically modified glyphosate-tolerant soybean in the USA: adoption factors, impacts and prospects. A review

  • Sylvie BonnyEmail author
Review Article

Abstract

Transgenic crops are the subject of lively debate and controversy. Despite such controversy, transgenic soybean has undergone a rapid expansion. Among various types of transgenic crops, herbicide-tolerant crops appear to many to be of limited interest, especially in Europe. Nonetheless, herbicide-tolerant crops are the most widely spread in the world. Indeed, glyphosate-tolerant soybean was notably the most cultivated transgenic plant in the world in 2006. In the USA 91% of soybean was transgenic in 2007. How can this particularly significant diffusion in the USA be explained, and what are its impacts? Such issues are addressed in this article, using surveys, studies of numerous statistical data and literature analysis. A first section underlines the importance of soybean in the current development of transgenic crops in the world, and the favourable context for their expansion in the USA. Then follows an analysis of the advantages and drawbacks of transgenic soybean for American farmers. Factors explaining the rapid diffusion of transgenic soybean are also analysed. A comparison of transgenic versus conventional soybean reveals that transgenic glyphosate-tolerant soybean allows both the simplification of weed control and greater work flexibility. Cropping transgenic soybean also fits well with conservation tillage. Transgenic soybean has an economic margin similar to conventional soybean, despite a higher seed cost. The next section describes the evolution of the use of herbicides with transgenic soybean, and some issues linked to the rapid increase in the use of glyphosate. At the beginning a smaller amount of herbicides was used, but this amount increased from 2002, though not steadily. Nonetheless, the environmental and toxicological impacts of pesticides do not only depend on the amounts applied. They also depend on the conditions of use and the levels of toxicity and ecotoxicity. The levels of ecotoxicity seem to have somewhat decreased. The success of transgenic soybeans for farmers has led to a higher use of glyphosate as a replacement for other herbicides, which has in turn led to a decline in its effectiveness. However, the issue here is not only genetic engineering in itself, but rather the management and governance of this innovation. Finally, the prospects of transgenic soybean are addressed. Transgenic soybean with new traits should be placed on the market. The conclusion describes economic context of the development of the first transgenic crops.

transgenic crop genetically modified crop soybean herbicide tolerance glyphosate herbicide agricultural economics impact United States 

Acronyms

BT

Bacillus thuringiensis

EIQ

Environmental Impact Quotient

GM

genetically modified

GMO

genetically modified organism

RR

Roundup Ready®

CT

conservation tillage

HT

herbicide-tolerant

EU

European Union

USDA

United States Department of Agriculture

USDA-NASS

USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service

USDA-ERS

USDA Economic Research Service

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Agbios (2007) GM Crop Database. Agbios, Ontario, Canada 2007.Google Scholar
  2. Alexander C. (2006) Framer decisions to adopt genetically modified corps. CAB Reviews: Perspectives in Agriculture, Veterinary Science, Nutrition and Natural Resources 1, N. 045, 9 p., DOI: 10.1079/PAVSNNR20061045.Google Scholar
  3. ASA (American Soybean Association) (2001) Conservation Tillage Study, Saint-Louis (MO), Nov. 2001, 22p.Google Scholar
  4. Ash M. (2001) Soybeans: Background and Issues for Farm Legislation, USDA-ERS report No. OSC-0701-01, July 2001, 9 p.Google Scholar
  5. Aspelin A., Grube A.H. (1999) Pesticides Industry Sales and Usage: 1996 and 1997 Market Estimates, USEPA, Washington, Nov. 1999.Google Scholar
  6. Barnes R.L. (2000) Why the American Soybean Association supports transgenic soybeans, Pest Manage. Sci. 56, 580–583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Benbrook C.M. (2004) Genetically Engineered Crops and Pesticide Use in the United States: The First Nine Years, BioTech InfoNet, Technical Paper N. 7, Sandpoint, Idaho (USA), 53 p.Google Scholar
  8. Bonny S. (2003) Why are most Europeans opposed to GMOs? Factors explaining rejection in France and Europe, EJB The Electron. J. Biotechnol. 6, 20–41.Google Scholar
  9. Bonny S. (2005a) The Growth Of Transgenic Crops In The USA: What It Tells Us, INRA Sciences Sociales, English version, 2005/01, No. 4–5.Google Scholar
  10. Bonny S. (2005b) Quelle place des cultures transgéniques en protection des plantes? Aspects agro-économiques, in: Regnault-Roger C. (Ed.). Enjeux phytosanitaires pour l’agriculture et l’environnement, Paris, Éditions Tec et Doc Lavoisier, pp. 895–917.Google Scholar
  11. Bonny S. (2007) How are opinions about GMOs changing over time? The case in the EU and the USA, Proceedings of the 16th International Plant Protection Congress, Glasgow (UK), BCPC, pp. 166–167.Google Scholar
  12. Bonny S., Sausse C. (2004) Les cultures transgéniques permettent-elles de réduire l’usage des produits phytosanitaires? Considérations à partir du cas du soja tolérant au glyphosate, OCL Oléagineux, Corps gras, Lipides 11, 85–91.Google Scholar
  13. Brookes G., Barfoot P. (2005) GM Crops: The Global Economie and Environmental Impact — The First Nine Years 1996–2004, AgBioForum 8, 187–196.Google Scholar
  14. Bullock D., Desquilbet M. (2002) The economics of non-GMO segregation and identity preservation, Food Policy 27, 81–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bullock D., Nitsi E. (2001) Roundup Ready Soybean Technology and Farm Production Costs: Measuring the Incentive to adopt genetically modified seeds, American Behavioral Scientist 44, 1283–1301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Canadian Biotechnology Secretariat (2005) International Public Opinion Research on Emerging Technologies, A Canada — US Public Opinion Research Study on Emerging Technologies.Google Scholar
  17. Carpenter J., Gianessi L. (1999) Herbicide Tolerant Soybeans: Why Growers are adopting Roundup Ready Varieties, AgBioForum 2, 65–72.Google Scholar
  18. Carpenter J., Gianessi L. (2000) Agricultural Biotechnology: Benefits of Transgenic Soybeans, NCFAP, Washington, April 2000, 105 p.Google Scholar
  19. Carpenter J., Gianessi L. (2001) Agricultural Biotechnology: Updated Benefit Estimates. NCFAP, Washington, Jan. 2001, 48 p.Google Scholar
  20. Carpenter J., Gianessi L. (2002) Case Study in Benefits and Risks of Agricultural Biotechnology: RR Soybeans, in: Santaniello V., Evenson R.E., Zilberman D. (Eds.), Market Development for Genetically Modified Food, Wallingford, CABI Publishing, pp. 227–243Google Scholar
  21. Cerdeira A.L., Duke S.O. (2006) The Current Status And Environmental Impact Of Glyphosate Resistant Crop: A Review, J. Environ. Qual. 35, 1633–1658.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. CTIC (2004) National crop residue management survey, CTIC (Conservation Technology Information Center), West Lafayette (Indiana, USA) and USDA-NASS, Washington.Google Scholar
  23. Devillers J., Farret R., Girardin P., Rivière J.L., Soulas G. (2005) Indicateurs pour évaluer les risques liés à l’utilisation des pesticides, Lavoisier, Tec&Doc, 278 p.Google Scholar
  24. Donaldson D., Kiely T., Grube A. (2002) Pesticides Industry Sales and Usage: 1998 and 1999 Market Estimates, USEPA, Washington, 2002.Google Scholar
  25. Duke S.O., Ragsdale N.N. (2005) (Eds.) Special Issue: Herbicideresistant Crops from Biotechnology, Pest Management Science 61, 209–325.Google Scholar
  26. Eurobarometer (2006) Europeans and biotechnology in 2005. Eurobarometer 64.3, Luxembourg, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Brussels, CE, DG Research. July 2006, 88 p.Google Scholar
  27. FAO (2004) The State Of Food And Agriculture 2003–2004, Agricultural Biotechnology Meeting the needs of the poor? Rome, FAO 2004.Google Scholar
  28. FAPRI (2007) US and World Agricultural Outlook 2007, Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute, Iowa State University, Ames (Iowa, USA), 411 p. www.fapri.iastate.edu/outlook2007/.Google Scholar
  29. Fernandez-Cornejo J., McBride W.D. (2002) Adoption of Bioengineered Crops. Agricultural Economic Report, No. AER810, Economic Research Service, USDA, Washington, 2002 www.ers.usda.gov/publications/aer810/aer810.pdf.Google Scholar
  30. Fernandez-Cornejo J., Caswell M. (2006) The First Decade of Genetically Engineered Crops in the United States, USDA ERS, Economic Information Bulletin (11), April 2006.Google Scholar
  31. Fernandez-Cornejo J., Hendricks C., Mishra A. (2005) Technology Adoption and Off-Farm Household Income The Case of Herbicide-Tolerant Soybeans, J. Agr. Appl. Econ. 37, 549–563.Google Scholar
  32. Foreman L., Livezey J. (2002) Characteristics and Production Costs of U.S. Soybean Farms. USDA-ERS Statistical Bulletin N SB974-4. April 2002.Google Scholar
  33. Fraley R.T. (1994) Commercialization of Genetically Modified Plants: Progress Towards the Marketplace, in: Fessenden MacDonald J. (Ed.), Agricultural Biotechnology & the Public Good, NABC (National Agricultural Biotechnology Council) Report 6, Ithaca, New York, pp. 33–41.Google Scholar
  34. Gardner J.G., Nelson C.H. (2007a) Genetically Modified Crops and Labor Savings in US Crop Production, Paper presented at the 2007 Southern Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meeting, 4–7 February 2007, Mobile, Alabama, 20 p.Google Scholar
  35. Gardner J.C., Nelson G.C. (2007b) Assessing the environmental consequences of glyphosate-resistant weeds in the US, 11th International Conference on “Agricultural Biotechnologies: New Frontiers and Products” organized by the International Consortium on Agricultural Biotechnology Research (ICABR), Ravello — Scala, Italy, July 2007.Google Scholar
  36. Gianessi L.P., Silvers C.S., Sankula S., Carpenter J.E. (2002) Plant Biotechnology Current and Potential Impact For Improving Pest Management In U.S. Agriculture: An Analysis of 40 Case Studies, NCFAP (National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy), Washington, 32 p.Google Scholar
  37. Gomez-Barbero M., Rodriguez-Cerezo E. (2006) Economic Impact of Dominant GM Crops Worldwide: a Review, European Commission, DG Joint Research Centre, Institute for Prospective Technological Studies. Luxembourg, Office for Official Publications of the EC, 48 p.Google Scholar
  38. Heap I. (2007) International survey of herbicide resistant weeds, Herbicide Resistance Action Committee, and Weed Sci. Soc. Am. www.weedscience.orgGoogle Scholar
  39. Heimlich R.E. et al. (2000) Genetically Engineered Crops: Has Adoption Reduced Pesticide Use? Agricultural Outlook (USDA ERS), August 2000, 13–17.Google Scholar
  40. Hinsch A. (2006) Soja de alto valor, Argentina perder el tren? 3er Congreso de Soja del Mercosur, Rosario (Argentina), 27–30 June 2006.Google Scholar
  41. James C. (2007) Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2006, ISAAA Briefs N 35. ISAAA (International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications), Ithaca, NY.Google Scholar
  42. Kalaitzandonakes N.G. (2003) The economic and environmental impacts of agbiotech: A global perspective, New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, 336 p.Google Scholar
  43. Kiely T., Donaldson D., Grube A. (2004) Pesticides Industry Sales and Usage: 2000 and 2001 Market Estimates, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, May 2004.Google Scholar
  44. Knezevic S.Z., Evans S.P., Mainz M. (2003) Yield penalty due to delayed weed control in corn and soybean, Crop Manage., www.plantmanagementnetwork.org/pub/cm/research/2003/delay/.Google Scholar
  45. Kovach J., Petzoldt C., Degni J., Tette J. (1992) A Method to Measure the Environmental Impact of Pesticides, New York Agricultural Experiment Station, New York’s Food and Life Sciences Bulletin 139. Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, 8 p.Google Scholar
  46. Lemarié S. (2000) Analyse économique du développement des cultures à base d’organismes génétiquement modifiés aux Etats-Unis, Volet 1: Le développement des OGM Agronomiques, INRA-SERD, Grenoble, 42 p.Google Scholar
  47. Marra M.C., Piggott N.E., Carlson G.A. (2004). The Net Benefits, Including Convenience, of Roundup Ready® Soybeans: Results from a National Survey, NSF Center for Integrated Pest Management, Technical Bulletin 2004-3, Raleigh, NC, 40 p.Google Scholar
  48. Marsch P., Llewellyn R., Powles S. (2006) Social Costs of Herbicide Resistance: the Case of Resistance to Glyphosate, Paper presented at the 50th Annual Conference of the Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, Sydney, NSW, Australia, 8–10 February 2006.Google Scholar
  49. Monsanto (2003) Executive Presentation to Members of the Financial and investment Community, Spring 2003 investor meetings. 12 May 2003.Google Scholar
  50. Monsanto (2006) 2006 Annual report, Saint Louis (Missouri, USA), 128 p.Google Scholar
  51. Nelson G.C. (2001) (Ed.) Genetically Modified Organisms in Agriculture, Economics and Politics, Academic Press, London, 344 p.Google Scholar
  52. Nelson G.C., Bullock D.S. (2003) Simulating a relative environmental effect of glyphosate-resistant soybeans, Ecol. Econ. 45, 189–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Owen M.D.K. (2007) Genetically modified crops: successes and problems in the Midwest USA, Proceedings of the 16th International Plant Protection Congress, Glasgow, 2007, BCPC, pp 506–507.Google Scholar
  54. Owen M.D.K., Zelaya I.A. (2005) Herbicide-resistant crops and weed resistance to herbicides, Pest Manage. Sci. 61, 301–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Sankula S., Marmon G., Blumenthal E. (2005) Biotechnology derived crops planted in 2004. Impacts on US agriculture, NCFAP (National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy), Washington, 101 p.Google Scholar
  56. Sanvido O., Romeis J., Bigler F. (2007) Ecological impacts of genetically modified crops: ten years of field research and commercial cultivation, Adv. Biochem. Eng. Biotech. 107, 235–278.Google Scholar
  57. Service R.F. (2007) A Growing Threat Down on the Farm, Science 316, 114–117.Google Scholar
  58. Steiner J. (2006) Innovating for the Future: World Trends, Seed Traits and Crop Inputs, Presentation at Minnesota Crop Production Retailers, 5 Dec. 2006.Google Scholar
  59. Tinland B. (2007) Monsanto and Renessen’s pipeline products, Presentation at EFSA (European Food Safety Autority) GMO scientific hearing with applicants, 21 March 2007.Google Scholar
  60. UIUC (1999) Illinois Agronomy Handbook 1999–2000, University of Illinois, College of Agricultural, Consumer and Environmental Sciences, Urbana-Champaign, 245 p.Google Scholar
  61. US GAO (2000) Information on prices of genetically modified seeds in the United States and Argentina, US General Accounting Office, Washington, 25 p.Google Scholar
  62. USDA ERS (2007a) Adoption of Genetically Engineered Crops in the U.S. Data sets, USDA Economic Research Service. http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/BiotechCrops/. July 2007.Google Scholar
  63. USDA ERS (2007b) Commodity Costs and Returns, USDA Economic Research Service http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/CostsAndReturns/.Google Scholar
  64. USDA NASS (2000 to 2007) Acreage. Crop Production Supplement, USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service, Washington, Annual publication, June.Google Scholar
  65. USDA NASS (1992 to 2007) Agricultural Prices, Annual publication from USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service, Washington DC, USA, April.Google Scholar
  66. USDA NASS (1991 to 2007) Agricultural Chemical Usage. 1990 to 2006 Field Crops Summary, Annual publication from USDA Economics, Statistics and Market Information System, Albert R. Mann Library, Cornell University, USA.Google Scholar
  67. Wesseler J.H.H. (2005) (Ed.) Environmental Costs and Benefits of Transgenic Crops, Springer, Dordrecht, 280 p.Google Scholar
  68. Woodburn A.T. (2000) Glyphosate: production, pricing and use worldwide, Pest Manage. Sci. 56, 309–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Worldviews (2002) Worldviews 2002: American and European Public Opinion on Foreign Policy, Chicago Council on Foreign Relations, The German Marshall Fund of the US.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer S+B Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.UMR Économie publiqueINRAGRIGNONFrance

Personalised recommendations