Trends in pesticide use on soybean, corn and cotton since the introduction of major genetically modified crops in the United States

2015 ◽  
Vol 72 (5) ◽  
pp. 1013-1022 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard H Coupe ◽  
Paul D Capel
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Genetically Modified ◽  
Genetically Modified Crops ◽  
The United States ◽  
Pesticide Use

Genetically Modified Crops

2021 ◽  
pp. 112-133
Author(s):  
Alasdair R. Young
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Member State ◽  
Environmental Impacts ◽  
Decision Rule ◽  
Genetically Modified ◽  
Decision Rules ◽  
Genetically Modified Crops ◽  
The United States ◽  
State Governments ◽  
The Eu

This chapter presents the EU’s responses with respect to three closely related policies: the approval of genetically modified (GM) crops for sale and (separately) for cultivation and efforts to lift member state bans on EU-approved GM varieties. These most similar cases differ in outcome; with the EU resuming approvals for sale (a change sufficient to placate Argentina and Canada, but not the United States), but not for cultivation and failing to address member state bans despite very permissive decision rules. In these cases, no tariffs were threatened and there was no exporter mobilization. Commission trade officials did push to accelerate approvals. The Commission, which was more favorably disposed toward biotechnology than most of the member states, was able, with the help of very a permissive decision rule, to overcome opposition to approvals for sale, but not for cultivation, reflecting greater concern among regulators about the environmental impacts of GM cultivation than about the safety of GM varieties. The member state governments also balked at forcing their peers to change their policies. There is little evidence that the WTO’s adverse ruling affected any of the protagonists’ preferences.

CAUTION, PRECAUTION & COMMON SENSE: SOME THOUGHTS ON GMOS, ECOSYSTEMS, AND REGULATING THE UNKNOWN

2017 ◽  
Vol 22 (3) ◽  
pp. 991
Author(s):  
David N. Cassuto ◽  
Drew Levinson
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Genetically Modified ◽  
Genetically Modified Crops ◽  
The United States ◽  
Global Market ◽  
Genetically Engineered ◽  
Regulatory Regime ◽  
Modern Agriculture ◽  
Potential Benefits ◽  
Potential Risks

As of 2014, genetically modified crops occupied 448 million acres globally, representing a global market value of 15.7 billion dollars. The United States planted 170 million acres of genetically engineered crops in 2012, including 95% of the nation's sugar beets, 94% of the soybeans, 90% of the cotton and 88% of the feed corn. While many argue that biotechnology is essential to ensuring long-term food security in the climate change era, little is known of its impact on ecosystems.  Potential risks such as changes in adaptive characteristics, gene flow, pest resistance, genotypic or phenotypic instability and adverse effects on non-target organisms must be balanced with the benefits of genetically modified crops. Despite much perseveration about the risks and benefits of GMOs, the United States regulatory regime has remained stagnant, unable to adapt to new innovations in the field. This lack of adequate oversight cannot go on. We propose shifting responsibility to a single agency charged with implementing science-based regulations that embrace the precautionary principle and promote early collaboration among stakeholders, multidisciplinary research, and well-designed monitoring. Part I of this Article provides an overview of biotechnology in modern agriculture.  More specifically, it evaluates potential benefits and risks associated with genetically modified crops. Part II outlines the United States regulatory regime as it applies to genetically modified crops.  Part III analyzes the current regulatory process, focusing specifically on the Department of Agriculture’s ineffective role in the environmental review process. Last, Part IV offers several potential adjustments to improve our ability to identify and mitigate the unforeseeable consequences of implementing this revolutionary technology. 

Genetically Modified Crops in the United States: Federal Regulation and State Tort Liability

2003 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 86-108 ◽  
Author(s):  
Margaret Rosso Grossman
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Genetically Modified ◽  
Strict Liability ◽  
Genetically Modified Crops ◽  
Tort Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Tort Liability ◽  
Agricultural Crops ◽  
Federal Regulation ◽  
Regulatory Scheme

This article first discusses some benefits and risks of agricultural crops developed through biotechnology and then outlines the complex US regulatory scheme for genetically modified crops. The article then analyses nuisance, trespass, negligence, and strict liability as possible tort law remedies for damage caused by these crops.

scholarly journals Monarch butterfly and milkweed declines substantially predate the use of genetically modified crops

2019 ◽  
Vol 116 (8) ◽  
pp. 3006-3011 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. H. Boyle ◽  
H. J. Dalgleish ◽  
J. R. Puzey
Keyword(s):  
Genetically Modified ◽  
Danaus Plexippus ◽  
Genetically Modified Crops ◽  
Monarch Butterfly ◽  
The United States ◽  
Gm Crops ◽  
Herbicide Resistant ◽  
The Past ◽  
Scientific Attention ◽  
Herbicide Use

Monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus) decline over the past 25 years has received considerable public and scientific attention, in large part because its decline, and that of its milkweed (Asclepias spp.) host plant, have been linked to genetically modified (GM) crops and associated herbicide use. Here, we use museum and herbaria specimens to extend our knowledge of the dynamics of both monarchs and milkweeds in the United States to more than a century, from 1900 to 2016. We show that both monarchs and milkweeds increased during the early 20th century and that recent declines are actually part of a much longer-term decline in both monarchs and milkweed beginning around 1950. Herbicide-resistant crops, therefore, are clearly not the only culprit and, likely, not even the primary culprit: Not only did monarch and milkweed declines begin decades before GM crops were introduced, but other variables, particularly a decline in the number of farms, predict common milkweed trends more strongly over the period studied here.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document