|Color Coding Key|
|GREEN||Ranked 1st for statistic|
|RED||Ranked last for statistic|
This page compares agricultural land use, nitrogen balance, and sustainable agriculture practices such as organic land use and pesticide usages. The U.S.' organic versus transgenic farming land use is disconcerting.
|Organic farming land use||Transgenic farming land use||Nitrogen balance||Nitrogen balance per hectare||Agricultural land use||Arable land use||Pesticide usage rates||Agricultural subsidies score|
Share of agricultural land area under certified organic farm management as a percent, for most recent year (2008-10).
Share of transgenic (genetically modified) crops in arable and permanent crop area as a percent, for most recent year (2009-11). A Friends of the Earth report claims that Denmark, France, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, and the United Kingdom do not cultivate transgenic crops at all. Although they are not recorded by the OECD, they are marked as "0" percent for this reason. Sweden yields a very slight transgenic crop percentage, but we are unable to find the research to calculate the exact figure.
See also Health Regulation for policies on labelling genetically modified (GM) products, as well as the Notes, below.
Nitrogen inputs (like livestock manure and chemical fertilizers) minus nitrogen outputs (mostly crops and forage) in millions of tonnes for most recent year (2008-10). "A persistent surplus indicates potential environmental pollution, while a persistent deficit indicates potential agricultural sustainability problems."
Nitrogen balance measured in kilograms per hectare of total agricultural land, for most recent year (2008-09).
Agricultural land use as a percent of total national land, for most recent year (2008-10).
Arable land use as a percentage of agriculture area, annual average for 2002-12. Arable land includes non-permanent crop and non-permanent pasture land (land on which crop rotation, for example, is necessary).
Pesticide use in active ingredient on arable land and permanent crops (tonnes per 1000 hectare), annual average for 2002-11.
From Environmental Protection Index (EPI) 2012, for 2007. "Measures the maginitude of subsidies, with a target of zero subsidies." Agricultural subsidies, as concluded by the OECD and EPI 2012, are found to harm the environment by promoting chemical use, agricultural expansion to sensitive areas, and leads to a tendency of overexploiting resources. For more information, see the full EPI 2012 report.
"Food and Agriculture Biotechnology Industry Spends More Than Half a Billion Dollars to Influence Congress Food and Water Watch
November 2010. Biotech industry increases its U.S. lobbying expenditures doubled over a 10 year span.
For more from this organization reporting on all things food and water and how their impact on goals toward sustainable environments and economies, see www.FoodAndWaterWatch.org.
GMO counter efforts
The dominance (and disproportionality among its peers) of U.S. GM crops, as reflected in the table above, depends highly on efforts of major biotech engineering industry-giants like Monsanto and Dupont. Recently, in examples like California in 2012 and Washington in 2013, state measures have been proposed which would require labeling of products containing GMOs. In both cases, the pro-GM campaigns led by said corporations have inhibited such measures and outspent its opposition by drastic margins.
"Organic farming dwarfs GM crop production in Europe," Friends of the Earth Europe
February, 2012. 2011 sees success for organic crop cultivation, not GMOs. "The Netherlands announced (an organic crop) market growth of 27% in the first three quarters of 2011. For the first half of 2011, Italy and France published growth rates of 11% and 10%. The percentage of organic arable land in the European Union in 2011 was around 3.7% - 370 times more than all land planted with GM-crops."