In terms of square miles, the United States clearly has an advantage over the other countries studied. Comparing land use for transgenic farming with organic farming, however, demonstrates that the United States is sacrificing responsible stewarding of the land for production.

Agriculture

COLOR CODING
GreenRanked first for statistic
RedRanked last for statistic
 Organic farming land use, %Transgenic farming land use, %Nitrogen balance per hectareAgricultural land useArable land usePesticide usage rates
Australia9.001.4719.8348.26.02.03
Canada2.0025.7423.736.904.82.34
Denmark9.00banned80.0062.056.61.09
France7.00banned40.0052.433.54.45
Germany9.00banned62.0047.733.73.77
Italy15.00banned68.0043.222.45.91
Japan0.00banned179.3212.311.511.84
Netherlands3.00banned187.0053.330.58.79
Norway4.00banned95.002.72.20.76
Sweden20.0060.007.46.30.57
United Kingdom2.00banned86.0071.724.93.17
United States0.0046.1327.0144.416.62.34

SOURCES

Organic farming land use: Research Institute of Organic Agriculture FiBL

Organic area share of total farmland (%). 2018.

Transgenic farming land use: RoyalSociety.org

Countries with bans on GMO crop cultivation noted as such. 2015. Open field trials for GMOs are allowed in Sweden with restrictions in over 40 GMO free zones.

Nitrogen balance per hectare: OECD, Nutrient balance

Kg/ha. 2017 except for Canada, France, Sweden (2018), Norway (2016) and Denmark (est. 2015).

Agricultural land use: World Bank

As a percent of land use, 2016.

Arable land use: World Bank

As a percent of land use, 2016.

Pesticide usage rates: Food and Agricultural Organization of the UN

Kg/ha. 2018 except for United States (2010).

Agricultural subsidies score

In European countries, the removal of agricultural subsidies in recent years has contributed to a decline in nitrogen pollution from use of fertilizers.

NOTES

“EU’s top court confirms safety checks needed for new ‘GMO 2.0’”

July 25, 2018.
The European Court of Justice ruled that a new generation of GMOs (GMO 2.0) must undergo the same preexisting safety checks as other GMOs, a decision that the biotech industry has shown opposition.

“New York Times confirms GMO industry ties at National Academies of Sciences” Tim Schwab

December 28, 2016.
Research shows that there has been conflicts of interest within the National Academies of Sciences, which performs research on GMOs. There is previous evidence of the biotech industry’s influence on NAS’s work on GMOs, including financial leverage.