Economic

Research

Service

Economic 

Information

Bulletin

Number 163

November 2016

The Adoption of Genetically 

Engineered Alfalfa, Canola, and

Sugarbeets in the United States

Jorge Fernandez-Cornejo, Seth Wechsler, 

and Daniel Milkove

United States Department of Agriculture
Economic Research Service 

www.ers.usda.gov

United States Department of Agriculture

Cover is a derivative of images from iStock.

Use of commercial and trade names does not imply approval or constitute endorsement by USDA.

To ensure the quality of its research reports and satisfy government-wide standards, ERS requires that all research 

reports with substantively new material be reviewed by qualified technical research peers. This technical peer review 

process, coordinated by ERS' Peer Review Coordinating Council, allows experts who possess the technical background, 

perspective, and expertise to provide an objective and meaningful assessment of the output’s substantive content and 

clarity of communication during the publication’s review. For more information on the Agency’s peer review process, go 

to: http://www.ers.usda.gov/about-ers/peer-reviews.aspx 

In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, 

the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), 

sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, 

political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA 

(not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large 

print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA's TARGET Center at 

(202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, 

program information may be made available in languages other than English.

To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found 

online at How to File a Program Discrimination Complaint and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA 

and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 

632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; 

or (3) email: program.intake@usda.gov.

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

Access this report online:

www.ers.usda.gov/publications/eib-economic-information-bulletin/EIB-163

Download the charts contained in this report:

	 •	 Go to the report’s index page www.ers.usda.gov/publications/

 err-economic-research-report/eib163

	 •	 Click on the bulleted item “Download eib163.zip”

	 •	 Open the chart you want, then save it to your computer

Recommended citation format for this publication:

Jorge Fernandez-Cornejo, Seth Wechsler, and Daniel Milkove. The Adoption of 

Genetically Engineered Alfalfa, Canola, and Sugarbeets in the United States, EIB-163,

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, November 2016.
United States Department of Agriculture

Economic 

Research 

Service

Economic 

Information

Bulletin

Number 163

November 2016

Abstract

After their commercial introduction in 1996, genetically engineered (GE), herbicidetolerant (HT) varieties of corn, soybeans, and cotton were rapidly adopted by U.S. 

farmers. The success of these GE crops led to the deregulation that enabled the 

commercialization of HT canola in 1998 and of HT alfalfa and sugarbeets in 2005. 

Although legal/regulatory issues limited the spread of GE sugarbeets and GE alfalfa 

during the first decade of the 21st century, adoption rates for these crops have increased 

rapidly in recent years. This report uses data from USDA’s 2013 Agricultural Resource 

Management Survey (ARMS) to analyze the adoption of GE alfalfa, canola, and sugarbeets in the United States. It also discusses legal/regulatory issues associated with the 

commercialization of these crops, trends in adoption rates, and the economic impacts of 

adoption. Some 95 percent of U.S. canola acres and over 99 percent of sugarbeet acres 

harvested in 2013 were planted with GE seeds containing HT traits. Only 13 percent of 

U.S. alfalfa acres were planted using GE seeds in 2013, but this slower adoption rate is 

expected because alfalfa is a perennial crop and only about one-seventh of the alfalfa 

acreage is newly seeded each year.

Keywords: Agricultural biotechnology, genetically engineered crops, herbicide tolerance, alfalfa, canola, sugarbeets.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank James MacDonald and Cynthia Nickerson, U.S. Department 

of Agriculture (USDA), Economic Research Service for advice. They would also like to 

thank the following for technical peer reviews: Maria Bowman, USDA, Economic Research 

Service; George Frisvold, The University of Arizona; Neil Hoffman, USDA, Animal and 

Plant Health Inspection Service; Paul Mitchell, University of Wisconsin; and Michael 

Schechtman, USDA, Agricultural Research Service. We also thank Dale Simms and Ethiene 

Salgado-Rodriguez, USDA/ERS for editorial and design services.

About the Authors

Seth Wechsler and Daniel Milkove are economists with the USDA, Economic Research 

Service (ERS). Jorge Fernandez-Cornejo was formerly with ERS when this research 

was conducted.

Jorge Fernandez-Cornejo, Seth Wechsler, 

and Daniel Milkove

The Adoption of Genetically 

Engineered Alfalfa, Canola, and

Sugarbeets in the United States
ii

The Adoption of Genetically Engineered Alfalfa, Canola, and Sugarbeets in the United States

Economic Research Service/USDA

Contents

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Alfalfa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Approval of GE Alfalfa: Regulatory Issues. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

The Adoption of GE HT Alfalfa. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Economic Effects of Adopting GE HT Alfalfa. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Canola . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Approval of GE Canola: Regulatory Issues. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Adoption of GE HT Canola. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Economic Effects of Adopting GE HT Canola. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Sugarbeets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Approval of GE Sugarbeets: Regulatory Issues. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Adoption of GE HT Sugarbeets. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Economic Effects of Adopting GE HT Sugarbeets. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Appendix: Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Primary data source. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Other data sources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
United States Department of Agriculture

A report summary from the Economic Research Service

ERS is a primary source 

of economic research and 

analysis from the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, 

providing timely information on economic and policy 

issues related to agriculture, 

food, the environment, and 

rural America.

www.ers.usda.gov

November 2016

Find the full report at 

www.ers.usda.gov/

publications/eib-economic-informationbulletin/eib-163

What Is the Issue?

Genetically engineered (GE) varieties of corn, soybeans, and cotton with herbicide-tolerant 

and/or insect-resistant traits were commercially introduced in the United States in 1996. Twenty 

years later, most corn, cotton, and soybean farmers use these varieties, and the impacts of adoption have been widely documented. By contrast, relatively little is known about the adoption 

of GE alfalfa, canola, and sugarbeets, crops that add substantial value to the U.S. agricultural 

sector. For instance, alfalfa is the fourth largest crop in the United States in terms of acreage 

and production value. It was also the first widely grown GE perennial to be commercialized. 

GE alfalfa and GE sugarbeets have been subjects of recent legal controversies.

What Did the Study Find?

Most GE varieties of alfalfa, canola, and sugarbeets have herbicide-tolerant (HT) traits. The 

most common of these varieties are resistant to glyphosate.

Alfalfa

•	 Approximately 18 million acres of alfalfa, with a production value of $10.7 billion, were 

harvested in the United States in 2013. Alfalfa is the fourth largest crop in the United 

States (in terms of acreage and production value). South Dakota, Montana, North Dakota, 

Idaho, and Wisconsin account for 42 percent of national acreage devoted to alfalfa.

•	 The first GE HT alfalfa varieties were deregulated by USDA in June 2005. Deregulation 

facilitates commercialization by allowing the introduction (importation, interstate movement, and environmental release) of the GE organism without further authorization from 

USDA. Following legal action from environmental groups in March 2007, plantings 

were temporarily suspended while USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 

(APHIS) prepared an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Once the applicable regulatory requirements were satisfied, GE HT alfalfa was fully deregulated in February 2011. 

Planting resumed that spring.

•	 Alfalfa is a perennial crop with an average of 6-7 years between plantings. Approximately 

3.5 million acres were newly seeded in 2013 (14 percent of the acres that were harvested 

that year). Nearly one-third of this newly seeded alfalfa acreage was GE HT.

•	 Data from USDA’s Agricultural Resource Management Survey (ARMS) indicate that GE 

HT alfalfa constituted 13 percent of the alfalfa acres harvested in 2013.

Jorge Fernandez-Cornejo, Seth Wechsler, 

and Daniel Milkove

The Adoption of Genetically 

Engineered Alfalfa, Canola, and

Sugarbeets in the United States

Economic

Research

Service

Economic 

Information

Bulletin

Number 163

November 2016

The Adoption of Genetically 

Engineered Alfalfa, Canola, and

Sugarbeets in the United States

Jorge Fernandez-Cornejo, Seth Wechsler, 

and Daniel Milkove

United States Department of Agriculture
•	 GE HT alfalfa adoption rates were highest in New York, where approximately 37 percent of the acres 

that were harvested in 2013 were produced using GE HT. Adoption rates were also relatively high in 

Washington and Colorado.

•	 ARMS data from 2013 suggest that farmers who planted GE HT alfalfa had higher yields than farmers 

who planted conventional seeds. On average, adopters’ yields were 0.53 ton per acre, approximately 17 

percent higher than the yields of other farmers.

Canola

•	 Approximately 1.3 million acres of canola (an edible version of rapeseed), with a production value of 

$456 million, were harvested in the United States in 2013. North Dakota, Oklahoma, Montana, Idaho, 

and Washington accounted for 96 percent of U.S. canola production.

•	 GE HT canola varieties were deregulated in 1998. ARMS data indicate that GE HT canola accounted for 

95 percent of U.S. canola acres that were harvested in 2013. While this result is based on a small sample, 

it is consistent with estimates obtained from other sources.

Sugarbeets

•	 Approximately 1.2 million acres of sugarbeets, with a production value of $1.6 billion, were harvested 

in 2013. Minnesota, North Dakota, Idaho, and Michigan accounted for over 80 percent of sugarbeet 

production in 2013.

•	 APHIS deregulated the first GE HT sugarbeets in 1998. Small amounts of these varieties were produced 

for testing and seed production in 2006 and 2007. GE HT sugarbeets were commercially introduced 

in 2008, and about 60 percent of total acreage was planted with GE HT seeds in that year. ARMS data 

indicate that over 99 percent of harvested acreage was produced using GE HT seeds in 2013.

•	 Previous studies suggest that using GE HT-based production systems increases sugarbeet root yields and 

reduces herbicide and labor costs.

How Was the Study Conducted?

This report uses simple statistical methods and information from secondary sources to analyze the adoption 

of genetically engineered alfalfa, canola, and sugarbeets. The primary source is USDA’s 2013 Agricultural 

Resource Management Survey, which is jointly managed by USDA’s Economic Research Service and USDA, 

National Agricultural Statistics Service. Other data sources include publications by the International Service 

for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications (ISAAA) and the 2012 Census of Agriculture.

www.ers.usda.gov

Adoption of genetically engineered herbicide-tolerant (GE HT) sugarbeet

Note: Because alfalfa is a perennial, new alfalfa seedings represent a small percent of the total GE alfalfa in production. 

Therefore, adoption rates for HT alfalfa were calculated as a percent of harvested acreage. Adoption rates for HT canola 

and HT sugarbeets were estimated as a percent of planted acreage.

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service using data from the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech 

Applications, Brookes and Barfoot (2014), Johnson et al. (2008), and National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS).

0

20

40

60

80

100

Percent adoption

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Alfalfa Sugarbeets Canola
1

The Adoption of Genetically Engineered Alfalfa, Canola, and Sugarbeets in the United States

Economic Research Service/USDA

The Adoption of Genetically Engineered 

Alfalfa, Canola, and Sugarbeets 

in the United States

Introduction

Twenty years after the commercial introduction of the first major crop varieties, more than 90 

percent of U.S. corn, soybean, and cotton acreage is planted with genetically engineered (GE) seeds 

with herbicide-tolerant and/or insect-resistant traits, accounting for almost half of the land used to 

grow all U.S. crops in 2013 (Fernandez-Cornejo et al., 2014). While the widespread adoption of 

these crops has been extensively analyzed and reported, relatively little is known about the adoption of GE alfalfa, canola, and sugarbeets, crops that add substantial value to the U.S. agricultural 

sector.1

This report uses data from USDA’s 2013 Agricultural Resource Management Survey (ARMS) to 

analyze the adoption of GE alfalfa, canola, and sugarbeets in the United States. It discusses trends in 

adoption of these crops, describes the legal/regulatory issues associated with their commercialization, and the economic impacts of adoption.

The mostly widely adopted GE crops have herbicide tolerance (GE HT) traits. These crops were 

developed to survive the application of specific herbicides that previously would have destroyed the 

crop along with the targeted weeds. GE HT-based production systems provide farmers with multiple 

options for effective weed control (Fernandez-Cornejo and McBride, 2002). The most common GE 

HT crops tolerate glyphosate, an herbicide first marketed in 1974 under the trade name Roundup. 

Glyphosate is effective on many species of grasses, broadleaf weeds, and sedges.2 However, overreliance on glyphosate and a reduction in the diversity of weed management practices have contributed 

to the evolution of glyphosate resistance in some weed species (Livingston et al., 2015). Glyphosate 

tolerance has been incorporated into soybeans, corn, cotton, canola, sugarbeets, and, more recently, 

alfalfa.

USDA’s annual Acreage reports provide estimates of planted and harvested acres for many major 

crops (USDA/NASS, 2015b). Since 2000, this publication has included survey estimates of the 

shares of acreage planted using GE corn, cotton, and soybeans with insect-resistant and herbicidetolerant traits. ERS researchers added questions to the 2013 ARMS (see appendix 1) to support 

similar estimates for alfalfa, canola, and sugarbeets. ARMS is a nationally representative survey 

that provides an objective source of production data. However, ARMS surveys are administered to a 

relatively small number of canola and sugarbeet producers. This report, therefore, combines ARMS, 

NASS, and private-sector data to assess the adoption of GE seeds for alfalfa, canola, and sugarbeets.

1Alfalfa is the fourth largest crop in the United States in terms of acreage and production value. It is also the first 

widely grown GE perennial to be commercialized.

2Crops tolerant to the herbicide glyphosate were developed by the firm Monsanto under the name Roundup Ready. 

Under another GE herbicide-tolerant system, developed by Bayer CropScience with the trade name Liberty Link, crops 

tolerate the herbicide glufosinate. In addition, Pioneer (now part of DuPont) developed a system called Clearfield in 

which crops tolerate the herbicide imidazolinone. However, this system was developed using mutagenesis, not genetic 

engineering. This system is reported to be used for canola in Canada, but its use is much less prevalent than GE varieties 

in recent years. For example, 93 percent of the canola acres in Canada were grown with GE HT varieties, compared to 6 

percent with non-GE HT varieties and 1 percent with conventional varieties (Canola Council of Canada, 2014).
2

The Adoption of Genetically Engineered Alfalfa, Canola, and Sugarbeets in the United States

Economic Research Service/USDA

Alfalfa

Alfalfa is a highly nutritious, perennial legume. In the United States, it is primarily used as feed 

for dairy cattle.3 Though it has been grown domestically only since 1736, farmers have produced 

alfalfa for over 4,000 years (Yueago and Cash, 2009). Currently, it is cultivated on approximately 

74 million acres worldwide, mainly in temperate countries such as the United States, Argentina, 

Canada, Russia, Italy, and China (Yueago and Cash, 2009).

In 2013, approximately 18 million acres of alfalfa (table 1), with a production value of $10.7 billion, 

were harvested in the United States. Only three crops (corn, soybeans, and wheat) are grown on 

more acreage or have more aggregate production value than alfalfa (USDA/NASS, 2014). In 2012, 

alfalfa was grown throughout the continental United States (figure 1). Because alfalfa yields are 

highly variable, the States that produce the most alfalfa are not always the ones with largest planted 

acreages (table 1).

The ratio of newly seeded (planted) alfalfa acres to harvested alfalfa acres was 0.14 (2,517/17,763) in 

2013 (table 2). This implies that approximately 14 percent of the harvested area was newly seeded 

that year. It also suggests that U.S. alfalfa fields are seeded, on average, once every 7 years.

3Alfalfa is a perennial crop and produces its highest yields during the second year of growth. In climates with mild 

winters, alfalfa is grown for 3 to 4 years continuously, but in climates with cold winters, it is grown for 6 to 9 years, with 

a dormant period in winter (FAO, 2013).

Figure 1

Alfalfa hay, harvested acreage by county, 2012

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service using data from USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service, 2012 

Census of Agriculture.

Thousand acres

Acres

Not estimated

1 - 10,000

10,001 - 20,000

20,001 - 30,000

30,001 - 50,000

50,001 - 70,000

70,001 or more
3

The Adoption of Genetically Engineered Alfalfa, Canola, and Sugarbeets in the United States

Economic Research Service/USDA

Approximately 4 percent of U.S. alfalfa production was exported in 2012, mainly to Japan, 

United Arab Emirates, China, Korea, and Taiwan (Putman et al., 2013, using data from the U.S. 

Department of Commerce and USDA).

Table 1

Top 10 States growing alfalfa by acres harvested and production, 2013

State

Area harvested

(1,000 acres) Percent of total State

Production

(1,000 tons) Percent of total

Montana 1,800 10.1 California 6,120 10.6

South Dakota 1,800 10.1 Idaho 4,256 7.4

North Dakota 1,620 9.1 Montana 3,960 6.9

Idaho 1,120 6.3 South Dakota 3,780 6.6

Wisconsin 1,100 6.2 North Dakota 3,240 5.6

Minnesota 950 5.3 Wisconsin 2,860 5.0

California 900 5.1 Minnesota 2,470 4.3

Iowa 730 4.1 Nebraska 2,415 4.2

Nebraska 700 3.9 Iowa 2,409 4.2

Colorado 650 3.7 Utah 2,310 4.0

United States 17,763 100.00 United States 57,581 100.00

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service using data from USDA’s Crop Production report (USDA/NASS, 2014b).

Table 2

Total acres, yields, and production: alfalfa, canola, and sugarbeets, 2011-13

Crop

Acres planted 

(1,000)

Acres harvested 

(1,000)

Yield, tons/

harvested acre

Total production 

(1,000 tons)

Alfalfa

2013 2,5171 17,763 3.24 57,581

2012 2,3891 17,292 3.01 52,049

2011 2,3211 19,213 3.40 67,829

Canola

2013 1,348 1,265 0.87 1,105

2012 1,765 1,729 0.71 1,224

2011 1,072 1,043 0.74 769

Sugarbeets

2013 1,198 1,154 28.5 32,813

2012 1,230 1,204 29.3 35,236

2011 1,233 1,213 23.8 28,828

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service using data from the Crop Production report (USDA/NASS, 2014b). 

1 Alfalfa is a perennial crop. These data refer to the area newly seeded with alfalfa, which is much smaller than acres 

harvested.
4

The Adoption of Genetically Engineered Alfalfa, Canola, and Sugarbeets in the United States

Economic Research Service/USDA

Approval of GE Alfalfa: Regulatory Issues

USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) issued the first permit for field testing 

GE alfalfa to the Northrup King Company in June 1989 (see box, “Regulatory Oversight of GE 

Crops”). A glufosinate-tolerant varietal was field tested in Woodland, California, later that year 

(Information Systems for Biotechnology, 2015). In 1998, the first field tests of genetically engineered, glyphosate-tolerant alfalfa were authorized in Iowa, Idaho, Indiana, and Wisconsin (ISB, 

2015).4

In the spring of 2004, APHIS received a petition from Monsanto Company and Forage Genetics 

International to deregulate two glyphosate-tolerant alfalfa lines. After assessing the plant pest risks 

and preparing an Environmental Assessment (EA), APHIS determined that these lines (J101 and 

J163) did not pose a plant pest risk (USDA/APHIS, 2010a).5 In June 2005, the GE HT lines were 

deregulated and full-scale commercialization was permitted (Cowan and Alexander, 2013).

In 2006, the Center for Food Safety and other organizations sued USDA-APHIS. The plaintiffs 

argued that APHIS’s Environmental Assessment of GE HT alfalfa was not sufficiently comprehensive and that an indepth Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) should be conducted. On February 

13, 2007, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California ruled that APHIS had not 

adequately assessed the environmental and economic impacts of GE HT alfalfa, as required by the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Consequently, the Court vacated APHIS’ deregulation 

decision and ordered that a NEPA-compliant EIS be prepared (USDA/APHIS, 2010a). The Court 

determined that growers who had already planted GE HT alfalfa would be permitted to harvest, 

use, and sell it. However, new seed sales and new planting were no longer permitted under the court 

injunction (USDA/APHIS, 2010a).6

APHIS released the EIS for glyphosate-tolerant alfalfa in December 2010. On January 27, 2011, 

under the authority of the Plant Protection Act of 2000, glyphosate-tolerant alfalfa was fully deregulated.7 Planting resumed in February 2011 (Cowan, 2011).

Though the legal actions described above did not prevent the deregulation of GE HT alfalfa, they did 

slow its adoption. Plantings of GE HT alfalfa were suspended from 2007 to 2010.

Alfalfa that has been genetically engineered to have low lignin content was deregulated in 

November 2014 after a petition from Monsanto Company and Forage Genetics International. This 

4In total, APHIS authorized 473 field tests of GE alfalfa between 1989 and April 2015 through either a permit or a 

notification.

5Under title 7 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 340, USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 

(APHIS) regulates the “introduction (importation, interstate movement, or release into the environment) of organisms and 

products altered or produced through genetic engineering that are plant pests or that there is reason to believe are plant 

pests. (USDA/APHIS, 2010a). APHIS’ EIS also states that “The regulations in § 340.6(a) provide that any person may 

submit a petition to APHIS seeking a determination that an article does not pose a plant pest risk and should therefore not 

be regulated under 7 CFR part 340. Paragraphs (b) and (c) of § 340.6 describe the form that a petition for a determination 

of nonregulated status must take and the information that must be included in the petition.”

6In the two growing seasons that GE HT alfalfa was on the market (2005 and 2006), approximately 200,000 acres of 

GE alfalfa were planted in the continental United States (USDA/APHIS, 2010a).

7Soon after, the Center for Food Safety filed suit in March 2011 claiming that the deregulation violated both NEPA and 

the Plant Protection Act. The claims were rejected by a District Judge on January 2012, and this decision was affirmed by 

the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on May 17, 2013.
5

The Adoption of Genetically Engineered Alfalfa, Canola, and Sugarbeets in the United States

Economic Research Service/USDA

trait increases the digestibility of the alfalfa, thereby enhancing the nutritional quality of the derived 

feed and directly benefiting the consumer (as opposed to herbicide-tolerance traits that benefit the 

producer). This alfalfa varietal has been reported to increase yields by 10-20 percent (ISAAA, 

2014b), which may lead to further adoption of GE alfalfa in the near future.

Table 3

APHIS’ deregulation of genetically enginereed (GE) alfalfa 

Petitioner Event GE trait Date deregulated

Monsanto & Forage Genetics J101, J163 Glyphosate tolerant June 14, 2005

Monsanto & Forage Genetics J101, J163 Glyphosate tolerant January 28, 2011

Monsanto & Forage Genetics KK179 Reduced lignin November 10, 2014

Source: USDA, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, 2015. Petitions for determination of nonregulated status, http://

www.aphis.usda.gov/biotechnology/petitions_table_pending.shtml

Regulatory Oversight of GE Crops

Before commercial introduction, genetically engineered crops must conform to standards set 

by State and Federal statutes (Fernandez-Cornejo et al., 2014; USDA/APHIS, 2013). Under the 

Coordinated Framework for the Regulation of Biotechnology, Federal oversight is shared by the 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 

and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) plays a central role in regulating 

field testing of agricultural biotechnology products. Through either a notification or permit 

procedure, such products—which include certain genetically engineered plants, microorganisms, and invertebrates—are considered “regulated articles.” APHIS issues authorizations for 

field releases of those GE organisms (mostly GE plants) that are categorized as “regulated articles” to allow technology providers to conduct field testing.

GE plants that meet six specific criteria (described in the regulations) undergo an administratively streamlined process, known as a notification. Under a notification, applicants provide 

information on the nature of the plant and introduced genes, exact genetic modifications, size/

scope of the introduction, and origin/destinations for movement or the location of a field test.

For GE plants that do not meet the criteria for a notification, an APHIS permit is required. This 

process involves a more comprehensive review. In addition to the data required for notification, 

permit applicants must describe how they will perform the test, including specific measures to 

reduce the risk of harm to other plants, so that the tested organisms remain confined and do not 

persist after completion of the field test.

After years of field tests, an applicant may petition APHIS for a determination of nonregulated 

status in order to facilitate commercialization of the product. If, after extensive review, APHIS 

determines that the GE organism is unlikely to pose a plant pest risk, the organism is issued 

a “determination of nonregulated status.” At this point, the organism is no longer considered 

a regulated article and can be moved and planted without APHIS oversight under the biotechnology regulations. More details on the regulations of GE products may be found in USEPA, 

2003; Belson, 2000; USDA/APHIS, 2010a, 2015; and Fernandez-Cornejo et al., 2014.
6

The Adoption of Genetically Engineered Alfalfa, Canola, and Sugarbeets in the United States

Economic Research Service/USDA

The Adoption of GE HT alfalfa

The International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA) reports that 

50,000 acres of GE HT alfalfa were planted in the United States in 2005 (ISAAA 2013a, b; 2014a, 

b). Approximately 150,000 acres were planted in 2006, and 55,000 acres were planted in 2007 

(before the U.S. District Court vacated the GE HT alfalfa’s deregulation). Therefore, there were 

approximately 255,000 acres of GE HT alfalfa in the United States by 2007. After a 3-year moratorium (during which planting GE HT alfalfa was prohibited), GE HT planting resumed in 2011. 

Approximately 245,000 acres of GE HT were planted during that year. Newly seeded GE HT alfalfa 

acreage increased to 560,000 acres in 2012 and 810,000 acres in 2013.

By 2013, total GE HT acreage (including GE HT acreage that was planted in previous years) had 

reached 1.87 million acres (figure 2),8 representing 11 percent of U.S. alfalfa acreage. USDA’s 2013 

ARMS, by contrast, indicates that 13 percent of U.S. alfalfa acreage harvested in 2013 was produced 

using genetically engineered seeds with herbicide tolerance (table 4).9 This estimate is slightly 

higher, but not statistically different from the 11 percent reported by ISAAA (2013b, 2014a).10

8ISAAA (2014a, b) reported that about 810,000 acres were newly seeded with GE HT alfalfa in 2013, representing 32 

percent of the total area newly seeded with alfalfa in 2013.

9The ERS estimate includes the area newly seeded with GE HT alfalfa in 2013 and GE HT acreage that was planted in 

previous years.

10The 95-percent confidence interval for the ERS estimate is bounded by 9 and 18 percent.

Figure 2

Adoption of genetically engineered herbicide-tolerant (GE HT) alfalfa, 2005-13

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service using data for acreage with GE HT alfalfa from ISAAA (2006, 2013a, 2014b) 

and ARMS for 2013. Data for harvested acres from NASS.

1,000 acres

0

4

8

12

16

20

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Percent GE HT

Non GE HT acreage

Left axis Right axis

GE HT acreage

GE HT share of harvested acres

GE HT share of harvested acres (ARMS estimate)
7

The Adoption of Genetically Engineered Alfalfa, Canola, and Sugarbeets in the United States

Economic Research Service/USDA

The 2013 ARMS data show that adoption rates for GE HT alfalfa are fairly low in States with 

substantial alfalfa acreage, like Montana.11 Other States with large alfalfa acreages and low GE HT 

adoption rates include Nebraska (5.1 percent of alfalfa was GE HT in 2013) and Iowa (5.6 percent). 

Adoption rates tend to be higher in States with less alfalfa acreage. For instance, 37 percent of 

alfalfa in New York was GE HT in 2013 (appendix table 1).12

Table 4

Estimated adoption rates for genetically engineered herbicide-tolerant (GE HT) alfalfa, 

canola, and sugarbeets, 2013* 

Percent of 

harvested 

acres

Standard

error

Lower 

bound

Upper 

bound

Number of 

observations

Alfalfa

GE HT 13 2 9 18 1411

Non-GE HT 87 2 82 91

Sugarbeets

GE HT 100 0 100 100 44

Non-GE HT 0 0 0 0

Canola

GE HT 95 4 88 100 22

Non-GE HT 5 4 0 12

*Using jackknifed standard errors and 95% confidence intervals.

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service using data from 2013 ARMS Phase III.

Economic Effects of Adopting GE HT Alfalfa

The 2013 ARMS data suggest that farmers who plant their acreage to GE HT alfalfa (adopters) 

enjoy higher yields than farmers who plant all of their acreage with conventional alfalfa seeds (table 

5). The difference in average yields between adopters and non-adopters was 0.53 ton per acre, or 

approximately 17 percent (table 6).13 However, this comparison does not control for variations in 

production practices or other systematic differences between farmers (and fields) that use GE seeds 

and those that do not use them. For instance, alfalfa yields are influenced by many factors such as 

seed variety (there are hundreds of alfalfa varieties), weather and soil conditions, water availability, 

the severity of pest infestations, fertilizer use, and method of weed/insect control (Dixon et al., 

2005). In other words, though the mean comparisons suggest that yields tend to be higher on fields 

11A negligible percentage of alfalfa was planted with GE HT seeds in Montana. Montana is a very large cow-calf State 

with high demand for “cowboy mix” (alfalfa hay mixed with grasses with the intention of being grazed or fed on cowcalf operations). Producers use the grasses to keep the hay from being too rich, which can cause serious problems with 

digestion. Producers using the cowboy mix would defeat the intent of the mix if they sprayed their fields with glyphosate 

because it would kill the grasses. Commercial growers may also be wary of using GE HT alfalfa due to export restrictions on the hay.

12According to the alfalfa Environmental Impact Statement (USDA/APHIS, 2010a), the counties that are likely to benefit more from adoption of GE HT alfalfa are those in which weeds are a problem in need of management and where GE 

HT weed control is cheaper. Also, counties are likely to benefit more from adoption of GE HT where the markets demand 

cleaner alfalfa since GE HT alfalfa leads to alfalfa hay with a lower weed content.

13A t-test was used to determine whether the average difference between the yields of adopters and non-adopters was 

statistically significant. The delete-a-group jackknife procedure described in Dubman (2000) was used to account for the 

complexity of the survey design. Robustness checks suggest that unobserved, systematic differences in time-invariant 

variables (such as soil quality) may partially account for yield differences between HT adopters and non-adopters. Future 

work will explore this possibility.
8

The Adoption of Genetically Engineered Alfalfa, Canola, and Sugarbeets in the United States

Economic Research Service/USDA

where farmers have planted GE seeds, they do not demonstrate that these increases were caused by 

GE HT adoption.

Experimental field studies of GE HT alfalfa in several U.S. locations have produced mixed results 

(USDA/APHIS, 2010b; Van Deynze et al., 2004). Wilson (2007) found that GE HT alfalfa in 

Nebraska provided slightly higher forage yields and better weed control than conventional production systems.14 However, D. Putnam, a plant and soil scientist at the University of California, Davis, 

who has field tested GE alfalfa and other alfalfa cultivars in California concluded (as reported by 

USDA/APHIS, 2010b) that the yields of herbicide-tolerant alfalfa as a group “are no different than 

what could be expected from similar conventional lines...”

Regardless of whether adoption increases yields, there appear to be benefits associated with GE HT 

alfalfa use. In its Final Environmental Impact Statement, APHIS reported that GE HT adoption 

increased forage quality and reduced herbicide costs (USDA/APHIS, 2010b). That report suggests 

that changes in yields and/or in forage prices are likely to have a greater impact on returns than 

comparable changes in costs.

Table 5

Acres, tons, and weighted yields for adopters and non-adopters of GE HT alfalfa, 2013 

Acres harvested 

per farm

Total production per 

farm, in tons (dry)

Implied yield, tons/

acre

Observations

Full adopters 68.29 249.89 3.66 198

Non-adopters 83.23 260.47 3.13 1178

Note: Thirty-five farmers in the ARMS sample planted some, but not all, of their acreage to GE HT alfalfa. Because this 

is a small number of observations, and because outliers appeared to be distorting the estimates, these observations 

are not included in tables 5 or 6, or discussed in this section.

Sources: USDA, Economic Research Service using data from the 2013 Agricultural Resource Management Survey 

(ARMS) Phase III.

Table 6

Yield difference (tons/acre) between adopters and non-adopters of GE HT alfalfa, 2013

Difference in means between adopters and....

Difference 

in means 

Standard 

error

T-Stat P-value

Non-adopters 0.53 0.17 3.11 0.004

Note: Standard errors were estimated using the delete-a-group jackknife method described in Dubman (2000).

Sources: USDA, Economic Research Service using data from the 2013 Agricultural Resource Management Survey 

(ARMS) Phase III.

14 Forage yields were 4.3 to 4.4 tons per acre in a Roundup Ready system that achieved 94 to 97 percent weed control. 

Yields were 3.8 to 4.2 tons per acre in a conventional weed control system that provided 87 percent weed control (Wilson, 

2007).
9

The Adoption of Genetically Engineered Alfalfa, Canola, and Sugarbeets in the United States

Economic Research Service/USDA

Canola

Prior to 1980, rapeseed oil was largely used as an industrial lubricant. Undesirable byproducts, such 

as erucic acid, made it unsuitable for human or animal consumption. Canadian scientists solved both 

of these problems using modern (but not GE) plant breeding methods. Canada labeled the modified, edible rapeseed plants “canola” in 1979.15 This distinction was formalized in 1985, when the 

U.S. Food and Drug Administration deemed rapeseed and canola to be separate crops. Though it is 

referred to as canola in North America only, edible versions of rapeseed have been commercialized 

in Australia, China, Europe, and India.

In the United States, 1.26 million acres of canola, with a production value of $456 million, were 

harvested in 2013 (USDA/NASS, 2014b and 2015a).16 Canola production is concentrated in North 

Dakota, where 1.7 billion pounds were grown on 915,000 acres in 2013 (figure 3 depicts harvested 

acreage in 2012).

15The name canola was created by combining “Canada” and “Oil” (Canola Council of Canada, 2016).

16The 2012 Census of Agriculture found that 32 farms harvested a total of 2,759 acres to produce 4.24 million pounds 

of industrial rapeseed in the United States. Because industrial rapeseed constitutes less than 1 percent of the 2.5 billion 

pounds of rapeseed produced in 2012, this report restricts its analysis to edible rapeseed, or canola.

Figure 3

Canola, harvested acreage by county, 2012

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service using data from USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service, 2012 

Census of Agriculture.

Thousand acres

Acres

Not estimated

1 - 5,000

5,001 - 10,000

10,001 - 20,000

20,001 - 40,000

40,001 - 125,000

125,001 or more
10

The Adoption of Genetically Engineered Alfalfa, Canola, and Sugarbeets in the United States

Economic Research Service/USDA

Approval of GE Canola: – Regulatory Issues

The first genetically engineered, herbicide-tolerant (GE HT) canola plant was deregulated in 

January 1998 in response to a petition received from AgrEvo.17 It was tolerant to the herbicide phosphinothricin (glufosinate ammonium). In January 1999, APHIS deregulated the first glyphosatetolerant canola variety. Other glufosinate-tolerant varieties were deregulated in 1999 and 2002 

(table 7).

Table 7

APHIS’ deregulation of GE canola/rapeseed

Petitioner Event(s) GE Trait Date Deregulated

Calgene

pCGN3828-212/86-18 and 

pCGN3828-212/86-23 Oil profile altered October 31, 1994

AgrEvo T45 Glufosinate tolerant January 29, 1998

Monsanto RT73 Glyphosate tolerant January 27, 1999

AgrEvo MS8, RF3

Glufosinate tolerant and 

pollination control March 22, 1999

Aventis MS1 Glufosinate tolerant December 23, 2002

Aventis Topas 19/2

Glufosinate tolerant and 

pollination control December 23, 2002

Monsanto GT200 Glyphosate tolerant January 2, 2003

Pioneer 73496 Glyphosate tolerant July 18, 2013

Monsanto MON 88303 Glyphosate tolerant September 25, 2013

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service using data from USDA, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (2015).

Adoption of GE HT Canola

Canada became the first country to authorize the commercialization of GE canola in 1996.18 USDA’s 

APHIS deregulated glufosinate-tolerant and glyphosate-tolerant varieties of canola in 1998 and 

1999, respectively. By 2002, approximately 70 percent of U.S. canola acreage was GE HT (figure 4). 

ARMS data show that 95 percent of the canola acres harvested in 2013 were planted using GE HT 

seeds (table 4, figure 4).19 This result is consistent with ISAAA’s estimate of 93 percent (ISAAA, 

2013b).20

17A non-edible GE variety of rapeseed developed by Calgene was deregulated even earlier, in 1994. Its high-laurate oil 

trait gave it many industrial uses, but high prices and other undesirable production characteristics limited its profitability 

(Cornell Cooperative Extension, 2002).

18GE HT canola was first grown commercially in Canada in 1996 on 4 percent of that country’s canola acres. GE HT 

canola acreage increased to 12 percent in 1997, 35 percent in 1998, 53 percent in 1999, 55 percent in 2000, 79 percent 

in 2005, and 93 percent in 2010 (Canola Council of Canada, 2014). Non-GE HT canola (herbicide tolerant through conventional breeding techniques) started with 6 percent in 1996, peaked at 25 percent in 2000 and fell to 6 percent in 2010 

(Canola Council of Canada, 2014). GE HT canola in Canada reached a peak of 96 percent in 2013 (ISAAA, 2014b).

19This estimate is based on a small sample size. See Appendix 1 for additional details.

20Canada grows much more canola than the United States, commercialized GE HT canola 3 years earlier (Canola 

Council of Canada, 2014), and typically has higher adoption rates for GE HT canola. Moreover, Canada also grows an 

herbicide-tolerant variety of canola that was not genetically engineered.
11

The Adoption of Genetically Engineered Alfalfa, Canola, and Sugarbeets in the United States

Economic Research Service/USDA

Economic Effects of Adopting GE HT Canola

Though HT canola seeds are more expensive than conventional seeds, most U.S. canola farmers use 

GE HT-based production systems. Apparently other cost savings, time savings from easier weed 

control, and/or revenue gains must outweigh the additional seed costs. Small savings also accrue 

from less dockage since fewer weeds are mixed in with the canola when it is sold (ISAAA, 2007).

Johnson, Grillo, and Strom (2008) report that HT canola reduced pesticide use in the United States 

by 600,000 pounds in 2006, a cost savings of $9.5 million. Brookes and Barfoot (2014) report 

that average yields increased by about 6 percent in the early years of GE HT adoption. Recently, 

improvements in conventional varieties have narrowed the gap in yields.

The premium paid for GE, glufosinate-tolerant varieties tends to range between $5-$7 per acre while 

the premium paid for glyphosate tolerant varieties ranges between $5 and $13 per acre (Brookes and 

Barfoot, 2014). Cost savings (before inclusion of the technology costs) are an estimated $7-$18 per 

acre for glufosinate-tolerant canola and $12-$32 per acre for glyphosate-tolerant canola.

On average, using glufosinate-tolerant canola-based production systems increased gross margins 

by $24 per acre in 2012 (impacts ranged from $9 per acre to $36 per acre).21 Using a glyphosate21Brookes and Barfoot use the term “gross margin” to measure the “impact on gross revenue less variable costs of 

production rather than a full net cost of production assessment.” Costs include seed cost and crop protection expenditures, 

as well as fuel and labor costs. The (annual) farm income benefits are gross margins ($ per acre) times the acres where 

GE HT was adopted in a given year.

Figure 4

Adoption of genetically engineered herbicide-tolerant (GE HT) canola

Sources: USDA, Economic Research Service using data from the following. Planted acres for all years are from USDA, 

National Agricultural Statistics Service, "Crop Production Historical Track Records, April 2015. GE HT acres planted are 

calculated by multiplying the adoption share by total acres planted. GE HT adoption rates for 2001 and 2003-06 are from 

Johnson et al. (2008). (We repeated the 2001 value in 2002 because Johnson lacked 2002 data.) Rates for 2007-13 are 

from ISAAA Briefs (ISAAA, 2006, 2007, 2011, 2013b, 2014b). Harvested data for 2013 are from USDA’s ARMS. 

50

60

70

80

90

100

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

2,000

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Thousand acres Percent GE HT

GE HT acreage

Non GE HT acreage

GE HT share of planted acres

GE HT share of harvested acres (ARMS estimate)

Left axis Right axis
12

The Adoption of Genetically Engineered Alfalfa, Canola, and Sugarbeets in the United States

Economic Research Service/USDA

tolerant canola-based production system increased gross margins between $11 and $25 per acre. 

Brookes and Barfoot estimate that at the national level, the total farm income benefit from GE HT 

canola was $26.8 million in 2012, with a cumulative benefit from 1999 to 2012 exceeding $268 

million.22

22The sum of annual farm income benefits (expressed in nominal dollars).
13

The Adoption of Genetically Engineered Alfalfa, Canola, and Sugarbeets in the United States

Economic Research Service/USDA

Sugarbeets

U.S. processers produced approximately 8 million metric tons of sugar in 2013. Though this 

accounts for over half of the sugar produced in North America, it is less than 5 percent of the 176 

million metric tons produced worldwide (USDA ERS, 2016a). Currently, Brazil, India, and China 

dominate the global market. Approximately 55 percent of the domestic sugar supply was produced 

using sugarbeets in 2013; approximately 45 percent was produced using sugarcane (ERS, 2016b).

Sugarbeets can be grown in a wide variety of climates but prefer cool weather. Approximately 

1.2 million acres of sugarbeets, with a production value of $1.6 billion, were harvested in 2013. 

Minnesota, North Dakota, Idaho, and Michigan accounted for over 80 percent of sugarbeet production in 2013 (ERS, 2016b; figure 5).

The first genetically engineered, herbicide-tolerant (GE HT) sugarbeets were deregulated in 1998 

(table 8). Small amounts of these varieties were produced for testing and seed production in 2006 

and 2007. Adoption rates rose very rapidly from 2008 to 2013 (figure 6).

Approval of GE Sugarbeets: Regulatory Issues

Novartis Seeds and Monsanto Company submitted a petition for the deregulation of a genetically 

engineered, glyphosate-tolerant sugarbeet in August 1998 (USDA APHIS, 1999). After conducting 

an Environmental Assessment, APHIS determined that the GE sugarbeets were not a plant pest risk 

and the petition for deregulation was granted in December of that year.

Figure 5

Sugarbeets, harvested acreage by county, 2012

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service using data from USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service, 2012 

Census of Agriculture.

Thousand acres

Acres

Not estimated

1 - 5,000

5,001 - 10,000

10,001 - 15,000

15,001 - 20,000

20,001 - 40,000

40,001 or more
14

The Adoption of Genetically Engineered Alfalfa, Canola, and Sugarbeets in the United States

Economic Research Service/USDA

Arguing that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) had not been prepared for GE HT sugarbeets, the Sierra Club, the Center for Food Safety, High Mowing Organic Seeds, and the Organic 

Seed Alliance filed suit against the U.S. Government in 2008 (Center for Food Safety et al. v 

Vilsack and Smith, 2013). In 2009, the U.S. District Court of California found that an EIS should 

have been conducted, but that it was not in the public interest to (1) issue an injunction on GE HT 

sugarbeet use, or (2) void the USDA’s deregulation decision (Cowan and Alexander, 2013). Because 

APHIS had not initiated an EIS when the U.S. District Court reconvened in August, 2010, APHIS’s 

deregulation decision was vacated (Cowan and Alexander, 2013). Though GE sugarbeets planted 

prior to the ruling were not affected, the Court warned growers that they should be prepared to plant 

conventional seeds in 2011 (Oeschger et al., 2011).

In the fall of 2010, APHIS issued permits to seed producers that authorized seedling production of 

GE HT sugarbeets. Though these permits were initially contested, the U.S. Court of Appeals for 

the Ninth Circuit found that there was no risk of cross-species pollination (Cowan and Alexander, 

2013).23

In 2011, APHIS announced that GE HT sugarbeets would be partially deregulated (Oeschger et 

al., 2011). Root crop production would be deregulated but not the seed crop production. This was 

announced as an interim measure effective through December 31, 2012, while APHIS completed 

the EIS. Though the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued a preliminary 

injunction ordering the destruction of any GE HT beets planted in 2011, this motion was successfully appealed (Center for Food Safety et al. v Vilsack and Smith, 2013). APHIS finished the 

environmental impact statement for GE HT sugarbeets in June and deregulated them in July 2012 

(USDA/APHIS, 2015). Virtually all U.S. sugarbeet farmers currently cultivate GE HT sugarbeets.

Table 8

Deregulation of GE HT sugarbeets

Petitioner Event GE Trait Date Deregulated

AgrEvo T120-7 Phosphinothricin tolerant April 28, 1998

Novartis Seeds and 

Monsanto GTSB77 Glyphosate tolerant Decemeber 23, 1998

Monsanto and KWS 

SAAT AG H7-1 Glyphosate tolerant March 04, 2005

Monsanto and KWS 

SAAT AG H7-1 Glyphosate tolerant Febreary 8, 2011(Partial)

Monsanto and KWS 

SAAT AG H7-1 Glyphosate tolerant July 20, 2012

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service with data from APHIS (USDA/APHIS, 2015)

23Sugarbeets do not flower until the second year of their life-cycle. Under the conditions of the partial deregulation 

decision, all GE sugarbeets would be harvested after the first year of production.
15

The Adoption of Genetically Engineered Alfalfa, Canola, and Sugarbeets in the United States

Economic Research Service/USDA

Adoption of GE HT Sugarbeets

Demand for GE HT sugarbeets was very low immediately following their deregulation in 1998 

(Cowan and Alexander, 2013). In 2006, large-scale field trials were conducted in Idaho to demonstrate the effectiveness of GE HT sugarbeet-based production systems (ISAAA, 2007). Additional 

demonstrations were held in Wyoming and Michigan in 2007. The success of these demonstrations 

encouraged producers to mass-produce GE HT sugarbeet seedlings. In 2008, over 60 percent of 

harvested sugarbeet acreage was planted with GE HT seeds. By 2009, adoption rates had risen to 95 

percent (figure 6).

ARMS data indicate that 99.9 percent of harvested sugarbeet acres were planted using GE HT seeds 

in 2013.24 This is consistent with ISAAA’s estimate of 98.5 percent (ISAAA, 2014b).

Economic Effects of Adopting GE HT Sugarbeets

HT sugarbeet adoption has been reported to increase root yields by 4-18 percent (Kniss, 2010; 

Nichterlein et al., 2013). Adoption appears to reduce herbicide and labor costs by approximately $43/

acre and $95/acre, respectively. The net impact of these benefits is an estimated $96 to $224/acre 

(Kniss, 2010; Lee, 2014).

24The lower bound on a 95% confidence interval is 99.59%; the upper bound is 100%.

Figure 6

Adoption of genetically engineered herbicide-tolerant (GE HT) sugarbeet

Sources: USDA, Economic Research Service using data from USDA's Agricultural Statistics (USDA/NASS 2012) and 

Acreage (USDA/NASS, 2013, 2014) for total planted and harvested acres. Data for GE HT share of planted acreage are 

from ISAAA (2007, 2011, 2013b), Brookes and Barfoot (2014), and Johnson et al. (2008). Data for GE HT share of 

harvested acreage (for 2013) are from the 2013 phase III of the Agricultural Resource Management Survey (ARMS).

Thousand acres Percent GE HT

GE HT acreage

Non GE HT acreage

GE HT share of planted acreage

GE HT share of harvested acres (ARMS)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Left axis Right axis
16

The Adoption of Genetically Engineered Alfalfa, Canola, and Sugarbeets in the United States

Economic Research Service/USDA

Conclusions 

Rapeseed did not become a widespread food source for humans and animals until Canadian scientists developed edible varieties of rapeseed, known as canola, using conventional breeding techniques in the 1970s. Genetically engineered, herbicide-tolerant canola was adopted rapidly after it 

was commercialized in 1999. Data from the 2013 ARMS show that approximately 95 percent of the 

1.3 million acres of canola grown in the United States consists of GE HT varieties.

Despite legal challenges that delayed the commercialization of GE HT alfalfa and sugarbeets, U.S. 

farmers have adopted these seeds rapidly in recent years. GE HT sugarbeets were deregulated in 

1998. However, these seeds were not widely distributed until 2007. By 2008, over 60 percent of 

sugarbeet acreage was produced using GE HT seeds. An analysis of 2013 ARMS data suggests that 

over 99 percent of the 1.2 million acres of sugarbeets harvested in 2013 were planted using GE HT 

seeds.

Approximately 13 percent of U.S. alfalfa acreage was planted (including newly seeded acres plus 

acres planted in previous years) using GE seeds in 2013. Since alfalfa is a perennial that is seeded 

approximately once every 7 years, only a fraction (about one-seventh) of the alfalfa acreage is newly 

seeded each year. There were about 810,000 acres newly seeded with GE HT alfalfa in 2013 out of a 

total of 2.5 million newly seeded alfalfa acres (table 2). This implies that nearly one-third of newly 

seeded alfalfa acreage was genetically engineered in 2013. Our analysis of the ARMS data suggests 

that farmers who planted GE HT alfalfa seeds had higher yields than farmers who planted conventional seeds. On average, adopters’ yields were 0.53 ton per acre (approximately 17 percent) higher 

than the yields of other farmers.

Adoption rates for the first GE crops (corn, cotton, and soybeans) were rapid, and the adoption rates 

for GE canola and sugarbeets increased just as quickly. As of 2013, 90 percent of corn, 90 percent 

of cotton, 93 percent of soybeans, 93 percent of canola, and 98 percent of sugarbeets were produced 

using genetically engineered seeds. Adoption rates for GE HT alfalfa appear to be increasing 

quickly, but it is unclear if this trend will persist.

Currently, seed companies are conducting research to produce new varieties of genetically engineered corn, soybeans, cotton, alfalfa, canola, sugarbeets, wheat, sorghum, cucumbers, tomatoes, 

potatoes, and many other grains, fruits, and vegetables. If this trend continues, it seems likely that 

many crops will eventually be produced using seeds that have been genetically engineered.
17

The Adoption of Genetically Engineered Alfalfa, Canola, and Sugarbeets in the United States

Economic Research Service/USDA

References

Belson, N.A. 2000. “U.S. Regulation of Agricultural Biotechnology: An Overview.” AgBioForum

3(4): 268-280. http://www.agbioforum.org

Brookes, G. and P. Barfoot. 2014. “GM Crops: Global Socio-Economic and Environmental Impacts 

1996-2012.” Dorchester: PG Economics Ltd.

Canola Council of Canada. 2014. Estimated Percentages of HT and Conventional Canola. Markets 

and Statistics. http://www.canolacouncil.org/markets-stats/statistics/estimated-acreage-andpercentage/ Accessed July 17, 2015.

Canola Council of Canada. 2016. http://www.canolacouncil.org/oil-and-meal/what-is-canola/ 

Accessed February 24, 2016.

Center for Food Safety, Organic Seed Alliance, Sierra Club, and High Mowing Organic Seeds v. 

Vilsack and Smith. 2013. No. C 08-00484 JSW. Downloadable at: http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/

datastore/opinions/2013/05/17/12-15052.pdf. Accessed May 20, 2015.

Cornell Cooperative Extension. 2002. Genetically Engineered Foods: Canola. Fifth in a series 

from the Genetically Engineered Organisms Public Issues Education (GEO-PIE) Project. 

Downloadable at: https://scholarworks.iupui.edu/bitstream/handle/1805/808/GE%20canola.

pdf?sequence=1

Accessed February 11, 2016.

Cowan, T. 2011. “Agricultural Biotechnology: Background and Recent Issues.” Congressional 

Research Service Report for Congress RL32809. Downloadable at: http://www.justlabelit.org/

wp-content/uploads/2011/09/CRS%20Agricultural_Biotechnology2011.pdf . Accessed May 27, 

2015.

Cowan, T. and K. Alexander. 2013. “Deregulating Genetically Engineered Alfalfa and Sugar Beets: 

Legal and Administrative Responses.” Congressional Research Service Report for Congress

R41395. Downloadable at: https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41395.pdf . Accessed June 9, 2015.

Dixon, P., D. Cash, J. Kincheloe, and J. Tanner. 2005. Establishing a Successful Alfalfa Crop.

Publication MT 200504 AG, Montana State University Extension Service, Bozeman, Montana.

Dubman, R. 2000. “Variance estimation with USDA’s farm costs and return surveys and agricultural 

resource management surveys.” Staff paper no. AGES 00-01. Resource Economics Division, 

Economic Research Service, USDA.

Fernandez-Cornejo, J., and W.D. McBride. 2002. Adoption of Bioengineered Crops. AER-810, 

Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, May.

Fernandez-Cornejo, J., S. Wechsler, M. Livingston, and L. Mitchell. 2014. Genetically Engineered 

Crops in the United States, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, 

ERR-162, Feb.
18

The Adoption of Genetically Engineered Alfalfa, Canola, and Sugarbeets in the United States

Economic Research Service/USDA

Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). 2013. Crop Water Information: Alfalfa” In FAO Water. 

Downloadable at: http://www.fao.org/nr/water/cropinfo_alfalfa.html. Accessed June 5, 2015.

Information Systems for Biotechnology (ISB). 2015. Search Biotechnology Data. Downloadable at: 

http://www.isb.vt.edu/data.aspx Accessed May 20, 2015.

International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA). 2006. Global Status 

of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2006. ISAAA Brief 35-2006: Executive Summary. 

Downloadable at: https://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/briefs/35/executivesummary/

default.html. Accessed December 12, 2014.

International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA). 2007. Global Status 

of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2007. ISAAA Brief 37-2007. Downloadable at: http://

www.isaaa.org/RESOURCES/publications/briefs/37/download/isaaa-brief-37-2007.pdf. Accessed 

June 9, 2015.

International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA). 2011. Global Status 

of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2011. ISAAA Brief 43-2011. Downloadable at: http://

www.isaaa.org/RESOURCES/publications/briefs/37/download/isaaa-brief-43-2011.pdf. Accessed 

June 9, 2015.

International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA). 2013a. Biotech 

Crop Annual Updates 2013: Alfalfa. Downloadable at: https://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/biotech_crop_annual_update/download/biotech-crop-annual-update-alfalfa.pdf. Accessed 

June 3, 2015.

International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA). 2013b. Global 

Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2013. ISAAA Brief 46 (Clive James, Founder and 

Emeritus Chair of ISAAA).

International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA). 2014a. Biotech 

Crop Annual Updates 2014: Alfalfa. Downloadable at: https://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/biotech_crop_annual_update/download/biotech-crop-annual-update-alfalfa.pdf . Accessed 

June 3, 2015.

International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA). 2014b. Global 

Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2014. ISAAA Brief 49 (Clive James, Founder and 

Emeritus Chair of ISAAA).

 Johnson, S., K. Grillo, and S. Strom. 2008. “Quantification of the impacts on US agriculture 

of biotechnology-derived crops planted in 2006.” Downloadable at: http://www.ncfap.org/

documents/2007biotech_report/Quantification_of_the_Impacts_on_US_Agriculture_of_

Biotechnology_Executive_Summary.pdf Accessed May 20, 2015.

Jurenas, R. 2007. “Background on Sugar Policy Issues.” SRS Issue Brief for Congress. Washington, 

DC: Congressional Research Service, The Library of Congress. Downloadable at: http://nationalaglawcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/assets/crs/RL33541.pdf. Accessed May 20, 2015.

James, C. 2000. Global Status of Commercialized Transgenic Crops: ISAAA Brief No 17. Ithaca, 

NY.
19

The Adoption of Genetically Engineered Alfalfa, Canola, and Sugarbeets in the United States

Economic Research Service/USDA

Kniss, A. 2010. “Comparison of Conventional and Glyphosate-Resistant Sugarbeet the Year of 

Commercial Introduction in Wyoming.” Journal of Sugarbeet Research 47(3&4): 127-134.

Lee, B., J. Ritten, A. Kniss, and C. Bastian. 2014. “Profitability Comparison for GlyphosateResistant and Conventional Sugarbeet Production Systems.” Journal of Sugarbeet Research 

51(1&2): 2-13.

Livingston, M., J. Fernandez-Cornejo, J. Unger, C. Osteen, D. Schimmelpfennig, T. Park, and D. 

Lambert. 2015. The Economics of Glyphosate Resistance Management in Corn and Soybean 

Production, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, ERR-184, April.

Nichterlein, H., A. Matzk, L. Kordas, J. Kraus, C. Stibbe. 2013. “Yield of glyphosate-resistant sugar 

beets and efficiency of weed management systems with glyphosate and conventional herbicides 

under German and Polish crop production.” Transgenic Research 22: 725-736.

Oeschger, T., D. Schweikhardt, and S. Thornsbury. 2011. “Regulation of Glyphosate-Resistant Sugar 

Beets: Challenges and Uncertainty.” Choices 26(3): 1-6.

Putnam, D.H., W. Matthews, and D.A. Summer. 2013. “Hay Export of the Western States Have 

Increased Dramatically.” Alfalfa and Forage News. November 1. Downloadable at: http://ucanr.

edu/blogs/blogcore/postdetail.cfm?postnum=11947 Accessed June 8.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2012. U.S. Census of Agriculture, National Agricultural 

Statistics Service. Downloadable at: http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/ Accessed 

August 2015.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). 

1999. Novartis Seeds and Monsanto Co.: Availability of Determination of Nonregulated Status 

for Sugar Beet Genetically Engineered for Glyphosate Herbicide Tolerance. Downloadable at: 

https://www.aphis.usda.gov/brs/aphisdocs2/98_17301p_com.pdf. Accessed July 13, 2016.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). 

2010a. Glyphosate-Tolerant Alfalfa Events J101 and J163: Request for Nonregulated Status. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement—December 2010. Downloadable at: http://www.aphis.

usda.gov/biotechnology/downloads/alfalfa/gt_alfalfa%20_feis.pdf Accessed May 27, 2015.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). 

2010b. “Changes in the Economics of Alfalfa Farming with Deregulation of Glyphosate -Tolerant 

Alfalfa.” Appendix K of Glyphosate-Tolerant Alfalfa Events J101 and J163: Request for 

Nonregulated Status. Final Environmental Impact Statement. Dec.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). 

2015. “Petitions for Determination of Nonregulated Status.” Downloadable at: http://www.aphis.

usda.gov/biotechnology/petitions_table_pending.shtml Accessed May 20, 2015.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Economic Research Service (ERS). 2016a. “Table 1 – 

World production, supply, and distribution, centrifugal sugar.” Downloadable at: http://www.ers.

usda.gov/data-products/sugar-and-sweeteners-yearbook-tables.aspx#25440. Accessed June 16, 

2016.
20

The Adoption of Genetically Engineered Alfalfa, Canola, and Sugarbeets in the United States

Economic Research Service/USDA

U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Economic Research Service (ERS). 2016b. Sugars & 

Sweeteners, Background. Downloadable at: http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/crops/sugar-sweeteners/background.aspx Accessed June 16, 2016.

U.S. Dept. of Agriculture (USDA), National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). 2012. 

Agricultural Statistics. http://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/Ag_Statistics/2012/ Accessed 

May 27, 2015.

U.S. Dept. of Agriculture (USDA), National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). 2014. Acreage. 

June 30, 2014. Downloadable at: http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/Acre//2010s/2014/

Acre-06-30-2014.pdf . Accessed May 29, 2015.

U.S. Dept. of Agriculture (USDA), National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). 2014a. Charts 

and Maps. Downloadable at: http://www.nass.usda.gov/Charts_and_Maps/Crops_County/al-ha.

php.Accessed May 29, 2015.

U.S. Det. of Agriculture (USDA), National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). 2014b. Crop 

Production: 2013 Summary. Jan. Downloadable at: http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/

CropProdSu//2010s/2014/CropProdSu-01-10-2014.pdf. Accessed June 10, 2016.

U.S. Dept. of Agriculture (USDA), National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). 2015a. Crop 

Values: 2014 Summary. Feb. Downloadable at: http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/

CropValuSu//2010s/2015/CropValuSu-02-24-2015_correction.pdf. Accessed June 1, 2015.

U.S. Dept. of Agriculture (USDA), National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). 2015b. 

Acreage Released June 30, 2015. Downloadable at: http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/

Acre//2010s/2015/Acre-06-30-2015.pdf. Accessed February 26, 2016.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2003. EPA’s Regulation of Biotechnology for Use 

in Pest Management. Downloadable at:

https://www.epa.gov/regulation-biotechnology-under-tsca-and-fifra/epas-regulation-biotechnology-use-pest-management. June 20, 2015.

Van Deynze, A., D.H. Putnam, S. Orloff, T. Lanini, and M. Canevari. 2004. “Roundup Ready 

Alfalfa: An Emerging Technology.” Agriculture Biotechnology in California, Technical report. 

University of California, Davis. http://anrcatalog.ucdavis.edu/pdf/8153.pdf

Wilson, R. 2007 Economic and Efficacy Evaluation of Roundup Ready ® and Conventional Alfalfa 

at Scottsbluff, Nebraska during the 2007 Growing Season. http://panhandle.unl.edu/c/document_library/get_file?folderId=490838&name=DLFE-15802.pdf

Yueago, H. and D. Cash. 2009. “Global status and development trends of alfalfa.” In: Cash, D. eds. 

Alfalfa management guide for Ningxia (TCP/CPR/3104). Chapter 1. United Nations Food and 

Agriculture Organization (FAO), Beijing, pp. 1- 14.
21

The Adoption of Genetically Engineered Alfalfa, Canola, and Sugarbeets in the United States

Economic Research Service/USDA

Appendix: Data 

Primary data source

The primary source of data for this report was Phase III of USDA’s 2013 Agricultural Resource 

Management Survey (ARMS). This multiphase, multiframe, stratified, probability-weighted survey 

is managed jointly by USDA’s Economic Research Service and the National Agricultural Statistics 

Service (NASS). Surveys of farmers are conducted in three phases. Phase I is a screening questionnaire used to verify that respondents meet certain criteria. Phase II, which is conducted during the 

fall of the reference year, is a field-level survey that solicits information about a few specific major 

crops. Phase III, which is conducted in the winter following the reference year, is a whole farm-level 

survey that solicits information about revenues and expenses, as well as other financial and demographic information. Data from the Phase III survey were used here to estimate adoption rates for 

GE alfalfa, canola, and sugarbeets.

NASS uses a stratified sampling strategy to improve the reliability of estimates based on ARMS. 

Sample-selection probabilities vary by farm size, geographic area, and the commodities produced. 

For example, larger operations are more likely to be sampled than smaller operations. Population 

estimates are produced by weighting sample observations to account for their probability of selection in the sample. Weights support estimates of national totals of farm assets, debt, expense, and 

income.

Phase II of ARMS does not cover alfalfa, canola, or sugarbeets. Phase III solicits information about 

the number of harvested acres for various major crops (including alfalfa, canola, and sugarbeets), but 

it normally does not distinguish whether the crops were grown from conventional or GE seeds. For 

this reason, ERS researchers added questions to the 2013 Phase III survey that asked respondents 

how many acres had been harvested from acres planted using genetically engineered (GE) herbicidetolerant (HT) seed varieties for alfalfa, canola, and sugarbeets.

ARMS weights are calibrated for some crops (including harvested acres of corn, cotton, soybeans, 

and wheat). However, the weights are not calibrated for alfalfa, canola, or sugarbeets. Therefore, 

estimates for these crops may not necessarily match the underlying population.

Several empirical issues had to be resolved before the ARMS data could be analyzed. For instance, 

some producers chose not to respond to questions about GE harvested acreage even though they 

reported total harvested acres. A few others indicated that they used seeds that had not been 

commercially introduced or entered values in two or more cells that did not sum to total acres 

reported on the harvested acres table. In these cases, we took a conservative approach and dropped 

the observations that contained problematic data. After applying this selection criteria, there were 

1,411 observations for alfalfa (appendix table 1), 22 for canola, and 44 for sugarbeets. Our estimates 

of GE adoption rates for alfalfa, canola, and sugarbeets are consistent with estimates produced using 

other sources.
22

The Adoption of Genetically Engineered Alfalfa, Canola, and Sugarbeets in the United States

Economic Research Service/USDA

Other data sources

Other data sources include publications by the International Service for the Acquisition of AgriBiotech Applications (ISAAA, 2006, 2007, 2011, 2013a,b, 2014a,b), the 2012 Census of Agriculture 

(USDA, 2012), and other USDA data sources (USDA/NASS, 2014, 2014a, 2015, 2015a).25

Additional details on these data sources are provided under each of the figures and tables.

Appendix table 1

Share of U.S. acreage that is genetically engineered, herbicide-tolerant (GE HT) alfalfa, 

by State, 2013

State Percent GE HT Percent Non-GE HT Observations

California 13.6% 86.4% 52

Colorado 28.5% 71.5% 17

Idaho 13.5% 86.5% 18

Illinois 17.2% 82.8% 55

Indiana 10.6% 89.4% 86

Iowa 5.6% 94.4% 125

Kansas 22.4% 77.6% 74

Michigan 10.6% 89.4% 54

Minnesota 11.2% 88.8% 143

Missouri 14.8% 85.2% 43

Montana 0.1% 99.9% 45

Nebraska 5.1% 94.9% 92

Nevada 22.1% 77.9% 20

New York 37.2% 62.8% 18

Ohio 16.2% 83.8% 23

Pennsylvania 10.4% 89.6% 36

South Dakota 15.2% 84.8% 31

Utah 6.3% 93.7% 34

Washington 30.0% 70.0% 40

Wisconsin 11.9% 88.1% 325

Other States 80

National 13.5% 86.5% 1411

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service with data from 2013 ARMS

25ISAAA is a non-profit organization whose donors include: Cornell University, the International Food Policy Research Institute, the US Department of Agriculture, the US Department of State, and the US Agency for International 

Development.