Publications: ISAAA Briefs

No. 23 - 2001

Global Review of Commercialized Transgenic Crops: 2000

Clive James
Chair, ISAAA Board of Directors


Published by: The International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA). Ithaca, New York 
Copyright: (2001) International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA) 
Reproduction of this publication for educational or other noncommercial purposes is authorized without prior permission from the copyright holder, provided the source is properly acknowledged.
Reproduction for resale or other commercial purposes is prohibited without the prior written permission from the copyright holder.
Correct Citation: James, C. 2001. Global Status of Commercialized Transgenic Crops: 2000. ISAAA Briefs No. 23. ISAAA: Ithaca, NY
ISBN: 1-892456-27-3
Publication Orders:

Please contact the ISAAA SEAsiaCenter, write to, or order online.

ISAAA SEAsiaCenter
c/o IRRI
DAPO Box 7777
Metro Manila, The Philippines




Executive Summary


List of Tables and Figures


1.   Introduction


2.   Overview of Global Status and Distribution of Commercial Transgenic Crops,  1996 to 2000




Executive Summary



This publication is the fifth in a series of ISAAA Briefs, which characterize the global adoption of commercialized transgenic crops. A global database for the first five-year period for GM crops, 1996 to 2000, is presented and 2000 data is analyzed globally, and by country, crop and trait. Data on the global status of transgenic crops are complemented with commentaries on relevant key topics including: the value of the transgenic seed market in the context of the global crop protection and seed markets; status of regulation in Europe; a review of alliances, acquisitions and activities in the biotechnology industry; a review of selected highlights featuring transgenic crops during the last year, and an assessment of the broadening political and institutional support for GM crops globally; an overview of the attributes and economic benefits/advantages associated with transgenic crops and finally some concluding comments about the future.


The critics of biotechnology have always been skeptical about the ability of transgenic crops, more familiarly known as genetically modified (GM) crops, to deliver improved crop varieties that can impact on production and quality of crops at the farm level. The critics have been even more skeptical about the appropriateness of transgenic crops for the developing world, particularly their ability to meet the needs of small resource-poor farmers. It is encouraging to witness that the early promises of crop biotechnology are continuing to meet expectations of large and small farmers in both industrial and developing countries. In 2000, 3.5 million small and large farmers from industrial and developing countries grew and benefited significantly from the 44.2 million hectares of GM crops. As expected, global area planted to transgenic crops started to plateau in 1999 and this has continued in 2000 reflecting the unprecedented high adoption rates to-date; for example, GM soybean in Argentina now occupies more than 90% of the national soybean area and GM cotton more than 70% of the cotton area in the US. Of the total global area (conventional and transgenic) of 271 million hectares planted to soybean, canola, cotton and corn in 2000, 16%, equivalent to 44.2 million hectares, were planted with transgenic varieties. These 44.2 million hectares of transgenic crops grown globally are unprecedented, and equivalent to almost twice the total land area of the United Kingdom (24.4 million hectares). The global area of transgenic crops in 2000, comprised 36% of the 72 million hectares of soybeans planted globally, 16% of the 34 million hectares of cotton, 11% of the 25 million hectares of canola and 7% of the 140 million hectares of corn. Millions of farmers in 15 different industrial and developing countries around the world have made independent decisions after evaluating their first plantings of transgenic crops in 1996. Subsequently, the area of transgenic crops increased by an unprecedented multiple of more than 25-fold – this speaks volumes for the confidence and trust farmers have placed in transgenic crops. In China alone, within a short period of a few years, 3.0 million small resource-poor farmers have embraced Bt cotton in 2000 after witnessing at first hand in their own fields, the significant and multiple benefits Bt cotton can deliver.




Distribution of GM Crops


Between 1996 and 2000, a cumulative total of fifteen countries, 10 industrial and 5 developing, have contributed to more than a twenty-five fold increase in the global area of transgenic crops from 1.7 million hectares in 1996 to 44.2 million hectares in 2000. The accumulated area of transgenic crops planted in the five-year period 1996 to 2000 totals 125 million hectares, equivalent to more than 300 million acres. In 2000, a total of 13 countries, 8 industrial and 5 developing countries, grew GM crops. Adoption rates for transgenic crops are unprecedented and are the highest for any new technologies by agricultural industry standards. High adoption rates reflect grower satisfaction with the products that offer significant benefits ranging from more convenient and flexible crop management, higher productivity and/or net returns per hectare, and a safer environment through decreased use of conventional pesticides, which collectively contribute to a more sustainable agriculture. The major changes in area and global share of transgenic crops for the respective countries, crops and traits, between 1999 and 2000 were related to the following factors:

  • In 2000, the global area of transgenic crops increased by 11%, or 4.3 million hectares, to 44.2 million hectares, from 39.9 million hectares in 1999.  Eight transgenic crops were grown commercially in 13 countries in 2000, three of which, Bulgaria, Germany and Uruguay, grew transgenic crops for the first time. Two countries, Portugal and Ukraine, which grew small introductory areas in 1999 did not report transgenic crops in 2000.  

  • The four principal countries that grew the majority of transgenic crops in 2000 were USA 30.3 million hectares (68% of the global area); Argentina 10.0 million hectares (23%), Canada 3.0 million hectares (7%); China 0.5 million hectares (1%); the balance was grown in South Africa, Australia, Romania, Mexico, Bulgaria, Spain, Germany, France, and Uruguay. The highest growth in transgenic crop area between 1999 and 2000 was reported for Argentina (3.3 million hectares), followed by USA (1.6 million hectares), with China and South Africa with 0.2 and 0.1 million hectares respectively. A decrease of 1 million hectares was estimated for Canada due mainly to less national area planted to canola.

  • For the first time in the last five years, growth in area of transgenic crops between 1999 and 2000 in the developing countries exceeded, by more than 5 times, the area growth in transgenic crops in industrial countries (3.6 million hectares versus 0.7 million hectares). Of the 4.3 million hectares global growth in 2000, 3.6 million hectares, equivalent to 84% were in the developing countries.

  • In terms of crops, soybean contributed the most to global growth of transgenic crops, equivalent to 4.2 million hectares between 1999 and 2000, followed by cotton with an increase of 1.6 million hectares. GM corn and canola decreased by 0.8 and 0.6 million hectares respectively because of decreases in USA and Canada, which were partly offset by increases in transgenic corn in developing countries.

  • There were three noteworthy developments in terms of traits: herbicide tolerance contributed the most (4.6 million hectares) to global growth between 1999 and 2000; the stacked genes of insect resistance and herbicide tolerance in both corn and cotton contributed 0.3 million hectares, with insect resistance decreasing by 0.6 million hectares.

  • Of the 4 major transgenic crops grown in 12 countries in 2000, the two principal crops, soybean and corn represented 59% and 23% respectively for a total of 82% of the global transgenic area, with the remaining 18% shared between cotton (12%) and canola (6%).

  • In 2000, herbicide tolerant soybean was the most dominant transgenic crop (59% of global transgenic area, compared with 54% in 1999), followed by insect resistant corn (15% compared with 19% in 1999), herbicide tolerant canola (6%), herbicide tolerant corn and herbicide tolerant cotton, both at 5%, Bt/herbicide tolerant cotton at 4%, and Bt cotton and Bt/herbicide tolerant corn both at 3%.

  • The combined effect of the above seven factors resulted in a global area of transgenic crops in 2000 that was 4.3 million hectares greater and 11% more than 1999; this is a significant year-on-year increase considering the high percentage of the principal crops already planted to transgenics in 1999.



Value of the GM Crop Seed Market and Industry Developments


The value of the global market for transgenic seed has grown rapidly from $1 million in 1995, to $ 156 million in 1996, $ 858 million in 1997, $ 1,970 million in 1998, $ 2,947 million in 1999 and an estimated $ 3,044 million in 2000.


The pace of biotechnology investments in industry, which is a concern to some, slowed in 2000.  One of the features of industry changes was the spinning-off of agbiotech divisions from life science companies with a view to merging with like-divisions from other life science companies to create the necessary critical mass. Most corporations have already undergone substantial restructuring, and completed spin-offs and mergers. Investments in plant genomics continue to grow and are of pivotal importance for future growth. It is critically important that the public sector and international development institutions, in both industrial and developing countries, invest in the new technologies to ensure equitable access and benefits from the enormous potential that transgenic crops offer in terms of increased productivity, more nutritious food and global food security. It is vital that the public sector and the private sector forge partnerships that will allow the comparative advantages of both parties to be optimized to achieve the mutual objective of global food security. The most compelling case for biotechnology is its potential contribution to global food security and the alleviation of poverty and hunger in the Third World.




GM Crop Highlights


Global highlights for transgenic crops during the last year or so are discussed under six topics:

  • Status of approvals for commercialization of transgenic crops

  • Biosafety

  • Food-feed import regulations

  • Genome sequencing of rice Arabidopsis and Agrobacterium tumefaciens

  • Sharing of proprietary transgenic technology with developing countries

Selected highlights re transgenic crops including a summary of the recent set of six papers published by the US National Academy of Sciences that provides reassuring evidence that the widely publicized claim by critics that the Monarch butterfly was being threatened by Bt corn, proved to be unfounded.


Statements and reports by politicians, policy makers, national programs and organizations that reflect a broadening political and institutional support for crop biotechnology and a recognition of its increasingly important contribution to global food security and a more sustainable agriculture.




Attributes and Benefits of GM Crops


The unprecedented rapid adoption of transgenic crops during the five-year period 1996 to 2000 reflects the significant multiple benefits realized by large and small farmers in the 15 industrial and developing countries that have grown transgenic crops commercially. There is a growing body of convincing evidence that clearly demonstrates the improved weed and insect pest control attainable with transgenic herbicide tolerant and insect resistant Bt crops, that also benefit from lower input and production costs; GM crops offer significant economic advantages to farmers compared with corresponding conventional crops. The severity of weed and insect pests varies from year to year and hence this will directly impact on pest control costs and economic advantage. Despite the on-going debate on GM crops, particularly in countries of the European Union, millions of large and small farmers in both industrial and developing countries continue to increase their plantings of GM crops because of the significant multiple benefits they offer. This high adoption rate is a strong vote of confidence in GM crops, reflecting grower satisfaction. Several studies have confirmed that farmers planting herbicide tolerant and insect resistant Bt crops are more efficient in managing their weed and insect pests.


More specifically the use of transgenic crops results in:

  • more sustainable and resource-efficient crop management practices that require less energy and fuel and conserve natural resources.  

  • more effective control of insect pests and weeds.

  • a reduction in the overall amount of pesticides used in crop production, which impacts positively on biodiversity, protects predators and non target organisms, and the environment.

  • less dependency on conventional pesticides that can be a health hazard to producers and consumers; the potential health benefits associated with fewer pesticide poisonings from Bt cotton in China is an important finding, with significant implications for other developing countries where small farmers in particular may be at similar risk from heavy and over-use of conventional pesticides.

  • Bt maize which has reduced levels of the fumonisin mycotoxin in maize grain which provides safer and healthier food and feed products.

  • greater operational flexibility in timing of herbicide and insecticide applications.

  • conservation of soil moisture, structure, nutrients and control of soil erosion through no or low-tillage practices as well as improved quality of ground and surface water with less pesticide residues.

  • improved pest control, lower cost of production  and improved yields all contribute to a greater economic advantage to farmers who utilize the technology to develop more sustainable farming systems.



Economic Advantages of GM Crops


There is an increasing body of compelling evidence that transgenic crops are delivering significant economic benefits and case studies are documented in this overview. The “global” economic advantage to farmers deploying herbicide tolerant (HT) soybean, Bt cotton, HT canola and Bt corn is estimated to be of the order of  $ 700 million in 1999, equally shared between developing and industrial countries; of the $710 million, approximately 60 % is derived from HT soybean, 30 % from Bt cotton, and 10 % from HT canola. The estimate of $ 710 million is intended to provide an order of magnitude assessment of the direct economic advantage to 2 million small and large farmers who planted 39.9 million hectares of transgenic crops in 1999; in addition to these direct economic advantages that farmers derive from transgenic crops, several studies have confirmed that there are also significant additional indirect benefits to others in society. For crops such as herbicide tolerant soybean, these indirect benefits to consumers globally can be of the same order of magnitude as the direct economic advantage of $ 700 million to farmers in 1999. Thus, the “global” direct and indirect economic advantage associated with the 39.9 million hectares of transgenic crops in 1999 is likely to be of the order of $ 1 billion or more. There is no evidence to support the perception of the critics of biotechnology that the transnational developers of transgenic crops are the sole or major beneficiaries from transgenic crops. On the contrary, studies to-date confirm that not only are farmers significant beneficiaries, but they are usually the major beneficiaries, taking on average from one-third to one-half of the total economic surplus generated by transgenic crops.


Finally, an important finding of the China Bt cotton study was that the smallest farmers, those farming less than 1 hectare, gained more than twice as much income per unit of land ($ 400 per hectare) from Bt cotton, as the larger farmers ($ 185 per hectare). This finding is important from an equity/distribution viewpoint and is deserving of further investigation for Bt cotton and other transgenic crops that offer promise to small resource poor farmers. It also has important implications in relation to the claim often made by critics of transgenic crops that they are inappropriate for small farmers. Indeed, by far the largest benefits reported to-date from the studies reviewed here have been for small farmers who can least afford the loss in yield due to pests, and stand to gain the most from increases in income and suffer less health hazards resulting from fewer applications of conventional insecticide.




The Future


An estimated 3.5 million farmers grew transgenic crops in 2000 and derived multiple benefits that included significant agronomic, environmental, health and economic advantages. In 2001 the number of farmers planting GM crops is expected to grow substantially to 5 million or more. Global area planted to transgenic crops is expected to continue to grow by 10% or more in 2001 despite the unprecedented high percentage of the principal crops already planted to transgenics in the USA, Argentina, Canada and China. In 2001, these top four countries are expected to report a further significant increase in the area of transgenic crops. The other ten countries growing transgenic crops in 2000 are expected to report modest growth in GM crop area, except France and Germany, which will probably continue to grow a small token area of Bt maize. South Africa is expected to continue to diversify and expand its portfolio of transgenic crops, with Australia approving and commercializing more traits in cotton. Indonesia will commercialize Bt cotton for the first time. India is progressing towards approval of Bt cotton which could occur in early 2002. The commercialization of herbicide tolerant soybean in Brazil will be dependent on resolving the outstanding issues between the Ministries of Agriculture, Environment and Justice. The commercialization of GM crops in India and Brazil will represent a watershed for developing countries in that the three most populous countries in Asia – China, India, and Indonesia with 2.5 billion people, as well as the three major economies of Latin America – Argentina, Mexico and Brazil, plus South Africa will then all be commercializing and benefiting from transgenic crops.


The issue that will modulate adoption of specific products in some countries in 2001 will be public acceptance, which drives market demand, regulation and commodity prices. These issues will be the factors that will impact on commercial planting of transgenic crops and consumption of genetically modified derived foods in countries of the European Union. However, progress is expected in the near- to mid-term in the countries of Eastern Europe which have advanced field tests in progress. Several countries in the developing world are expected to proceed with field trials of Bt cotton, which has already delivered substantial benefits to both small and large farmers in several countries, notably China where approximately 3 million small farmers derived significant benefits in 2000.


The shift from the current generation of “input” agronomic traits to the next generation of “output” quality traits, is expected to proceed slowly and will be modulated by national regulations and possibly the next round of negotiations at the World Trade Organization (WTO). With the acceptance of the first “quality” products, which will improve the nutritional value of food and feed products, significant value will be added to the GM crop market and it should provide a stimulus to de-commoditize grain and oil seed markets. This shift will not only serve to significantly increase  the value of the global transgenic crop market but will also broaden the beneficiary profile from growers to processors and consumers. Food products derived from transgenic crops that are healthier and more nutritious could impact on public acceptance, particularly in Europe.


Significant progress has been made in the first five-year period 1996 to 2000 with an accumulated area of 125 million hectares of transgenic crops planted in 15 industrial and developing countries. As new and novel products with input and output traits will become available for commercialization in the next five years, it is critical that these products be deployed in an integrated strategy in which both conventional and biotechnology applications are applied to attain the challenging goal of global food security. Adoption of such a strategy will allow society to continue to benefit from the vital contributions that both conventional and modern plant breeding offer. Biotechnology can play a critical role in achieving food security in the developing world in countries such as China, which has assigned high priority and a strategic value to biotechnology, and was the first country in the world to commercialize transgenic crops in the early 1990s. The experience of China, where 3.0 million small farmers benefited from planting Bt cotton in 2000, Argentina and South Africa should be shared with other countries in the developing world which face the same challenges.


Governments, supported by the global scientific and international development community, must ensure continued safe and effective testing and introduction of transgenic crops and implement regulatory programs that inspire public confidence. Leadership at the international level must be exerted by the international scientific community and development institutions to stimulate discussion and to share knowledge on transgenic crops with society. The public should be well informed and engaged in a dialog about the impact of the technology on the environment, food safety, sustainability and global food security. Societies in food surplus countries must ensure that access to biotechnology is not denied or delayed to developing countries seeking to access the new technologies in their quest for food security. After all, the most compelling case for biotechnology, more specifically transgenic crops, is their potential vital contribution to global food security and the alleviation of hunger in the Third World. In summary, we must ensure that society will continue to benefit from the vital contribution that plant breeding offers, using both conventional and biotechnology tools, because improved crop varieties are, and will continue to be the most cost-effective, environmentally safe, and sustainable way to ensure global food security in the future.


Shortly before this review went to press, two major events of global significance impacted on our continuing ability as a society to alleviate poverty and malnutrition. Following the terrorist attacks in the US on 11 September 2001, the World Bank predicted that poverty would increase with millions more people condemned to poverty in 2002. More specifically, the Bank predicts that global poverty will increase by 10 million more people in 2002. Developing country growth rates could be as low as 2.9% in 2001 compared with 5.5% in 2000. For 2002, lowered growth rates for developing countries in the range of 3.5 - 3.8 percent are projected, compared with the 4.3 percent prediction made before 11 September. Africa is expected to suffer most of the economic damage from the continued economic slowdown of industrial countries with an additional 2 million Africans surviving on less than $1 a day. Africa is judged to be particularly vulnerable because many African nations do not have the means to stabilize their economies when agricultural commodity prices, on which they are dependent, fall. Consequently “farmers, rural laborers, and others tied to agriculture will bear a major portion of the burden.” The Bank recommended that donor countries increase aid, reduce trade barriers for developing countries, and urged the donor community to coordinate its economic reform policies.




The Potential Role of the World Trade Organization (WTO)


The other major global event that will impact more directly on the contribution of transgenic crops to the alleviation of poverty and hunger in the developing countries is the World Trade Organization Meeting held in Doha, Qatar, 9 to 13 November 2001, with 142 members in attendance. It is noteworthy that China, a world leader in transgenic crops, was admitted as a member of WTO on 10 November 2001. China’s membership of WTO has many significant implications for its own future strategy on GM crops, but could also be pivotal for other developing and industrial countries committed to utilizing GM crops to achieve global food, feed and fiber security. Unlike the last WTO meeting in Seattle, this time the world’s major trading partners including the US and Europe have had pre-meeting exchanges to discuss a draft of a new trade agreement that addresses trade liberalization in agriculture and textiles which comprise 70% of exports from developing countries; the TRIPS agreement (Trade Related aspects of Intellectual Property rights) is also being reviewed, albeit in the context of public health and pharmaceuticals, but there may be some important implications for agriculture. This represents significant progress which brings hope to many developing countries which have suffered under the terms of the Uruguay round concluded in 1994.


WTO is a key international organization that can ensure that GM crops are accessible to those developing countries that seek to use them to alleviate poverty and hunger and achieve food security. In the new round of trade talks WTO should address the key issues that would facilitate the implementation of the principal recommendation of the well-received 2001 UNDP Human Development Report  -  to utilize biotechnology and information technology to alleviate poverty in developing countries. More specifically WTO can address several critical issues that impact on developing countries seeking to utilize biotechnology to achieve food security. The most urgent and important issues for WTO to address and remedy are:

  • Liberalization of agricultural trade. Abolishing all trade barriers could increase global income by $ 2.8 trillion over the next decade, with well over half of the benefits going to the poor. The World Bank has predicted that global trade liberalization could reduce the 1.3 billion people suffering from poverty today by 300 million to 1.0 billion by 2015. The removal or reduction of trade barriers in agriculture is assigned high priority by the US and developing countries. However, the European and Japanese continue to oppose freer trade in agriculture, particularly export subsidies, and are concerned that environmental issues are not receiving the attention they deserve.  Some observers interpret the European position on the environment as an indirect way of re-introducing protection policies for agriculture.

  • The establishment of an exemplary advisory body to provide direction and leadership in the implementation of WTO’s policy of basing all its decisions, re the use and transfer of transgenic material, on scientific fact and objective evidence – this is in stark contrast to the subjective decision-making of the Biosafety Protocol which requires no scientific justification for invoking the precautionary principle. Applying the precautionary principle to delay or deny access to transgenic crops to developing countries that seek to use them for food security clearly will increase rather than decrease the food security risk to the poor, hungry and malnourished in developing countries. The establishment of an advisory body by the WTO would seem appropriate at this time, particularly to align and rationalize decisions vis-ŕ-vis the contradictions in the Biosafety Protocol re the use and transfer of transgenic material.

  • Overseeing implementation of a TRIPS agreement that is equitable to all parties. The current WTO agreement on intellectual property rights (TRIPS) negotiated during the Uruguay round is a key issue and impacts directly on the deployment of transgenic crops in developing countries. The context of the current discussions on TRIPS will be in relation to pharmaceuticals and public health, however, there could be some important implications for agriculture. The US is reluctant to soften the TRIPS requirements but a group of developing countries, including South Africa, Brazil, and India are seeking an exemption to TRIPS for public health initiatives such as the control of AIDS. The renegotiated agreement on TRIPS could  have implications for the ease of access, deployment and trading of transgenic crops for developing countries, and the views of China as a new member and a lead country in GM crops could be pivotal.

As this review went to press, the latest and encouraging news from WTO, was that members had reached consensus on the Doha Development Agenda, with Africa in particular welcoming the agreement because of the potential for more open markets for exports. The most difficult issue to resolve was the EU farm subsidies which the EU agreed to phase out, provided that it does not “prejudice the outcome” of the negotiations. However, some developing countries voiced concern that the EU may use environmental restrictions to preclude the importation of GM products. Reaching a consensus on freer trade was very important because it will provide WTO with the necessary solidarity amongst members prior to addressing the outstanding and important issues that need to be resolved in relation to biotechnology, that offers the developing countries a unique opportunity for alleviating poverty and achieving food security.


List of Tables


Table 1 Global Area of Transgenic Crops, 1996 to 2000
Table 2 Global Area of Transgenic Crops in 1999 to 2000: Industrial and Developing Countries
Table 3 Global Area of Transgenic Crops in 1999 and 2000: by Country
Table 4 Global Area of Transgenic Crops in 1999 and 2000: by Crop
Table 5 Global Area of Transgenic Crops in 1999 and 2000: by Trait
Table 6 Dominant Transgenic Crops, 2000
Table 7 Transgenic Crop Area as % of Global Area of Principal Crops, 2000
Table 8 Estimated Value of the Global Transgenic Seed Market, 1995 to 2000
Table 9 Global Crop Protection Market in 2000: by Product (Value in $ millions)
Table 10 Value of Global Transgenic Crops in 2000: by Crop and Region (Value in $ millions)
Table 11 Global Crop Protection Market in 2000: by Region and Product (Value in $ millions)
Table 12 Global Crop Protection Market in 2000: by Country Expressed as Percentage of Total Market
Table 13 Global Crop Protection Market in 2000: by Crop ($ millions)
Table 14 Latest Estimated Values (US$ millions) of the Commercial Markets for Seed and Planting Material for the Top 20 Countries
Table 15 Selected Highlights of Crop Biotechnology Developments in Industry in 2000
Table 16 Summary of Pesticide Reductions for Selected Transgenic Crops in USA, China and Canada, 1998 to 2000
Table 17 Aggregate Impacts of Transgenic Bt Corn and Bt Cotton in the USA in 1998 and 1999: Increases in Production (metric tons)
Table 18 Summary of National Economic Advantages to Farmers Planting Transgenic Herbicide Tolerant (HT) Soybean in USA and Argentina, 1996-1999
Table 19 Summary of National Economic Advantages to Farmers Planting Transgenic Bt Cotton in USA, China and Argentina, 1996-1999
Table 20 Estimates of National Economic Advantages to Farmers Planting Herbicide Tolerant Canola in Canada, 1996-1999
Table 21 Estimates of National Economic Gains (Losses) to Farmers Planting Transgenic Bt Corn in USA, 1996-1999
Table 22 "Global" Economic Advantages to Farmers Growing HT Soybean, Bt Cotton, HT Canola and Bt Corn in 1999
Table 23 Distribution of Economic Surplus Associated with Transgenic Bt Cotton, HT Canola and Bt Corn in 1999
Table 24 Distribution of Economic Surplus Associated with Transgenic Herbicide Tolerant Soybean Planted in USA in 1997
Table 25 Distribution of Share of Economic Surplus from Transgenic Crops (expressed as %), for Different Stakeholders

List of Figures

Figure 1 Global Area of Transgenic Crops, 1996 to 2000
Figure 2 Global Area of Transgenic Crops, 1996 to 2000: Industrial and Developing Countries
Figure 3 Global Area of Transgenic Crops, 1996 to 2000: by Country
Figure 4 Global Area of Transgenic Crops, 1996 to 2000: by Crop
Figure 5 Global Area of Transgenic Crops, 1996 to 2000: by Trait
Figure 6 Global Area Adoption Rates (%) for Principal Transgenic Crops, 2000
Figure 7 European Corn Borer Densities in Illinois, 1943-2000