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

Agriculture

COLOR CODING
GreenRanked first for statistic
RedRanked last for statistic
 Organic farming land use, %Transgenic farming land use, %Nitrogen balance per hectareAgricultural land useArable land usePesticide usage rates
Australia8.771.472047.66.00.75
Canada1.8325.74286.94.81.45
Denmark8.64banned8062.256.00.71
France6.29banned5252.533.73.90
Germany8.21banned8248.034.03.80
Italy15.39banned6644.022.46.45
Japan0.22banned17812.311.511.85
Netherlands3.04banned19954.530.79.86
Norway4.72banned1062.72.21.01
Sweden18.81377.56.30.72
United Kingdom2.90banned8770.824.82.93
United States0.5946.132844.416.62.42

SOURCES

Organic farming land use: Research Institute of Organic Agriculture FiBL

Organic area share of total farmland (%). 2017.

Percent of arable land used to farm Genetically Modified plants.
Countries with bans on GMO crop cultivation noted as such. 2015.
Open field trials for GMOs are allowed in Sweden with restrictions in over 40 GMO free zones.

No statistic for national transgenic farming land use was found.

Nitrogen balance per hectare: OECD, Nutrient balance

2015-2016 except for Canada (2017). All measurements in Kg/ha.

Agricultural land use: World Bank

As a percent of land use, 2015.

Arable land use: World Bank

As a percent of land use, 2015.

Pesticide usage rates: ourworldindata.org

Kg/ha. 2014 except for Canada (2012), United States (2007) and Australia (2006).

Agricultural subsidies score

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

NOTES

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

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

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

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