Environmental Management (2016) 57:31–48

DOI 10.1007/s00267-015-0589-7

Genetically Modified Herbicide-Tolerant Crops, Weeds,

and Herbicides: Overview and Impact
Sylvie Bonny1,2

Received: 12 April 2015 / Accepted: 4 August 2015 / Published online: 22 August 2015
 Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Abstract Genetically modified (GM) crops have been Keywords Agriculture
Transgenic crop
GMO impact

and continue to be a subject of controversy despite their Herbicide
Weed resistance
Economics
rapid adoption by farmers where approved. For the last two
decades, an important matter of debate has been their Abbreviations
impact on pesticide use, particularly for herbicide-tolerant APHIS USDA Animal and Plant Health
(HT) crops. Some claim that these crops bring about a Inspection Service
decrease in herbicide use, while others claim the opposite. BMPs Best management practices
In fact, since 1996, most cultivated GMOs have been GM Genetically modified
GMHT crops, which involve the use of an associated GMHT Genetically modified herbicide-tolerant
herbicide, generally glyphosate. In their very first years of GMGT Genetically modified glyphosate-tolerant
adoption, HT crops often led to some decrease in herbicide GR Glyphosate-resistant (for weeds)
use. However, the repetition of glyphosate-tolerant crops GT Glyphosate-tolerant (for crops)
and of glyphosate only applications in the same fields HR Herbicide-resistant (for weeds)
without sufficient alternation and herbicide diversity has HT Herbicide-tolerant (for crops)
contributed to the appearance of glyphosate-resistant USDA United States Department of Agriculture
weeds. These weeds have resulted in a rise in the use of USDA-ERS USDA Economic Research Service
glyphosate and other herbicides. This article explores this USDA-NASS USDA National Agricultural Statistics
situation and the impacts of herbicide-resistant weeds, Service
using an interdisciplinary approach and drawing on recent USEPA US Environmental Protection Agency
data. The paper analyzes the spread of GMHT crops USGS US Geological Survey
worldwide and their consequences on herbicide use in the
USA in particular. It then addresses the global development
of glyphosate-resistant weeds and their impact, particularly
focusing on the USA. Finally, the last section explores how
industry, farmers, and weed scientists are coping with the Introduction
spread of resistant weeds. The concluding comments deal
more widely with trends in GM crops. Since their beginnings, transgenic crops have been a sub-
ject of debate in spite of their quick adoption by farmers
where available. In a certain number of countries, part of
the population considers the approved GM crops as rather
& Sylvie Bonny
safe and useful for facing the agricultural and food chal-
bonny@grignon.inra.fr
lenges of the next decades (FAO 2004) and GMOs have
1
INRA, UMR210 Economie publique, 78850 Grignon, France been accepted; they were cultivated in 28 countries in 2014
2
AgroParisTech, UMR Economie publique, 78850 Grignon, (James 2014). At the same time, in other countries, many
France people see them as risky and unsustainable as regards many

123
32
environmental, health, and socio-economic aspects (Wiki-
pedia 2015a, b, c). In the last 20 years, almost all GM crops
have been herbicide tolerant (HT) or insect resistant, and
thus an important topic of debate has been their impact on
pesticide use. However, insect-resistant crops, which pro-
duce their own insecticide (generally Bt proteins), must be
differentiated from HT crops, which can withstand spray-
ing with certain non-selective herbicides aimed at elimi-
nating all weeds. Insect-resistant crops have generally led
to a decrease of previously used insecticides, while the
impact of HT crop varies and is more unclear (Fernandez-
Cornejo et al. 2014; Klümper and Qaim 2014). Further-
more, for the last 15 years, a new factor has fueled the
controversy: the development of weeds resistant to gly-
phosate, the weedkiller to which the majority of GM crops
have been made tolerant.
Admittedly, since the 1950s when weedkillers began to
be widely used, 245 herbicide-resistant (HR) weeds have
appeared over the years and many weed species have
developed resistance to different herbicides (Heap 1997,
2014, 2015). Hence weed resistance is not a new phe-
nomenon. However, GMHT crops are greatly affected by
glyphosate-resistant (GR) weeds, due to the high predom-
inance of glyphosate-tolerant crops since 1996. In addition,
glyphosate is by far the most widely used herbicide, also
widely applied on non-HT crops (Agrow 2014). Thus this
paper focuses mainly on glyphosate. Although there are
fewer weed species resistant to glyphosate today than there
are species resistant to some other herbicides, the impact of
GR weeds is substantial. Firstly, they can lead to an
increase in herbicide use and they can be a big problem for
farmers (Benbrook 2012, and data below). Moreover, if a
glyphosate-tolerant crop can no longer be weeded by gly-
phosate, the effectiveness of the method seems to be called
into question (Livingston et al. 2015). Hence, as glypho-
sate-tolerant crops have been the most widely cultivated for
the last 20 years (James 2014), many GMOs also seem to
be called into question. Glyphosate-tolerant crops have
often been described by their promoters and supporters as
having revolutionized farming and as having brought about
considerable agro-economic and environmental benefits.
Such benefits can now be challenged by the rise of GR
weeds.
‘‘The advent of biotechnology-derived, herbicide-re-
sistant crops has revolutionized farming practices in
many countries. (…) [It] has led to striking
advancements in agricultural crop management sys-
tems throughout the world. (…) The recent emer-
gence of weeds resistant to the herbicides used (…)
has prompted serious concerns regarding the long-
123
Environmental Management (2016) 57:31–48
term availability of the facile and economically
important weed control provided by current herbi-
cide-resistant crop plants. Also at risk is the greatly
expanded use of no-till or reduced-till planting pro-
cedures that are made possible by ‘‘burndown’’ of
weeds before planting of herbicide-resistant crops’’
(Behrens et al. 2007).
The evolution of resistant weeds has been highly
favored by GT crops, which have induced a repeated use of
glyphosate without sufficient alternation of weedkillers or
weeding practices. In a similar manner, many pests and
pathogens have developed resistance to pesticides and
drugs (Tabashnik et al. 2014). In early 2013, Bourguet
et al. noted:
‘‘Almost 8000 cases of resistance to 300 insecticide
compounds have been reported in more than 500
species of arthropods (…). Similarly, 300 cases of
field resistance to 30 fungicides have been reported in
250 species of phytopathogenic fungi (…). The sit-
uation is most critical for antibiotic resistance. (…)
The Antibiotic Resistance Genes Database (…) lists
more than 23,000 potential resistance genes of
approximately 400 types, conferring resistance to 250
antibiotics in 1,700 species of bacteria from 270
genera. Strains from highly pathogenic bacteria (…)
that are resistant to all known classes of antibiotic
have recently been described.’’
Therefore in several domains, it is urgent to sustain the
efficiency of the control methods and to prevent the
development of resistance in pests or bacteria.
The aim of this paper is thus to analyze in more depth
the importance of glyphosate-resistant weeds in relation
to GMHT crops, as well as their impact and the remedial
measures that the involved stakeholders are implementing
or looking for. Indeed, even though many papers in weed
science have studied herbicide-resistant weeds and even
though the media has sometimes mentioned this issue,
their real development and consequences are poorly
known, except by some specialists. After the introductory
section, the second part of this paper describes the
worldwide expansion of GMHT crops and some of its
outcome in terms of herbicide application, particularly in
the USA (2). The development of herbicide-resistant
weeds, notably glyphosate-resistant weeds, as well as
some of its side-effects is addressed in the third section
(3). The last section examines how the GM seed industry,
weed scientists, and farmers are coping with the increase
of weed resistance, and some resulting effects of their
actions (4).
Environmental Management (2016) 57:31–48
Links between herbicide-resistant weeds and herbicide-tolerant crops
To biotechnology promoters, herbicide-resistant weeds are only a
herbicide problem, not a GMO problem (Kniss 2013; Miller
2010). However, glyphosate-resistant weeds are linked to GM
crops with respect to several aspects:
• For two decades, GM glyphosate-tolerant (GMGT) crops have
been by far the most numerous GM crops
• GMGT crops inherently imply the application of glyphosate on
the crop, and glyphosate has replaced many other herbicides
used before. Hence, on GMGT crops, there has been little or no
alternation of herbicide applications or of weeding techniques
(Owen et al. 2014). In addition, some crop rotations have
involved a frequent repetition of glyphosate-tolerant crops.
Thus there has been an overreliance on glyphosate
• In multiple locations, because of glyphosate-resistant weeds,
glyphosate is losing its efficacy in weeding transgenic GT
crops. In those places, GMGT crops seem to be called into
question
• The number of weed species resistant to glyphosate is higher
for GMGT crops—soybean, corn, and cotton—than for non
glyphosate-tolerant crops (Heap 2015, and figure below)
• A low number of new herbicides have been put onto the market
in the last 15 years because of the high rate of adoption of
GMHT crops and of the costs to launch a new herbicide. This
increases the impact of resistant weeds, since few new
weedkillers can replace those that are now becoming
ineffective (Duke 2012; Gerwick 2010; Kraehmer et al. 2014)
Therefore, there exists a link between GMGT crops and increasing
glyphosate-resistant weeds, because GT crops have favored an
increased use of glyphosate, which has resulted in the selection
of GR weeds
This article is based on an extensive search for, and
analysis of, updated precise data and detailed statistics on
GMHT crops, particularly GT crops, and on herbicide-re-
sistant weeds, especially glyphosate-resistant weeds, as
well as on their side-effects. Data on GMHT crops are
mainly drawn from ISAAA reports (James 2014) and from
the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) Economic
Research Service’s statistics (USDA-ERS 2015). For the
herbicide use on GMHT crops in the USA, we particularly
analyzed survey results from the USDA National Agri-
cultural Statistics Service, notably the last ones (USDA-
NASS 1991–2013). However, these surveys on the use of
chemicals on field crops, which were generally annual for
each major field crop from 1990 to 2006, have become
much less frequent since 2006; each year only some
commodities are surveyed. So, after the 2006 survey on
soybean, the next one was in 2012, and the following is
scheduled for 2017 (USDA-NASS 2013). Thus, the mon-
itoring of pesticide use on GM crops is less detailed.
Admittedly, private surveys of chemical use on field crops
are made by some specialized companies, but their results,
which are expensive proprietary data, cannot be quoted or
disseminated. Nevertheless, some assessments of herbicide
use from the US Geological Survey (USGS) can also be
33
called on (Baker and Stone 2015; Thelin and Stone 2013;
USGS 2015a, b, c). USGS uses two sets of data: (i) pesti-
cide-use data compiled by proprietary surveys by GfK
Kynetec on the amounts of pesticides applied to individual
crops by Crop Reporting District (CRD) of farm opera-
tions, and (ii) annual harvested crop acreage reported by
USDA-NASS. By compiling these data, USGS calculates
an ‘‘estimated pesticide use’’ (EPest) rate for each crop by
year. As pesticide-use data are not available for all CRD
and years, when data are unavailable, EPest extrapolated
rates are calculated from adjoining or nearby CRD to
ensure that pesticide use is estimated for all counties that
report harvested-crop acreage (Thelin and Stone 2013).
Thus a list of figures for the period 1992–2012 reflecting
amounts used per year of 21 herbicides applied to crops is
available (USGS 2015b, c).
With regard to HR weeds, especially GR weeds, we
drew data from ‘‘The International Survey of Herbicide
Resistant Weeds,’’ which is a collaborative effort of world
weed scientists to report herbicide-resistant weeds globally
(Heap 2015). Furthermore, besides doing a survey on
existing literature, we looked for papers and presentations
by weed scientists, seed companies, and professional and
environmental organizations, as many conferences have
been held on this subject.
The Widespread Cultivation of GMHT Crops
and the Outcome in Terms of Herbicide Use
From 1996 to 2014, the expansion of GM crops was rapid
but uneven: in 2014, three countries (USA, Brazil, and
Argentina) accounted for 77 % of GM crop area, three
crops (soybean, corn, and cotton) totaled 95 % of such
area, and two traits (herbicide tolerance and insect resis-
tance) 99 % (Table 1). Concerning GM traits, herbicide
tolerance traits—increasingly stacked with insect resis-
tance traits—have been continually predominant over the
last 18 years: the GM crops carrying them have always
represented more than 81 % of all GMOs (Fig. 1). More-
over, the overwhelming majority of HT crops have been
tolerant to glyphosate, while only a tiny percentage were
glufosinate tolerant, as was the case for HT corn in the first
few years (Livingston et al. 2015). However, the rate of
adoption of GT crops was different among different
countries as well as among crops, depending on regulatory
aspects and agro-economic profitability (Fig. 2).
Since they allow for easier weed management in their
first few years, GT crops were rapidly adopted where
regulatory and social conditions were favorable. This is
particularly the case for HT soybeans, which are the most
widely cultivated HT crops: in 2014, GT soybeans repre-
sented 50 % of all HT crops and about 80 % of all globally
123
34 Environmental Management (2016) 57:31–48

Table 1 Predominance of three Area Area Area % total including

countries, three crops, and one Country Crop GM trait
(Mha) (Mha) (Mha) stacked traits
trait in total GM crop area in the
world in 2014 (area in Million USA 73 Soybean 91 Herbicide tolerance (HT) alone 103 } HT: 85%
ha) Brazil 42 Corn 55 Herbicide tolerance & Insect resistance 51
Argentina 24 Cotton 25 Insect resistance (IR) alone 27
} IR: 43%
% total GM % total GM
77% 94% % total GM crop area 99.8%
crop area crop area
The last line gives the percentage of the three main countries, crops, or traits in total GM crop area of
181.5 Mha (from James 2014)

Fig. 1 Predominance of
herbicide-tolerant crops
globally: area of HT crops
versus total area of GM crops,
1999–2014 (million hectares)
(adapted from James 2014)

Fig. 2 Variations in the rate of adoption of glyphosate-tolerant crops the USA, Argentina, and Brazil (from James 2014 and various local
according to countries and crops: percentage of herbicide-tolerant sources). b Percentage of HT varieties cultivated in soybean, corn,
varieties in some crops, 1997–2015. a Percentage of HT soybean in and cotton areas in the USA (USDA-ERS 2015)

cultivated soybeans. Their rate of adoption was rapid in the
USA, Argentina, and Brazil. As there are variations
between crops and contexts, it is necessary to choose a
detailed case to present a more thorough assessment of the
trends in herbicide use. The case of GT soybean in the USA
will be discussed here as it is the most cultivated GM crop,
and as USDA statistics provide unbiased data (based on
random surveys) on herbicide use and on the percentage of
GM varieties within each crop.
For GM crops in the USA, glyphosate applications have
replaced a large part of previously used herbicides (Bonny
2008; Osteen and Fernandez-Cornejo 2013). With the growing

123
Environmental Management (2016) 57:31–48
adoption of GT varieties, the number of the different types of
herbicide applied on soybean area diminished between 1996
and 2005 (Fig. 3) (USDA-NASS 2014). During the same per-
iod, this decline led at first to a small decrease, then to stagnation
in the number of applications and in the total amount of her-
bicide applied per unit of soybean surface. So the environ-
mental impact of GT crops was often assessed as beneficial by a
great number of papers, due to the fact that some rather noxious
herbicides previously used were replaced by glyphosate (Cer-
deira and Duke 2006; Kleter et al. 2007). Indeed at that time,
glyphosate was often considered to be rather benign (USEPA
1993). Another frequently mentioned benefit was the con-
comitant expansion of soil conservation practices, to which
glyphosate-tolerant crops are well suited (Bonny 2011; Fer-
nandez-Cornejo et al. 2014; Givens et al. 2009). These soil
conservation practices have several advantages, such as helping
prevent soil erosion and diminish soil leaching (Ervin et al.
2010; Price et al. 2011). The development of GM crops has also
contributed to an increase in the size of farms since it has
resulted in a certain decrease in required labor time per crop.
Large-scale adoption of GMGT crops was favored by the
decrease of glyphosate prices that occurred when its patent
expired in 2000 in the USA. Large quantities of glyphosate
generics were produced in some countries, such as China.
Thus, there has been a huge increase in global glyphosate use
linked to the development of GT crops. Glyphosate became
the main herbicide used globally. Its annual worldwide sales
totalled about 6 billion USD in 2012, i.e., about 30 % of the
global herbicide market, far ahead of other herbicides (Agrow
2014). In the USA, glyphosate use multiplied tenfold from
1993 to 2007, particularly in the Midwest and in some parts of
California (Grube et al. 2011; Coupe et al. 2012). For soy-
bean, the glyphosate proportion of total herbicides used grew
from 4 % in the 1990–1993 to 89 % in 2006 (USDA-NASS
1991–2013). Detailed analyses by scientists from USGS
Water Science Centers have shown a frequent and widespread
Fig. 3 Number of different
types of herbicide applied on
soybean area in relation to the
expansion of glyphosate-
resistant weeds in the USA,
1990–2012 (author’s calculation
from USDA-NASS 1991–2013
and from Heap, 2015). (Right
y-axis number of GR weeds.
Left y-axis number of
herbicides). After 2006, there
was only one survey on
herbicide usage in 2012; thus,
from 2007 to 2011, the number
of herbicides is extrapolated
according to the values in 2006
and 2012 (dotted line)
35
occurrence of glyphosate and its degradates in the Midwest, in
soils, surface water, groundwater, and precipitation (Coupe
et al. 2012; Battaglin et al. 2014)
In the first few years after the adoption of HT crops, a small
decrease in herbicide applications was observed in compar-
ison with the period 1990–1996. Later, particularly after 2005,
herbicide application started to rise again, and since then,
additional herbicides are increasingly being added to gly-
phosate (Figs. 3, 4; USGS 2015b). Thus for soybean, gly-
phosate share in total herbicides used declined to 83 % in
2012. So, although GT crops induced a decrease in pesticide
use at the outset, a reversal in this trend occurred rapidly,
linked to the development of herbicide-resistant weeds
(Fig. 3, 9) (Livingston et al. 2015). As the trend in the amount
of herbicide use is frequently not sufficient to evaluate the
environmental impact, it is useful to take into account the
health and environmental profiles of herbicides. This is,
however, a complicated task because of the high number of
these indicators and of composite indicators (Bonny 2011), as
well as of their limitations. If a certain number of articles have
used the Environmental Impact Quotient (EIQ) proposed by
Kovach et al. (1992), the EIQ was recently assessed as ‘‘a poor
indicator of potential environmental risk of herbicides’’ (Kniss
and Coburn 2015). This negative assessment was linked to
several limitations: EIQ does not take into account, or it does
very poorly so, the potential of exposure, the risk factor linked
to herbicide systemicity, plant surface half-life, and leaching
and surface runoff potential. Thus Kniss and Coburn (2015)
call for better approaches.
The Expansion of Glyphosate-Resistant Weeds
Globally, many herbicide-resistant weeds have appeared
since the 1950s, when the use of weedkillers became
widely spread. In early July 2015, there were ‘‘459 unique
123
36
Fig. 4 Trends in glyphosate
and other herbicides applied on
soybean in the USA, 1990–2012
(herbicide quantity in kg/ha of
total soybean area) (same source
as Fig. 3) (Right y-axis % of
GM soybean in total US
soybean area. Left y-axis kg/ha
of applied herbicides)
cases (species x site of action) of herbicide resistant weeds
globally, with 246 species (…). Weeds have evolved
resistance to 22 of the 25 known herbicide sites of action
and to 157 different herbicides. Herbicide resistant weeds
have been reported in 86 crops in 66 countries.’’ (Heap
2015). Herbicides do not cause weeds to evolve resistance
per se. The manner in which herbicides are used is a major
factor in explaining why weeds develop resistance. Her-
bicides exert a high selection pressure on weed popula-
tions. Resistant weed populations develop from rare
random genetic mutations that may exist in individuals
within a weed population. Repeated use of the same her-
bicide (or herbicide mode of action) increases the fre-
quency of these mutations by selection pressure,
particularly in the absence of other weedkillers or weeding
methods (Norsworthy et al. 2012). Hence, some weed
populations become predominant and are resistant to one or
several herbicides (Service 2007).
Although many herbicide families now have HR weed
populations, there are variations in susceptibility to the
different weedkillers (Fig. 5). Today, there are fewer GR
weeds than there are weeds with resistance to some other
herbicides. Nevertheless, the impact of GR weeds is
strong because of the wide use of glyphosate and because
GT crops are designed to tolerate this specific herbicide.
When several noxious weeds become resistant to gly-
phosate, the many farmers growing such crops are
severely affected and the concept of GT crops becomes
questionable.
123
Environmental Management (2016) 57:31–48
The expansion of GR weeds was slow until 2003.
However, it grew more rapidly after that time. In end June
2015, there were 32 GR weeds in the world, of which 14
were in the USA (Fig. 6). The number of GR weeds per
crop is high for GT crops, particularly soybean, corn, and
cotton, as well as for orchards and grapes, on which gly-
phosate has been repeatedly applied (Fig. 7). The fre-
quency of glyphosate treatments has been reinforced by the
most current type of crop rotation. According to the data on
crop production practices from the USDA Agricultural
Resource Management Survey (ARMS), in 2012, soybeans
were preceded by corn on around 65 % of acreage, and by
another soybean on 13 % (USDA-ERS 2014). These pre-
ceding corn and soybean crops were themselves predomi-
nantly glyphosate tolerant (respectively 73 and 93 % in
average) (USDA-ERS 2014).
The impact of GR weeds on a given crop varies
according to several factors: total number of HR weeds,
type of weeds, etc. GR weeds are not all the same; some
have high interference with crop yields, such as Palmer
amaranth (Ward et al. 2013). Moreover, some weeds have
developed multiple herbicide resistances, i.e., resistance to
two or more herbicides with different sites of action
(Beckie and Tardif 2012). Hence, they are difficult to
control as there are fewer herbicides capable of controlling
them. Furthermore, this multi-resistance is increasing
(Heap 2015; Rabobank International 2012; Service 2013).
So, in the USA, some weeds such as Palmer Amaranth
(Amaranthus palmeri), Tall Waterhemp (Amaranthus
Environmental Management (2016) 57:31–48
Fig. 5 Global number of resistant weed species for several herbicide groups, 1970–mid-2015 (in brackets, a representative of each herbicide
family) (adapted from Heap 2015)
Fig. 6 Number of glyphosate-resistant weed species and area of GM
herbicide-tolerant crops, globally and in the USA, 1996–2014
(adapted from Heap 2015; James, 2014) (Left y-axis, dotted line
number of GR weed species. Right y-axis, solid line GMHT crop area
in Million ha)
37
tuberculatus), Common Ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifo-
lia), and Giant Ragweed (Ambrosia trifida) are now resis-
tant to glyphosate and to one or more other herbicides
(Heap 2015).
Globally, 25 countries have experienced GR weeds,
albeit at different levels (Heap 2015). The USA has
experienced the highest number (14) of GR weeds, but
their growth rate has slowed down since 2008 due to the
increased use of other weedkillers and the implementation
of better weed control practices. However, in the US the
states growing HT crops are increasingly affected by GR
weeds: in late March 2015, 38 states had experienced the
rise of one or more GR weeds; up to ten GR weeds were
recorded in Mississippi alone (Fig. 8). It is difficult to
assess the global agricultural area affected. Heap (2013)
estimated that, in 2012, the area affected by GR weeds was
about 6.3 million ha globally, of which approximately 6
million ha (95 %) were in the USA in GT cropping sys-
tems. However, some assessments were much higher:
123
38 Environmental Management (2016) 57:31–48

Fig. 7 Countries and crops which are the most affected globally by glyphosate-resistant weeds (x-axis number of GR weeds, mid-2015) (adapted
from Heap 2015). a Countries with at least two GR weed species. b Crops with at least five GR weed species

Fig. 8 Number of GR weed

species in the USA and number
of US states with GR weeds,
1998–mid-2015. (Author’s
calculation from Heap 2015)
Left y-axis number of the US
states with GR weeds. Right
y-axis number of GR weed
species in the USA)

another survey reported up to 28 million ha of affected US
farmland (Stratus Ag Research 2013).
How do Weed Scientists, Farmers, and Companies
Cope with Glyphosate-Resistant Weeds?
The rise in GR weeds has a broad impact, and glyphosate’s
loss of efficacy is seen as having great repercussions in the
areas growing many GT crops. In HT crops and elsewhere,
glyphosate is now often increasingly supplemented, and
sometimes replaced, by other herbicides; however, these
are frequently more harmful and difficult to use due to their
profile (Boerboom and Owen 2007; Service 2007). More-
over, since 1997, the number of new active herbicide
ingredients put onto the market has declined, and, in the
USA, the number of patents dealing with new weedkillers
has also dropped (Adler 2011; Duke 2012; Gerwick 2010;
Kraehmer et al. 2014). Hence weed control may be more
difficult to accomplish. This decrease in the marketing of
new active ingredients is partly an outcome of the expan-
sion of GT crops. Indeed, the market for herbicides other
than glyphosate has grown smaller; at the same time, the
number of agrochemical companies has decreased due to

123
Environmental Management (2016) 57:31–48
consolidations in this industry, while commercialization
costs have increased (Duke 2012; Kraehmer et al. 2014;
Phillips McDougall 2010). Organizations opposed to GM
crops often greet glyphosate-resistant weeds with sarcastic
comments such as ‘‘revenge of the weeds,’’ according to a
paper title (Coombs 2012), seeing it as almost a fulfillment
of their predictions. However, the appearance of these
weeds does not mean that glyphosate will no longer be
used or that other weed control methods will be adopted.
Weed Scientists
In the 1990s, Monsanto’s scientists stated that there was
almost no risk of the occurrence of glyphosate-resistant
weeds, because of glyphosate’s specificities (Bradshaw
et al. 1997). Hence, even if the use of selective weedkillers
was not prohibited, during the first 8 years of GT crops,
Monsanto generally encouraged farmers to mainly use its
increasingly diverse glyphosate brands and formulations,
e.g., through its reward programs (Dupraz 2012; Shaner
2000; Waltz 2010). In doing so, the need for herbicide
rotation or addition was not stated. Furthermore, many
Monsanto ads and leaflets, as well as many scientific or
media papers, highlighted benefits of GT crops, notably the
advantages of using only one herbicide, which allowed
simplicity, convenience, lower costs, labor, and fuel sav-
ings (Reddy 2001). For example, a Monsanto specialist
declared:
‘‘Use of other herbicides in a tank mix with Roundup
UltraMAX often adds expense and increases the risk
of crop injury or carryover (…). After years of
research, Monsanto has concluded that Roundup
UltraMAX alone is the best choice for most weed
control situations’’ (Southwest Farm Press 2001).
A 2003 leaflet on GT soybeans stated:
‘‘Not All Herbicides Work the Same: (i) The devel-
opment of weed resistance to glyphosate is less likely
than active ingredients in many other herbicides due
to glyphosate’s unique mode of action. (ii) Resistance
to glyphosate has been observed far less often than
resistance to most other active ingredients. (iii) In
fact, after almost three decades of worldwide use,
resistance to glyphosate has been observed in only
four weed species globally (two in the US) (Mon-
santo 2003a). Another leaflet assured ‘‘resistance is
easily and economically managed’’ (Monsanto
2003b).
Thus, at the beginning of the diffusion of HT varieties,
rather little advice for good herbicide management was
provided, at least through company documentation and by
input sellers. Yet, in 1996, a first weed species resistant to
39
glyphosate was discovered in Australia. Several weed sci-
entists warned,
‘‘Given the importance of glyphosate in world agri-
culture, its current high use, and impending increased
usage with transgenic crops, the evolution of gly-
phosate resistance is a significant development in
world agriculture. It would be prudent to accept that
resistance can occur to this highly valuable herbicide
and to encourage glyphosate use patterns within
integrated strategies that do not impose a strong
selection pressure for resistance’’ (Powles et al.
1998).
This warning was not isolated; other scientists also
alerted on the risk of the development of glyphosate-re-
sistant weeds (Erickson and Lemaux 2000; Hartzler 1998;
Neve et al. 2003; Reddy 2001; Shaner 2000).
In contrast, since 2005, many measures have been rec-
ommended and are being sought by the concerned stake-
holders in order to cope with GR weeds (Frisvold and
Reeves 2010; Green and Owen 2011; Nandula 2010).
Many scientists from weed science extension services and
universities have become involved in this issue. They
advocate increased research activities, the exploration of
new approaches, as well as better weed control manage-
ment (Gressel 2010; Vencill et al. 2012). The need for
‘‘glyphosate stewardship’’ is stressed, which ‘‘refers to the
management decisions and practices subsequently
employed to preserve the utility of a crop trait’’ (Beckie
2011). Weed scientists emphasize the importance of
diversity in weed management and recommend the use of
best management practices (BMPs), in order notably to
understand the biology of weeds, diversify weed manage-
ment practices, use multiple herbicide mechanisms of
action, and prevent weed seed production and spreading
(Norsworthy et al. 2012; Stokstad 2013; Owen et al. 2014).
Farmer Attitudes
Before the 2005–2006 period, ‘‘agricultural practices
aimed at delaying or preventing the development of her-
bicide resistance [were] not viewed as being economical in
the short term, and [were] not readily used by all growers’’
(Webster and Sosnokie 2010). According to these authors,
two beliefs explained this farmer behavior: (i) a new
technology would be developed to solve the resistance
issue and (ii) resistance management strategies would turn
out to be futile. Actually, a survey of growers developed by
weed scientists from six states in 2005–2006 showed that
‘‘farmers did not have a high level of awareness of the
potential risks to the sustainability of the GR crop systems
with regard to evolved glyphosate resistance’’ (Owen et al.
2011). Frisvold and Reeves (2010, 2014), who analyzed a
123
40
2007 phone survey of farmers about their use of ten BMPs
to delay weed resistance, also assessed that their current
rate of adoption has proved insufficient in delaying resis-
tance in many areas.
However, more recent studies showed that ‘‘growers are
moving towards a better understanding of the implications
of their herbicide use practices’’ (Johnson et al. 2009;
Owen et al. 2011). Indeed, since 2005–2006, cultural
practices have begun to change, given the increasing extent
of GR weeds and also the advice provided by weed sci-
entists, grower associations, advisors, and seed companies
(Givens et al. 2011; Livingstone et al. 2015). Farmers have
more often applied other herbicides in addition to gly-
phosate (Figs. 3 and 4). A 2010 survey in 22 US states
showed that a higher percentage of growers integrated
herbicides other than glyphosate, but that many continued
to use only glyphosate (Prince et al. 2012). A 2011 survey
in the Mid-South testified that some BMPs, particularly
cultural practices, are implemented in a limited manner
because of time constraints, weather, extra costs, and a
certain difficulty for some farmers in adopting a proactive
strategy when they have not experienced resistant weeds on
their own farms (Riar et al. 2013). Yet, a detailed bench-
mark study in more than a hundred farm fields, comparing
costs, yields, and net returns between growers’ standard
weed management and BMPs, showed that, despite their
higher costs, BMPs could lead to the same net returns
(Edwards et al. 2014). In a late 2012 survey of Certified
Crop Advisors, 40 % said that farmers would only adopt
BMPs if resistant weeds became a problem in their fields
(Asmus et al. 2013). However, 15 % responded that
farmers were trying BMPs on a few acres first and 13 %
that growers were plunging into BMPs. The Spring-2014
poll of Stratus Research indicated that about 65 % of the
US farmers implemented some BMPs to control HR weeds
(Stratus Ag Research 2014). Another 2014 survey showed
that only 13 % of respondents now thought that ‘‘HR
weeds are not a major concern because new technologies
will be developed to manage them,’’ while 90 % felt that
‘‘pest (…) management is a never-ending technology
treadmill’’ (Arbuckle 2014). As a result of these growing
concerns, BMPs are increasingly adopted at present
(Fig. 9) (Livingstone et al. 2015; Prince et al. 2012). This
has borne fruit: from 2010 to 2014, the number of GR
weeds remained stable in the USA.
At the farm level, one main impact of GR weeds is that
farmers need to use weed control methods other than gly-
phosate applications alone, ranging from the application of
other herbicides to mechanical weeding, and sometimes
hand weeding to dig out certain weeds (Waltz 2010). The
most common way is to apply some additional herbicides
to GT crops, notably persistent herbicides. These additional
methods have led to a rise in related costs, particularly after
123
Environmental Management (2016) 57:31–48
2005 and above all after 2011, especially for certain weeds
(Rabobank International 2012; Service 2013; Sosnoskie
and Culpepper 2014; WSSA 2014). The application of
additional herbicides also leads to an increase in the total
use of herbicide (Fig. 4), as well as to the loss of some of
the advantages farmers had derived from glyphosate-tol-
erant crops, such as easier weed control. Another notable
impact is the side-effect of GR weeds on soil conservation
practices, as GT crops may have facilitated their adoption.
The current expansion of GR weeds, particularly of GR
Palmer amaranth, threatens conservation agriculture, as in
some instances tillage is one of the few effective options to
manage HR weeds (CAST 2012; Price et al. 2011). In
addition, farmers and other operators have to implement
measures to avoid the spreading of GR weeds in the
neighborhood, which complicates some farm operations.
GR weeds can easily spread from one field or area to
another (Bagavathiannan et al. 2013). Herbicide resistance
can be transferred through the weed pollen, vegetative
structures (rhizomes, tubers), and above all weed seeds.
The latter can be disseminated very far by transportation, in
the same way as many plant pathogens have spread from
one country or continent to another. Besides, some herbi-
cides which could be increasingly used with the HT crops
need to be applied cautiously, because of their risk of
drifting (Egan et al. 2014).
However, herbicide resistance management depends not
only on individual farmer practices, but also on the
behavior of many actors (Ervin and Jussaume 2014).
Indeed, the actions of the neighbor farmers and of the
community can have an influence, because of the possible
spread of weed seeds from neighboring fields or due to
certain activities. The spreading of HR weeds can also be
influenced by the measures taken by government, compa-
nies, extension scientists, advisors, and input sellers. All
these stakeholders and the media can also act upon the
decisions about herbicide resistance management, making
this a complex issue depending on the interplay of several
factors and actors.
Industry Response
The involved agbiotech/agchemical firms often sustain that
weed resistance is a common issue of pesticide resistance
that should be resolved with the use of other weedkillers.
These companies, such as Monsanto, Pioneer, Dow, Bayer,
and Syngenta, propose weeding programs with additional
herbicides and other weed management tools. They are also
working on new HT plants that are tolerant to other her-
bicides. They mainly work on combined resistances to
glyphosate and to other herbicide(s), i.e., to launch new HT
crops with stacked herbicide tolerance traits (Table 2). In
addition to being glyphosate tolerant, the new varieties
Environmental Management (2016) 57:31–48
Fig. 9 Rate of adoption of
several weed resistance
management practices by the
US soybean growers,
1996–2012 (adapted from
Livingstone et al. 2015). There
were no surveys from 2007 to
2011
could be tolerant to other herbicides such as dicamba, 2,4-
D, ALS inhibitor, mesotrione, or isoxaflutole (Croplife
2015; Duke and Powles 2009; Feng et al. 2010; Green
2014; USDA-APHIS 2015). The first new HT crops were
approved in 2014 and early 2015, following registration of
the corresponding herbicide combinations. These new HT
crops could be cultivated in 2016 and later. In early April
2015 for example, ‘‘Enlist Duo’’ (2,4-D ? glyphosate) was
approved by the US Environmental Protection Agency for
use in 15 states. In its final registration for ‘‘Enlist Duo,’’ to
mitigate risks to non-target plants or animals, the EPA
indicated precise labeling requirements about spray drift
management with instructions on herbicide application
dealing with droplet size, adequate nozzles and maximum
pressure, wind speed and directions, etc. (USEPA 2014).
Thus their registration requirements demand that they be
used safely.
Yet, despite these requirements, these new HT traits
raise significant questions, because some involved herbi-
cides, notably 2,4-D, might have some harmful health or
environmental effects (Barker 2014; Freese 2014a, b;
HSDB 2015a, b; Loomis et al. 2015; Wikipedia 2015b, c).
However, this is a controversial topic and these weedkillers
have been authorized for HT crops in the USA after the
involved companies conducted research to develop new
formulations reducing for example off-target movement.
Nevertheless, the planned crops with stacked herbicide
tolerance traits could lead to an increase in the use of
herbicides (Mortensen et al. 2012, Benbrook 2012; Waltz
2015). In its first few years, GMGT crop introduction was
often seen as leading to the application of fewer and more
41
benign herbicides than those previously used (Fig. 4).
Today, there is risk of the opposite occurring: because of
GR weeds, some more toxic herbicides are likely to be
used with the new GMOs in the next few years to com-
plement glyphosate (Ervin et al. 2010). These new HT
traits represent a substantial portion of the upcoming traits
(Croplife 2015) (Table 2). At the same time, following the
classification of glyphosate as ‘‘probably carcinogenic to
humans’’ by the International Agency for Research on
Cancer (IARC) (Guyton et al. 2015; IARC 2015), the high
use of this herbicide is becoming increasingly controver-
sial. So, numerous consumers or environmental organiza-
tions are alerting on its intensive utilization with HT crops
(Center for Food Safety et al. 2015; Consumer Reports
2015; EWG 2015; FoE 2015; Just label It 2015; Reuters
2015; Wilson 2015). As a result, food industry operators
note that the demand for non-GMO and organic products is
rapidly rising (Roulac 2015). On the other hand, the latest
EPA reviews on glyphosate have determined that science
‘‘does not provide evidence to show that glyphosate causes
cancer’’ (USEPA 2015). In April 2015, the USEPA
approved the herbicide ‘‘Enlist Duo’’ which combines
glyphosate and 2,4-D for use in 9 additional states after a
first previous approval for 6 states. Moreover, there are
field trials of new GT plants such as wheat, rice, sugarcane,
or for GT/IR corn and cotton adapted to other areas (James
2014). However, in April 2015 USEPA said that ‘‘US
regulators may start testing food products for residues of
glyphosate’’ (Reuters 2015).
Some scientists think that these new HT crops are a
short-term solution, which is likely to increase the severity
123
42 Environmental Management (2016) 57:31–48

Table 2 New traits for soybeans in the pipeline of the major agbiotech companies (adapted from Croplife 2015)
Near to market/advanced development Early development (research, discovery, early phase)
Type of trait Specific trait Company Type of trait Specific trait Company

Herbicide EnlistTM: 2,4-D ? Glyphosate. Dow Herbicide 4th Generation Monsanto

Tolerance AgroSciences Tolerance Herbicide
(HT) Tolerance
Enlist E3TM: 2,4- Dow Insect Resistance 3rd Generation Monsanto
D ? Glyphosate ? Glufosinate AgroSciences, Insect Protection DuPont
M.S. Hemipteran Pioneer
Technologies
Lepidopteran DuPont
Pioneer
Roundup Ready 2 Xtend. Monsanto Nematode Soybean Cyst Syngenta
3rd Generation HT: RR XtendTM Crop System Monsanto Resistance Nematode Bayer
(Glyphosate ? Dicamba tolerances) ? 3rd Soybean Cyst CropSc.
Mode of Action Nematode BASF,
2nd generation Monsanto
Soybean Cyst
Nematode
resistance
Multiple Mode DuPont Pioneer Disease Asian Soybean Rust DuPont
Resistance Pioneer
Syngenta
HPPDi ? Glufosinate Syngenta, Bayer Fungal resistance BASF
CropScience
BalanceTM GT/LL: Bayer Higher Yielding Next Generation Monsanto,
Glyphosate ? HPPDi ? Glufosinate CropScience, Higher Yielding BASF
BalanceTM GT: Glyphosate ? HPPDi M.S.
Technologies
Cultivance: Imidazolinone
Bayer CropSc.,
M.S.Tech
BASF, Embrapa/
Brazil
HT & IR Enlist E3TM ? ConkestaTM: 2,4- Dow Increased soy Oil DuPont
D ? Glyphosate ? Glufosinate ? 2 Bt Traits AgroSciences & Improved Pioneer
Meal Value
IR 2nd Generation Insect Protection Monsanto
Product Stearidonic Acid Omega-3 Monsanto
composition Vistive Gold Low Saturated, Zero Trans-Fat Monsanto
Oil
2,4-D, Glyphosate, Dicamba, HPPDi, Glufosinate, and Imidazolinone are herbicides
Bt Bacillus thuringiensis, EnlistTM Dow AgroSciences herbicide trait providing tolerance to glyphosate, 2,4-D and/or glufosinate, HPPD
inhibitors HydroxyPhenylPyruvate Dioxygenase inhibitor (herbicide family), LL LibertyLink, tolerance to glufosinate herbicides, RR Roundup
Ready (glyphosate tolerance)

of resistant weeds (Mortensen et al. 2012; Nature’s Edi-
torial 2014). Even the Committee on the Impact of
Biotechnology on Farm-Level Economics and Sustain-
ability of the US National Research Council warned that if
new GM cultivars ‘‘are managed in the same fashion as the
current genetically engineered HR cultivars, the same
problems of evolved herbicide resistance and weed shifts
may occur’’ (Ervin et al. 2010). Environmental and con-
sumer organizations, such as Beyond Pesticides or Center
for Food Safety, have also warned about the risks of the
associated herbicides and have asked the USDA to conduct
more thorough investigations before issuing approvals
(Bark et al 2014; Beyond Pesticides 2014; Freese 2014a, b;
Public Comments 2014, 2015).
Meanwhile, in the last few years, agbiotech companies
and the main corn and soybean growers’ associations
promoted a quick authorization of these new HT crops,
without conducting an Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS).1 For example, the American Soybean Association
1
To determine that a GM plant is no longer considered a regulated
article, APHIS evaluates data submitted by the Company and

123
Environmental Management (2016) 57:31–48
wrote in a letter to The Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service (APHIS), the regulatory agency:
‘‘Soybean farmers need new technologies such as
dicamba-tolerant soybeans to increase yields, manage
weed resistance and maintain profitability. (…)
Conducting a time-consuming analysis [EIS] (…)
will cause a significant delay in bringing needed
technologies to growers. (…)To meet growing global
demand and maintain the United States as the largest
producer of soybeans globally, growers need access
to new and effective technologies (…) ASA advises
USDA (…) to expedite the full deregulation of
dicamba-tolerant soybeans’’ (ASA 2013).
An identical statement was expressed by the Weed
Science Society of America in its letter to APHIS where it
‘‘urges USDA to expedite the necessary reviews leading to
final approval of 2,4-D resistant corn and soybeans and
dicamba resistant cotton and soybeans’’ (WSSA 2013). For
the time being, it seems difficult to quickly stop using
herbicides in large-scale farming, and the involved com-
panies always put forward that their new herbicides and
GM crops will help farmers fight ‘‘superweeds’’ and meet a
growing food demand. If the organic market is growing, its
share remains small: in the USA, only 0.2 % of soybean
area was certified organic in 2011.
Conclusion
Today, herbicide-resistant weeds have become an impor-
tant issue, notably in HT crops and in the USA. As many
transgenic crops are HT and as the huge majority of these
are tolerant to glyphosate, GR weeds call into question the
first generation of HT crops, at least in certain areas. In
some countries such as the USA, Argentina, and Brazil, HT
crops are cultivated in very large areas and play a major
economic role. Therefore, the impact of glyphosate-resis-
tant weeds is significant. Moreover, glyphosate is an
important weedkiller, since it is by far the most sold her-
bicide in the world. Because of its characteristics, some
weed scientists have called it ‘‘a once-in-a-century herbi-
cide’’ (Duke and Powles 2008) and, in an interview by
journalist David Bennett from Delta Farm Press on 10/02/
2005, Powles compared it to penicillin: ‘‘glyphosate is a
very precious resource. I’d argue that glyphosate is up there
with penicillin as a once-in-a-hundred-years discovery.’’
However, in a 2015 reassessment by experts, glyphosate
Footnote 1 continued
analyzes publicly available scientific data, as well as comments
received from the public on the petition for non-regulated status and
its associated Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on one hand and
plant pest risk assessments on the other hand (APHIS 2014).
43
was classified as ‘‘probably carcinogenic for humans’’
(IARC 2015). Besides, for several years, some scientists, as
well as many environmental and consumer organizations,
have considered glyphosate formulations as dangerous,
notably because of their adjuvants (Bøhn et al. 2014;
Bradberry et al. 2004; Székács and Darvas 2012). As
glyphosate is frequently used in HT soybean and corn,
some people are also increasingly expressing concerns
about food derived from these crops; this has generated a
great movement requiring the labeling of GM food in the
USA (Kling 2014; McFadden and Lusk 2013).
Because of the high impact of herbicide-resistant weeds,
weed scientists, crop advisors, and GM seed companies
prompt farmers to adopt better weed management prac-
tices. In addition, the solution the involved companies put
forward is to shift toward GM crops with tolerance trait to
glyphosate (or another herbicide) stacked with one or two
other HT traits such as tolerance to 2,4-D, Dicamba, glu-
fosinate, etc. The aim is to cope with the current issue
while continuing with the use of HT crops. ‘‘Dicamba-
resistant crops can be a valuable asset in strategies to
control currently existing herbicide-resistant weeds and to
suppress the appearance of additional herbicide-resistant
weeds that ultimately could threaten the long-term use and
value of current herbicides and herbicide-resistant crops.’’
(Behrens et al 2007). Besides this, the backlash of GR
weeds is often minimized. However, with these planned
HT crops, there could be a risk of inducing additional weed
resistance to the associated herbicides, to which some
weeds are already resistant (Mortensen et al. 2012; Powles
and Yu 2010). This may worsen the problem of HR weeds,
as it may lead to an increase in multi-resistance, which is
on the rise and much more difficult to control (Harker et al.
2012; Heap 2015). Furthermore, this strategy increases
herbicide applications and includes the use of some rela-
tively harmful weedkillers.
Faced with the problem of GR weeds, many US farmers
are looking for rapid solutions. After having grown HT
crops for nearly two decades, farmers have frequently
seemed somewhat reluctant to search for new ways to
manage weeds. Several factors can explain farmers’ atti-
tudes: the necessity of rapid economic results, particularly
when they are in debt, the pressure from landowners, the
uncertainty of alternative methods, and risk aversion
(Cowan and Gunby 1996). Moreover, assessment of BMPS
or Integrated Pest Management (IPM) adoption is rather
difficult to do by telephone or even face-to-face surveys or
by questionnaire. Indeed, it is difficult to adequately
describe these practices by just a few options or sentences,
and then to ask the respondents if they are implementing
them or have implemented them during the last campaign.
This common kind of surveys is better adapted to stan-
dardized practices and less to BMPs or IPM (Puente et al.
123
44
2011). Nevertheless, the continuation of HT crops with
other herbicide tolerance traits, stacked with the glyphosate
tolerance trait, may be considered as a kind of treadmill
(Binimelis et al. 2009; Harker et al. 2012; Beckie and Hall
2014). Therefore, a number of farmers and weed scientists
think that a new paradigm, a new way of tackling weed
management and weed resistance to herbicides, is
necessary.
This would be, notably, integrated weed management
(IWM) which ‘‘can be defined as a holistic approach to
weed management that integrates different methods of
weed control to provide the crop an advantage over weeds’’
(Harker and O’Donovan 2013). So, IWM combines the
coordinated use of multiple techniques to reduce weed
pressure, instead of putting the main emphasis on herbi-
cides as in conventional weed control (Ehler 2006; Harker
2013; Knezevic 2014; Owen et al. 2014). IWM ‘‘empha-
sizes the combination of management techniques and sci-
entific knowledge in a manner that considers the causes of
weed problems rather than reacts to existing weed popu-
lations. The goal of weed management is the integration of
the best options and tools (…) The best approach may be to
integrate cropping system design and weed control strate-
gies into a comprehensive system that is environmentally
and economically viable’’ (Buhler 2002). Thus IWM
‘‘provides opportunities to reduce selection pressure for
weed resistance’’ (Harker 2013). Among other aspects,
IWM requires better knowledge on weeds, crops, and their
interactions, preventive measures against weed infestation,
early detection, rapid response, regular monitoring of
weeds, and integrated use of several methods, such as crop
rotation, cover crops and mulches, reduced tillage, preci-
sion agriculture, adequate seeding rates, seed quality, etc.
Most of these practices are also used in organic weed
control. However, IWM implies some uncertainty in the
results, all the more so as ‘‘a continuous overemphasis on
chemical weed control’’ has contributed to ‘‘retard the
development of weed science as a balanced discipline’’
(Harker and O’Donovan 2013). These facts explain why
there are some difficulties to adopting this method, not only
on the part of farmers, but also of scientists (Shaner and
Beckie 2014).
At the outset, biotechnology led to a certain expectation
that it would allow a better use of the biological capacities
of plants and a valorization of life processes. Thus, it was
hoped that biotechnology would contribute to freeing
agriculture from pesticides through a better use of life
processes. On the contrary, until today, the main wide-
spread implementation of genetic engineering in agricul-
ture has been HT crops, which lead to a crop’s association
to a herbicide instead of contributing to freeing it from
pesticides. This first kind of application could result from
economic reasons, because Monsanto could sell glyphosate
123
Environmental Management (2016) 57:31–48
while it was heavily investing in biotechnology, plant
breeding, and germplasm, i.e., glyphosate sales could
partly finance its costly research and development invest-
ments and its buyouts of seed companies (Bonny 2011).
Furthermore, many American and Latin-American farmers
were attracted by HT crops. When GR weeds have begun
to develop and spread, this direction in biotech-derived
applications has continued to be pursued. So agbiotech
companies are looking to add new herbicide tolerance traits
and to stack them, rather than to gradually diminish reli-
ance on these kinds of traits. The main reason is probably
that HT traits are profitable and provide revenues,2 while
the major companies are investing in other future tech-
nologies. The HT traits appears more lucrative at present
and more assured for the near future, before the eventual
launching and marketing of the next kinds of traits or
innovations. Indeed, other kinds of trait dealing with food
quality, drought tolerance, bioenergy, chemical, and poly-
mers, which have often been presented as the next waves of
agricultural biotechnology, are under development (Ri-
croch and Hénard-Damave 2015). Companies are also
investing in other biotech applications and other lines of
products, such as biopesticides, as well as tools for farmers
to gather and analyze field-level data for precision farming.
Thus HT crops may be still used for some time, while the
next products or services are under development.
Acknowledgments This article is the result of a research work
carried out without special funding, i.e., with the basic support pro-
vided by INRA (French National Institute for Agricultural Research),
which is a public research institute and a publicly funded institution.
References
Adler J (2011) The growing menace from superweeds. Sci Am
304:74–79
Agrow (2014) Agrow Herbicides and Weed Control 2014. Informa
Agra, London. www.agra-net.com
APHIS (2014) Biotechnology Environmental Documents for Permits
and Petitions. http://www.aphis.usda.gov/wps/portal/aphis/ourfo
cus/biotechnology/sa_environmental_documents/. Accessed 18
July 2015
Arbuckle JG Jr (2014) Iowa farm and rural life poll: farmer
perspectives on pesticide resistance. Iowa State Un. Extension
and Outreach, Report number: PM3070, Ames
2
The sales of glyphosate were generally profitable to Monsanto and
to a few generic glyphosate producers, despite the fierce competition
among them after its patent expiration in the USA. Meanwhile, the
market of the other herbicides was greatly affected because it
remained rather stagnant. It would be difficult for companies other
than Monsanto to invest in prolonging glyphosate life, given that,
despite the development of generics, Monsanto has kept a high part of
the glyphosate market, notably because of its formulations and
marketing (Grand View Research 2014). Therefore, glyphosate sales
and glyphosate-tolerant traits were profitable, particularly for Mon-
santo and a few other companies.
Environmental Management (2016) 57:31–48
ASA (2013) Letter to APHIS, comments regarding the USDA intent
to conduct an Environmental Impact Statement for several
critical new technologies, including dicamba tolerant soybeans.
American Soybean Association, St. Louis, MO, 17/07/2013
Asmus A, Clay SA, Ren C (2013) Summary of certified crop
advisors’ response to a weed resistance survey. Agron J
105:1160–1166
Bagavathiannan MV, Norsworthy JK, Scott RC, Barber TL (2013)
The spread of herbicide-resistant weeds: what should growers
know?. University of Arkansas, Little Rock
Baker NT, Stone WW (2015) Estimated annual agricultural pesticide
use for counties of the conterminous United States, 2008–2012.
USGS Data Series 907, http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/ds907
Bark T et al (2014) Letter to EPA on ‘‘Dow AgroSciences application
to amend their 2,4-D choline salt herbicide for use on 2,4-D
tolerant corn and soybeans’’, Docket EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0195
30 June 2014. http://cdn.ewg.org/sites/default/files/testimony/
LetterToEPA_Enlist_MedSci_FINAL_06_30_14_0.pdf
Barker D (2014) Genetically engineered (GE) crops: a misguided
strategy for the twenty-first century? Development
57(2):192–200. doi:10.1057/dev.2014.68
Battaglin WA, Meyer MT, Kuivila KM, Dietze JE (2014) Glyphosate
and its degradation product AMPA occur frequently and widely
in US soils, surface water, groundwater, and precipitation. J Am
Water Resour Assoc 50(2):275–290. doi:10.1111/jawr.12159
Beckie HJ (2011) Herbicide-resistant weed management: focus on
glyphosate. Pest Manag Sci 67(9):1037–1048
Beckie HJ, Hall LM (2014) Genetically-modified herbicide-resistant
(GMHR) crops a two-edged sword? An Americas perspective on
development and effect on weed management. Crop Prot
66:40–45. doi:10.1016/j.cropro.2014.08.014
Beckie HJ, Tardif FJ (2012) Herbicide cross resistance in weeds. Crop
Prot 35:15–28
Behrens MR, Mutlu N, Chakraborty S et al (2007) Dicamba
resistance: enlarging and preserving biotechnology-based weed
management strategies. Science 316(5828):1185–1188
Benbrook CM (2012) Impacts of genetically engineered crops on
pesticide use in the US, the first sixteen years. Environ Sci Eur
24(24):2190–4715
Beyond Pesticides (2014) Next Up: 2,4-D Weed and insect resistance
caused by genetically engineered crop failure treadmill. Beyond
Pesticides, Washington DC. http://www.beyondpesticides.org/
infoservices/pesticidesandyou/documents/24DandGEcrops.pdf.
Accessed 18 Aug 2015
Binimelis R, Pengue W, Monterroso I (2009) Transgenic treadmill:
responses to the emergence and spread of glyphosate-resistant
Johnsongrass in Argentina. Geoforum 40:623–633
Boerboom C, Owen M Eds (2007) National Glyphosate Stewardship
Forum II: A Call to Action. St Louis, MO, 20–21/03/2007. http://
www.weeds.iastate.edu/mgmt/2007/NGSFII_final.pdf. Accessed
24 July 2015
Bøhn T, Cuhra M, Traavik T, Sanden M, Fagan J, Primicerio R
(2014) Compositional differences in soybeans on the market:
glyphosate accumulates in roundup ready GM soybeans. Food
Chem 153:207–215
Bonny S (2008) Genetically modified glyphosate-tolerant soybean in
the USA: adoption factors, impacts and prospects. Agron Sustain
Dev 28(1):21–32
Bonny S (2011) Herbicide-tolerant transgenic soybean over 15 years
of cultivation: pesticide use, weed resistance, and some
economic issues. The case of the USA. Sustainability
3(9):1302–1322. doi:10.3390/su3091302
Bourguet D et al (2013) Heterogeneity of selection and the evolution
of resistance. Trends Ecol Evol 28(2):110–118
Bradberry SM, Proudfoot AT, Vale JA (2004) Glyphosate poisoning.
Toxicol Rev 23(3):159–167
45
Bradshaw LD, Padgette SR, Kimball SL, Wells BH (1997) Perspec-
tives on glyphosate resistance. Weed Technol 11(1):189–198.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3988252
Buhler DD (2002) 50th Anniversary, Invited Article: challenges and
opportunities for integrated weed management. Weed Sci
50(3):273–280
CAST (2012) Herbicide-resistant weeds threaten soil conservation
gains: finding a balance for soil and farm sustainability. Council
for Agricultural Science and Technology, Ames
Center for Food Safety, Consumers Union, Environmental Working
Group, Food & Water Watch, Friends of the Earth, Just Label It,
Natural Resources Defense Council, Pesticide Action Network
North America (2015) Letter to EPA to weigh heavily the
decision by WHO to categorize glyphosate as ‘‘probably
carcinogenic to humans’’ (…), 26/03/2015
Cerdeira AL, Duke SO (2006) The current status and environmental
impacts of glyphosate-resistant crops. J Environ Qual
35(5):1633–1658
Consumer Reports (2015) From crop to table report pesticide use in
produce. Consumer Reports Magazine, May 2015, Special
Section. https://www.consumerreports.org/cro/magazine/2015/
05/index.htm
Coombs A (2012) Revenge of the weeds. Scientist 20/05/2012
Coupe RH, Barlow JR, Capel PD (2012) Complexity of human and
ecosystem interactions in an agricultural landscape. Environ Dev
4:88–104
Cowan R, Gunby P (1996) Sprayed to death: path dependence lock-in
and pest control strategies. Econ J 106:521–542
Croplife (2015) Plant biotechnology pipeline. Croplife (Global
federation representing the plant science industry), Brussels
Duke SO (2012) Why have no new herbicide modes of action
appeared in recent years? Pest Manag Sci 68(4):505–512. doi:10.
1002/ps.2333
Duke SO, Powles SB (2008) Glyphosate: a once-in-a-century
herbicide. Pest Manag Sci 64(4):319–325
Duke SO, Powles SB (2009) Glyphosate-resistant crops and weeds:
now and in the future. AgBioForum 12(3&4):346–357
Dupraz E (2012) Note, Monsanto and the Quasi-Per Se illegal rule for
bundled discounts. Vermont Law Rev 37(1):203–237
Edwards CB, Jordan DL, Owen MD et al (2014) Benchmark study on
glyphosate-resistant crop systems in the United States. Eco-
nomics of herbicide resistance management practices in a 5 year
field-scale study. Pest Manag Sci 70(12):1924–1929
Egan JK, Barlow KM, Mortensen DA (2014) A meta-analysis on the
effects of 24-D and Dicamba drift on soybean and cotton. Weed
Sci 62(1):193–206. doi:10.1614/WS-D-13-00025.1
Ehler LE (2006) Integrated pest management (IPM): definition
historical development and implementation and the other IPM.
Pest Manag Sci 62:787–789. doi:10.1002/ps.1247
Erickson FL, Lemaux PG (2000) Issues related to the development
and use of engineered herbicide-tolerant crops in California.
Calif Weed Sci Soc Conf Proc 52:45–53
Ervin DE, Jussaume R (2014) Integrating social science into
managing herbicide-resistant weeds and associated environmen-
tal impacts. Weed Sci 62(2):403–414. doi:10.1614/WS-D-13-
00085.1
Ervin DE et al (2010) The impact of genetically engineered crops on
farm sustainability in the United States. NAP, National Research
Council, Washington DC
EWG (2015) GMO Foods. Environmental Working Group. Wash-
ington DC http://www.ewg.org/key-issues/food/gmo-foods.
Accessed 24 July 2015
FAO (2004). The state of food and agriculture 2003–2004. Agricul-
tural Biotechnology. Meeting the needs of the poor? FAO, Rome
Feng PCC et al (2010) Glyphosate-resistant crops: developing the
next generation products. In: Nandula VK (ed) op. cit. pp 45–66
123
46
Fernandez-Cornejo J, Wechsler S, Livingston M, Mitchell L (2014)
Genetically engineered crops in the United States. ERR-162.
USDA-ERS
FoE (2015) Spinning food: how food industry front groups and covert
communications are shaping the story of food. Friends of the
Earth US, Washington DC
Freese B (2014a) Comments to USDA’s APHIS on the Agency’s
draft Environmental impact statement on Monsanto Petitions
(10-188-01p and 12-185-01p) for determinations of nonregulated
status for Dicamba-resistant soybean and cotton varieties. Center
for Food Safety, Washington DC, ?appendix
Freese B (2014b) Comments to USDA’s APHIS on Dow AgroS-
ciences LLC draft environmental impact statement for determi-
nations of nonregulated status of herbicide resistant corn and
soybean. Center for Food Safety, Washington DC
Frisvold GB, Reeves JM (2010) Resistance management and
sustainable use of agricultural biotechnology. AgBioForum
13(4):343–359
Frisvold GB, Reeves JM (2014) Herbicide resistant crops and weeds:
implications for herbicide use and weed management. In:
Pimentel D, Peshin R (eds) Integrated pest management:
pesticide problems 3(3). Springer, Netherlands, pp 331–354
Gerwick C (2010) Thirty years of herbicide discovery: surveying the
past and contemplating the future. Agrow World Crop Prot News
600:vii–ix, 24/09/2010
Givens WA, Shaw DR, Kruger GR et al (2009) Survey of tillage
trends following the adoption of glyphosate-resistant crops.
Weed Technol 23:150–155
Givens WA, Shaw DR, Newman ME, Weller SC et al (2011)
Benchmark study on glyphosate-resistant cropping systems in
the United States. Part 3: Grower awareness, information
sources, experiences and management practices regarding
glyphosate-resistant weeds. Pest Manag Sci 67:758–770.
doi:10.1002/ps.2178
Grand View Research (2014) Glyphosate market analysis by appli-
cation (Conventional Crops, GM Crops) and segment forecasts
to 2020. Grand View Research, San Francisco
Green JM (2014) Current state of herbicides in herbicide-resistant
crops. Pest Manag Sci 70(9):1351–1357
Green JM, Owen MDK (2011) Herbicide-resistant crops: utilities and
limitations for herbicide-resistant weed management. J Agr Food
Chem 59(11):5819–5829. doi:10.1021/jf101286h
Gressel J (2010) Global advances in weed management. J Agric Sci
149:47–53
Grube A, Donaldson D, Kiely T, Wu L (2011) Pesticides industry
sales and usage 2006 and 2007 market estimates. USEPA Office
of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, Washington DC
Guyton KZ et al (2015) Carcinogenicity of tetrachlorvinphos,
parathion, malathion, diazinon, and glyphosate. Lancet Oncol.
doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(15)70134-8
Harker KN (2013) Slowing weed evolution with integrated weed
management. Can J Plant Sci 93(5):759–764
Harker KN, O’Donovan JT (2013) Recent weed control, weed
management, and integrated weed management. Weed Technol
27(1):1–11. doi:10.1614/WT-D-12-00109.1
Harker KN, O’Donovan JT, Blackshaw RE, Beckie HJ, Mallory-
Smith C, Maxwell BD (2012) Editorial our view. Weed Sci
60(2):143–144. doi:10.1614/WS-D-11-00177.1
Hartzler B (1998) Are Roundup Ready weeds in your future? Iowa
State University, Department of Agronomy. http://www.weeds.
iastate.edu/mgmt/qtr98-4/roundupfuture.htm. Accessed 18 Aug
2015
Heap I (1997) The occurrence of herbicide-resistant weeds world-
wide. Pestic Sci 51(3):235–243
Heap I (2013) Overview of global herbicide resistance cases and
lessons learnt. Communication at the International Conference
123
Environmental Management (2016) 57:31–48
‘‘Global Herbicide Resistance Challenge’’ Perth, Australia,
18–22/02/2013
Heap I (2014) Global perspective of herbicide-resistant weeds. Pest
Manag Sci 70(9):1306–1315. doi:10.1002/ps.3696
Heap I (2015) The International Survey of Herbicide Resistant
Weeds. http://www.weedscience.org. Accessed 22 July 2015
HSDB (Hazardous Substances Data Bank) (2015a). 2,4-D. National
Library of Medicine, Bethesda (MD). http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/
cgi-bin/sis/htmlgen?HSDB. Accessed 18 Aug 2015
HSDB (Hazardous Substances Data Bank) (2015b). Dicamba.
National Library of Medicine Bethesda (MD), http://toxnet.
nlm.nih.gov/cgi-bin/sis/htmlgen?HSDB. Accessed 18 Aug 2015
IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer) (2015) Vol.
112: Some organophosphate insecticides and herbicides: tetra-
chlorvinphos, parathion, malathion, diazinon, and glyphosate.
IARC Working Group. Lyon, 3-10/03/2015. IARC Monogr Eval
Carcinog Risk Chem Hum
James C (2014 and previous years) Global Status of Commercialized
Biotech/GM Crops: 2014. ISAAA Briefs (49). ISAAA (Interna-
tional Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications),
Ithaca, NY
Johnson WG, Owen MDK, Kruger GR et al (2009) US farmer
awareness of glyphosate-resistant weeds and resistance manage-
ment strategies. Weed Technol 23:308–312. doi:10.1614/WT-
08-181.1
Just Label It (2015) What are genetically engineered foods/GMOs?
Related pages. Just Label It, Washington DC. http://www.
justlabelit.org/about-ge-foods-center/about-gmo-foods/. Acces-
sed 18 Aug 2015
Kleter GA, Bhula R, Bodnaruk K, Carazo E, Felsot AS, Harris CA
et al (2007) Altered pesticide use on transgenic crops and the
associated general impact from an environmental perspective.
Pest Manag Sci 63(11):1107–1115
Kling J (2014) Labeling for better or worse. Nat Biotechnol
32(12):1180–1183
Klümper W, Qaim M (2014) A meta-analysis of the impacts of
genetically modified crops. PLoS One 9(11):e111629
Knezevic SZ (2014) Integrated weed management in soybean. In:
Chauhan BS, Mahajan G (eds) Recent advances in weed
management. Springer, New York, pp 223–237
Kniss A (2013) Where are the super weeds? Control freaks, 1/05/
2013. Wyoming weed science. http://weedcontrolfreaks.com/
2013/05/superweed/
Kniss AR, Coburn CW (2015) Quantitative evaluation of the
Environmental Impact Quotient (EIQ) for comparing herbicides.
PLoS One 10(6):e0131200
Kovach J et al (1992) A method to measure the environmental impact
of pesticides. New York’s Food and Life Sciences Bulletin No.
139, Cornell Univ., Ithaca
Kraehmer H et al (2014) Herbicides as weed control agents: state of
the art: II. Recent achievements. Plant Physiol
166(3):1132–1148
Livingston M, Fernandez-Cornejo J, Unger J, Osteen C, Schim-
melpfennig D, Park T, Lambert D (2015) The economics of
glyphosate resistance management in corn and soybean produc-
tion. USDA-ERS, Washington DC
Loomis D et al (2015) Carcinogenicity of lindane, DDT, and 2,4-
dichlorophenoxyacetic acid. Lancet Oncol, 22/06/2015. doi:10.
1016/S1470-2045(15)00081-9
McFadden BR, Lusk JL (2013) Effects of cost and campaign
advertising on support for California’s Proposition 37. J Agr
Resour Econ 38(2):174–186
Miller P (2010) Are ‘‘superweeds’’ an outgrowth of USDA biotech
policy? (part ii). Written Statement of PW Miller on behalf of
Monsanto Company for the Sept 30, 2010. Hearing of the
Domestic Policy Subcommittee of the US House of
Environmental Management (2016) 57:31–48
Representatives Oversight & Government Reform Committee,
111 Congress, 2nd session. https://oversight.house.gov/hearing/
are-superweeds-an-outgrowth-of-usda-biotech-policy-part-ii/.
Accessed 18 Aug 2015
Monsanto (2003a) Roundup ready soybeans. Brochure, Monsanto, St
Louis
Monsanto (2003b) Managing weed resistance. The facts. Monsanto,
St Louis
Mortensen D, Egan JF, Maxwell BD, Ryan MR, Smith RG (2012)
Navigating a critical juncture for sustainable weed management.
Bioscience 62(1):75–84
Nandula VK (2010) Glyphosate resistance in crops and weeds: history
development and management. Wiley, Hoboken
Nature’s Editorial (2014) A growing problem. Nature 510:187.
doi:10.1038/510187a
Neve P, Diggle AJ, Smith FP, Powles SB (2003) Simulating evolution
of glyphosate resistance in Lolium rigidum II: past, present and
future glyphosate use in Australian cropping. Weed Res
43(6):418–427
Norsworthy JK, Ward SM, Shaw DR et al (2012) Reducing the risks
of herbicide resistance: best management practices and recom-
mendations. Weed Sci 60(sp1):31–62
Osteen CD, Fernandez-Cornejo J (2013) Economic and policy issues
of US agricultural pesticide use trends. Pest Manag Sci
69(9):1001–1025. doi:10.1002/ps.3529
Owen MDK, Young BG, Shaw DR et al (2011) Benchmark study on
glyphosate-resistant crop systems in the United States. Part 2:
Perspectives. Pest Manag Sci 67(7):747–757
Owen MDK, Beckie HJ, Leeson JY, Norsworthy JK, Steckel LE
(2014) Integrated pest management and weed management in the
United States and Canada. Pest Manag Sci 71:357–376. doi:10.
1002/ps.3928
Phillips McDougall (2010) The cost of new agrochemical product
discovery, development and registration in 1995, 2000 and
2005–2008. R&D expenditure in 2007 and expectations for
2012. Consultancy study for CropLife America and the Euro-
pean Crop Protection Association. Phillips McDougall, Midloth-
ian, UK
Powles SB, Yu Q (2010) Evolution in action: plants resistant to
herbicides. Annu Rev Plant Biol 61:317–347
Powles SB, Lorraine-Colwill DF, Dellow JJ, Preston C (1998)
Evolved resistance to glyphosate in rigid ryegrass (Lolium
rigidum) in Australia. Weed Sci 46(5):604–607. http://www.
jstor.org/stable/4045968
Price AJ, Balkcom KS, Culpepper SA, Kelton JA, Nichols RL,
Schomberg H (2011) Glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth: a
threat to conservation tillage. J Soil Water Conserv
66(4):265–275
Prince JM, Shaw DR, Givens WA et al (2012) Benchmark study: III.
Survey on changing herbicide use patterns in glyphosate-
resistant cropping systems. Weed Technol 26(3):536–542
Public comments (2014) Comments on Docket No. APHIS-2013-043
regarding Dicamba-Tolerant Soybeans and Cotton (MON 87708
and MON 88701). http://www.regulations.gov/. Accessed 18
Aug 2015
Public comments (2015) Evaluation of 2,4-D choline salt herbicide on
enlist corn and soybeans. Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0195.
US EPA. http://www.regulations.gov/. Accessed 18 Aug 2015
Puente M, Darnall N, Forkner RE (2011) Assessing integrated pest
management adoption: measurement problems and policy
implications. Environ Manag 48(5):1013–1023
Rabobank International (2012) Nature finds a way: the rising cost of
herbicide-resistant weeds in the U.S. Rabo AgFocus, June
Reddy KN (2001) Glyphosate-resistant soybean as a weed manage-
ment tool: opportunities and challenges. Weed Biol Manag
1(4):193–202
47
Reuters (2015). [Corrected] US regulators may recommend testing
food for glyphosate residues. Reuters, 17/04/2015
Riar DS, Norsworthy JK, Steckel LE et al (2013) Adoption of best
management practices for herbicide-resistant weeds in Mid-
southern United States cotton, rice, and soybean. Weed Technol
27(4):788–797. doi:10.1614/WT-D-13-00087.1
Ricroch AE, Hénard-Damave MC (2015) Next biotech plants: new
traits crops developers and technologies for addressing global
challenges. Crit Rev Biotechnol. doi:10.3109/07388551.2015.
1004521
Roulac JW (2015) Food trends of today & tomorrow. Presentation at
The Food Leaders Summit 2015, 27–29/04/2015, Chicago
Service RF (2007) A growing threat down on the farm. Science
316(5828):114–117. doi:10.1126/science.316.5828.1114
Service RF (2013) What happens when weed killers stop killing?
Science 341(6152):1329. doi:10.1126/science.341.6152.1329
Shaner DL (2000) The impact of glyphosate tolerant crops on the use
of other herbicides and on resistance management. Pest Manag
Sci 56(4):320–326
Shaner DL, Beckie HJ (2014) The future for weed control and
technology. Pest Manag Sci 70(9):1329–1339. doi:10.1002/ps.
3706
Sosnoskie LM, Culpepper AS (2014) Glyphosate-resistant Palmer
amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) increases herbicide use, tillage,
and hand-weeding in Georgia cotton. Weed Sci 62(2):393–402
Southwest Farm Press (2001) No-till know-how with Dr. John
Bradley. 1/02/2001. http://southeastfarmpress.com/no-till-know-
how-dr-john-bradley
Stokstad E (2013) The war against weeds down under. Science
341(6147):734–736
Stratus Ag Research (2013) Glyphosate resistant weeds—intensify-
ing. Stratus Ag Research, Guelph
Stratus Ag Research (2014) Ag retailers play a critical role in best
management practices for herbicides. Stratus Ag Research,
Guelph, Canada
Székács A, Darvas B (2012) Forty years with glyphosate. In: Naguib
Hasaneen M (ed) Herbicides: properties, synthesis and control of
weeds. InTechOpen, Rijeka, Croatia. pp 247–284. http://www.
intechopen.com/books/herbicides-properties-synthesis-and-con
trol-of-weeds/forty-years-with-glyphosate
Tabashnik BE, Mota-Sanchez D, Whalon ME, Hollingworth RM,
Carrière Y (2014) Defining terms for proactive management of
resistance to Bt crops and pesticides. J Econ Entomol
107(2):496–507. doi:10.1603/EC13458
Thelin GP, Stone WW (2013) Estimation of annual agricultural
pesticide use for counties of the conterminous United States,
1992–2009. USGS Scientific Investigations Report 2013–5009
USDA-APHIS (2015) Biotechnology. Petitions for Determination of
Nonregulated Status. http://www.aphis.usda.gov/biotechnology/
petitions_table_pending.shtml. Accessed 24 July 2015
USDA-ERS (2014). ARMS farm financial and crop production
practices, database, http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/
arms-farm-financial-and-crop-production-practices/tailored-rep
orts-crop-production-practices.aspx Accessed 1 Jul 2015
USDA-ERS (2015) Adoption of genetically engineered crops in the
US. USDA-ERS. www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/adoption-of-
genetically-engineered-crops-in-the-us.aspx. Accessed 10 July
2015
USDA-NASS (1991–2013) Agricultural chemical usage, field crops
summary. USDA ESMIS (Economics, Statistics and Market
Information System), Mann Library, Cornell University,
1990–2013. http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/MannUsda/viewDo
cumentInfo.do?documentID=1560. Accessed 1 July 2015
USDA-NASS (2013) Agricultural Chemical Use Program. http://
www.nass.usda.gov/Surveys/Guide_to_NASS_Surveys/Chemi
cal_Use/. Accessed 1 July 2015
123
48
USDA-NASS (2014) Agricultural Resource Management Survey. US
Soybean Industry. NASS Highlights. http://www.nass.usda.gov/
Surveys/Guide_to_NASS_Surveys/Ag_Resource_Management/
ARMS_Soybeans_Factsheet/index.asp. Accessed 10 Apr 2015
USEPA (1993) RED (Reregistration Eligibility Decision) Fact:
Glyphosate. EPA-738-F-93-011, Sept. 1993. US Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic
Substances, Office of Pesticide Programs, US GPO, Washington,
DC
USEPA (2014) Final Registration of Enlist DuoTM Herbicide. 15/10/
2014
USEPA (2015) Glyphosate. Regulatory Actions. USEPA, Office of
Pesticide Programs. http://iaspub.epa.gov/apex/pesticides/f?p=
CHEMICALSEARCH:31:0::NO:1,3,31,7,12,25:P3_XCHEMI
CAL_ID:2477. Accessed 18 Aug 2015
USGS (2015a) Pesticide National Synthesis Project. National Water-
Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Program. USGS. https://water.
usgs.gov/nawqa/pnsp/usage/maps/about.php. Accessed 18 Aug
2015
USGS (2015b) Pesticide Use Maps. Pesticide National Synthesis
Project. National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Pro-
gram. USGS. https://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/pnsp/usage/maps/
compound_listing.php. Accessed 18 Aug 2015
USGS (2015c) Pesticide Use Maps: Glyphosate. Pesticide National
Synthesis Project. NAWQA Program. USGS. https://water.usgs.
gov/nawqa/pnsp/usage/maps/show_map.php?year=2012&map=
GLYPHOSATE&hilo=L&disp=Glyphosate. Accessed 18 Aug
2015
Vencill WK, Nichols RL, Webster TM et al (2012) Herbicide
resistance: Toward an understanding of resistance development
123
Environmental Management (2016) 57:31–48
and the impact of herbicide-resistant crops. Weed Sci 60(sp1):
2–30
Waltz E (2010) Glyphosate resistance threatens Roundup hegemony.
Nat Biotechnol 28(6):537–538
Waltz E (2015) Monsanto adds dicamba to its cache to counter weed
threat. Nat Biotechnol 33(4):328
Ward SM, Webster TM, Steckel LE (2013) Palmer Amaranth
(Amaranthus palmeri): a review. Weed Technol 27(1):12–27
Webster TM, Sosnoskie LM (2010) Loss of glyphosate efficacy: a
changing weed spectrum in Georgia cotton. Weed Sci
58(1):73–79
Wikipedia (2015a) Genetically modified food controversies. Wikipe-
dia, 23 June 2015
Wikipedia (2015b) 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid. Wikipedia, 27
June 2015
Wikipedia (2015c) Dicamba. Wikipedia, 27 June 2015
Wilson L (2015) Trust us, it’s harmless. Could the popular herbicide
glyphosate be destroying our health? Natural Grocers, April
2015. https://www.naturalgrocers.com/nutrition-and-health/nutri
tion-library/nutrition-article/trust-us-its-harmless/
WSSA (2013) Letter to APHIS. Re: Notice of Intent to Prepare an EIS
for determination of Nonregulated Status for 2,4-D resistant corn
and soybeans and for dicamba resistant cotton and soybeans.
WSSA (Weed Science Society of America), Lawrence, KS
WSSA (2014) Resistance Summit II, 2nd National Summit on
Strategies to Manage Herbicide-Resistant Weeds. Washington,
DC, 10/09/2014. http://wssa.net/weed/resistance-summit-ii/.
Accessed 10 Apr 2015