Hubbry Logo
Genetically modified soybeanGenetically modified soybeanMain
Open search
Genetically modified soybean
Community hub
Genetically modified soybean
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Genetically modified soybean
Genetically modified soybean
Genetically modified soybean
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Part of a series on
Genetic engineering
 
Genetically modified organisms
History and regulation
Process
Applications
Controversies

A genetically modified soybean is a soybean (Glycine max) that has had DNA introduced into it using genetic engineering techniques.[1]: 5  In 1996, the first genetically modified soybean was introduced to the U.S. by Monsanto. In 2014, 90.7 million hectares of GM soybeans were planted worldwide, making up 82% of the total soybeans cultivation area.[2]

Examples of transgenic soybeans

[edit]

The genetic makeup of a soybean gives it a wide variety of uses, thus keeping it in high demand. First, manufacturers only wanted to use transgenics to be able to grow more soybeans at a minimal cost to meet this demand, and to fix any problems in the growing process, but they eventually found they could modify the soybean to contain healthier components, or even focus on one aspect of the soybean to produce in larger quantities. These phases became known as the first and second generation of genetically modified (GM) foods. As Peter Celec describes, "benefits of the first generation of GM foods were oriented towards the production process and companies, the second generation of GM foods offers, on contrary, various advantages and added value for the consumer", including "improved nutritional composition or even therapeutic effects."[3]: 533 

Roundup Ready Soybean

[edit]

Roundup Ready soybeans (The first variety was also known as GTS 40-3-2 (OECD UI: MON-04032-6)) are a series of genetically engineered varieties of glyphosate-resistant soybeans produced by Monsanto.

Glyphosate kills plants by interfering with the synthesis of the essential amino acids phenylalanine, tyrosine and tryptophan. These amino acids are called "essential" because animals cannot make them; only plants and micro-organisms can make them and animals obtain them by eating plants.[4]

Plants and microorganisms make these amino acids with an enzyme that only plants and lower organisms have, called 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase (EPSPS).[5] EPSPS is not present in animals, which instead obtain aromatic amino acids from their diet.[6]

Roundup Ready Soybeans express a version of EPSPS from the CP4 strain of the bacteria Agrobacterium tumefaciens, expression of which is regulated by an enhanced 35S promoter (E35S) from cauliflower mosaic virus (CaMV), a chloroplast transit peptide (CTP4) coding sequence from Petunia hybrida, and a nopaline synthase (nos 3') transcriptional termination element from Agrobacterium tumefaciens.[7] The plasmid with EPSPS and the other genetic elements mentioned above was inserted into soybean germplasm with a gene gun by scientists at Monsanto and Asgrow.[8][9] The patent on the first generation of Roundup Ready soybeans expired in March 2015.[10]

History

[edit]

First approved commercially in the United States during 1994, GTS 40-3-2 was subsequently introduced to Canada in 1995, Japan and Argentina in 1996, Uruguay in 1997, Mexico and Brazil in 1998, and South Africa in 2001. GMO Soybean is also approved by the United Nations in 1999.

The Chinese Ministry of Agriculture announced on April 29, 2022, the approval of the drought-tolerant event, called HB4.

Detection

[edit]

GTS 40-3-2 can be detected using both nucleic acid and protein analysis methods.[11][12]

Generic GMO soybeans

[edit]

Following expiration of Monsanto's patent on the first variety of glyphosate-resistant Roundup Ready soybeans, development began on glyphosate-resistant generic soybeans. The first variety, developed at the University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture, came to the market in 2015. With a slightly lower yield than newer Monsanto varieties, it costs about 1/2 as much, and seeds can be saved for subsequent years. According to its innovator, it is adapted to conditions in Arkansas. Several other varieties are being bred by crossing the original variety of Roundup Ready soybeans with other soybean varieties.[10][13][14]

HB4 Soybean

[edit]

HB4 soybean, whose technical name is IND-ØØ41Ø-5 soybean, is a variety produced through genetic engineering to respond efficiently to drought conditions.

The HB4 soybean was created to more efficiently tolerate abiotic stress such as drought or hypersaline conditions. These characteristics result in increased yield compared to unmodified varieties. In 2015, HB4 soybean was approved in Argentina, then in Brazil (May 2019), the United States (August 2019), Paraguay (2019),[15] Canada (2021)[16] and the People's Republic of China (2022).[17]

Stacked traits

[edit]

Monsanto developed a glyphosate-resistant soybean that also expresses Cry1Ac protein from Bacillus thuringiensis and the glyphosate-resistance gene, which completed the Brazilian regulatory process in 2010. This is a cross of two events, MON87701 x MON89788.[18][19]

Genetic modification to improve soybean oil

[edit]

Soybean has been genetically modified to improve the quality of soy oil. Soy oil has a fatty acid profile that makes it susceptible to oxidation, which makes it rancid, which limits its usefulness in the food industry.[20]: 1030  Genetic modifications increased the amount of oleic acid and stearic acid and decreased the amount of linolenic acid.[20]: 1031  By silencing, or knocking out, the delta 9 and delta 12 desaturases.[20]: 1032 [21] DuPont Pioneer created a high oleic fatty acid soybean with levels of oleic acid greater than 80%, and started marketing it in 2010.[20]: 1038 

Regulation

[edit]
Main article: Regulation of the release of genetic modified organisms

The regulation of genetic engineering concerns the approaches taken by governments to assess and manage the risks associated with the development and release of genetically modified crops. There are differences in the regulation of GM crops between countries, with some of the most marked differences occurring between the US and Europe. In the US, the American Soybean Association (ASA) is generally in favor of allowing new GM soy varieties. The ASA especially supports separate regulation of transgenics and all other techniques.[22] Soy beans are allowed a Maximum Residue Limit of glyphosate of 20 milligrams per kilogram (9.1 mg/lb)[23] for international trade.[24] Regulation varies in a given country depending on the intended use of the products of the genetic engineering. For example, a crop not intended for food use is generally not reviewed by authorities responsible for food safety.[25][26] Romania authorised GM soy for cultivation and use but then imposed a ban upon entry into the EU in 2007. This resulted in an immediate withdrawal of 70% of the soybean hectares in 2008 and a trade deficit of €117.4m for purchase of replacement products. Farmer sentiment was very much in favour of relegalisation.[27]

Controversy

[edit]
Main article: Genetically modified food controversies

There is a scientific consensus[28][29][30][31] that currently available food derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food,[32][33][34][35][36] but that each GM food needs to be tested on a case-by-case basis before introduction.[37][38][39] Nonetheless, members of the public are much less likely than scientists to perceive GM foods as safe.[40][41][42][43] The legal and regulatory status of GM foods varies by country, with some nations banning or restricting them, and others permitting them with widely differing degrees of regulation.[44][45][46][47]

A 2010 study found that in the United States, GM crops also provide a number of environmental benefits.[48][49][50]

Critics have objected to GM crops on several grounds, including ecological concerns, and economic concerns raised by the fact that these organisms are subject to intellectual property law. GM crops also are involved in controversies over GM food with respect to whether food produced from GM crops are safe and whether GM crops are needed to address the world's food needs. See the genetically modified food controversies article for discussion of issues about GM crops and GM food. These controversies have led to litigation, international trade disputes, and protests, and to restrictive legislation in most countries.[51]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Genetically modified soybean

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Genetically modified soybeans are varieties of the Glycine max engineered through technology to incorporate specific genetic traits, most notably tolerance to broad-spectrum herbicides like and, in some cases, resistance to lepidopteran insects via (Bt) proteins. The first commercial genetically modified , Monsanto's variety conferring tolerance, was introduced in the United States in 1996, marking the beginning of widespread adoption of in cultivation. By the early , herbicide-tolerant soybeans had achieved near-universal planting in the US, reaching 93-94% of acreage by the mid-2010s, with similar high adoption rates in major producers like and , where they now dominate global production comprising over 80% of the world's . Empirical analyses of field data demonstrate that herbicide-tolerant soybeans have enabled simplified weed management, leading to yield increases of approximately 10-30% in adopting regions through better control of competition and reduced crop injury, alongside a 37% reduction in applications across GM crops including soybeans, without evidence of increased volumes offsetting these gains. Stacked traits combining tolerance with Bt resistance have further minimized pest-related losses, contributing to net economic benefits for farmers estimated in billions annually. Safety assessments, including multiple meta-analyses of compositional, toxicological, and long-term feeding studies, affirm that approved GM soybeans are substantially equivalent to conventional counterparts in nutritional profile and pose no unique risks to or health, a conclusion upheld across regulatory reviews spanning decades of consumption. Despite persistent controversies fueled by unsubstantiated claims of allergenicity or environmental harm, no causal links to adverse outcomes have been established in peer-reviewed literature, contrasting with documented productivity advantages.

History

Early Research and First Commercialization

The development of technology in 1973, demonstrated by and Stanley Cohen through the insertion of bacterial DNA into another bacterium, enabled precise genetic modifications applicable to crops like soybeans. This breakthrough facilitated subsequent advances in plant biotechnology during the 1980s, including soybean-specific experiments. Researchers achieved the first fertile transgenic soybeans in 1988 by infecting cotyledonary nodes with , a soil bacterium naturally capable of transferring DNA into plant cells, marking a key milestone in soybean genetic engineering. Building on this method, isolated the cp4 epsps gene from sp. strain CP4, which encodes a glyphosate-insensitive in the , allowing soybeans to survive exposure to the while targeting weeds. The insertion of this gene via A. tumefaciens addressed longstanding challenges in , as previously inhibited synthesis in both crops and weeds, limiting post-emergence applications. The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service granted to Monsanto's soybeans (event GTS 40-3-2) in May 1994 after determining the modified posed no increased plant pest risk compared to conventional varieties. Commercial seeds became available in 1996, representing the initial market entry of glyphosate-tolerant GM soybeans. This release prompted swift uptake by U.S. farmers, who valued the trait's compatibility with for broad-spectrum weed management, leading to substantial planted acreage within the first few years.

Global Expansion and Adoption

Adoption of in the United States accelerated rapidly after initial , reaching over 90% of planted acreage by 2006, driven primarily by herbicide-tolerant varieties that facilitated weed management and yield stability. This high penetration rate persisted, with 93% of U.S. acreage consisting of GM varieties by 2012, reflecting farmers' empirical preferences for traits enhancing productivity amid variable field conditions. Expansion extended to South America, where achieved near-total adoption of GM soybeans by the early 2000s following 1996 approval, comprising virtually all cultivation by 2010 due to compatibility with large-scale, mechanized farming systems. In , de facto cultivation of smuggled GM seeds from 1998 prompted provisional approvals, culminating in permanent legislative authorization in September 2003, which spurred legal expansion; by 2010, GM soybeans dominated over 80% of Brazil's area, enabling the country to surpass the U.S. as the world's top producer. This regulatory shift in facilitated proliferation of stacked-trait varieties combining herbicide tolerance with insect resistance, further incentivizing adoption through integrated pest management efficiencies. Globally, GM soybean cultivation scaled to approximately 84 million hectares by 2014, accounting for nearly half of all GM crop area and concentrated in the U.S., , and , which together represented over 90% of production. Key drivers included average yield increases of 22% documented in meta-analyses of field trials and farm-level data across multiple countries, attributed to enhanced resistance against biotic stresses and improved resource use efficiency. These gains supported no-till practices, reducing and fuel inputs while bolstering competitiveness, as GM soybean underpinned dominance in global protein meal and markets without evidence of yield drag relative to conventional counterparts in comparable environments.

Recent Developments and Approvals

In 2019, the HB4 soybean variety, engineered with the Hahb-4 gene from Helianthus annuus to enhance , gained commercial approval in after initial authorization in the prior year. This development marked a key advancement in resistance for s, with field trials under water-limited conditions showing yield improvements of 10-20% compared to non-transgenic counterparts. The trait's integration into stacked varieties has since expanded its adoption in , supporting resilience amid variable rainfall patterns without evidence of unintended ecological impacts in regulatory assessments. From 2023 onward, regulatory approvals have emphasized stacked traits combining multiple resistances. In September 2025, Argentina's Secretariat of Agriculture authorized the DBN8205 event, developed by DBN Biotech, which provides protection against lepidopteran pests via cry1Ac and vip3A genes alongside tolerance to herbicide. This approval facilitates broader management options in high-pressure regions, building on empirical data from confined trials demonstrating effective control without yield penalties. Similarly, companies like have advanced herbicide-tolerant stacks, such as extensions of Enlist E3 systems tolerant to 2,4-D, , and glufosinate, with ongoing integrations approved for U.S. cultivation by 2025. In the , import authorizations for GM soybeans have sustained supply chains for feed and processing. In June 2023, the renewed permissions for three soybean events alongside approvals for additional GE crops, enabling import of four varieties modified for tolerance and fatty acid profiles. These decisions, based on EFSA risk assessments confirming no concerns, underscore empirical validation of long-term compositional equivalence. trait soybeans now dominate plantings, exceeding 80% adoption in the U.S. by 2023, correlating with reduced insecticide volumes due to Bt integrations, though use patterns vary by weed pressure and management practices.

Genetic Engineering Methods

Core Techniques Employed

The primary technique for genetic modification of soybeans is -mediated transformation, utilizing the soil bacterium to transfer a T-DNA plasmid segment containing the target into the plant cell nucleus. This process leverages the bacterium's natural mechanism of T-DNA export and nuclear integration, typically via illegitimate recombination, enabling stable, heritable insertion into the soybean genome with relatively low copy numbers compared to physical methods. For instance, the CP4 EPSPS , conferring herbicide tolerance, was introduced this way in early commercial varieties, achieving efficient transformation rates in cotyledonary explants under optimized conditions such as hormone supplementation and co-cultivation. An alternative method is biolistic particle bombardment, or delivery, where DNA-coated gold or microparticles are accelerated into embryonic axis or meristematic tissues to facilitate direct uptake and integration. This physical approach bypasses biological vectors, allowing transformation of recalcitrant genotypes or integration of larger constructs, such as those encoding Bt Cry proteins for insect resistance, though it often results in multiple tandem insertions requiring rigorous selection for single-locus events to minimize positional effects on expression. Bombardment parameters, including helium pressure and particle size, are calibrated to penetrate cell walls without excessive tissue damage, ensuring viable regeneration and somaclonal propagation into fertile . Transgene stability is confirmed through molecular assays, including (PCR) for detecting insertion presence and analysis for assessing copy number, integration site integrity, and absence of backbone sequences. These techniques verify that the introduced DNA remains intact and expresses predictably, with demonstrated via segregation analysis in progeny and multi-generational field evaluations under controlled conditions to exclude rearrangements or silencing. Such validation ensures modifications are precise at the genomic level, with minimal unintended alterations to endogenous sequences beyond the integration locus.

Engineered Traits and Mechanisms

The most prevalent engineered trait in genetically modified soybeans is tolerance to the herbicide glyphosate, achieved through insertion of the cp4-epsps gene, which encodes a variant of the enzyme 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase (EPSPS) sourced from Agrobacterium sp. strain CP4. Glyphosate exerts its herbicidal action by competitively inhibiting the wild-type plant EPSPS, thereby blocking the shikimate pathway essential for synthesizing aromatic amino acids (phenylalanine, tyrosine, and tryptophan) and downstream metabolites like lignin and flavonoids, ultimately causing plant death via resource starvation and disrupted growth. The CP4 EPSPS variant features amino acid substitutions (e.g., Ala-236-to-Thr and Pro-101-to-Ser) that alter the enzyme's active site, reducing glyphosate's binding affinity by over 10,000-fold while maintaining catalytic efficiency for phosphoenolpyruvate and shikimate-3-phosphate substrates, thus preserving pathway flux and enabling selective weed control without harming the modified crop. Insect resistance in GM soybeans targets lepidopteran pests, such as soybean looper (Chrysodeixis includens) and velvetbean caterpillar (Anticarsia gemmatalis), via integration of cry genes from Bacillus thuringiensis, notably cry1Ac, encoding crystalline (Cry) delta-endotoxin proteins. These protoxins, produced as inactive crystals in the bacterium, are ingested by larvae and activated by midgut proteases into soluble toxins under the insect's alkaline pH (pH 9-11); the activated Cry1Ac monomers then bind cadherin-like receptors on the brush border membrane of midgut epithelial cells, triggering oligomerization and insertion of pores (approximately 1-2 nm diameter) that permeabilize the membrane, causing ionic imbalance, colloid osmosis, gut paralysis, and septicemia leading to larval mortality within 2-5 days. This mode of action exploits insect-specific receptor specificity and protease activation, minimizing non-target effects on vertebrates lacking compatible receptors or midgut conditions. Abiotic stress tolerance, particularly to , has been introduced via the HaHB4 encoding a class I homeodomain-leucine zipper (HD-Zip I) from sunflower (Helianthus annuus). Under water deficit, HaHB4 accumulates in the nucleus and binds CACATG motifs in promoters of target , upregulating pathways for stomatal closure (via reduced expansion and ABA-responsive signaling), osmolyte biosynthesis (e.g., for cellular turgor maintenance), and lignification for structural reinforcement, which collectively limit transpiration losses, sustain longer, and enhance root hydraulic conductivity without compromising yield potential under moderate stress. This regulatory cascade contrasts with constitutive overexpression strategies by responding to and water status cues, promoting adaptive reallocations like increased development and expression to mitigate secondary oxidative damage.

Key Varieties and Modifications

Herbicide-Tolerant Soybeans

Herbicide-tolerant soybeans represent a primary class of genetically modified varieties engineered to survive exposure to specific herbicides, most notably , thereby simplifying . The archetypal example is Monsanto's soybeans, which incorporate the isolated from sp. strain CP4. This gene encodes a variant of the 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase (EPSPS) enzyme that remains functional in the presence of glyphosate, unlike the plant's native version, which glyphosate inhibits by binding to its and blocking the essential for synthesis in plants and microbes. Commercialized in 1996, Roundup Ready soybeans enabled post-emergence application of , allowing weeds to be targeted after crop emergence without damaging the plants. This approach reduced reliance on pre-emergence herbicides or mechanical cultivation, facilitating the adoption of systems where remains on the soil surface to curb and improve . Following the expiration of key patents in 2014–2015, generic glyphosate-tolerant traits entered the market, permitting competing firms to develop and commercialize similar modifications without licensing fees, though often under technology use agreements for . To verify trait integrity in seeds or material, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay () methods detect the CP4 EPSPS protein, providing qualitative or quantitative confirmation for breeding, purity testing, and compliance with grower agreements. These immunoassays target the expressed protein in samples from soybeans, offering sensitivity for low-level detection in , , or processed materials.

Insect-Resistant and Stacked Trait Varieties

Insect-resistant genetically modified soybeans express the cry1Ac gene from Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) subspecies kurstaki HD73, producing the Cry1Ac δ-endotoxin protein that targets lepidopteran larvae by binding to midgut receptors, disrupting digestion, and causing mortality. This mechanism confers resistance primarily against pests like the soybean looper (Chrysodeixis includens) and velvet bean caterpillar (Anticarsia gemmatalis), with high-dose expression in foliage deterring feeding damage under field conditions. Commercial deployment began in Argentina around 2010, where Bt soybeans have maintained efficacy against key defoliators over a decade of use, despite shifts in non-target insect abundances. These insect-resistance traits are integrated into stacked varieties combining Cry1Ac with herbicide-tolerance genes, such as resistance from the cp4 epsps event in MON 89788, to address multiple agronomic challenges simultaneously. The MON 87701 × MON 89788 stack, approved for food, feed, and environmental release in (2010) and (among others), exemplifies this approach, enabling integrated pest and weed management while expressing both traits equivalently to single-event parents. Further multi-event stacks, like MON 87701 × MON 87751 × MON 89788, incorporate additional tolerances (e.g., , 2,4-D) alongside lepidopteran resistance, expanding to cover broader pest spectra and options in high-adoption regions. By , such dual-trait soybeans occupied significant acreage, reflecting empirical demand for pyramided resistance to delay pest adaptation. Field meta-analyses of insect-resistant GM crops, including Bt soybeans, demonstrate a 37% average reduction in applications compared to conventional counterparts, driven by decreased sprays for targeted lepidopterans and associated yield protections. Reduced larval survival on Cry1Ac foliage—evidenced by bioassays showing near-zero survival of susceptible soybean looper populations—directly lowers crop injury, minimizing secondary fungal ingress and mycotoxin accumulation from damaged tissues, akin to documented declines in Bt corn. These outcomes hold across diverse environments, though ongoing monitoring tracks potential resistance evolution in pest populations.

Abiotic Stress-Tolerant Varieties

Abiotic stress-tolerant genetically modified s are engineered to withstand environmental challenges such as , primarily through the insertion of genes that regulate physiological responses like and water retention. The leading commercial example is HB4 soybean (event IND-ØØ41Ø-5), developed by Verdeca LLC, a between Bioceres Crop Solutions and Arcadia Biosciences, featuring the HaHB4 gene derived from sunflower ( annuus). This homeobox-leucine zipper modulates the expression of downstream involved in stress signaling, enhancing development and under water-limited conditions without compromising performance in non-stress environments. Field evaluations of HB4 soybeans, conducted across multiple seasons in and , have demonstrated yield advantages under drought stress, with transgenic lines yielding up to 15% more seed than conventional counterparts in warm, dry sites characterized by severe water deficits. These improvements stem from better water use efficiency, reduced , and sustained pod filling during reproductive stages, as validated in replicated trials spanning diverse agroecological zones. Unlike traits targeting biotic pests or resistance, modifications like HaHB4 address yield losses from climatic variability, such as prolonged dry spells, which affect over 20% of global acreage annually. Regulatory milestones for HB4 include approval for cultivation and consumption in in 2015, marking the first commercial deployment of drought-tolerant GM soybeans, followed by in the United States by the USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service on August 7, 2019, after assessments confirmed no plant pest risks or unintended environmental impacts. Subsequent authorizations in and have enabled stacked integrations with other traits, though the core abiotic benefit remains tied to HaHB4-mediated , which also confers partial resilience to and through overlapping stress pathways. No other transgenic soybean events focused solely on abiotic tolerance have achieved widespread commercialization, underscoring HB4's pioneering role in this category.

Oil Composition Enhancements

Genetic modifications targeting the desaturase-2 (FAD2) genes have enabled the development of soybean varieties with altered oil profiles, primarily by suppressing the conversion of (18:1) to (18:2). The endogenous soybean FAD2-1A and FAD2-1B genes encode delta-12 desaturases that catalyze this step in the biosynthesis pathway; (RNAi) or partial gene insertion techniques silence their expression, leading to accumulation while reducing polyunsaturated s. Commercial high-oleic soybeans, such as DuPont's Plenish line (event 305423), incorporate a soybean-derived gm-fad2-1 gene fragment to suppress endogenous FAD2-1 activity, resulting in seed oil with oleic acid levels elevated to approximately 75% of total fatty acids, compared to 20-25% in conventional soybeans. Monsanto's Vistive Gold soybeans, deregulated for commercial use following U.S. approvals in the mid-2010s and launched at scale in 2018, combine FAD2 suppression with modifications for low saturated fats, yielding oils with over 70% oleic acid and reduced linolenic acid (below 3%). These enhancements shift the fatty acid profile toward monounsaturates, minimizing polyunsaturates prone to oxidation. Such engineered oils exhibit improved compositional stability for industrial applications, with dominance enabling extended shelf life and processing without partial , which conventionally generates trans fats. Adoption in food manufacturing has followed global regulatory clearances, including authorization for Plenish traits in 2017 and Chinese import approval for in 2017, facilitating market expansion for non-hydrogenated frying oils and spreads. The resulting profiles maintain overall equivalence in other macronutrients to non-GM counterparts, focusing utility on oxidative resistance.

Regulatory Oversight

National Approval Processes

In the United States, of genetically modified soybeans operates under the Coordinated Framework for of established in 1986, with oversight divided among three agencies based on product risk rather than development method. The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) evaluates potential plant pest risks through petitions for , requiring developers to submit data from confined field trials demonstrating no increased weediness, disease susceptibility, or beyond conventional soybeans. The (FDA) conducts voluntary consultations to confirm substantial equivalence in composition, , and safety for and feed uses, relying on molecular characterization and compositional analyses from multi-location, multi-year field trials. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulates soybeans expressing pesticidal traits, such as Bt proteins for resistance, assessing environmental and non-target organism impacts via registrational data including field efficacy and residue trials. For instance, the first glyphosate-tolerant (event 40-3-2) received APHIS in 1994 following review, enabling commercial planting starting in 1996 after FDA consultation affirmed its safety equivalence to non-GM soybeans. Brazil's National Technical Commission on (CTNBio) handles approvals for GM soybeans under a science-based framework emphasizing technical risk assessments, independent of socio-economic considerations. Developers submit dossiers with molecular, agronomic, and environmental data from multi-year confined and open field trials across representative regions to evaluate stability, unintended effects, and ecological interactions. CTNBio approved the drought-tolerant HB4 event (IND-ØØ41-3) in May 2019, incorporating the sunflower Hahb-4 , after reviewing trial data showing no significant differences in or yield penalties under standard conditions. Stacked traits, such as HB4 combined with herbicide tolerance, undergo similar evaluations but benefit from accelerated reviews if component events are previously approved. In , the National Advisory Commission on Agricultural Biotechnology (CONABIA) coordinates GM soybean approvals through case-by-case risk assessments focused on environmental release, /feed safety, and agronomic performance. Requirements include data from replicated field trials over at least two seasons to assess phenotypic stability, allergenicity, toxicity, and potential , often leveraging data transportability from international trials to reduce redundancy. CONABIA approved HB4 soybeans for production and consumption in 2015, based on trials confirming enhanced yield under water stress without adverse ecological impacts. Subsequent stacked varieties, like those combining HB4 with insect resistance, receive expedited technical opinions if parental lines meet equivalence criteria.

International Trade and Biosafety Standards

Genetically modified soybeans constitute approximately 84% of global production, with and the as the leading exporters, shipping over 100 million metric tons annually combined to markets primarily in and for . These exports facilitate low-cost protein sources, as herbicide-tolerant and insect-resistant traits enable higher yields and reduced production expenses compared to conventional varieties. The , adopted in 2000 under the , governs transboundary movements of living modified organisms (LMOs) like GM soybean seeds, requiring advance informed agreement (AIA) from importing parties to assess potential risks to . However, commodity products such as and oil—derived from GM crops and exempt from AIA—are traded freely, allowing dominant exporters like the U.S. and to supply over 90% of global volumes despite protocol ratification by 173 countries as of 2023. International harmonization efforts include guidelines, established in 2003, which outline risk analysis principles for foods derived from , emphasizing substantial equivalence, molecular characterization, and allergenicity assessments without mandating unique labeling for GM content. The (WTO) enforces compliance through Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) measures, as evidenced by the 2006 panel ruling in the EC-Biotech dispute, where the EU's de facto moratorium on GM approvals from 1998 to 2004 was deemed unjustified and inconsistent with SPS obligations, prompting resumed case-by-case authorizations for imports like GM soybean for processing. Labeling standards diverge significantly, impacting trade logistics: the U.S. implements voluntary disclosure under the 2018 National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard for products containing detectable modified genetic material, while the mandates labeling for any food or feed exceeding 0.9% approved GM content, with a 0.1% threshold for unauthorized low-level presence in to avert rejections. These differences have led to occasional shipment disruptions in EU ports due to trace unapproved GM events, though overall trade persists, with the EU importing around 15-20 million tons of GM soybeans annually for non-human consumption.

Empirical Benefits

Agronomic Improvements

Genetically modified soybeans engineered for tolerance, such as glyphosate-resistant varieties introduced in 1996, have improved agronomic performance by enabling effective post-emergence , which minimizes competition for resources and reduces yield losses estimated at 10-50% in non-GM systems under heavy weed pressure. A of 147 peer-reviewed studies spanning 1996-2014 across multiple GM crops, including soybeans, reported an yield gain of 21.6% attributable to these traits, derived from randomized field trials comparing GM and conventional varieties under equivalent management. This improvement stems from causal mechanisms like timely application preserving crop canopy and nutrient uptake, rather than inherent genetic yield potential, as baseline yields in GM and non-GM soybeans are comparable without biotic stresses. Insect-resistant soybeans, incorporating (Bt) toxins such as in the Intacta2Xtend varieties approved in 2014, target lepidopteran pests like velvetbean caterpillar and soybean looper, reducing defoliation by up to 90% in infested fields and thereby sustaining higher pod set and seed fill. Field trials in , a major adopter, have documented yield protections of 15-30% in high-pest-pressure seasons through decreased larval damage to foliage and pods, with meta-analyses confirming consistent benefits across IR traits in without yield penalties in low-pest environments. Stacked traits combining herbicide tolerance and insect resistance amplify these effects, as evidenced by 5-10% additional yield stability in comparative plots. Herbicide-tolerant traits have specifically promoted no-till and reduced-tillage systems by allowing uniform burndown without mechanical disruption, shortening field operations and enabling earlier planting windows that align with optimal growth periods. , where over 90% of are GM herbicide-tolerant, this has correlated with no-till adoption rising from 30% in 1996 to over 50% by 2014 in rotations, reducing passes over the field from 4-5 to 1-2 and conserving . Such practices maintain for root development while facilitating residue management that suppresses emergence chemically, directly enhancing harvestable yields through uninterrupted crop cycles.

Economic Outcomes for Farmers

A of 147 studies across 21 countries found that adoption of , including soybeans, increased farmer profits by an average of 68%, primarily through yield gains of 22% and reduced costs. These gains persisted after accounting for higher seed premiums, with net returns reflecting voluntary adoption rates exceeding 90% in major soybean-producing regions. In the United States, where herbicide-tolerant soybeans comprised 94% of planted acreage by 2020, farm-level income benefits from GM varieties totaled $36.7–39.5 billion cumulatively from 1996–2020, equating to average net gains of $14–$112 per hectare depending on trait generation, or approximately $6–$45 per acre after seed costs. These outcomes stemmed from lower herbicide and labor inputs alongside sustained output value, enabling profitability even as conventional alternatives declined. South American producers, particularly in and , realized comparable per-hectare uplifts of $9–$65, with averaging up to $127 million nationally in 2020 alone, driven by expanded second-cropping opportunities that added 222.7 million tonnes of production. Regional surpassed 90% voluntarily, yielding cumulative benefits of $9–$30 billion in and $9–$24 billion in over the period, underscoring sustained economic viability amid premium seed pricing. Overall, 58–80% of soybean-specific gains derived from higher yields and production volume, with the remainder from input efficiencies.

Environmental Gains from Reduced Inputs

Adoption of herbicide-tolerant (HT) genetically modified soybeans has facilitated reductions in overall volumes through decreased applications, as farmers rely more on targeted rather than broad-spectrum . A of 147 peer-reviewed studies across multiple GM crops, including soybeans, reported an average 37% reduction in chemical use associated with GM technology adoption from farm-level data spanning 1996 to 2013. For HT soybeans specifically, global assessments indicate shifts toward higher volumes but net decreases in environmental impact, measured via the Environmental Impact Quotient (EIQ), which accounts for to non-target organisms; in 2020, GM HT soybean cultivation resulted in lower aggregate EIQ values compared to conventional systems due to the lower inherent of relative to replaced herbicides. HT soybeans have promoted conservation tillage practices, such as , by simplifying weed management and reducing the need for mechanical cultivation, thereby preserving and minimizing . In the United States, where HT soybean adoption exceeds 90%, this shift has correlated with widespread no-till implementation, cutting rates by over 50% in adopting fields relative to conventional baselines, as residue retention protects against wind and runoff. Globally, GM HT soybean use from 1996 to 2020 contributed to an estimated 0.21% annual increase in conservation acreage, enhancing retention and reducing by an average of 20-50% across major producing regions like the . These input reductions have yielded neutral or positive outcomes in meta-reviews, primarily through diminished disturbances that support microbial communities and above-ground habitats. A comprehensive review of commercial GM crops, including soybeans, concluded that enhanced conservation practices lowered agriculture's overall biodiversity footprint by reducing habitat disruption from plowing, with no of direct negative effects from the GM traits themselves. Empirical field data from soybean systems further indicate sustained or improved arthropod and weed diversity under HT management when paired with no-till, as lower preserves non-crop and refugia for beneficial .

Safety and Risk Evaluations

Human Health and Nutritional Data

Genetically modified soybeans approved for commercial use have consistently demonstrated substantial equivalence to conventional soybeans in nutritional composition, including macronutrients such as protein (typically 35-40% by weight), oil (18-20%), and carbohydrates, as well as micronutrients like vitamins E and K, and minerals including iron and magnesium, with levels falling within established varietal ranges. Regulatory bodies such as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the (EFSA) apply this principle, requiring compositional analyses that confirm no unintended alterations introducing novel toxins or anti-nutritional factors beyond those in non-GM soybeans. Long-term human consumption data spanning over 25 years, since the introduction of GM soybeans in 1996, reveal no epidemiological evidence linking their intake to increased risks of cancer, allergies, or other chronic conditions, consistent with assessments finding no greater health hazards than from conventional foods. The 2016 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine report reviewed extensive datasets and concluded that genetically engineered crops, including soybeans, have not caused verifiable rises in cancer rates, , or allergenicity in human populations. Claims of harm from isolated studies, such as the retracted 2012 Séralini et al. investigation into GM effects on rats—which reported tumors but used a strain prone to spontaneous cancers, inadequate sample sizes, and lacked dose-response validation—have been discredited for methodological flaws and failure to demonstrate applicable to soybeans. Refined , comprising over 90% of global soy output, undergoes high-heat extraction and degumming that degrade and remove transgenic DNA fragments and expressed proteins to undetectable levels, resulting in a product indistinguishable from non-GM oil in profile (predominantly polyunsaturated at 50-55%) and absence of bioactive GM elements. This ensures that potential concerns over intact GM components do not materialize in the most consumed soy-derived food product.

Animal Consumption and Feed Studies

Numerous feeding trials with have demonstrated that genetically modified (GM) soybeans are nutritionally equivalent to non-GM soybeans, with no significant differences in growth rates, feed efficiency, or digestive performance. In studies involving pigs, chickens, and fed GM soy-based diets, parameters such as , carcass quality, and organ health showed substantial equivalence to controls fed conventional soy. These trials, spanning durations from 90 days to over two years, consistently reported no adverse health effects attributable to GM soy consumption. Recombinant DNA (rDNA) fragments from GM soy have not been detected in edible tissues or products from animals fed these diets, including , , and eggs. Peer-reviewed analyses of dairy cows, broilers, and pigs confirmed the absence of transgenic DNA in , muscle, liver, or other tissues, even after prolonged feeding, indicating complete degradation during . This lack of transfer supports the safety of GM soy in feed chains, as no functional GM material persists into animal-derived foods. Multi-generational studies in and chickens further affirm long-term , with no observed differences in reproductive , offspring viability, or health across generations when comparing GM soy diets to non-GM counterparts. For instance, trials over multiple cycles showed equivalent hatchability and chick quality, while studies extending to F2 generations reported normal fertility and litter sizes. These findings underpin the global reliance on GM soy, which constitutes a major component of , with approximately 80% of worldwide soybean production directed toward . Indirect benefits to animal health arise from GM soy's agronomic traits, which reduce crop damage from pests and weeds, thereby lowering contamination risks compared to conventional varieties under similar conditions. While direct data for GM soy feed trials are limited, pest-resistant GM crops generally exhibit decreased fungal proliferation and toxin levels, correlating with improved outcomes in systems. Overall, empirical data from these studies indicate no causal links between GM soy feed and adverse animal effects, aligning with decades of commercial use.

Long-Term Ecological Assessments

Long-term ecological assessments of genetically modified (GM) soybeans, primarily herbicide-tolerant (HT) and insect-resistant (Bt) varieties, have been conducted through field monitoring, regulatory reviews, and multi-year studies by agencies such as the USDA and EPA, revealing minimal unintended environmental disruptions. These evaluations, spanning over two decades since commercial introduction in , indicate that GM traits do not confer enhanced weediness or invasiveness, with no documented cases of significant ecological harm from transgene persistence in non-agricultural ecosystems. Gene flow from GM soybeans to wild or feral relatives remains negligible in major production regions like the , where soybeans are highly self-pollinating and compatible wild species such as Glycine soja are absent or rare. USDA APHIS assessments, including those for events like MON 87705, confirm that vertical (to subsequent crops) occurs at low rates under standard farming but does not pose pest risks, while horizontal transfer to unrelated species is biologically implausible. In field trials and post-market surveillance up to 2020, no viable feral GM soybean populations have established beyond cultivated fields, attributing this to soybean's dependence on human cultivation for propagation and lack of feral adaptability. Bt soybean traits, targeting lepidopteran pests, exhibit specificity that preserves non-target , with long-term studies in regions like Argentina's showing impacts confined to target larvae and their host-specific parasitoids, without cascading effects on broader communities. Reduced applications—down by up to 37% globally from 1996–2016—have enhanced populations of beneficial predators and pollinators, supporting and countering initial concerns of secondary pest outbreaks through empirical data from over 20 years of adoption. Adoption of HT GM soybeans has facilitated reduced- and no-till practices, increasing from 30% to 86% of U.S. soybean acreage by 2006, which enhances soil organic at rates of approximately 1.0 Tg C per year in corn-soy rotations from 1998–2008. This causal link—via decreased soil disturbance preserving residue and microbial activity—offsets fuel-related CO2 emissions from , yielding net reductions equivalent to removing 15.2 billion kg of CO2 annually from GM soybean fields worldwide by 2020. However, sustained benefits require vigilant resistance to prevent reversion, as observed increases in intensive since 2008 have partially eroded early gains. Overall, environmental impact quotients (EIQ) for GM HT soybeans improved by 13.9% over conventional systems through 2016, reflecting lower toxicity from shifted profiles.

Criticisms and Debates

Alleged Health Risks and Rebuttals

Common allegations against genetically modified (GM) soybeans include claims of organ damage, reproductive toxicity, and increased cancer risk, often stemming from small-scale animal feeding studies with methodological flaws. For instance, a 2009 study by Ermakova purportedly linked GM soy consumption to higher pup mortality rates in rats (up to 51% in some groups), but subsequent reexaminations revealed inadequate controls, lack of statistical significance, and failure to account for natural variability in soy diets, rendering the findings non-replicable and unsupported by broader evidence. Similarly, extrapolations from the retracted 2012 Séralini study on Roundup-tolerant GM maize—claiming tumors and organ failures—have been misapplied to GM soy, despite the study's retraction in 2014 due to insufficient sample sizes, poor statistical analysis, and unreliable histopathological data; no equivalent peer-reviewed evidence exists for GM soy specifically. These claims contrast with over 2,000 regulatory safety approvals for GM soy varieties worldwide since 1996, based on compositional analyses showing equivalence to non-GM counterparts in nutrients, antinutrients, and toxins. Concerns over allergenicity in GM soybeans, particularly Roundup Ready varieties expressing the CP4 EPSPS protein for glyphosate tolerance, have been tested through serum IgE binding assays, digestibility studies, and amino acid sequence comparisons against known allergens. Multiple evaluations, including those by the and independent labs, confirm that the introduced proteins do not match sequences of major allergens (e.g., <35% identity threshold) and degrade similarly to native soy proteins under simulated gastric conditions, posing no elevated risk even for soy-allergic individuals. A 2012 study on heat-processed GM soy lines further demonstrated no increased IgE reactivity compared to conventional soy, with genetic modification sometimes reducing endogenous allergen levels like Gly m Bd 30K. Historical incidents, such as the abandoned Brazil nut gene transfer into soy due to detected allergenicity, underscore rigorous pre-market screening that prevents such outcomes in approved products. Major scientific bodies affirm the safety of GM soybeans for human consumption, finding no substantiated evidence of health risks beyond those of conventional breeding or agriculture. The National Academy of Sciences' 2016 comprehensive review of genetically engineered crops, including soybeans, concluded that they present no unique hazards to human health after analyzing hundreds of studies on toxicology, allergenicity, and epidemiology. The American Medical Association supports this, advocating pre-market safety assessments while stating that bioengineered foods like GM soy do not warrant special labeling due to lack of verified risks. While critics, often affiliated with advocacy groups, cite an absence of long-term human epidemiological data as evidence of uncertainty, animal feeding trials spanning multiple generations and post-market surveillance (e.g., no differential disease patterns in high-GM soy consuming regions) align with causal expectations of equivalence, countering non-evidence-based assertions of harm.

Environmental and Biodiversity Concerns

The widespread adoption of glyphosate-tolerant genetically modified (GM) soybeans has contributed to the evolution of glyphosate-resistant weeds, often termed "superweeds," with over 30 such species documented in the United States as of 2024. In soybean fields, key resistant species include waterhemp, horseweed, , and common ragweed, driven by repeated glyphosate applications that select for resistant biotypes. This resistance is not unique to GM systems but arises from herbicide overuse in general; however, the dominance of glyphosate in GM soybean farming—covering nearly all U.S. acres by the 2010s—has accelerated its spread, prompting shifts to alternative herbicides like dicamba and 2,4-D. Management strategies, including crop rotation, integrated herbicide programs with multiple modes of action, and tillage, have proven effective in mitigating proliferation, as evidenced by sustained yields in resistant weed-prone regions when these practices are employed. Gene flow from GM soybeans to non-GM cultivars or wild relatives remains minimal under typical field conditions, with cross-pollination rates ranging from 0.22% to 0.46% at close distances (0.5 meters) and dropping to near zero beyond 13 meters, yielding an overall rate of about 0.032%. Studies on hybrids between GM soybeans and wild soybeans indicate reduced fitness, such as lower seed germination and altered productivity, which limits long-term establishment in natural populations. Isolation distances and wind barriers further constrain unintended gene transfer, preserving biodiversity in adjacent non-GM or feral soybean stands without widespread ecological disruption. Overall, the environmental profile of GM soybeans shows reduced applied pesticide toxicity to non-target organisms like fish (by approximately 54%) and honey bees compared to conventional systems, attributed to lower overall herbicide volumes despite resistance challenges. Adoption analyses confirm net decreases in toxicity for aquatic species and pollinators in herbicide-tolerant soybean fields, though shifts toward insecticides in some regions have raised invertebrate concerns; these are addressable through diversified pest management rather than inherent to the GM trait. Empirical data underscore that biodiversity impacts are localized and manageable, with no evidence of broad-scale ecosystem collapse from GM soybean cultivation.

Socioeconomic and Market Dependency Issues

Critics of genetically modified (GM) soybeans contend that seed patents enforced by companies such as (acquired by in 2018) impose dependency on farmers, prohibiting seed saving and replanting under technology use agreements, thereby compelling annual repurchases and eroding traditional autonomy. This structure, upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2013, is argued to consolidate market power among a few corporations, which held the majority of GM seed patents as of 2024. However, adoption patterns reveal voluntary compliance driven by economic incentives, with U.S. farmers replanting non-patented conventional seeds where benefits are absent, while over 90% opt for GM varieties for their superior net returns. Empirical analyses demonstrate that GM herbicide-tolerant soybeans generate farm-level income gains through cost reductions and yield enhancements, outweighing repurchase costs and incentivizing continued use. Globally, from 1996 to 2020, GM soybeans contributed approximately $25 billion in additional farm income, with Brazil accounting for the largest share due to expanded second-cropping opportunities enabled by herbicide tolerance. In Brazil, smallholder and family farm sectors, which comprise a significant portion of soy producers in regions like , have seen income boosts from GM adoption, as shorter-season varieties allow double-cropping with minimal additional inputs, outperforming non-GM alternatives despite contractual requirements. Non-governmental organizations (NGOs), including Friends of the Earth, have campaigned against GM soybeans by alleging entrenched corporate dependency and unproven benefits, often citing selective data to claim negligible yield gains. These assertions contrast with USDA-documented trends showing sustained soybean yield increases in adopting regions, from 44 bushels per acre in 1996 to over 50 bushels by 2020, attributable in part to GM traits facilitating efficient weed management and higher planting densities. Such opposition persists despite evidence of farmer-driven market dynamics, where repurchase rates reflect rational profit maximization rather than coercion.

Global Adoption and Impacts

In 2024, herbicide-tolerant genetically modified soybeans accounted for 96% of planted acreage in the United States, marking the highest adoption rate recorded for this trait. This figure reflects a stabilization near full penetration following steady increases since the introduction of herbicide-tolerant varieties in the mid-1990s, with insect-resistant traits remaining negligible for soybeans due to limited efficacy against key pests. Globally, genetically modified soybeans covered 105.1 million hectares in 2024, comprising the largest share of all GM crop hectarage and exceeding 80% of total soybean planted area estimated at around 130 million hectares. Adoption has trended upward, driven by expansion in major producers, with stacked-trait varieties—combining herbicide tolerance with additional resistances or quality enhancements—now dominating over 70% of GM soybean plantings in key markets like the U.S. and Brazil. The non-GM soybean niche, catering to identity-preserved markets, continues to contract as a proportion of overall production, falling below 5% in high-adoption regions. Post-2010, South America has led global growth in GM soybean hectarage, with Brazil and Argentina achieving near-total adoption rates of 99% by 2024, fueled by favorable regulations and export-oriented expansion into new frontiers. Brazil's GM soybean area surged from under 20 million hectares in 2010 to over 45 million hectares by 2024, outpacing U.S. growth and shifting the center of global production southward. This regional dominance underscores a broader trend of GM soybeans comprising nearly half of all GM crop acreage worldwide. Notably, while production adoption rates vary, major soybean-importing countries like South Korea and China exhibit high reliance on GM varieties in imports despite negligible domestic production. In South Korea, domestic production is nearly 0% GM, but over 90% of imported soybeans are GM. In China, commercial GM soybean production stands at 0%, yet imports are approximately 100% GM, sourced primarily from the United States, Brazil, and Argentina.
RegionGM Soybean Adoption Rate (2024)Key Trend Post-2010
United States96% (HT traits)Stabilization at high levels; increasing stacked varieties
Brazil99%Rapid hectarage expansion; export-driven growth
Argentina~99%High integration with stacked traits; yield-focused shifts
Global>80%South American leadership in area increase

Contributions to Yield and Food Supply

Genetically modified (GM) soybeans account for approximately 75% of global soybean planting area, with adoption rates exceeding 90% in major producers such as the , , and , enabling expanded production to nearly 400 million metric tons annually by 2023. This scale-up has been facilitated by traits conferring herbicide tolerance and insect resistance, which reduce crop losses from weeds and pests, contributing to farm-level yield gains estimated at 38% of the economic benefits from GM herbicide-tolerant soybeans through direct yield improvements and opportunities for second cropping. While some field studies report yield parity or minor reductions for first-generation GM varieties compared to non-GM counterparts under optimal conditions, broader analyses attribute overall production stability to integrated management practices enabled by these traits, including that preserves amid variable weather patterns. A dominant application of GM soybeans is in , where about 77% of global production is crushed into meal providing high-quality protein for , with 37% directed to , 20% to , and 6% to . constitutes the world's largest source of vegetable protein for animal nutrition, supplying essential amino acids that enhance feed efficiency and support the output of over 350 million metric tons of , alongside substantial and production, thereby bolstering global animal-derived protein availability. The prevalence of GM soybeans in this —over 90% in key feed markets—has amplified these contributions by sustaining high-volume, cost-effective protein sourcing critical for systems. By lowering input costs and minimizing yield volatility from environmental stresses, such as through drought-tolerant varieties like HB4 approved in 2019, GM soybeans enhance in import-dependent developing countries, where affordable soy meal imports underpin domestic sectors and avert protein shortages. In regions like and , this has facilitated greater access to animal products without proportional land expansion, aligning with efforts to meet rising demand from and while mitigating risks from climate variability. Peer-reviewed assessments confirm that GM crop adoption, including soybeans, has generated net positive effects on production volumes in such contexts, outweighing potential drawbacks through verifiable increases in farm output and supply chain resilience.

Future Directions

Advanced Editing Technologies

CRISPR-Cas9 nucleases facilitate targeted double-strand breaks in the soybean genome at specific loci, leveraging the plant's or pathways to introduce precise mutations such as insertions, deletions, or substitutions, without necessitating the stable integration of transgenes from non-soybean sources. This site-specific editing minimizes off-target effects compared to earlier tools like zinc-finger nucleases and has been optimized for soybean protoplasts and stable transformation systems, achieving mutation efficiencies up to 20-30% in regenerated lines. By avoiding foreign DNA, these edits produce varieties indistinguishable from those achievable via conventional at the genetic level, though achieved far more rapidly and predictably. Applications in soybeans include editing genes like GmARM to knock out negative regulators of stress responses, resulting in enhanced tolerance to abiotic stresses in T3 homozygous lines without transgene remnants. For disease resistance, CRISPR-Cas9 has induced chromosomal rearrangements to generate novel paralogs of nucleotide-binding site leucine-rich repeat (NBS-LRR) resistance genes, expanding potential pathogen recognition repertoires in edited soybean plants. Multiplexing capabilities allow simultaneous targeting of multiple sites, as demonstrated in editing three flavonoid biosynthesis genes (GmF3H1, GmF3H2, GmFNSII-1) to alter seed coat pigmentation and indirectly bolster defense pathways. Under U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) policy, gene-edited soybeans lacking foreign DNA and not posing a plant pest risk are exempt from oversight, as they are deemed equivalent to conventionally bred products, thereby expediting deregulation and field testing. This framework, articulated in USDA's 2018 guidance and reaffirmed in subsequent approvals, has supported the progression of CRISPR-edited lines to commercial viability without mandatory pre-market reviews. Such regulatory efficiency promotes broader adoption in breeding pipelines, enabling accelerated trait pyramiding—stacking multiple edits in successive generations—over traditional crossing methods that span years. Emerging variants like CRISPR-SpRY further expand targeting flexibility by relaxing (PAM) constraints, facilitating edits in previously inaccessible genomic regions.

Prospective Traits and Innovations

Researchers are developing genetically modified soybeans with enhanced symbiotic capabilities through targeted gene edits, such as CRISPR-mediated modifications to and pathway genes, which increase nodule formation and delay to sustain fixation during critical growth stages, aiming to minimize synthetic inputs. Overexpression of endogenous genes like GmEXPA11 in transgenic lines has improved activity by up to 22.9%, leghaemoglobin content by 6.7%, and exported by 11.7%, demonstrating potential for greater use without external amendments. Similarly, transgenic overexpression of GmPAP4 boosts nodule and fixation rates, enhancing overall accumulation under nitrogen-limited conditions. Advancements in focus on multi-stress tolerance stacks extending beyond the HB4 trait, incorporating / edits to genes like GmHdz4 and GmARM for improved responses to combined abiotic pressures including , , and submergence. These modifications inhibit negative regulators of development and osmotic adjustment, promoting proliferation and stress signaling to mitigate yield losses from flooding, where edited lines exhibit reduced and maintained under waterlogging. Pipeline efforts emphasize pyramiding such traits with tolerance for broader adaptability in variable climates, with regulatory approvals anticipated for stacked varieties by late 2020s. For disease resistance, prospective traits target soybean cyst nematode (Heterodera glycines) via transgenic insertion of the cry14Ab-1 gene from Bacillus thuringiensis in lines like GMB151, which suppresses nematode reproduction and delivers 13% higher yields in infested fields compared to susceptible controls. When pyramided with native rhg1b resistance, this reduces season-long nematode populations by 50% and boosts yields by 44% over susceptible varieties, with commercial deployment expected post-2025 following 2024 approvals. Ongoing trials validate these gains across maturity groups, supporting durable, integrated management to counter evolving pathogen virulence.

References

  1. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4218791/
  2. https://ers.usda.gov/sites/default/files/_laserfiche/publications/43731/13394_eib11ref_1_.pdf
  3. https://www.card.iastate.edu/files/inline-files/Xu-et-al-Crop-Science-2013.pdf
  4. https://mospace.umsystem.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10355/63059/ConsumerWillingnessPayGM.pdf?isAllowed=y&sequence=1
  5. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6918800/
  6. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5033197/
  7. https://enveurope.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s12302-021-00578-9
  8. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/plant-science/articles/10.3389/fpls.2022.1027828/full
  9. https://www.fda.gov/food/agricultural-biotechnology/science-and-history-gmos-and-other-food-modification-processes
  10. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK424540/
  11. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/plant-science/articles/10.3389/fpls.2022.900318/full
  12. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3571417/
  13. http://www.scielo.org.co/pdf/agc/v39n2/0120-9965-agc-39-02-145.pdf
  14. https://dr.lib.iastate.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/bb6819aa-e5bf-45b3-a17a-37c406c6ba2c/content
  15. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ps.1008
  16. https://www.card.iastate.edu/products/publications/pdf/17wp576.pdf
  17. https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/adoption-of-genetically-engineered-crops-in-the-united-states/recent-trends-in-ge-adoption/
  18. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.4161/gmcr.18905
  19. https://biotec-latam.com/bibliografia/13_ogm_25_anios-30-06-2021_en.pdf
  20. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0111629
  21. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9578716/
  22. https://www.isaaa.org/kc/cropbiotechupdate/article/default.asp?ID=17693
  23. https://www.isaaa.org/kc/cropbiotechupdate/article/default.asp?ID=21530
  24. https://www.corteva.us/content/dam/dpagco/corteva/na/us/en/files/trait-stewardship/product-use-guides/DOC-2025-US-PUG-Soybean.pdf
  25. https://apps.fas.usda.gov/newgainapi/api/Report/DownloadReportByFileName?fileName=European%2520Commission%2520Authorizes%2520Seven%2520GE%2520Crops%2520for%2520Import_Brussels%2520USEU_European%2520Union_E42023-0022
  26. https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/adoption-of-genetically-engineered-crops-in-the-united-states/recent-trends-in-ge-adoption
  27. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/plant-science/articles/10.3389/fpls.2017.00246/full
  28. https://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/19/10/3039
  29. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/plant-science/articles/10.3389/fpls.2020.01228/full
  30. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6381221/
  31. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-51668-x
  32. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1559744/
  33. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3145815/
  34. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02648725.2017.1357295
  35. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4652897/
  36. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7069416/
  37. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/plant-science/articles/10.3389/fpls.2022.988505/full
  38. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6748360/
  39. https://foodsafety.institute/food-biotechnology/roundup-ready-soybeans-herbicide-tolerant/
  40. https://clintonwhitehouse5.archives.gov/media/pdf/soybean.pdf
  41. https://www.wired.com/2015/08/generic-gmos-arent-going-bring-monsantos-empire/
  42. https://www.thecattlesite.com/news/29420/roundup-ready-soybean-patent-expiration
  43. https://www.goldstandarddiagnostics.com/products/gmos/cp4-epsps-elisa-96-test.html
  44. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1006810416300460
  45. https://www.facetsjournal.com/doi/10.1139/facets-2017-0006
  46. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5869383/
  47. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0261219423000881
  48. https://www.isaaa.org/gmapprovaldatabase/event/default.asp?EventID=159
  49. https://www.isaaa.org/gmapprovaldatabase/event/default.asp?EventID=662
  50. https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/AEM.00326-17
  51. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-35965-5
  52. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4413729/
  53. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-95483-9
  54. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7260725/
  55. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21645698.2020.1742040
  56. https://investors.biocerescrops.com/news/news-details/2022/Bioceres-Crop-Solutions-Announces-Regulatory-Approval-of-HB4-Soy-in-China/default.aspx
  57. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/08/07/2019-16920/verdeca-llc-determination-of-nonregulated-status-of-soybean-genetically-engineered-for-yield
  58. https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/food-nutrition/genetically-modified-foods-other-novel-foods/approved-products/abiotic-stress-herbicide-tolerant-hb4-soybean-ind-00410-5.html
  59. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2956544/
  60. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4147191/
  61. https://www.aphis.usda.gov/brs/aphisdocs2/06_35401p_com.pdf
  62. https://www.farmprogress.com/soybean/vistive-gold-soybeans-to-launch-in-2018
  63. https://www.seedworld.com/us/2017/06/16/china-approves-mon-87705-soybean/
  64. https://www.foodbusinessnews.net/articles/11175-high-oleic-soybeans-achieve-global-trade-approval
  65. https://www.foodstandards.gov.au/sites/default/files/food-standards-code/applications/Documents/A1018%2520High%2520oleic%2520GM%2520soybean%2520AR%2520SD11.pdf
  66. https://www.fda.gov/food/agricultural-biotechnology/how-gmos-are-regulated-united-states
  67. https://apps.fas.usda.gov/newgainapi/api/Report/DownloadReportByFileName?fileName=Agricultural%2520Biotechnology%2520Annual_Brasilia_Brazil_BR2023-0027.pdf
  68. https://www.isaaa.org/kc/cropbiotechupdate/article/default.asp?ID=17493
  69. https://apps.fas.usda.gov/newgainapi/api/Report/DownloadReportByFileName?fileName=Agricultural%2520Biotechnology%2520Annual_Buenos%2520Aires_Argentina_AR2023-0016.pdf
  70. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10915251/
  71. https://s27.q4cdn.com/906368049/files/News/2021/Zacks_SCR_Research_10042021_BIOX_Ralston.pdf
  72. https://www.towardsfnb.com/insights/soybean-market
  73. https://www.exportimportdata.in/blogs/biggest-soybean-exporters.aspx
  74. https://www.amraandelma.com/soybean-marketing-statistics/
  75. https://bch.cbd.int/protocol/cpb_faq.shtml
  76. https://www.cbd.int/doc/articles/2002-/A-00431.pdf
  77. https://ecommons.cornell.edu/bitstream/handle/1813/55728/9-6.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
  78. https://www.fao.org/fao-who-codexalimentarius/sh-proxy/jp/?lnk=1&url=https%25253A%25252F%25252Fworkspace.fao.org%25252Fsites%25252Fcodex%25252FStandards%25252FCXG%252B46-2003%25252FCXG_046e.pdf
  79. https://www.genewatch.org/uploads/f03c6d66a9b354535738483c1c3d49e4/WTO_Biotech_case_dcsummaryfinal_1.pdf
  80. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2006/feb/08/gm.wto
  81. https://www.choicesmagazine.org/2003-2/2003-2-01.htm
  82. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0306919218301088
  83. https://agrifoodecon.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40100-023-00290-7
  84. https://www.allaboutfeed.net/animal-feed/feed-processing/eu-allows-unauthorised-gm-material-in-animal-feed-imports/
  85. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3081576/
  86. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21645698.2018.1464866
  87. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9559318/
  88. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21645698.2022.2105626
  89. https://pgeconomics.co.uk/pdf/Globalimpactbiotechcropsfinalreportoctober2022.pdf
  90. https://agbioforum.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/AgBioForum-15-3-231.pdf
  91. https://www.ogm.org/sites/ogm.org/files/uploads/files/rapports/carpenter-impacts-of-gm-crops-on-biodiversity.pdf
  92. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5033182/
  93. https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/3499
  94. https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/statement-policy-foods-derived-new-plant-varieties
  95. https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/1908
  96. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10939142/
  97. https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/23395/genetically-engineered-crops-experiences-and-prospects
  98. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691512005637
  99. https://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/Article/2018/12/20/Final-GMO-labeling-rule-does-not-require-labeling-of-highly-refined-ingredients-from-GM-crops-if-no-modified-genetic-material-is-detectable/
  100. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12469460/
  101. https://ift.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1750-3841.16705
  102. https://jasbsci.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/2049-1891-4-37
  103. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691508000884
  104. https://www.thepoultrysite.com/news/2012/07/no-longterm-effects-of-feeding-gm-diets
  105. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1438463905001069
  106. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4015968/
  107. https://wwf.panda.org/discover/our_focus/food_practice/sustainable_production/soy/
  108. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0958166922001264
  109. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16779644/
  110. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/plant-science/articles/10.3389/fpls.2019.01592/full
  111. https://www.aphis.usda.gov/sites/default/files/09_20101p_com.pdf
  112. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5033220/
  113. https://www.aphis.usda.gov/sites/default/files/09_18301p_fea.pdf
  114. https://www.science.gov/topicpages/g/genetically%2Bmodified%2Bsoybean
  115. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/386381584_Effects_of_Bt_soybean_on_biodiversity_are_limited_to_target_species_and_host-specific_parasitoids_in_La_Pampa_province_Argentina
  116. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22722864/
  117. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5443613/
  118. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ab6393
  119. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21645698.2022.2118495
  120. https://par.nsf.gov/servlets/purl/10324604
  121. https://www.fda.gov/media/135280/download
  122. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2687731/
  123. https://academic.oup.com/jxb/article/54/386/1317/568692
  124. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/foodscidiss/28/
  125. https://www.nationalacademies.org/news/2016/05/genetically-engineered-crops-experiences-and-prospects-new-report
  126. https://www.science.org/content/article/once-again-us-expert-panel-says-genetically-engineered-crops-are-safe-eat
  127. https://policysearch.ama-assn.org/policyfinder/detail/biotechnology?uri=%252FAMADoc%252FHOD.xml-0-4359.xml
  128. https://nimss.org/projects/view/mrp/outline/19225
  129. https://extension.sdstate.edu/glyphosate-resistance-soybeans
  130. https://www.canr.msu.edu/news/zombie-weeds-are-coming-for-america-s-fields
  131. https://ipm.ucanr.edu/pdf/pubs/alkhatib-glyphosateresistance.pdf
  132. https://www.pioneer.com/CMRoot/Pioneer/US/Non_Searchable/agronomy/cropfocus_pdf/glyphosate-resistant-weeds.pdf
  133. https://applbiolchem.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s13765-020-00550-w
  134. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10500775/
  135. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4670487/
  136. https://www.card.iastate.edu/files/inline-files/lee_moschini_perry_-_ecological_economics_2023.pdf
  137. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0921800923001362
  138. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abe1148
  139. https://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/files/cfsmonsantovsfarmerreport11305.pdf
  140. https://www.finnegan.com/en/insights/articles/patent-exhaustion-doctrine-does-not-permit-a-farmer-to-reproduce.html
  141. https://investigatemidwest.org/2024/12/16/graphic-bayer-corteva-control-vast-majority-of-gmo-seed-patents/
  142. https://www.aphis.usda.gov/sites/default/files/09_32801p_fonsi.pdf
  143. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9397136/
  144. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6290983/
  145. https://apps.fas.usda.gov/newgainapi/api/Report/DownloadReportByFileName?fileName=Agricultural%20Biotechnology%20Annual_Brasilia_Brazil_BR2023-0027.pdf
  146. https://www.foei.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/18-foei-who-benefits-report-mr.pdf
  147. https://agbioforum.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/AgBioForum_8_23_187.pdf
  148. https://gm.agbioinvestor.com/downloads/9
  149. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2095311924003332
  150. https://www.proterrafoundation.org/news/the-2024-non-gmo-soybean-crop-in-brazil-unforeseen-factors-impacting-the-production/
  151. https://apps.fas.usda.gov/newgainapi/api/Report/DownloadReportByFileName?fileName=Agricultural%2BBiotechnology%2BAnnual_Brasilia_Brazil_BR2024-0030.pdf
  152. https://farmdocdaily.illinois.edu/2024/10/south-america-poised-to-expand-soybean-acreage-further-pressuring-soybean-prices.html
  153. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2773126X25000139
  154. https://www.marketdataforecast.com/market-reports/soybean-market
  155. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2210422425000450
  156. https://sustainablenutritioninitiative.com/soybeans-for-global-nutrition-a-numbers-story/
  157. https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/crops/soybeans-and-oil-crops
  158. https://greenamerica.org/show-ga-blog?nid=7156
  159. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1083872/
  160. https://jamestown.org/program/gm-soybeans-and-chinas-food-security-dilemma/
  161. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21645698.2020.1779574
  162. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2090123224003679
  163. https://bmcbiotechnol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12896-022-00737-7
  164. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7479627/
  165. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168945224001742
  166. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00299-021-02678-5
  167. https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4395/15/8/1983
  168. https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R47683
  169. https://crispr-gene-editing-regs-tracker.geneticliteracyproject.org/united-states-crops-food/
  170. https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4395/13/8/2045
  171. https://academic.oup.com/hr/article/11/8/uhae160/7689644
  172. https://www.sdstate.edu/news/2024/08/researchers-improve-nitrogen-fixing-capabilities-soybeans
  173. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0168945225000871
  174. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11011270/
  175. https://agriculture.basf.com/global/en/business-areas/field-crops-seeds-and-traits/innovation-pipeline
  176. https://apsjournals.apsnet.org/doi/10.1094/PDIS-10-22-2515-RE
  177. https://www.isaaa.org/gmapprovaldatabase/event/default.asp?EventID=562
  178. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8054566/
  179. https://www.ars.usda.gov/research/project/?accnNo=441689&fy=2023
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.