Findings

The information in this section is provided by various sources consulted for the research of this project. Key points were extracted from different studies in attempt to formulate a strong foundation to create a life cycle assessment and ultimately, draft a policy memo with our suggestions of agricultural action.

Life Cycle-Based Sustainability Indicators for the Assessment of the U.S. Food System

http://css.snre.umich.edu/css_doc/CSS00-04.pdf 

The above link leads to a study conducted in the year 2000 that provides a life cycle assessment on the GMO products, concluding that the U.S. food system was not economically, socially, or environmentally sustainable. 

A major issue that stood out in this assessment was money. Money seems to the root of all that is wrong in the agricultural industry. Although biotechnology has made it possible to tailor agricultural products to local climates, improving yields and sustainability, corporation greed has corrupted agricultural industry. With laws allowing it, extensive and expensive patents are available to protect specific GMO products. Because these patents cost tens of thousands of dollars to apply for, the availability is limited to big corporations that can afford the investment. With these patents, farmers are then vulnerable to lawsuits for possession and use of the patented products. Additionally, ways of genetically controlling the genetically modified products may be developed. In this realm, a chemical trigger may be necessary to activate the modified traits, further restricting farmers from the species they can grow.

It is also noted that GMOs are a financial and environmental expense. In fact, most of the cost of agriculture derives from the manufacturing of products. It was estimated that about 80% of the $585 billion that consumers spent on foods originating from U.S. farms was due to transportation, processing, and distribution. It was also accounted that a lot of the edible food supply goes to waste. In 1995, it was recorded that 27% of the edible food supply was lost; where solid waste goes into landfills and other forms fall to sewage. This contributes to the financial issues. There are fees associated with landfill dumping and the contamination in the water supply increases the stress on waste water treatments. Environmentally, GMOs pose a threat to nature. An important aspect of agriculture, and life in general on earth, is variation. Often, GMOs discourage variation and corporations use their patents to concentrate on the production of only a handful of strains of a crop species.

The study also discusses energy needs associated with GMO crop production, labor costs, soil erosion, food-borne illnesses as well as social costs. Below is an image of a flow chart in the study that outlines the life cycle assessment discussed.

GMOs-What Are They and What Do They Mean for Producers and Lenders? Biotechnology Opportunities and Risks in Agriculture 

http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/ers/AFR/1990s/1999/AFR-05-14-1999.pdf 

In this review analyzing the financial advantages and disadvantages of GMO versus non-GMO production, some valuable background information can be extracted. The review first explores the wide range of uses of GMOs, including their role within the pharmaceutical and food industries. The benefits of GMOs include decreased production costs, reduced labor, increased yields and quality, and reduced environmental impact. In addition, it is noted that the difference between GMO and non-GMO products is the merely the technology involved.

            

The review then discusses the potential of GMOs and how the products can be a beneficial influence. Through biotechnology, people have the ability to reshape life, however, opponents fear the possible risks involved.

           

Financially, there are benefits for both sides of the debate: GMOs versus non-GMOs. In the GMO production industry, the genetically altered products can cost less to produce due to the modifications. However, there are opponents to biotechnology that avoid GMOs, benefiting the non-GMO producers. A risk involved with GMOs is the potential to make mistakes genetically, or for nature to “catch up”. Variation is crucial in nature and companies tend to use only a handful of strands of a species as opposed to hundreds of variations that occur naturally. Additionally, it is possible for pests to adapt to the genetic modifications and harm the agricultural industry. The overarching fear of GMOs are the health risks. However, there are no immediate concerns associated with their consumption. Long term effects of GMOs are unclear.

Ultimately, the article notes that biotechnology is here to stay, noting that once people realize that the benefits of GMOs outweigh the risks, which may take years, GMOs will be more widely used.

GMOs In Animal Agriculture: Time To Consider Both Costs And Benefits in Regulatory Evaluation

http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?p=AONE&u=drexel_main&id=GALE%7CA348467503&v=2.1&it=r&sid=summon&userGroup=drexel_main&authCount=1
The research conducted and concluded in the source provided results of how feeding GMO feed to animals can affect us. The consequences that follow genetically modified food that most people care to know about are health wise and economical. There is great debate on whether GMO biomass should be allowed, but the regulations in place for them are ensuring to the best of their ability that consumers are not harmed by them.

  
In Europe, if someone wishes to introduce a GE crop there are many guidelines that they must follow. One of the most important being that there must be at least a ninety-day study of this crop. This can become a very costly requirement as most of these studies cost between $300 thousand to $845 thousand. Some people would prefer to make the studies required to last a longer time period, but this would ultimately cost the creator more money and reduce one of the biggest benefits that GMO food brings, which is economical.

             
It seems that in a fifteen-year period the net results of genetically modified food have resulted in $98.2 billion in revenue for farms. This shows how profitable these crops can become and the popularity with farmers beginning to use this crop is astronomical. According to the Alison L. Van Eenennaam, the author of this evaluation, genetically modifying crops has been the fastest adopted crop technology in recent history.”

This proves the financial benefits that producing GMO crops has brought, but there has also been a lack of negative health effects from these crops. There have been many studies conducted on animal feeding that have shown that genetically modified feed can be given to the cattle without affecting humans. According to this source “rDNA fragments have never been detected in products derived from animals that consumed GE feed.” What this implies is that what they eat does not show up in what humans eat. This explains that there really is no risk in feeding livestock genetically altered feed as there seems to be no signs of it affecting people. Alongside the mandatory studies that must be conducted and the strict regulations, genetically modified biomass is being closely monitored in order to take advantage of this new innovation without risking people’s health for it.

             

A Beginning Look at GMO Sustainability

https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2015/06/01/the-case-for-gmos-and-sustainability/

GMOs have acquired a rather negative view by a large portion of the population because they’re not natural. People try to avoid the consumption of GMOs buy purchasing organic foods, but even much of organic food has been modified in some respect.

But even nature has its own way of modifying species. Genes have been moved across species throughout the history of life.

Corn is widely known for being modified, but what many people are unaware of is how much it’s been modified over the centuries.  Corn is believed to be an ancestor of a wild grass found in Mexico called teosinte. However, this early form of corn was not edible because the kernels were so hard they could break teeth.

About 35 years ago, the Hawaiian papaya almost went extinct because of a nasty ringspot virus appearing in the 1950s. This would have devastated the industry and of course the people who enjoyed Hawaiian papaya.

A local scientist, Dennis Gonsalves, dedicated himself to research how to combat this virus.  He ended up placing a small piece of viral DNA into the papaya, which effectively vaccinated the fruit from the ringspot virus.

This method is what we see with humans. Humans are injected with trace amounts of viruses in vaccines in order to prevent acquisition of lethal or debilitating diseases such as polio. 

The continued use and future of GMO engineering can lead to even more cases similar to that of the Hawaiian papaya.

For example, an ongoing problem in Bangladesh is the fruit and shoot borer, which affects eggplants. Eggplants are a major staple in the diet of Bangladeshi people, and in order to combat the pest, harmful insecticides are applied to the eggplant crops in lethal doses. In order to sustain the eggplant crop, the excessive use of these chemicals is necessary without GMO technology. Not only is the use of so much insecticide expensive, but it also leads to about 300,000 deaths per year. Even those who do not die from the chemicals still face adverse health issues from their use.

It’s tragic that so many people lose their lives to this when there is a simple alternative: GMOs. Fortunately, researchers in Bangladesh have partnered with scientists at Cornell University to develop something called Bt brinjal. This is the first GMO food crop introduced to South Asia. Bt brinjal has natural pesticides built into it-things found in every plant. The best part is that it is not even owned by a major corporation. This crop is grown from public sector seeds and distributed to poorer farmers.

     

Monitoring the World's Agriculture

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v466/n7306/pdf/466558a.pdf

In this article, it is brought to the attention of the public that an adequate and universal method for quantifying agricultural data is needed to accurately assess current farming methods and prompt reform. It is noted that about 30% of greenhouse-gas emissions derive from agricultural practices and the cost environmentally, as well as economically and socially have not been universally analyzed to improve the system. Agriculture is arguably one of the most important systems on earth, as it is the food supply. As proposed in the table below that was included in the article, a way to quantify agriculture is necessary in order to determine the most advantageous methods relative to regions.

This article directly relates to our project as we serve to find an efficient avenue to promote agricultural practices either supporting GMOs or non-GMOs. In our study, we must address the categories proposed in this article which can include food security, agricultural yields, farm profitability, soil conservation, greenhouse-gas emissions, local water quality and water use per production unit.

Metrics	Food security	Human health	Economic prosperity	Environmental sustainability	Sociocultural well-being
Universal	Calories per person	Micronutrient deficiencies	Employment rate	Greenhouse-gas emissions per production unit	Percentage of children in school
System specific	Food access	Exposure to agrochemicals	Fluctuations in prices of agricultural products	Energy, nutrient and water-use efficiency and input–output balance	Local ecological knowledge

Organic Vs Traditional Farming

http://www.pnas.org/content/112/24/7611.full.pdf
Agriculture plays a vital role in the survival of the human species. Without agriculture, the world would face a major deficit of food. As important as growing crops is for the world, it is also creating a big impact on Earth. It is a major contributor to the lack of water that exists in many places, raises the amount of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, ruins the soil, pollutes the environment with pesticides and fertilizers, but most importantly, it creates a loss of biodiversity.

This is due to the traditional type of farming that use genetically engineered seeds. Alternative forms of farming are not always as devastating as its counterpart. One of the most popular systems is organic farming. Organic agriculture has been recognized for being able to balance sustainability goals. These include being environmentally friendly, providing a satisfactory level of nutrition and making it a profitable field. 

Organic farming is more environmentally friendly because it is more energy efficient, there is a better quality of soil, keeps nature diversity in its crops and use less damaging pesticides and fertilizers. It does bring lower yields, but it is clear that there is still a profitable market for this type of specialized goods. North America and Europe are where most of the sales come from which is about 90% of it. The costs of organic goods tend to be higher, but people that purchase organic products are willing to pay extra for more natural foods.

The costs observed in many farms over a forty-year period shows that the benefit to cost ratio for traditional farming and for organic farming is very close to one another. When inspecting certain aspects of the costs and benefits, organic farming had a significantly higher cost for labor than in traditional style farming. However, this was offset by the lower environmental impact since it has lower costs of nonrenewable resources. It also had a much lower cost of materials such as pesticide and fertilizer, even though the fertilizer tends to have a slightly higher cost due to it coming from manure.

Another part where organic farming was superior than traditional was in the social aspect of it. In organic farms, there was more humane treatment of animals, there are more people working and in a much happier state since it was shown that there was more cooperation between workers and an overall more positive community.

All in all, the data seems to suggest that the organic niche in the agriculture business is the more profitable and sustainable form of farming. Although using genetically modified organisms used to speed up farming create a better yield, it is also creating more problems environmentally through its artificial substances and higher amounts of energy needed regardless of the higher yield it produces. The organic produce seems to be the foods that people are beginning to transition toward to making the organic market the trend and leaving the traditional farming methods behind. It is unclear until when this market will stop growing exponentially and level out, but with the other benefits it brings to the world, it is unclear why traditional farming methods should trump organic ones.

Why Europe Expresses Fierce Opposition to GMOs

http://ecowatch.com/2015/10/05/european-union-ban-gmos/

https://www.biofortified.org/2013/10/eu-opposition-to-gm-crops/

A staggering 19 European countries opted out of GMO use. As stated by European Commission spokesman, Enrico Brivio, the countries include: Austria, Belgium for the Wallonia region, Britain for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland and Slovenia.

However, not all of the nations are going for a full opt out. Belgium and the UK are applying the opt-out rule for part of their territories, while Germany requested a partial opt-out in order to further GMO research.

Although GMOs are grown all around the globe, Europe is in no rush to join the bandwagon. Many European countries have strict laws against GMOs out of public health and environmental concerns, and all 28 nations require GMO labeling. This can be attributed to the young nature of GMOs. Since GMOs are still considered fairly new (in the respect of how food is currently modified in the lab) Europe wants to continue testing until the potential risks associated with GMOs can be proven or disproven

Even though Europe is clearly opposed to use of GMO crops, “more than 60 GM crops are approved for import into the bloc,” according to Reuters. Moreover, a substantial portion of the European Union’s animal feed are genetically modified crops from North and South America, with, “Around 30 million tons of grain imported per year from third countries, including 13 million tons of soybeans, 22 million tons of soymeal, 2.5 million tons of maize, 2 million tons of oilseed rape and 0.1 million tons of cotton,” says EuropaBio, a lobby group that represents the GM industry.

It is also said that Europe opposes GMOs in order to remain autonomous through its politics of food security. By refusing monopolized companies such as Monsanto, European crops won't be controlled by one company as they are in America.