Policy Memo

Policy Memo Draft

To: United States Department of Agriculture
From: ENGR 103, Section 076, Group 03
Subject: Evaluating GMO’s and Sustainability
Date: 5/9/16

As the world’s population continues to expand, resources necessary to human life have become a priority. It has become increasingly difficult to provide the food necessary to feed all the people that inhabit the Earth. Thankfully, due to technology, growing crops at higher yields with increased nutrition has been facilitated with Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO).

GMOs tend to produce more crops than natural seeds per season. The purpose of genetically engineered (GE) seeds is to reduce pesticide and fertilizer use, and restore or improve nutritional value. However, as the years have passed, problems have risen due to these specialized seeds. Weeds have become increasingly resistant to the pesticide that farmers use for these crops, and in turn, have required a greater use of pesticides than their natural counterparts. The biodiversity of crops has been declining due to the effects of GE seeds. This poses a serious issue because biodiversity is essential.

After analyzing the outcome of natural, non-genetically modified crops, the benefits as well as damaging aspects to this farming style can be outlined. Organic crops require more manual labor, but produce lower yields than the genetically modified crops. Organic farming does not pose a threat to biodiversity, and “super weeds” do not emerge due to the cultivation of these seeds. Through comparison of both variations of food sources, it is clear that each has advantages and disadvantages to society. However, there are key issues that lead to certain measures that need to occur in order to optimize the world’s options.

The Sustainability
It is clear that GMOs improve yield due to strategic genetic modifications. However, due to the cost of pesticides needed to control the increasing presence of “super weeds”, farmers’ profits are declining. The obligation to pay GE seed companies creates issues of sustainability. Prices can become unaffordable, but farmers are trapped in a cycle due to the lack of options they face. The monopolization of agriculture with patents has enabled major corporations to take control of farmers. Farmers can even face lawsuits for continuing to use GE crops without paying their dues to the companies.

Organic farming can prevent the restrictions that conventional farmers face. They face steeper labor costs since organic crops require more attention. Non-GMO’s do not yield as much produce as genetically engineered crops. This brings the cost per non-GMO crop to become higher than GMOs, but the cheaper cost of fertilizers and pesticides offsets the costly practices. The produce may also be marketed at a higher price point due to the exclusivity of its harvests.

The Politics 
GE crops are patentable, which restricts where the seeds can be purchased. This allows certain corporations to take control of the whole process farmers follow. It creates a cycle in which the farmer makes little, if any, profit while the company reaps in the majority of the revenue. Companies have also focused solely on making GE seeds the cheapest possible to produce, yet they are not sold at economical rates to the farmers. This leads the technological advances of these crops to be undermined.

Recommendation 
Due to the research that we have conducted, it is our recommendation that the issue be addressed towards the monopolization of the industry. The government should begin to regulate the agricultural restrictions. It is also imperative that the prices farmers are subject to be fair and competitive in order to prevent endless cycles that provide no benefit to the farmer. GMOs have great potential if their sole purpose becomes the greater good of society rather than how much profit they can bring to their creators. Crops should begin to be engineered for more nutritional value and alternatives should be found for the potent and harmful pesticides currently being required by the corporations. The farmer’s safety and livelihood should also be inspected as it is often neglected. Ultimately, we have found that food labeling should be implemented to inform consumers about the product they consume. Customers deserve the right to be aware of what they ingest. As it stands, there is no concrete evidence of harmful effects caused by GMOs, but this does not signify that the shoppers should be oblivious to what they purchase.