Senapathy, K. (2016, October 25). Don’t Like Monsanto? Then You Should Be Pro-GMO, not Anti. Here’s Why. Retrieved November 19, 2016, from    http://www.forbes.com/sites/kavinsenapathy/2016/10/25/dont-like-monsanto-then-you-         should-be-pro-gmo-not-anti-heres-why/#590f61202d73

Genetically modified organisms, or GMOs tend to be seen in the public eye as a bad thing, associated with bad farming practices as well as large corporations like Monsanto. However, the anti-GMO and organic food lobbyists have successfully launched campaigns associating GMOs with Monsanto, thus tainting the reputation of all GMOs, even the beneficial ones, or the ones that have absolutely nothing to do with Monsanto at all. The truth is, anyone can have and use GMOs, not just Monsanto and other big agriculture corporations. Most foods we can buy today are genetically modified in some way, even those labeled “organic” or “non-GMO”. There are many different methods to modify a plant genetically but still meet the requirements for the product to be labeled as “Organic” or “Non-GMO”. There are many GMOs that are very beneficial to society, and in no way associated with Monsanto. There are non-browning apples that will greatly reduce the amount of wasted produce due to our desire for a perfect-looking fruit. Xanthomonas wilt in bananas is greatly affecting food security in Uganda and East-Africa, but bananas have been that are resistant to this, and gluten free wheat that can help people with celiac disease is expected to hit the market soon. However, these very beneficial products may not help enough, mostly because the reputation of GMOs has been tainted by the organic and anti-GMO lobbies and Monsanto.

This issue is environmentally important because we have a global hunger issue, and we have the technology to modify crops to help curb that problem. If we can grow the same amount of crops, on the same amount of land, but throw away less of it, then there will be more food for people, without using a single extra acre of land to produce it. GMOs can also contribute to better health and help people with certain diseases. However, if the reputation of GMOs continues to be tainted by lobbyists and big agriculture corporations, the potential of GMOs to be beneficial to society and the planet is greatly reduced.

Eller, D., & Elmer, M. (2016, November 19). Can Iowa improve its water quality if it can’t agree on how to measure success? Retrieved November 19, 2016, from             http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/money/agriculture/2016/11/19/can-iowa-  improve-its-water-quality-if-cant-agree-how-measure-success/93136714/

Iowa lawmakers are planning to invest millions into trying to solve their water quality problem, but there is significant debate over how to measure water quality and record progress. Many environmentalists and scientist prefer a real time water quality measurement policy while farmers, working with Iowa State University and a non-profit organization, to measure the acreage of water quality conservation practices being implemented to determine the water quality gains. However, neither method will show quick results, and the money needed for measurements would take away from money used to implement new conservation efforts. Iwa has a serious water quality problem, with nearly half of their lakes and streams being considered impaired. Many are arguing that implementing these expensive conservation efforts is pointless if no measurements are taken to see if it is actually working or not. Iowa is completely to blame for its bad water, they failed multiple times to set limits on nitrate and phosphorous, and have inadequately overseen large livestock feedlots, which often have manure spills. The federal government also failed to take action to push Iowa and a host of other states to reduce nutrient pollution in an attempt to reduce the size of the Gulf dead zone. Due to budget constraints, the extent of the problem is not really known, only 12% of its rivers and streams and 50% of its lakes have been recorded. The situation is improving however, some waterways and lakes have been taken off the impaired list, and Iowa has gone from seven naturally reproducing trout springs to 42. Iowa is facing a frozen budget on this project, there will be no more funding. Scientist predict that it will be at least 10 years before reductions in nitrates and phosphorous actually begin to appear, and in big rivers, 20-30 years.

Iowa’s water quality has huge environmental impacts, as Iowa is one of the biggest contributors to the large hypoxic dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico. The large amount of monoculture taking place there, requiring chemical fertilizer to provide their crops with the nutrients they need. The excess chemicals run off into the waterways and pollute them and later the ocean. Unless Iowa and other states dramatically reduce their nutrient pollution, the dead zone will only grow, and marine life in the Gulf and in Iowa’s waterways will continue to die.

GMO ban would hike emissions: Model. (2016, November 19). Retrieved November 19, 2016,    from http://www.missourifarmertoday.com/news/crop/gmo-ban-would-hike-emissions-  model/article_1c56f50e-ace0-11e6-9b69-a72d4b3cbb93.html

Many anti-GMO lobbyists are demanding a ban on GMOs, however the negative environmental effects of a ban on GMOs would be huge. Researchers from Purdue University have created a model to depict the potential effects of this. The researchers have found that replacing GMO corn and soybeans, among other crops, worldwide, would cause a massive hike in food prices, between 0.27% and 2.2%, striking the poorest countries the worst. They also came to the conclusion that, due to the lower production of the conventional crops, millions of acres of pasture and forest land would be cut due to the need for more farmland. This would release tons of carbon into the atmosphere. However, the opposite will occur if foreign countries match the rate of GMO use that the United States has, greenhouse gas emissions will fall by approximately 0.2 billion tons and there will be about 2 million acres that can become forest or pasture. Many groups who want to reduce greenhouse gas emissions also support a ban on GMOs, but Purdue professor Wally Tyner says it is not possible to have it both ways, GMOs reduce the carbon footprint of agriculture, and many of the concerns about GMOs have been disproved by three major government agencies, the EPA, the USDA, and the FDA, who have all deemed GMOs to be safe to eat. The United States leads the world in GMO crop production and development, however in Europe and Asia, there are strict regulations on GMO crops, based on economic and consumer concerns. The model found that if a ban were instituted, the price of food would go up, and big agricultural exporters like the United States would benefit economically, while poorer, less agriculturally productive countries would suffer massive food price hikes and struggle economically even more than they already are. A ban would also lead to an increase in farmland by 7.7 million acres. In order to support this great increase in farmland, pastures and forests would be cut and burned, adding almost 0.92 billion tons of carbon into the atmosphere.

While it is completely ok to be concerned about GMOs, the environmental impacts of a ban on them need to be considered in the debate about them, which it currently isn’t. The environmental impacts of a GMO ban would only add to all of the biggest environmental issues we are facing, deforestation, pollution, and climate change.

South Dakota State University. (2016, November 18). Fall cover crops for livestock grazing may improve soil health, protect environment. ScienceDaily. Retrieved November 21, 2016 from             www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/11/161118130239.htm

The US Department of Agriculture and South Dakota State University are undertaking a four year, four million dollar project to try and add cover crops that cattle can graze on in an effort to preserve the soil and reduce pollution. Grazing cropland was once a common practice, however it has fallen out of favor recently. The main goal of this project is to reinstate that practice as much as possible. These crops, including oats, radishes, and turnips, are meant to be planted after the harvesting season for the purpose of grazing. The expected result of this is to increase crop production while reducing the use of chemical fertilizers and increasing soil resilience by restoring nutrient cycles to a more natural function. The project changes a little from state to state, based on availability of water. There are multiple different rotation options being tested in this project, including corn-soybean-cover crop, corn-soybean-oat, and corn-soybean-cover crop with grazing. These different trials will allow them to find the best possible crop rotation system.

This project has potentially huge environmental impact. By adding other crops and grazing livestock into the crop rotation, nutrient cycles will be returned to a more natural function. The farm will also no longer rely on fossil fuel generated fertilizers for nutrients, because the animal waste from the livestock will fertilize the soil. This will greatly reduce the amount of nitrogen pollution into the waterways and oceans. It also has the potential to make farms more productive, requiring potentially less land to produce the crops that are needed.

Hall, K. (2016, November 18). How GMOs Help Us Reduce Food Waste & Its Environmental Impact.             Retrieved November 19, 2016, from http://www.forbes.com/sites/gmoanswers/2016/11/18/gmos-help-reduce-food-   waste/#8e479f66546d

One of our biggest problems today is finding the best way to feed our growing global population. There are many ways we can do this, but one of the most potentially beneficial is the reduction of food loss and waste. We currently produce more than enough food to feed the planet, but we end up wasting almost a third of all the food we produce, equating to just under 3 trillion pounds of food lost every year. This wasted food usually ends up in landfills, where it rots and produces methane, a greenhouse gas that has 21 times the potential to contribute to climate change than carbon dioxide. Food waste accounts for 18% of the total methane emission from landfills according to the EPA. One of the biggest problems is our desire for perfect-looking food. Because we will for the most part only eat food that looks perfect, much of the food we produce gets wasted because it doesn’t have the desired perfect look. The other problem is farmers face huge crop losses regularly due to pests, bad weather, and diseases. GMOs, or genetically modified organisms, have the potential to reduce the effects of these issues. We now have successfully modified some crops like apples and potatoes, to be non-browning and non-bruising, giving them that desired perfect look that we all want and reducing the amount of food we throw away.

This is environmentally significant because, by reducing the amount of food we throw away, we are increasing the amount of food available to people, without using a single extra acre of land. Reducing food waste and increasing the amount of food we consume will also reduce the amount of methane emissions fairly significantly, which will potentially slow climate change.