Month: April 2016

Environmental Impact of GMOs

Evan 468 Comments

Jessica Neves, Animal Science

Adam D’Agostino, Natural Resources and Conservation

Alicia Zolondick, Plant, Soil, and Insect Sciences

Introduction to Genetically Modified Organisms

gmo

When examining population ecology, a common story comes to mind.  Imagine a habitat   with endless resources, and no predation or competition. It sounds like this would be ideal for sustaining population. What could possibly go wrong? This type of environment is the perfect breeding ground for the overpopulation of any species. If a population has enough food to sustain and thrive, exponential breeding will occur. For several generations this growth will not be a significant problem. However, soon there won’t be enough food to sustain the entire population. Food becomes scarce, and individuals begin to compete for limited resources. Only the most fit of the individuals will survive, while the weak will die off due to disease and starvation. The population will plummet drastically, leaving only several individuals left. This cycle is related to the carrying capacity of a species, which is the size of the population that can be sustained indefinitely. By exceeding this limit, the clock starts to tick until disaster strikes.

Just as in the scenario above, the human population will continue to grow when resources allow. Genetically modifying crops became the solution to prolong human existence beyond our carrying capacity. Once the carrying capacity is reached, humans will outnumber the resources available and drastic changes in population will occur.  To prevent a collapse in population, humans are doing their best to provide enough food for all to survive by developing genetic modified crops. It is established that genetically modified (GM) crops impact the environment, but are we willing to overlook that in order to save our own? GM crops are necessary to sustain life and increase the carrying capacity of the human population, so we can not foresee eliminating them. Therefore, our plan is to reduce the impact of GM products on the environment, rather than abolish genetic engineering completely.

The World Health Organization defines genetically modified organisms (GMOs) as “organisms (i.e. plants, animals or microorganisms) in which the genetic material (DNA) has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally by mating and/or natural recombination” (World Health Organization [WHO], 2016).  GM crops are becoming more and more prevalent in our everyday lives. In the past 30 years, new GM products are available on shelves in supermarkets worldwide.  The following paper will discuss the environmental impacts of GM crops and explain how our global society utilizes them in the food system.

Background on the Environmental Impacts of GMOs

Negative impacts on the environment from GMOs are a big concern for scientists and the public. Negative effects on the environment include increased use of herbicides and pollution of aquatic ecosystems.  These fundamental issues will comprise the focus of this paper.  Given the negative impacts and the need for GMOs for food production, the only way to cope with this dichotomy is to decrease the environmental impact without eliminating modified crops. Preventing these impacts is improbable, but reduction of long term damage to affected ecosystems is plausible and should be attended to by conservationists and genetic engineers collaboratively.  There is no one solution to the problem, but there are several practical strategies to limit environmental damage due to GMOs.

Glyphosate Impact

Managing weeds is one of the most tedious tasks of farming.  Recognizing the struggles that farmers face with weed management, scientists developed genetically modified herbicide-tolerant (HT) crops so farmers can spray their fields with weed killers without affecting their crop yield.  In the past 30 years, developing herbicide tolerant crops (such as corn, soybean, and cotton) has been the most notable advancement in crop engineering history (Bonny 2016).  Most of the HT crops are tolerant to glyphosate, a compound used in Roundup to kill many species of weeds that compete with crops.

Glyphosate-tolerant (GT) crops were first developed by Monsanto in 1994.  Since GT crops were brought to market, glyphosate-based herbicides (like Roundup) dominated the market and GT soybean, corn, and cotton are the majority of cultivated varieties in global agriculture (Bonny 2016).  In 2012, it was calculated that glyphosate made up “about 30% of the global herbicide market, far ahead of other herbicides. (…) For example, for soybean, the glyphosate proportion of total herbicides used grew from 4 % in the 1990-1993 to 89 % in 2006” (Bonny, 2016, p.35).  Furthermore, Bonny (2016) states “in 2014, GT soybeans represented 50 % of all HT crops and about 80 % of all globally cultivated soybeans” (Bonny, 2016, p.35).

Monsanto was the world’s top provider of both the GT Roundup Ready crops and the Roundup herbicide treatment.  In the 1990s and again in 2003, Monsanto produced literature ensuring that weeds developing GR was extremely unlikely and urged farmers to increase their use of GT crops and Roundup paired together (Bonny 2016).  Meanwhile in 1996, Australian scientists who discovered the first GR weed species contended “it would be prudent to accept that resistance can occur to this highly valuable herbicide and to encourage glyphosate use patterns within integrated strategies that do not impose a strong selection pressure for resistance” (Powles et al. 1998, p.6).

GT crops were developed because they were thought to not only eliminate the burden of weed management for farmers, but also reduce the overall amount of herbicides sprayed.  GT crops served the farmers well and reduced the amount of time and money spent on hand weeding.  However, since the widespread adoption of glyphosate herbicides sprayed on GT crops, the weeds targeted by glyphosate-based herbicides started to develop a resistance to these herbicides (Bonny 2016).  The more glyphosate resistance (GR) develops in weed populations, the less effective glyphosate-based herbicides become (Bonny 2016).  When herbicides are continually sprayed, there is a high selective pressure on the weed populations.  Resistant populations arise from random mutations within individuals that happen to survive the herbicide treatments.  When glyphosate is used at a higher frequency than other herbicides, the chance of mutant weed survival to glyphosate is more frequent (Bonny 2016).  In other words, the more you spray glyphosate, the more likely it is that the weeds will evolve to survive glyphosate treatment.  

Due to the frequency of GT crops, glyphosate herbicides became the sole dominator of the market.  As a result, there was an initial decrease in the frequency of general herbicide use.    Glyphosate was at first considered a low-risk herbicide for both human consumption and environmental impact, so this decrease was very well received by the public and scientific communities (Bonny 2016).  However, this decrease was closely followed by a plateau and then a steady increase in glyphosate applications.  It is believed that there is a direct correlation between the decrease in availability of alternate herbicides and an increase in GR weeds. Nearly half of the GR weeds found globally are flourishing on US soil, and burdening farmers with weeds that continued to compete with their crops even when drenching their fields with Roundup.

The graph below was produced by Bonny (2016) based on statistics found from USDA-NASS (1991-2013) and from Heap (2015).  This image displays several different herbicides applied to soybeans in the USA in relation to the development and growth of glyphosate-resistant weeds from 1990-2012.  The right axis is displaying the number of GR weeds, the left axis is displaying the number of herbicides, and the bottom axis is displaying time.  Bonny (2016) states that there was only one survey reporting herbicide usage from 2006-2012.  The increased use of herbicides from 2006-2012 based on the numbers from the survey is expressed with the dotted line in the image.

The development of GM Roundup Ready (RR) crops triggered a steady increase in the use of glyphosate (Szekacs & Darvas, 2012). The increased amount of spraying due to GR weeds leads to a higher amount of glyphosate found in our groundwater, surface water, soils, and precipitation (Coupe et al. 2012; Battaglin et al. 2014). The glyphosate can pollute through runoff, pesticide-drift, and leaching through the ground. Research of Mexican water sources by Ruiz-Toledo, Castro, Rivero-Perez, Bello Mendoza and Sanchez (2014), found traces of glyphosate in all tested sources. Sampling sites included irrigation channels, wells, and points along a river bank, providing diversity of water sources (Ruiz-Toledo et al., 2014). The tests found traces of glyphosate in all samples, including tests within natural protected areas (Ruiz-Toledo et al., 2014).  The test results prove that glyphosate found its way into water sources through surface runoff, leaching, pesticide-drift, or potentially other modes of transport.

Glyphosate is a water-soluble compound, meaning that glyphosate dissolves in water creating a solution (Szekacs & Darvas, 2012). Glyphosate supposedly decomposes quickly in water, with a relatively short half-life, however it also binds with soils resulting in much longer half-life (Szekacs & Darvas, 2012). Water quality problems arise when glyphosate absorbs into the soil because the chemical leaches or is carried away by runoff.

The concentration of glyphosate in the water source is significantly influenced by the amount of precipitation within the given season, either rainy or dry (Ruiz-Toledo et al., 2014). During a rainy season, the concentration of glyphosate within a water source is diluted, but during a dry season concentrations rise dramatically creating unsafe water quality (Ruiz-Toledo et al., 2014). Amounts of precipitation also determine how far polluted runoff can reach geographically speaking.  These changes in precipitation levels cause glyphosate to travel far away from the intended application site. Daouk, De Alencastro, Pfeifer, Grandjean, and Chevre (2013) attribute rainfall to the transport of glyphosate when soils are composed of fine-textured layers on a significant slope. However, Daouk et al. (2013) believe that surface runoff is responsible for the majority of glyphosate transport. With this in mind, Ruiz-Toledo et al. (2014) propose tighter restrictions on proximity of glyphosate application sites to water sources, such as rivers.  Since GM crops are frequently paired with excessive glyphosate use, it is crucial that actions are taken to use glyphosate safely in large scale agriculture systems.

Glyphosate applications in close proximity to rivers is problematic to wildlife populations.  A high amount of glyphosate is lethal to amphibians and other organisms. Relyea (2005) suggests that Roundup, a compound designed to kill plants, can cause extremely high rates of mortality to amphibians that could lead to population declines in the natural environment as well as death in laboratory conditions. Relyea (2005) provides the example that after three weeks of exposure, Roundup killed 96–100% of larval amphibians (regardless of soil presence) in their natural environment. Another specific example of the lethal effects of glyphosate provided by Relyea (2005) is that when juvenile anurans (a type of amphibian) were exposed to a direct overspray of Roundup in laboratory containers, Roundup killed 68–86% of the juveniles.

Other organisms besides amphibians are also affected. Tsui and Chu (2003) provide the example that “microalgae and crustaceans were 4–5 folds more sensitive to Roundup toxicity than bacteria and protozoa” (p.1189). The toxicity was mainly due to the extreme decrease in pH of the water surrounding the microalgae and crustaceans after glyphosate acid was added during testing (Tsui & Chu, 2003).

Based on the negative impacts that GMOs inflict on the environment presented in this paper, one might formulate the opinion that GMOs should be discontinued or outlawed.  However, as predicted by human population growth specialists, the global human population is predicted to reach 9 billion by 2050.  The question at the forefront of the century is: how are we, as a collective humanity, going to feed the population?  According to “PLOS Biology”, “because most of the Earth’s arable land is already in production and what remains is being lost to urbanization, salinization, desertification, and environmental degradation, cropland expansion is not a viable approach to food security” (Ronald, 2014, p.1).  Therefore, engineering GM crops to grow in poor quality soils, fight virulent pathogens, and carry protection against pest damage are necessary to sustain the food demands of the rising populous. Over the past 50 years, population grew substantially and the demand for efficient food production increased.  GM crop development accelerated immensely in the past 30 years to try and sustain the global demands for food.  According to the Department of Plant Pathology and the Genome Center, “in Bangladesh and India, four million tons of rice, enough to feed 30 million people, is lost each year to flooding,” and their team engineered a species of rice with a flood resistant gene (Ronald, 2014, p.2). This flood resistant gene enables more plants to survive floods, and more people are subsequently able to eat the plants.   In our current food system in the Unites States, 80% of food contains derivatives from genetically engineered crops. (Ronald, 2014).  The food market is already reliant on GM crop production to feed the people alive right now, and the demand for GM crop production will only increase as the population grows in the future.  Certain staple crops like cultivated papayas and bananas would be extinct due to noxious diseases if GM resistant varieties were not developed (Ronald, 2014). Due to the prevalence of GMOs, steps should be taken by growers and plant scientists to ensure that the conservation of the ecosystem and the reduction of negative environmental impact is a top priority.  These strategies aiming to balance conservation and technology are a realistic solution instead of abolishing genetic engineering entirely.

Proposal

We propose implementing a plan to change the management practices of using herbicides. Although this plan would not completely reverse the negative impact that GM crops have on the environment, it will be a first step in slowing the total rate of detrimental effects in time. We propose the approval of varieties of GM crops with “stacked herbicide tolerance” (Bonny, 2016, p.40) by the USDA in order to combat the GR weeds.  Stacked herbicide tolerance refers to a crop that is engineered to have resistance to multiple herbicides simultaneously.  The development of GM crops with stacked herbicide resistance could benefit large scale agriculture because it would allow farmers to spray their fields with multiple different herbicides instead of just glyphosate-based treatments, creating an herbicide management plan.  Allowing for variation in herbicide applications would minimize mutant weed resistant populations from developing (Bonny 2016). In addition to encouraging more stacked GM crops, weed scientists should also encourage growers to integrate a wider variety of weed management methods “such as crop rotation, cover crops and mulches, reduced tillage, precision agriculture, adequate seeding rates, seed quality, etc” (Bonny, 2016, p.44).  Tsui and Chu (2003) also suggest other alternatives to the original Roundup to use as herbicides. According to Tsui and Chu (2003) “Roundup Biactive was about 14 times less toxic than Roundup” (p. 1196). Using Roundup Bioactive instead of the original Roundup will also hopefully reduce the lethality that this herbicide has on other organisms. Widening the scope of weed management will foster “scientific knowledge in a manner that considers the causes of weed problems rather than reacts to existing weed populations” (Buhler, 2002, p.279).   GM crops are necessary to feed the population and will continue to exist, but they can be dangerous to the environment if they are not properly controlled. Changing the management practices of using herbicides will reduce the detrimental effects that many GM crops have on the environment, while simultaneously allowing humans to enjoy their benefits.  

References

Battaglin, W.A., Meyer, M.T., Kuivila, K.M., Dietze, J.E. (2014). Glyphosate and its degradation product AMPA occur frequently and widely in US soils, surface water, groundwater, and precipitation. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 50(2):275–290. doi:10.1111/jawr.12159.

Bonny, S. (2016). Genetically modified herbicide-tolerant crops, weeds, and herbicides: Overview and impact.  Journal of Environmental Management, 57, 31-48. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00267-015-0589-7.

Buhler, D. D. (2002). 50th Anniversary, Invited Article: challenges and opportunities for integrated weed management. Weed Science Society of America, 50(3):273–280. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1614/0043-1745(2002)050[0273:AIAAOF]2.0.CO;2

Coupe, R.H., Barlow, J.R., Capel, P.D. (2012) Complexity of human and ecosystem interactions in an agricultural landscape. Environmental Development (4):88–104. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev.2012.09

Daouk, S., De Alencastro, L. F., Pfeifer, H., Grandjean, D., & Chevre, N. (2013). The herbicide glyphosate and its metabolite AMPA in the lavaux vineyard area, western switzerland: Proof of widespread export to surface waters. part I: Method validation in different water matrices. Journal of Environmental Science and Health, Part B Pesticides, Food Contaminants and Agricultural Wastes, 48(9), 717-724.

GMO Corn. Digital Image. GMO Corn Crops Under Attack By Leafworms. 2014. 20 Apr 2014.

Heap I (2015) The International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds. http://www.weedscience.org. Accessed 22 July 2015

Powles, S.B., Lorraine-Colwill, D.F., Dellow, J.J., Preston, C. (1998). Evolved resistance to glyphosate in rigid ryegrass (Lolium rigidum) in Australia. Weed Science Society of America 46(5):604–607. doi: http://www. jstor.org/stable/4045968.

Relyea, R. A. (2005). The lethal impact of roundup on aquatic and terrestrial amphibians. Ecological Applications, 15(4), 1118-1124. doi: 10.1890/04-1291

Ronald, P. C. (2014). Lab to farm: Applying research on plant genetics and genomics to crop improvement. Public Library of Science: Biology, 12(6). doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001878.

Ruiz-Toledo, J., Bello-Mendoza, R., Sánchez, D., Castro, R., & Rivero-Pérez, N. (2014). Occurrence of glyphosate in water bodies derived from intensive agriculture in a tropical region of southern mexico. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 93(3), 289-293.

Székács, A., & Darvas, B. (2012). Forty years with glyphosate. Herbicides-properties, synthesis and control of weeds. Hasaneen, MN: InTech.

Tsui, M. T. K., & Chu, L. M. (2003). Aquatic toxicity of glyphosate-based formulations: Comparison between different organisms and the effects of environmental factors. Chemosphere Journal, 52(1), 1189-1197. doi: 10.1016/S0045-6535(03)00306-0

USDA-NASS (1991–2013) Agricultural chemical usage, field crops summary. USDA ESMIS (Economics, Statistics and Market Information System), Mann Library, Cornell University, 1990–2013. http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/MannUsda/viewDo cumentInfo.do?documentID=1560. Accessed 1 July 2015

World Health Organization. (2016). Frequently asked questions on genetically modified foods.  Retrieved from: http://www.who.int/foodsafety/areas_work/food-technology/faq-

genetically-modified- food/en/

 

Understanding the Buzz on Honey Bee Population Decline

Evan 74 Comments

Arianna Wills [NRC Wildlife] Emily Mann [Pre-Veterinary Science] Valovia Costa [Environmental Science]

Understanding the Buzz on Honey Bee Population Decline

      In the 1940s the pesticide DDT was developed and used with great success to combat deadly insect borne diseases like malaria and typhus. DDT was sprayed on everything, including: crops, livestock farms, lakes, parks, homes, and gardens (Environmental Protection Agency, 2015). It was relatively cheap, extremely effective, and began to be used around the globe. However, in the 1960s, evidence showed that DDT was having unforeseen environmental consequences (EPA, 2015). DDT proved toxic to nontarget species, like birds and fish because this chemical does not break down naturally in the environment and accumulates in the fatty tissues of wildlife (EPA, 2015). DDT began to significantly impact bald eagles because they ate contaminated fish and this chemical began building up in the birds (U.S. Fish & Wildlife, 2007). DDT interfered with the eagles ability to produce proper eggshells, so the eggs were crushed during incubation or otherwise simply never hatched (U.S. Fish & Wildlife, 2007). The bald eagle population crashed (U.S. Fish & Wildlife, 2007). Once the Environmental Protection Agency banned the use of DDT in the U.S., bald eagle populations slowly began to bounce back (U.S. Fish & Wildlife, 2007). Impressively, the ban lead to the removal of the bald eagles from the endangered species list (U.S. Fish & Wildlife, 2007). The environmental repercussions of DDT were realized and caught in time to save bald eagles from extinction.

      Now, a similar threat is faced by an even more important species: the honey bee. In the spring of 2007, commercial beekeepers, who loan their bees out to help farmers pollinate their crops, began to see more and more cases of what became known as colony collapse disorder (CCD) (Turner, 2014). Continue Reading →

Free-Range Eggs: Are They Actually a Healthier Option?

Evan 48 Comments

Rebecca DeMederios (Animal Science), Kyle Lunetta (Building and Construction Technology), Holly Sullivan (Animal Science), Alan-Michael Turner (Turfgrass Science and Management)

“A warning about Salmonella in eggs was issued today after two outbreaks of food poisoning, which have already claimed one life” (Daily Mail News, 2015). This past fall in the southeast and northwest of England, a Salmonella outbreak swept through, resulting in over 150 reported cases, and one death. Salmonella has become synonymous with eggs, and for good reason. “The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that over 1 million people in the U.S. contract Salmonella each year, and that an average of 20,000 hospitalizations and almost 400 deaths occur from Salmonella poisoning” (Marler Clark, 2016). It is for this reason that we must be vigilant regarding our egg handling practices, especially in free-range systems where the risk of salmonella exposure is significantly higher. Continue Reading →

The Un-BEE-lievable News

Evan 14 Comments

Channy Chhim, Environmental Science

Dean Fish, Geology

Chelsey Mullen, Pre-Veterinary Science

When people think about bees, they instantly think of being stung and maybe even allergies associated with them. However, cases of stinging tend to be from more aggressive species like hornets or wasps.These aggressive species tend to give bees a bad reputation, despite the fact that the honey bee is an integral part of our agricultural system. Honey bees not only produce honey, but they also pollinate, and therefore enable the procreation of, our fruit and flowering crops, which contributes to 40% of our food supply (Siegel and Betz, 2010). In 2010, honey bees aided the production of over $19 billion of crops in the United States alone, whereas all other pollinators combined contributed to the production of almost $10 billion of crops (US Fish and Wildlife, 2016). This means that honey bees alone are responsible for two thirds of animal pollinated crops. Wild populations of bees provide a free pollination service, which is worth $215 billion on a global scale (Goulson, Nicholls, Botías, & Rotheray, 2015). These crops not only include produce such as apples, squash, and almonds, but also commodities such as chocolate and coffee. Although the pollination services that bees offer are an integral aspect of the world’s agricultural production of insect pollinated crops, they go largely unrecognized. This is especially troubling now because bee populations are not only declining, but doing so at an alarming rate (Goulson, Nicholls, Botías, & Rotheray, 2015). Continue Reading →

Significance of Wind Turbines on Bird Mortality

Evan 13 Comments
Birds flying over a field at dawn in winter. J. Marijis. Shutterstock

Birds flying over a field at dawn in winter. (Marijis, J.)

Jacqueline Kennedy- Environmental Science, Gina Chesmore- Animal Science, Johanna Smith- Animal Science

As scientists decipher threats to human health and the ecosystem, they look to birds to find indicators of these threats. Particular bird species are susceptible to changes in the environment, making them good indicators of environmental conditions. Rachel Carson was among one of the first scientists to study this linkage; she observed the impact of DDT on bird populations after World War II, when the compound was widely used as a pesticide. If it were not for birds, the Environmental Protection Agency would not have discovered the negative effects of the pesticide so readily. As a result of these findings the United States banned DDT in 1972 (Beard, 2006). Another example of birds as an indicator species is the use of canaries in coal mines to detect carbon monoxide and other toxic gases, since the birds are more sensitive to toxins and would show signs of poisoning before the miners did. Other examples include mortality of crows as an indication of West Nile Virus and sick vultures in Asia due to diclofenac, a drug administered to livestock in order to help them heal from wounds (Balmford, 2013). In order to continue to utilize birds as an indicator species, we must find ways to preserve their populations, as they are a necessary part of the food chain that can lead to scientific discovery in regards to both human health and ecosystem health. Continue Reading →

Genetically Modified Organisms in Food and their Effects on Health

Evan 30 Comments

By Nina Schulze, Amelia Ragon and Olivia Court

In Hawaii, papayas are a delicacy thatgmo natives cherish, but in the late 1990’s, an insect-transmitted virus hit these crops. This virus destroyed the crops all throughout the island: leaving papaya trees wilted and the fruits with ring-shaped spot deformities (Gonsalves , Tripathi, Carr, & Suzuki, 2010). The ringspot virus was persistent and, despite the farmers’ efforts to rid the virus and save the crops, no solution worked to help the papayas. The infection forced farmers to cut down papaya trees, and one farmer, Ross Subiaco, stated “by the end of six months, [their farm] had only 20 percent of [their] papayas left” (Hirsh, 2013, p.1).  After trying selective breeding, quarantine, crop rotation, and anything else imaginable (Saletan, 2015), the Hawaiian farmers decided to try something new – genetically engineered (GE) seeds that were resistant to this specific virus. For this new proposal, the farmers teamed up with scientists to transfer the innocuous coat protein from the ringspot virus to the papaya’s DNA, resulting in an immunity to the virus (Saletan, 2015). This genetically engineered seed was successful and ultimately saved the industry.

About a year after the genetically modified seed introduction, critics began questioning its safety. The general public was uncomfortable with the idea of “playing with nature” (Saletan, 2015) and began to reject the practice of genetic engineering. One study came out claiming the new GE papaya “matched a sequence in an allergenic protein made by worms” (Saletan, 2015). This news scared the public, causing the formation of anti-GMO groups. People began to worry that the GE papaya was capable of producing new and more dangerous pathogens by interacting with DNA from other viruses (Saletan, 2015). Radicalists destroyed orchards that grew the GE papayas and bloggers flooded the internet, denouncing the fruit (Saletan, 2015).

The internet consensus is that GMOs will harm consumers.The internet is filled with “foodies” and bloggers who want to educate the general public on genetically modified food and its danger.  Blogger and self-proclaimed GMO expert Jeffrey Smith (2011) has dedicated his anti-GMO internet blog to providing information on GMO health and consumption. Smith stated that since the production of genetically modified organisms became popular, there were significant rises in food allergies and disorders such as autism. He consequently indicated that there must be a link between GMOs and these health trends (Smith, 2011). He also stated that genetic engineering causes “unpredictable side effects” (Smith, 2011, p 1), .that will manufacture toxins and nutritional deficiencies. These side effects will decrease human health. Outside of Smith, there are reports that link environmental health to human health in relation to GMOs. Critics proposed GMO “superweeds” will develop and mutate to form a resistance to previously used herbicides. This resistance will cause farmers to use new, different herbicides to successfully kill the weeds (Donsky, 2016). Many blogs state that the overuse and change in herbicides will lead to GMO crops losing nutritional value (Donsky, 2016).

Since the start of the production of GMOs, scientists have been performing many experiments to compare effects of GMO feed and non-GMO feed on general health. Plahuta & Raspor (2007) found evidence that the production of transgenic wine is a safe procedure for human health. There were very slight experimental differences in the effects to human health between wine made with conventional means versus wine made with GMOs. These differences, however, were not statistically significant and were within the range of error. Since GM DNA appears equivalent to DNA from existing food organisms that have always been part of the human diet, they pose no higher threat when compared to conventional food. The consumption of DNA will remain the same, regardless of its origin, because the body handles all DNA the same way.

To further explore the safety of GMOs, other researchers specifically observed multiple health parameters of the study participants. In one study by Hammond et al. (2006), rats were tested in various groups to determine the health effects of GMO-feed vs. non-GMO feed. Rats are an important model to study in medical testing because their bodily characteristics and functions are very similar to those of humans, making it easy to replicate and therefore observe potential diseases and negative outcomes (Melina, 2010).  The authors cited weight gain as one measure for health because, “the single most effective way to evaluate the overall health status of an animal is to observe the effects of treatment on body weight, food consumption, and food efficiency” (Borzelleca, 1996). If an animal is losing weight, the nutritional requirements are lacking in the diet. In the experiment, any weight gain differences between the control, GMO-feed, and non-GMO feed groups were of small, insignificant value. The authors also noted that food consumption between the three rat groups was “generally similar,” so the amount of feed did not affect the results (Hammond et al., 2006). Through the experiment, the authors claim that a normal human diet will have partial GMO ingredients. During the study, the GMO-feed contained 100% GMO ingredients. The neutral effects shown through the study provide an even greater safety net for humans because our consumption of GMOs will be through partial ingredients unlike the rats (Hammond et al., 2006).

A feed-study conducted by He, Brum, Chukwedebe, Privalle, Reed, Wang, et al. (2015), explored the various effects of feeding genetically modified soybean meal that was resistant to the herbicide Imidazolinone to rats and poultry. They compared two groups of rats: those who were fed the GM soy, and those who were fed non-GM soy. When comparing factors such as growth performance, the scientists found that there were no significant differences between the two groups of rats, indicating that there are no significant differences in nutritional value between GM and non-GM feed (He et al., 2015). In the same study, they compared the performance of chickens who were fed GM soy to those who were fed non-GM soy. This particular part of the study was important because chicken are notoriously sensitive to small changes in their diet. Without adequate levels of calcium, protein, and energy, egg production can stop altogether (Jacob, Wilson, Miles, Butcher, & Mather, 2014). However, He et al. (2015), observed no difference in production levels in these poultry, indicating that the GMO feed contained the same nutrient components as the non-GMO feed (He et. al, 2015). A similar study conducted by Chen et al. (2016) that analyzed the effects of feeding genetically modified corn to pigs stated that there were no adverse effects on growth performance. This 196-day study recorded average daily gain, average daily feed intake, and overall body weight of pigs who were fed GM-corn and pigs who were fed non-GM corn. Results showed that the two groups were profoundly similar in all categories (Chen et al., 2016).

The production and use of GMOs are seen as safe and neutral but are there any further benefits? Through a couple studies, scientists began to test this claim, relating to GMO benefits. The scientists looked for statistically significant variations between GMO feed and non-GMO feed effects on health. Statistical significance means that the data comparisons vary enough to warrant an outlier other than random chance. Min Li et al. (2010) studied GMO rice and its effect on human glucose levels. By altering the DNA of the rice, the scientists decreased the postprandial glycaemic (blood glucose concentration) responses in humans.The GMO rice proved to have lower values of blood glucose levels compared to the non-GMO rice in participants. The glycaemic index, another value that affects blood glucose levels, was lower  in consumers of the GMO rice as compared to the non-GMO rice.  Both of these values supported the authors’ claim: GMO rice provided health benefits. In this case, the GMO rice lessened the participants’ probability of dietary Diabetes 2.

Insulin production also plays a role in diabetes so the authors tested the effect of GMOs on insulin. The concentrations of plasma insulin in subjects with the GMO rice were significantly lower than that with non-GMO rice at 45, 60, 90 and 120 minutes post-food intake. The mean  value of insulin index in subjects with the GMO rice was significantly lower than that with the non-GMO rice. The patients with the GMO rice had significantly lower blood glucose and insulin levels, both decreasing their risk of dietary diabetes. Through altering the DNA of food, scientists are able to alter food for the better.

In a separate study conducted by Zou et al. (2015), researchers fed genetically modified pork to rats. This pork was genetically modified to have a higher protein and lower fat content. In this study, the authors discovered that the rats fed GM-pork generally had lower values of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) than those who were fed non-GM pork (Zou et al., 2015). LDL is the “bad cholesterol” that aids in the development of plaque that can clog arteries. While this one study is not enough to confirm whether or not GMOs are completely beneficial, it opens the doors to the possibility of GMOs being more beneficial than non-GMO.

Despite the overwhelming evidence that GMOs are safe to produce, ingest and have potential health benefits, there is still a bias against the production and use of genetically modified organisms. A paper published by philosophy professor Blancke (2015) and biotechnologists from Belgium argues that this negative GMO view stems from an emotional bias. The mindset forms through the belief that foreign agents are seen as a substance that changes the identity of the modified organism. As a result, more than 50% of Americans believe that a tomato modified with fish DNA would taste like fish (Blancke, 2015). Since the advent of genetic modification in the 1970’s and practices like in-vitro fertilization, religion plays a large role in the opposition of GMOs. Many believe genetic modification is unnatural and interfering with ‘God’s work,’ making humans bound to experience an unforeseen disaster (Blancke, 2015). Another issue that causes people to dislike GMOs is disgust. The thought of food containing DNA from a source that is viewed as dirty or disgusting can create the notion that the food is now contaminated. This emotional bias is in the unconscious mind of many, causing them to attempt to find rational arguments to side with this belief (Blancke, 2015).

The general public’s perception of GMOs is skewed and biased. The public opposes them because they believe GMOs are bad for people’s health and the environment. GMOs and their safety, however, are supported in the scientific field with experiments such as the ones mentioned above. What causes the skewing and bias, though? There is a gap between the scientific community and the public, the culprit being a lack of education. It fuels the emotional fear that surrounds the GMO bias because there is information on GMOs but many people are unaware or unable to decipher the information. This gap leads toward the public forming beliefs based off of emotion rather than fact (Vergano, 2015).

The Hawaiian papaya study, as previously mentioned, supports this trend with the belief that the GM-papaya shared an amino acid sequence with a common allergen. Out of 280 amino acids in the papaya’s new gene, the consecutive amino acids it shared with the alleged allergen with six (Saletan, 2015). By this standard, non-genetically modified corn would have to acknowledged as allergenic because most proteins in corn share a small number of amino acid sequences with allergens (Saletan, 2015). With scientific jargon and research papers, the general public is unable to understand the impartial effects and potential benefits of GMOs because they are unable to understand the language of the scientists. Not only is it difficult for people to understand the facts, but there is another problem that lies within the negative representation of GMOs. Blancke (2015) argues that media and other sources tap into emotions and intuition which falls under the radar of the human mind. All people are able to relate to feelings and emotions in reference to GMOs: “they capture our attention, they are easily processed and remembered and thus stand a greater chance of being transmitted and becoming popular, even if they are untrue” (Blancke, 2015). A lack of education and misleading information both come together to strengthen the negative perception so both need to be targeted in the fight for the support of GMOs.

There is an unfounded bias toward the danger of GMOs even though there is scientific evidence that supports the safety and benefits of these organisms, so GMO education through schools will decrease this bias and promote the use of GMOs. With an increasing world population, there is an increasing demand for food. There is a shortage of farmland and without new production technology, an unmatched increase in food demand will raise food prices and cause food shortages. As a new production technology, GMOs are a viable answer. If they are the answer, GMOs will increase in the world and because of their safety, it is important to gain the support of the public so GMOs will flourish in their use (Chen & Tseng, 2011). As discussed above, public bias leads to a negative reaction to GMOs and this bias needs to be addressed for the future. Education is the answer. In the long-term, it is important to target education at the public level. Through targeting a younger audience, one is targeting the future consumers. Adding a GMO curriculum, traveling guest speakers, and college lectures are a few ways to incorporate GMOs into the public school system.

There are pre-existing developments in this proposal relating to GMO curriculum. At the Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute, Beitler (2007) has outlined a GMO lesson plan for high-school biology students titled, Genetically Engineered Food: Altering the Blueprint. The outline first studies the basics such as defining genes and genetic engineering. It, then, goes on to ethical, scientific, and environmental issues relating to GMOs. For ethics, people argue over the use of science to manipulate genes. Some people believe scientists are overstepping nature while others argue that scientists have developed the means and are, therefore, justified to modify genes. With any topic, it is important to introduce ethics because they help students understand all sides to the proposal of GMOs. Next, the lesson plan addresses the scientific issues relating to GMOs. These issues are, however, lacking because of the scientific consensus on the safety and potential benefits of GMOs. After an analysis of all the risks and issues, from both sides, a teacher is then able to add further detail within each field. Students will obtain a well-rounded education of GMOs which will shape their personal opinions and decrease bias caused by a lack of knowledge (Beitler, 2007).

According to the Teaching Channel, “schools are constantly launching new programs to enhance teaching and learning” (Teaching Channel). Implementing a new GMO curriculum is, therefore, achievable because new programs are “constantly launched,” within schools (Teaching Channel). How are they launched? England recently launched a new educational curriculum through their government. The governmental officials argue curriculum should cover “the essential knowledge and skills every child should have” so teachers “have the freedom to shape the curriculum to their pupils’ needs” (“How is,” 2014). With this freedom, teachers have room to implement GMOs in their current curriculum. They would also have freedom to remove them in the future when GMOs become more common knowledge. How will current subjects be affected to make room for this freedom? Math will be taught at an earlier age. History will change to take a more chronological approach. In science, there will be a shift to hard facts and “scientific knowledge.” In September of 2015, schools implemented this new curriculum in England through the government (“How is,” 2014).

With a lack of education leading to a bias surrounding GMOs, scientific research continues to work in proving their safety. GMOs are reliable for production and consumption and they potentially provide health benefits. The public needs to be educated so people are able to promote and use the increasing genetically modified organisms. Education within the public school systems will enlighten the younger generation and, ultimately, the future generation. Previous scientific studies found evidence for the safety of genetically modified organisms in crops and food and this evidence will be presented to students. Teachers will also expose the fallacy of anti-GMO efforts that mislead and tap into the intuitive fear of the unknown of consumers. With time, the government will make policies that utilize the benefits of GMOs, such as making drought-resistant plants or treating diabetes.

 

References:

 

Beitler, K. A. (2007). Genetically engineered food: Altering the blueprint. Retrieved from Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute website: http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/

units/2007/5/07.05.04.x.html

 

Blancke, S. (2015, ). Why people oppose GMOs even though science says they are safe. Scientific American. Retrieved from www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-people-oppose-gmos-even-though-science-says-they-are-safe/

 

Chen, C.-C., & Tseng, W.-C. (2011). Do humans need GMOs? — A view from a global trade market. Retrieved from Ag Bio World website:  http://www.agbioworld.org/biotech-info/articles/biotech-art/need-GMOs.html

 

Chen, L., Sun, Z., Liu, Q., Zhong, R., Tan, S., Yang, X. and Zhang, H. (2016), Long-term toxicity

study on genetically modified corn with cry1Ac gene in a Wuzhishan miniature pig model. J. Science of Food and Agriculture. doi: 10.1002/jsfa.7624

 

Donksy, A. (2016). Top ten reasons to avoid GMOs. [Weblog]. Retrieved from

http://naturallysavvy.com/eat/whats-so-bad-about-gmos-top-ten-reasons-to-avoid-them

 

Gonsalves, D., Tripathi, S., Carr, J., & Suzuki, J. (2010). Papaya ringspot virus. The Plant Health

Instructor, DOI: 10.1094/PHI-I-2010-1004-01

 

Hammond, B., Lemen, J., Dudek, R., Ward, D., Jiang, C., Nemeth, M., et al. (2006).

Results of a 90-day safety assurance study with rats fed grain from corn rootworm-protected corn. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 44(2), 147-160.

doi:10.1016/j.fct.2005.06.008

 

He, X., Brum, P., Chukwedebe, A., Privalle, L., Reed, A., Wang, Y., et al. (2015). Rat and

poultry feeding studies with soybean meal produced from imidazolinone-tolerant (CV127) soybeans. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 88, 48-56.

doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fct..12.012

 

Hirsh, J. (2013). Papaya in the crosshairs: A heated island battle over GMOs. Retrieved from http://modernfarmer.com/2013/12/battleground-hawaii-tiny-island-state-leading-battle-gmos/

 

How is the national curriculum changing? (2014, September 1). Retrieved from BBC website:

http://www.bbc.com/news/education-28989714

 

Jacob, J., Wilson, H., Miles, R., Butcher, G., & Mather, B. (2014). Factors affecting egg production

in backyard chicken flocks. The Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences: University of Florida

 

Melina, R. (2010). Why do medical researchers use mice. LiveScience. Retrieved from

<http://www.livescience.com/32860-why-do-medical-researchers-use-mic.html>.

 

Li, M., Piao, J., Tian, Y., Li, W., Li, K., and Yang, X. (2010).

Postprandial glycaemic and insulinaemic responses to GM-resistant starch-enriched rice and the production of fermentation-related H2 in healthy Chinese adults. British Journal of Nutrition, 103, pp 1029-1034. doi:10.1017/S0007114509992820.

 

Plahuta, P., & Raspor, P. (2007). Comparison of hazards: Current vs. GMO wine. Food Control, 18(5), 492-502. doi:http://dx.doi.org.silk.library.umass.edu/10.1016/j.foodcont.2005.12.007

 

Smith, J. (2011). 10 reasons to avoid GMOs. [Weblog]. Retrieved from http://responsibletechnology.org/10-reasons-to-avoid-gmos/

 

Saletan, W (2015). The misleading war on GMOs: The food is safe. The rhetoric is dangerous.

Slate. http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/07/are_gmos_safe_yes_the_case_against_them_is_full_of_fraud_lies_and_errors.html

 

Vergano, D. (2015, January 29). Poll reveals rift between scientists, regular folks. Retrieved April

19, 2016, from National Geographic website: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/06/

150129-public-opinion-aaas-health-education-science/

 

Wilcox, C. (2015). GMOs of the future: Two recent studies reveal potential of genetic technologies. Discover. Retrieved from http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/science-sushi/2015/03/31/gmos-of-the-future-two-recent-studies-reveal-potential-of-genetic-technologies/

 

Zou, S., Tang, M., He, X., Cao, Y., Zhao, J., Xu, W., et al. (2015). A 90-day subchronic study

of rats fed lean pork from genetically modified pigs with muscle-specific expression of recombinant follistatin. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, 73(2), 620-628. doi:  http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.yrtph.2015.09.009

Oil Development in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge will affect wildlife

Evan 27 Comments
Alaska. Arctic National Wildlife Refuge ANWR . Porcupine Caribou Herd. Caribou (Rangifer tarandus).

The Porcupine Caribou Herd as it migrates to the ANWR. (ANWR, 2011)

Andrew Ellis, Environmental Science

Rebecca Garriss, Geoscience

Egle Tamulynas-Mendoza, Pre-Veterinary Science

 

INTRODUCTION

In 1968, oil was first discovered in Prudhoe Bay (Miller, n.d.). The following years saw a tragic transformation occur with the construction of wells, drill pads, roads, and pipelines. What was once an ideal example of arctic tundra became riddled with oil wells and associated infrastructure. Native wildlife such as caribou were affected through habitat fragmentation. Numerous spills caused behavior modification and outright poisoning (e.g. in 2006, a pipe ruptured and spilled 6,400 barrels of oil, the largest ever recorded on Alaska’s North Slope) (Roach, 2006). Continue Reading →

Reducing the impacts of climate change to help the decline of the population of polar bears

Evan 9 Comments

 

Tim Griffin – BCT

Christian Boucher – NRC

One of the largest mammals in the arctic, the polar bear, may not be around for too much longer, as climate change is slowly melting away their habitat and forcing them to move more inland and come into contact with humans more often. The polar bear is one of the most elegant but dangerous animals on the face of the planet. We may enjoy looking at these creatures from afar, but how would you feel if you saw one of these creatures in your own backyard? It’s a very frightening thought and often the situation ends in death whether it be human or polar bear. Usually, the polar bear has to be lured out and tranquilized, and sometimes  euthanized, in order to be taken out of human areas. Polar bears can display aggressive behavior, especially since they are coming into residential areas, starving and looking for food.  

The degradation of sea ice levels as a result of global warming is causing polar bear populations to decline. This is a huge problem for the environment and humans alike. Due to the polar bears habitat melting away, the population is experiencing negative effects on their health. Polar bears are reproducing two to five times less now than the 1980s and 90s because they can’t put on body weight like the previous generation used to. This is causing polar bears to spend more time on land, where there is hardly any food for them there. The only food that they could access on land are small creatures, dead carcuses, and disposed human food. In fact, they are 30 to 40 kilograms less in weight now than they were in the 1980s (Black, 2012). Polar bears do come to land to rest sometimes, but it isn’t where they should mainly be spending their time. Specifically, Chelsea Harvey has stated in her article that bears in the Chukchi sea region between Russia and Alaska are spending more time on land in the summers. The amount of summer sea ice continues to decline for polar bears everywhere. We can summarize that the more time polar bears get to spend on sea ice, the more time they get to fatten up.

The melting sea ice is impacting not just polar bear populations, but also the population that they hunt. Polar bears like to feed on large creatures for their fuel source, such as bearded seals and walruses. These populations are being forced to move more offshore where the water is too deep for polar bears. Polar bears feed on sea ice that is relatively close to land and not that deep, so this is a problem for them. Their food is moving too far offshore for them.  

Human-caused deaths of polar bears could be on the rise since they are staying on land for longer periods of time. Human curiosity is a very difficult thing to deal with in regard to population control. If a polar bear wanders into a community, someone may shoot it purely for sport or to protect their residency. Another concern for polar bears due to climate change is the lack of proper denning areas . The melting sea ice also means a smaller depth in snow, where they often bury themselves and place branches and whatever they can find on top.

One of the biggest problems that scientists face is the lack of public support. There are small relief funds out there that help protect polar bears, but besides scientists and small groups such as Polar Bears International, not many people are concerned with protecting these magnificent creatures. Unfortunately, it’s hard to get people to care about subjects that do not directly affect them. But if the word gets out to enough people, there will be that much more known support. Just getting the word out that climate change is real and affecting everyone is key. A lot can be done if the common public opinion believes that climate change needs to be addressed. Reducing our Greenhouse gas emissions is necessary for this to happen.

As a reader, you should care about the decline of the population of polar bears. Even if you are a thousand miles away from them, you should still be concerned because climate change is affecting everybody. Polar bears are one of the many examples of the negative effects of climate change. Climate change is caused by the rise of Greenhouse gas emissions due to the unsustainable living by humans. An example of the unnecessary contribution to climate change is our use of fossil fuel usage throughout everyday life. As opposed to using oil and gas to run our cars, we could use sustainable alternatives such as hybrid cars and solar power.  This means that the Earth’s temperature is rising and it is causing the arctic’s ice and glaciers to melt at an alarming rate.

In turn, the oceans sea levels are rising due to the melting sea ice. To put it in context, the city of Miami, Florida has the potential to be underwater in the next 50 years. Thousands of families along the country’s coasts may soon be forced to relocate more inland, and places where there were once homes and businesses may soon be underwater. This is bad for both the habitats for humans and for animals. There are many other animals besides polar bears that will have the potential to go extinct. If you are a human and are aware of the severity climate change poses, you should be concerned about preventing it.

If you live in one of the many towns of the arctic region, the issue of the polar bear population declining is especially concerning. The loss of sea ice due to climate change would cause the bears to migrate inland and onshore, making them easier targets for hunters and poachers. Not only from hunting, but in self-defense situations, polar bear’s lives are taken, thus increasing their mortality rate. The further they move inland, the closer they get to human societies where these self defense situations may take place.

We recognize that climate change is inevitable and we can only take preventative measures to reduce its impacts, so for now we can do things like provide safe breeding grounds and new laws to help protect the declining polar bear population. The arctic’s countries where the polar bears live in should provide safe, natural preserves where polar bears can roam around, live and breed peacefully. We can even provide them with food sources if their surrounding habitat isn’t abundant enough with them. Along with doing this, we can also place bans on hunting these creatures. Since the species is on the verge of decline, it doesn’t make sense that it should be ok to hunt them.  

        It is likely that, due to climate change, polar bear populations in certain areas will no longer exist.  Since climate change is causing the Earth to warm, sea ice is melting. Sea ice levels are one of the primary variables to the success of a polar bear population. As the warming trend continues, isolation of some polar bear populations will occur and will surely perish over time. It can be inferred that as the sea ice levels decrease, so does the quality of their habitat. All of which are caused primarily by global warming and climate change.

A study conducted in 1999 had reported that there had been a significant decrease in multilayer ice in the polar basin. Another study conducted in 2000 found that perennial ice cover in the Arctic is declining at a rate of 9% annually, stating that this may result in all of the multilayer ice cover to be depleted within the century. Loss of sea ice is causing polar bears, more often now than ever, to hunt in terrestrial areas and inland. Global warming has been causing sea ice levels to diminish which has caused the polar bears to be forced ashore to hunt and forage. “Numerous recent scientific papers have documented the consumption of terrestrial and freshwater foods by polar bears and suggest that such use is increasing. Some authors hypothesize that such observations are evidence that terrestrial foraging will play a major role in polar bear adaptation to global warming”. This quote stands to show that there is consensus amongst many scientists that global warming is impacting polar bears. As sea ice levels decline due to warming, the polar bears have been moving on land to hunt and have been utilizing their abilities to forage on terrestrial grounds.

Steven C. Armstrup, the chief scientist of Polar Bears International, has stated that if humans allow wild polar bear populations to decline, polar bears in zoos can provide greater benefits when it comes to breeding. (Armstrup, 2012) Zoo experts are fluent in small population management practices and understandings in genetics. By creating and supporting specific polar bear breeding programs, this could contribute to the genetic diversity of polar bears when it comes to reintroducing captive-bred bears to the wild. This would result in stronger, more resilient bears. Stronger genetics in the bears would also help assure their persistence as their habitat changes and could one day help and stabilize wild polar bear populations.

Our proposal is that if we can begin by cutting back our Greenhouse Gas emissions (GHG’s) and start combatting global warming, conserve sea ice levels to keep polar bears offshore and create captive polar bear breeding programs, polar bear populations may have a chance in existence outside of zoos in their natural habitat. As humans, we can reduce our GHG’s by making changes to our everyday lives, such as: recycling, driving less, using energy efficient products and even just by taking cooler, shorter showers. By reducing our GHG’s, this would eventually decrease the global heating trend and our planet would cool over time, preserving what sea ice would remain as the cooling occurs.

Until we are faced with some offset of climate change and global warming, the creation and support of captive bred polar bears would be ideal in the long run persistence of this species because they would result in stronger, more genetically diverse polar bears that could be used to repopulate the species in their natural habitat. A strong counter argument would be that global warming does not have any affect on the melting sea ice and is not the cause of the polar bear population declining, or that global warming even exists at all. It has often been argued that throughout the earth’s history, there have been natural changes in our earth’s climate. Currently, people who are skeptics are claiming that we are in the middle of one of these cycles. They think that we could do whatever we wanted and it would not matter because it is all part of a natural cycle.

Skeptics also refer to the recent weather that we have experienced in the past couple of years as evidence that climate change does not exist. In 2015, many areas around the country experienced record amounts of snowfall. In 2014, there was a resurgence in arctic sea ice as observed through NASA satellites. It simply doesn’t make sense that the Earth could still be that cold if climate change was occurring. However, there has been evidence that global warming is not caused directly by humans, but the rate in which is has been occurring has been drastically increased due to human habits. Carbon dioxide and methane are two of the primary GHG’s present in our atmosphere that are contributing to the warming.

Commercial cattle farming produces tons of methane annually and the usage of fossil fuels emits tons of carbon dioxide into our atmosphere annually, as well. Those two examples and wasteful lifestyles have all contributed in the increase of Greenhouse Gas emissions which cause the warming effect we are currently experiencing. Since atmospheric makeup can differ depending on area, different areas experience different effects of climate change such as varying weather patterns and unusual climatic patterns.

        In conclusion, consensus has been made that climate change and global warming are negatively impacting polar bear populations. Since their quality of habitat has deteriorated or, in some areas, their habitat is completely gone, polar bears have began hunting onshore and may become an issue for humans and their residencies. By offsetting our GHG’s and advocating for captive bred polar bear programs, we can help preserve and possibly rehabilitate the polar bear’s natural habitat and stabilize their plummeting population.