dc.description.abstract | Most environmental assessments of soy production and trade do not distinguish between genetically
modified (GM) and non-GM soy. In reality though, soybean imports to European Union maintain identity
preservation through segregated supply lines. We, therefore, perform an attributional life cycle assessment
(ALCA) of the global soy chain separately for the GM and non-GM imports. First a detailed mapping
of the soy-feed supply chain is done, beginning from the farm in Latin America to the animal farmer in
European Union. Subsequently, life cycle is assessed to calculate the environmental impacts of each
supply line for 14 impact categories, including global warming potential. Since non-GM soy based
compound feed is expensive, in countries such as Sweden where there is zero tolerance for genetically
modified organisms, animal farmers face a higher cost of production. As a result, there exists the possibility
for a policy shift towards use of only GM soy. Hence, a consequential life cycle assessment (CLCA)
is performed that includes the market effects for a scenario of shifting from GM to non-GM soy. This also
ensures robustness in our estimation of the differential environmental impacts. Results from ALCA reveal
that there are no significant environmental gains from importing non-GM soy over GM soy. Global
warming potential and freshwater ecotoxicity are very high from non-GM imports while GM soy imports
have a larger effect on land uses and terrestrial eutrophication. Increased transport distances due to
segregation for non-GM soy is a major contributor to the higher negative environmental effects. Results
from the CLCA, however, show that GM soy has a higher negative impact in most of the impact categories
including global warming potential and freshwater and terrestrial acidification. This is possible when
high demand for low cost GM triggers greater production in Latin America and substitution of locally
grown protein, such as rapeseed cake, in Sweden | en_US |