## 3 Results and Discussion
The analyses of external factors used in this study were the Global Warming Potential (GWP) of greenhouse gases, Eutrophication Potential (EP) which describes the amount of phosphorus usage, Deforestation of natural areas (DEF), Environmental Toxicity (ET) which is the impact of pesticide use, Farmworker Toxicity (FT) which is the long-term impact for farm workers when applying pesticides to crops, Consumer Toxicity (CT) which is the potential impact on consumers and groundwater effects, and Loss of Employability (LE). The numerical examples of bad output quantities (b) and shadow prices (r) of externalities used are presented in Tables 3 and 4. Table 5 shows that the highest adjusted profit was determined for the non-GMO observation equal to $393.66 per ton of rice. This shows that non-GMO rice provides better performance than GMO rice. This observation was used as the benchmark observation for the computation of the TFP and TPR indicators. Adjusted profit, also called adjusted net income or adjusted earnings, represents the best estimate of what that true profit is. The calculation of the AP obtained from the sum between TPR and TPF that both in US $. Table 6 reveals that the positive values of AP show that the investigation is more sustainable than the benchmark observation, whereas negative values indicate that the investigation is less sustainable. From the research results it was found that there is a difference in the AP value of US$71.89 per ton between GMOs and non-GMOs in stage 1, then there is a difference of US$34.45 per ton for stage 3. The overall value of the AP differences is US$106.34. This means that GMO rice is no more sustainable compared to non-GMO rice. This is because the GMO crops could create environmental problems and also have a number of negative economic consequences [21]. According to [PERSON] and [PERSON] [22], a major environmental concern with respect to GMO crops is the loss of biodiversity. Also, potentially, there are some environmental risks affecting ecosystems, agriculture, and health. Ironically, GMOs also have the potential to increase biodiversity [23]. Non-GMO as a holistic system that aims to produce food with minimal harm to ecosystems, animals, or humans, is the most prominent alternative farming system and is often proposed as a solution to less sustainable agriculture. Holistic systems planning has been central to the thinking of farmers for centuries, as they make decisions based on available land and production resources, balance land use for crops, livestock, and meeting needs of the family while producing additional food for sale or barter [24].  
To identify the sensitivity of the model, the variation in value is calculated by increasing the quantity of GMOs and Non-GMOs by 10%. The calculation results are presented in Tables 7-11.  
Based on the above results, it can be seen that even with an increase of 10% in the quantity of the input and the output of GMO and Non-GMO products, the result is that non-GMO products always give a better performance. This can be identified from the non-GMO AP value, which is always higher than it is for GMOs. From the above calculation, it can also be seen that if the quantity of output and input of GMO products increased by 10%, the difference generated in the AP value is US$-856.62. This means that GMO products are not any more sustainable than non-GMO products. However, if the increase in quantity is made to Non-GMO rice, the difference generated in the AP value is equal to US $633.30. This means GMO products are more sustainable compared to non-GMO products. This might be due to quantity differences (TPF component) include a lower use of bi