Okanagan Specialty Fruits Petition (10-161-01p) for 

Determination of Non-regulated Status of ArcticTM

Apple Events GD743 and GS784

OECD Unique Identifier: 

OKA-NBØØ1-8

OKA-NBØØ2-9

Final Environmental Assessment 

May 2014

Agency Contact 

Cindy Eck

Biotechnology Regulatory Services

4700 River Road

USDA, APHIS 

Riverdale, MD 20737 

Fax: (301) 734-8669

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of 

race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. 

(Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for 

communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’S TARGET Center 

at (202) 720–2600 (voice and TDD). 

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326–W, Whitten Building, 1400 

Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250–9410 or call (202) 720–5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal 

opportunity provider and employer. 

Mention of companies or commercial products in this report does not imply recommendation or endorsement by the 

U.S. Department of Agriculture over others not mentioned. USDA neither guarantees nor warrants the standard of any 

product mentioned. Product names are mentioned solely to report factually on available data and to provide specific 

information. 

This publication reports research involving pesticides. All uses of pesticides must be registered by appropriate State 

and/or Federal agencies before they can be recommended. 

i
TABLE OF 

CONTENTS PAGE

1 PURPOSE AND NEED.............................................................................................. 1

1.1 Background .......................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Purpose of Product ............................................................................................... 1

1.3 Coordinated Framework Review and Regulatory Review................................... 1

1.4 Purpose and Need for this APHIS Action............................................................ 4

1.5 Public Involvement .............................................................................................. 4

1.5.1 First Opportunity for Public Involvement..................................................... 5

1.5.2 Second Opportunity for Public Involvement. ............................................... 5

1.6 Issues Considered................................................................................................. 7

2 ALTERNATIVES....................................................................................................... 9

2.1 No Action Alternative: Continuation as a Regulated Article.............................. 9

2.2 Preferred Alternative: Determination that GD743 and GS784 apples are No Longer 

Regulated Articles................................................................................................ 9

2.3 Alternatives Considered But Rejected from Further Consideration .................. 10

2.4 Prohibit Any GD743 and GS784 Apples from Being Released ........................ 10

2.5 Approve the Petition in Part............................................................................... 10

2.6 Isolation Distance between GD743 and GS784 and Non-GE Apple Production and 

Geographical Restrictions.................................................................................. 11

2.7 Requirement of Testing for GD743 and GS784................................................. 11

2.8 Comparison of Alternatives ............................................................................... 11

3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT................................................................................ 18

3.1 Socioeconomic and Cultural Resources............................................................. 18

3.1.1 Agricultural Production of Apples.............................................................. 18

3.1.2 Domestic Commerce................................................................................... 19

3.1.3 Organic Apple Production .......................................................................... 20

3.1.4 Foreign Trade.............................................................................................. 21

3.2 Physical Environment ........................................................................................ 21

3.2.1 Soil Quality................................................................................................. 21

3.2.2 Water Resources ......................................................................................... 22

3.2.3 Air Quality .................................................................................................. 23

3.2.4 Climate Change........................................................................................... 23

3.3 Biological Resources.......................................................................................... 24

3.3.1 Animal Communities.................................................................................. 24

3.3.2 Plant Communities...................................................................................... 25

3.3.3 Soil Microorganisms................................................................................... 25

3.3.4 Biological Diversity.................................................................................... 27

3.4 Public Health...................................................................................................... 27

i
TABLE OF 

CONTENTS PAGE

3.4.1 Food and Feed............................................................................................. 27

3.4.2 Worker Safety ............................................................................................. 29

4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ............................................................... 30

4.1 Assumption used in analysis.............................................................................. 30

4.2 Socioeconomic and Cultural Resources............................................................. 30

4.2.1 Agricultural Production of Apple ............................................................... 30

4.2.2 Domestic Commerce................................................................................... 33

4.2.3 Organic Apple Production .......................................................................... 35

4.2.4 Foreign Trade.............................................................................................. 37

4.3 Physical Environment ........................................................................................ 38

4.3.1 Soil Quality................................................................................................. 38

4.3.2 Water Resources ......................................................................................... 39

4.3.3 Air Quality .................................................................................................. 40

4.3.4 Climate Change........................................................................................... 41

4.4 Biological Resources.......................................................................................... 42

4.4.1 Animal Communities.................................................................................. 42

4.4.2 Plant Communities...................................................................................... 45

4.4.3 Microorganisms .......................................................................................... 46

4.4.4 Biodiversity................................................................................................. 47

4.5 Public Health...................................................................................................... 48

4.5.1 Food and Feed............................................................................................. 48

4.5.2 Worker Health and Safety........................................................................... 50

5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS...................................................................................... 51

5.1 Assumptions Used for Cumulative Impacts Analysis........................................ 51

5.2 Past and Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions...................................... 51

5.3 Cumulative Impacts Summary........................................................................... 53

6 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES ................................................. 54

6.1 Potential Effects of the Cultivation of Event GD743 and GS784 Apples on TES56

6.2 Potential Effects GD743 and GS784 Apples on TES ........................................ 56

7 CONSIDERATION OF EXECUTIVE ORDERS, STANDARDS, AND TREATIES 

RELATING TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ................................................. 60

7.1 Executive Orders with Domestic Implications................................................... 60

7.2 International Implications .................................................................................. 62

7.3 Compliance with Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act ...................................... 63

7.4 Impacts on Unique Characteristics of Geographic Areas .................................. 64

7.5 National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 as Amended.................... 64

8 LIST OF PREPARERS............................................................................................. 66

ii
TABLE OF 

CONTENTS PAGE

9 REFERENCES ......................................................................................................... 67

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Summary of issues of potential impacts and consequences of alternatives.................... 12

Table 2. Commercial apple bearing acreage in U.S. States, 2011................................................ 18

Table 3. Apple production and value by use 2011........................................................................ 34

Table 4. Disease Ratings for the top five apple varieties produced in the United States. ............ 46

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Acres of Apples Produced............................................................................................. 19

Figure 2. Commercial Apple Bearing Acreage-United States: 2002-2011 (USDA-NASS, 

2012b). .......................................................................................................................................... 32

Figure 3. Commercial Apple Utilized Production- United States: 2002-2011 (USDA-NASS, 

2012b). .......................................................................................................................................... 32

Figure 4. Fresh Sliced Apples 2009-2011 (USDA-NASS, 2012b). ............................................. 34

Figure 5. U.S. Fresh Apple Exports (2007-2011) (USDA-FAS, 2012)........................................ 38

iii
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

AIA Advanced Informed Agreement

AOSCA American Organization of Seed Certifying Agencies

APHIS Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

BRS Biotechnology Regulatory Services (within USDA–APHIS)

CAA Clean Air Act

CBD Convention on Biological Diversity

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

CFIA Canadian Food Inspection Agency

CFR Code of Federal Regulations (United States)

CH4 methane

CO carbon monoxide

CO2 carbon dioxide

CWA Clean Water Act

DNA deoxyribonucleic acid

DRT Drift Reduction Technology

EA Environmental Assessment

EDTA Ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

EO Executive Order

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

ESA Endangered Species Act of 1973

EU European Union

FDA U.S. Food and Drug Administration 

FFDCA Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act

FFP Food, Feed, or Processing

FIFRA Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act

FQPA Food Quality Protection Act

FR Federal Register

GD Golden Delicious

GE Genetically Engineered

GHG Greenhouse Gas

GMO Genetically Modified Organism

iv
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

GS Granny Smith

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

IPM Integrated Pest Management

IPPC International Plant Protection Convention

ISPM International Standard for Phytosanitary Measure

LMO Living Modified Organisms

MOU Memorandum of Understanding

N2O nitrous oxide

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards

NABI North American Biotechnology Initiative

NAPPO North American Plant Protection Organization

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and subsequent amendments

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service

NO2 nitrogen dioxide

NPS Non-point Source

NRC National Research Council

O3 ozone

OECD Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development

OPP Office of Pesticide Programs

ORAC Oxygen Radical Absorbance Capacity

OSF Okanagan Specialty Fruits

Pb Lead

PIP Plant Incorporated Protectants

PM Particulate Matter

PPA Plant Protection Act

PPO polyphenol oxidase

PPRA Plant Pest Risk Assessment

PRA pest risk analysis

RSPM Regional Standards for Phytosanitary Measures

SIP State Implementation Plan

SO2 sulfur dioxide

v
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

SOC Soil Organic Carbon

SSA Sole Source Aquifer

TES Threatened and Endangered Species

TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act

U.S. United States

USC United States Code

USD United States Dollars

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture

USDA-AMS Agricultural Marketing Service

USDA-ARS Agricultural Research Service

USDA-ERS U.S. Department of Agriculture-Economic Research Service

USDA-FAS U.S. Department of Agriculture-Foreign Agricultural Service

USDA-NASS U.S. Department of Agriculture-National Agricultural Statistics Service

USDA-NOP U.S. Department of Agriculture-National Organic Program

USDA-NRCS Natural Resource Conservation Service

USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service

WPS Worker Protection Standard for Agricultural Pesticides

vi
1 PURPOSE AND NEED

1.1 Background

Okanagan Specialty Fruits Inc. (OSF) of Summerland, BC submitted petition 10-161-01p to the 

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 

(APHIS) in June 2010 seeking a determination of nonregulated status for ArcticTM apple events

GD743 and GS784 that are resistant to enzymatic browning. The petition was deemed complete 

by APHIS in February 2012. GD743 and GS784 apples are currently regulated under 7 CFR part 

340. Interstate movements and field trials of GD743 and GS784 apples have been conducted 

under permits issued or notifications acknowledged by APHIS since 2003. These field trials were 

conducted in the top two growing regions within the U.S., including the states of Washington 

and New York. Data resulting from these field trials are described in the OSF’s GD743 and 

GS784 apple petition (OSF, 2012) and analyzed for plant pest risk in the APHIS Plant Pest Risk 

Assessment (PPRA) (USDA-APHIS, 2013).

The petition stated that APHIS should not regulate GD743 and GS784 apples because they do

not present a plant pest risk. In the event of a determination of nonregulated status, the 

nonregulated status would include GD743 and GS784 apples, any progeny derived from crosses 

between GD743, GS784, and conventional apple, and crosses of GD743 and GS784 with other 

biotechnology-derived apples that are no longer subject to the regulatory requirements of 7 CFR 

part 340 or the plant pest provisions of the Plant Protection Act. 

1.2 Purpose of Product

GD743 and GS784 apples are engineered to be resistant to enzymatic browning. The

“nonbrowning” phenotype of events GD743 and GS784 were developed by inserting a 

polyphenol oxidase (PPO) suppression sequence derived from apple. When apples containing the 

inserted gene are subjected to mechanical damage, such as slicing or bruising, the apple flesh 

does not brown as an untransformed apple does, but rather remains its original color. This 

nonbrowning trait reduces the need for antibrowning agents on cut fruit, and minimizes losses 

caused by harvest and postharvest damage (OSF, 2012).

Browning reduces apple quality by causing detrimental flavor and nutritional changes that limit 

apple’s fresh-market, fresh-cut, and processing applications. Brown bruises are a significant 

cause of reduced grade for fresh-market apples for growers and of lost value for retailers (OSF, 

2012). GD743 and GS784 apples will be used as direct replacements for their untransformed 

conventional counterparts in situations where the nonbrowning trait is considered desirable, such 

as in fresh-cut produce products, prepared apple slices, and the manufacturing of juice. They will 

also be used in conventional breeding efforts to produce new apple cultivars that are resistant to

enzymatic browning (OSF, 2012).

1.3 Coordinated Framework Review and Regulatory Review

Since 1986, the United States (U.S.) government has regulated genetically engineered (GE) 

organisms pursuant to a regulatory framework known as the Coordinated Framework for the 

1
Regulation of Biotechnology (Coordinated Framework) (51 FR 23302, 1986; 57 FR 22984, 

1992). The Coordinated Framework, published by the Office of Science and Technology Policy, 

describes the comprehensive federal regulatory policy for ensuring the safety of biotechnology 

research and products and explains how federal agencies will use existing Federal statutes in a 

manner to ensure public health and environmental safety while maintaining regulatory flexibility 

to avoid impeding the growth of the biotechnology industry. The Coordinated Framework is 

based on several important guiding principles: (1) agencies should define those transgenic 

organisms subject to review to the extent permitted by their respective statutory authorities; (2) 

agencies are required to focus on the characteristics and risks of the biotechnology product, not 

the process by which it is created; (3) agencies are mandated to exercise oversight of GE 

organisms only when there is evidence of “unreasonable” risk.

The Coordinated Framework explains the regulatory roles and authorities for the three major 

agencies involved in regulating GE organisms: USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service (APHIS), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the Food and Drug 

Administration (FDA).

USDA-APHIS

APHIS regulations at 7 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 340, which were promulgated 

pursuant to authority granted by the Plant Protection Act (PPA), as amended (7 United States

Code (U.S.C.) 7701–7772), regulate the introduction (importation, interstate movement, or 

release into the environment) of certain GE organisms and products. A GE organism is no longer 

subject to the plant pest provisions of the PPA or to the regulatory requirements of 7 CFR part 

340 when APHIS determines that it is unlikely to pose a plant pest risk. A GE organism is 

considered a regulated article if the donor organism, recipient organism, vector, or vector agent 

used in engineering the organism belongs to one of the taxa listed in the regulation (7 CFR 

340.2) and is also considered a plant pest. A GE organism is also regulated under Part 340 when 

APHIS has reason to believe that the GE organism may be a plant pest or APHIS does not have 

information to determine if the GE organism is unlikely to pose a plant pest risk. 

A person may petition the agency for a determination that a particular regulated article is 

unlikely to pose a plant pest risk, and, therefore, is no longer regulated under the plant pest 

provisions of the PPA or the regulations at 7 CFR 340. Under § 340.6(c)(4), the petitioner must

provide information related to plant pest risk that the agency may use to determine whether the 

regulated article is unlikely to present a greater plant pest risk than the unmodified organism. A 

GE organism is no longer subject to the regulatory requirements of 7 CFR part 340 or the plant 

pest provisions of the PPA when APHIS determines that it is unlikely to pose a plant pest risk.

Environmental Protection Agency

The EPA is responsible for regulating the sale, distribution, and use of pesticides, including 

pesticides that are produced by an organism through techniques of modern biotechnology. The 

EPA regulates plant incorporated protectants (PIPs) under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and 

Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) (7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.) and certain biological control organisms under 

2
the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) (15 U.S.C. 53 et seq.). Before planting a crop 

containing a PIP, a company must seek an experimental use permit from EPA. Commercial 

production of crops containing PIPs for purposes of seed increases and sale requires a FIFRA 

Section 3 registration with EPA. 

Under FIFRA (7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.), EPA regulates the use of pesticides, and requires

registration of all pesticide products for all specific uses prior to distribution for sale. EPA 

examines: the ingredients of the pesticide; the particular site or crop on which it is to be used; the 

amount, frequency, and timing of its use; storage and disposal practices. Prior to registration for 

a new use for a new or previously registered pesticide, EPA must determine through testing that 

the pesticide does not cause unreasonable adverse effects on humans, the environment, and nontarget species when used in accordance with label instructions. EPA must also approve the 

language used on the pesticide label in accordance with 40 CFR part 158. Once registered, a 

pesticide may only be legally used in accordance with directions and restrictions on its label. The 

overall intent of the label is to provide clear directions for effective product performance, while 

minimizing risks to human health and the environment. The Food Quality Protection Act 

(FQPA) of 1996 amended FIFRA, enabling EPA to implement periodic registration review of 

pesticides to ensure they are meeting current scientific and regulatory standards of safety and 

continue to have no unreasonable adverse effects (US-EPA, 2011a).

EPA also sets tolerances (maximum residue levels) or establishes an exemption from the 

requirement for a tolerance, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). A 

tolerance is the amount of pesticide residue that can remain on or in food for human consumption 

or animal feed. Before establishing pesticide tolerance, EPA is required to reach a safety 

determination based on a finding of reasonable certainty of no harm under the FFDCA, as 

amended by the FQPA. FDA enforces the pesticide tolerances set by EPA.

Food and Drug Administration

FDA regulates GE organisms under the authority of the FFDCA (21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.). The 

FDA published its policy statement concerning regulation of products derived from new plant 

varieties, including those derived from genetic engineering, in the Federal Register on May 29, 

1992 (57 FR 22984, 1992). Under this policy, FDA implements a voluntary consultation process 

to ensure that human food and animal feed safety issues or other regulatory issues, such as 

labeling, are resolved before commercial distribution of bioengineered food. This voluntary 

consultation process provides a way for developers to receive assistance from FDA in complying 

with their obligations under Federal food safety laws prior to marketing.

More recently, in June 2006, FDA published recommendations in “Guidance for Industry: 

Recommendations for the Early Food Safety Evaluation of New Non-Pesticidal Proteins 

Produced by New Plant Varieties Intended for Food Use” (US-FDA, 2006). This establishes

voluntary food safety evaluations for new non-pesticidal proteins produced by new plant 

varieties intended to be used as food, including bioengineered plants. Early food safety 

evaluations help make sure that potential food safety issues related to a new protein in a new 

plant variety are addressed early in development. These evaluations are not intended as a 

3
replacement for a biotechnology consultation with FDA, but the information may be used later in 

the biotechnology consultation.

1.4 Purpose and Need for this APHIS Action

Under the authority of the plant pest provisions of the PPA and 7 CFR part 340, APHIS has 

issued regulations for the safe development and use of GE organisms. As noted in the previous 

section any party can petition APHIS to seek a determination of nonregulated status for a GE 

organism that is regulated under 7 CFR 340. As required by 7 CFR 340.6, APHIS must respond 

to petitioners that request a determination of the regulated status of GE organisms, including GE 

plants such as GD743 and GS784 apples. When a petition for nonregulated status is submitted, 

APHIS must determine if the GE organism is unlikely to pose a plant pest risk. The petitioner is 

required to provide information under § 340.6(c)(4) related to plant pest risk that the agency may 

use to determine whether the regulated article is unlikely to present a greater plant pest risk than 

the unmodified organism. A GE organism is no longer subject to the regulatory requirements of 

7 CFR part 340 or the plant pest provisions of the PPA when APHIS determines that it is 

unlikely to pose a plant pest risk.

APHIS must respond to the petition from Okanagan Specialty Fruits requesting a determination 

of nonregulated status for GD743 and GS784 apples. APHIS has prepared this Environmental 

Assessment (EA) to consider the potential environmental effects of an agency determination of 

nonregulated status for GD743 and GS784 apples. This action is consistent regulations for the 

NEPA established by the Council of Environmental Quality’s (CEQ), and the USDA APHIS 

NEPA-implementing regulations and procedures (40 CFR parts 1500-1508, 7 CFR part 1b, and 7 

CFR part 372). This EA has been prepared in order to specifically evaluate the effects on the 

quality of the human environment1 that may result from a determination of nonregulated status 

for GD743 and GS784 apples.

1.5 Public Involvement

APHIS routinely seeks public comment on EAs prepared in response to petitions seeking a 

determination of nonregulated status of a regulated GE organism. APHIS does this through a 

notice published in the Federal Register. On March 6, 2012, APHIS published a notice2 in the 

Federal Register advising the public that APHIS is implementing changes to the way it solicits 

public comment when considering petitions for determinations of nonregulated status for GE 

organisms to allow for early public involvement in the process. As identified in this notice, 

APHIS will publish two separate notices in the Federal Register for petitions for which APHIS 

prepares an EA. The first notice will announce the availability of the petition, and the second 

notice will announce the availability of APHIS’ decision making documents. As part of the new 

1 Under NEPA regulations, the “human environment” includes “the natural and physical environment and the 

relationship of people with that environment” (40 CFR §1508.14).

2 This notice can be accessed at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-03-06/pdf/2012-5364.pdf 

4

 
process, with each of the two notices published in the Federal Register, there will be an 

opportunity for public involvement:

1.5.1 First Opportunity for Public Involvement. 

Once APHIS deems a petition complete, the petition will be made available for public comment 

for 60 days, providing the public an opportunity to raise issues regarding the petition itself and 

give input that will be considered by the Agency as it develops its EA and PPRA. APHIS 

publishes a notice in the Federal Register to inform the public that APHIS will accept written 

comments regarding a petition for a determination of nonregulated status for a period of 60 days 

from the date of the notice. This availability of the petition for public comment will be 

announced in a Federal Register notice.

1.5.2 Second Opportunity for Public Involvement. 

Assuming an EA is sufficient, the EA and PPRA are developed and a notice of their availability 

is published in a second Federal Register notice. This second notice follows one of two 

approaches for public participation based on whether or not APHIS decides the petition for a 

determination of nonregulated status is for a GE organism that raises substantive new issues:

Approach 1. For GE organisms that do not raise substantive new issues. 

This approach for public participation is used when APHIS decides, based on the review of the 

petition and our evaluation and analysis of comments received from the public during the 60-day 

comment period on the petition, that the petition involves a GE organism that does not raise new 

biological, cultural, or ecological issues because of the nature of the modification or APHIS' 

familiarity with the recipient organism. After developing its EA, finding of no significant impact 

(FONSI), and PPRA, APHIS publishes a notice in the Federal Register announcing its 

preliminary regulatory determination and the availability of the EA, FONSI, and PPRA for a 30-

day public review period.

If APHIS determines that no substantive information has been received that would warrant 

APHIS altering its preliminary regulatory determination or FONSI, substantially changing the 

proposed action identifies in the EA, or substantially changing the analysis of impacts in the EA, 

APHIS' preliminary regulatory determination becomes final and effective upon public 

notification through an announcement on its website. No further Federal Register notice is

published announcing the final regulatory determination.

Approach 2. For GE organisms that raise substantive new issues not previously reviewed by 

APHIS. 

A second approach for public participation is used when APHIS determines that the petition for a 

determination of nonregulated status is for a GE organism that raises substantive new issues. 

This could include petitions involving a recipient organism that has not previously been 

determined by APHIS to have nonregulated status or when APHIS determines that gene 

modifications raise substantive biological, cultural, or ecological issues not previously analyzed 

5
by APHIS. Substantive issues are identified by APHIS based on our review of the petition and 

our evaluation and analysis of comments received from the public during the 60-day comment 

period on the petition.

APHIS solicits comments on its draft EA and draft PPRA for 30 days through the publication of

a Federal Register notice. APHIS reviews and evaluates comments and other relevant 

information, then revises the PPRA as necessary and prepares a final EA. Following preparation 

of these documents, APHIS approves or denies the petition, announcing in the Federal Register

the regulatory status of the GE organism and the availability of APHIS' final EA, PPRA, NEPA 

decision document (either a FONSI or NOI to prepare an EIS), and regulatory determination.

Enhancements to public input are described in more detail in the Federal Register notice3

published on March 6, 2012.

APHIS has determined that this EA will follow Approach 2. The issues discussed in this EA 

were developed by considering the public concerns, including public comments received in 

response to the Federal Register notice (77 F.R. 41362-3) announcing the availability of the 

petition (i.e., the first opportunity for public involvement previously described in this document), 

as well as issues noted in public comments submitted for other EAs of GE organisms, and 

concerns described in lawsuits and expressed by various stakeholders. These issues, including 

those regarding the agricultural production of apple using various production methods and the 

environmental and food/feed safety of GE plants, were addressed to analyze the potential 

environmental impacts of GD743 and GS784.

The public comment period for OSF’s GD743 and GS784 apple petition closed on September 

11, 2012. At its closing, a total of 72,745 public comments were submitted to the docket. The 

majority of the comments expressed a general dislike of the use of GE organisms or, were form 

letters sent to all of the dockets which were open at the time that this docket was open. The form 

letter expressed a concern that there were too many dockets published on the same day. It also 

referenced other open dockets and potential effects from the use of the subjects of those 

petitions. These issues are outside the scope of this EA. The issues that were raised in the public 

comments which were related to the OSF GD743 and GS784 apple petition included: 

• Potential economic impacts on the US apple industry and market

• The socioeconomic impacts of mixing GD743 and GS784 apples in various apple 

markets

• Potential economic impacts on export markets. 

• Concern that cross-pollination between GE and organic or conventional apple crops will 

affect sales for growers of these crops. 

• GD743 and GS784 cross pollination with other apple varieties including native 

crabapples 

3 This notice can be accessed at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-03-06/pdf/2012-5364.pdf 

6

 
• The effects of GD743 and GS784 on the physical environment

• The effects of GD743 and GS784 on biological organisms including Threatened and 

Endangered Species

• Potential for weakened plant defenses and increased susceptibility to disease or infection

from PPO suppression

• Human health effects from consuming GE crops

• Concerns about the non-browning trait masking flaws or disease in the fruit

• Concerns about the nutritional, quality, and food safety of GD743 and GS784 apples

APHIS evaluated these raised issues and the submitted documentation. APHIS has also included 

a discussion of these issues in this EA.

On November 8, 2013, APHIS published a notice in the Federal Register (78 FR 67100-67101, 

Docket no. APHIS-2012-0025) announcing the availability of the draft EA and draft PPRA for a 

30-day public review period. On December 31, 2013 the comment period was reopened for an 

additional 30 days (78 FR 79658-79659, Docket no. APHIS-2012-0025). During the comment 

period, APHIS received a total of 105,971 comments of which 100,976 were form letters. APHIS 

also received 8 comments with a total of 461,311 signatures opposed to approval of the petition. 

Comment documents may be viewed at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS2012-0025. No new issues, alternatives, or new information were identified in any of the 

comments received by APHIS. APHIS has included a discussion of issues relative to this petition 

in the EA or in the response to comments attached to Finding of No Significant Impact

document.

1.6 Issues Considered

The list of resource areas considered in this final EA were developed by APHIS through 

experience in considering public concerns and issues raised in public comments submitted for 

this petition and other EAs of GE organisms. The resource areas considered also address 

concerns raised in previous and unrelated lawsuits, as well as issues that have been raised by 

various stakeholders for this petition and in the past. The resource areas considered in this EA 

can be categorized as follows: 

Socioeconomic and Cultural Resource Considerations:

• Agricultural Production of Apples

• Domestic Commerce

• Organic Apple Production

• Foreign Trade

Environmental Considerations:

• Soil Quality

• Water Resources

• Air Quality 

• Climate Change

• Animal Communities

7
• Plant Communities

• Microorganisms

• Biological Diversity

Human Health Considerations:

• Public Health

• Worker Safety

Livestock Health Considerations:

• Animal Feed/Livestock Health

8
2 ALTERNATIVES

This document analyzes the potential environmental consequences of a determination of 

nonregulated status of GD743 and GS784 apples. To respond favorably to a petition for 

nonregulated status, APHIS must determine that GD743 and GS784 are unlikely to pose a plant 

pest risk. Based on its PPRA (USDA-APHIS, 2013), APHIS has concluded that GD743 and 

GS784 are unlikely to pose a plant pest risk. Therefore, APHIS must determine that GD743 and 

GS784 are no longer subject to 7 CFR part 340 or the plant pest provisions of the PPA. 

Two alternatives are evaluated in this EA: (1) no action and (2) determination of nonregulated 

status of GD743 and GS784. APHIS has assessed the potential for environmental impacts for 

each alternative in the Environmental Consequences section.

2.1 No Action Alternative: Continuation as a Regulated Article

Under the No Action Alternative, APHIS would deny the petition. GD743 and GS784 apples and 

progeny derived from GD743 and GS784 apples would continue to be regulated articles under 

the regulations at 7 CFR part 340. Permits issued or notifications acknowledged by APHIS 

would still be required for introductions of GD743 and GS784 apples and measures to ensure 

physical and reproductive confinement would continue to be implemented. APHIS might choose 

this alternative if there were insufficient evidence to demonstrate the lack of plant pest risk from 

the unconfined cultivation of GD743 and GS784 apples. 

This alternative is not the Preferred Alternative because APHIS has concluded through a PPRA

that GD743 and GS784 apples are unlikely to pose a plant pest risk (USDA-APHIS, 2013). 

Choosing this alternative would not satisfy the purpose and need of making a determination of 

plant pest risk status and responding to the petition for nonregulated status. 

2.2 Preferred Alternative: Determination that GD743 and GS784 apples are No 

Longer Regulated Articles

Under this alternative, GD743 and GS784 apples and progeny derived from them would no 

longer be regulated articles under the regulations at 7 CFR part 340. GD743 and GS784 are

unlikely to pose a plant pest risk (USDA-APHIS, 2013). Permits issued or notifications 

acknowledged by APHIS would no longer be required for introductions of GD743 and GS784

apples and progeny derived from these events. This alternative best meets the purpose and need 

to respond appropriately to a petition for nonregulated status based on the requirements in 7 CFR 

part 340 and the agency’s authority under the plant pest provisions of the Plant Protection Act. 

Because the agency has concluded that GD743 and GS784 apples are unlikely to pose a plant 

pest risk, a determination of nonregulated status of GD743 and GS784 apples is a response that 

is consistent with the plant pest provisions of the PPA, the regulations codified in 7 CFR part 

340, and the biotechnology regulatory policies in the Coordinated Framework.

Under this alternative, growers may have future access to GD743 and GS784 apples and progeny 

derived from these events if the developer decides to commercialize GD743 and GS784 apples. 

9
2.3 Alternatives Considered But Rejected from Further Consideration

APHIS assembled a list of alternatives that might be considered for GD743 and GS784. The 

agency evaluated these alternatives in accordance with its authority under the plant pest 

provisions of the PPA, and the regulations at 7 CFR part 340. This evaluation considered

environmental safety, efficacy, and practicality to identify which alternatives would be further 

considered for GD743 and GS784. Based on this evaluation, APHIS rejected several alternatives. 

These alternatives are discussed briefly below along with the specific reasons for rejecting each.

2.4 Prohibit Any GD743 and GS784 Apples from Being Released

In response to public comments that stated a preference that no GE organisms enter the 

marketplace, APHIS considered prohibiting the release of GD743 and GS784 apples, including 

denying any permits associated with the field testing. APHIS determined that this alternative is 

not appropriate given that APHIS has concluded that GD743 and GS784 are unlikely to pose a 

plant pest risk (USDA-APHIS, 2013).

In enacting the PPA, Congress found that 

[D]ecisions affecting imports, exports, and interstate movement of products regulated 

under [the PPA] shall be based on sound science...§ 402(4).

On March 11, 2011, in a Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies, 

the White House Emerging Technologies Interagency Policy Coordination Committee developed 

broad principles, consistent with Executive Order 13563, to guide agencies in the development 

and implementation of policies for oversight of emerging technologies such as GE that included 

the following guidance:

“[D]ecisions should be based on the best reasonably obtainable scientific, technical, 

economic, and other information, within the boundaries of the authorities and mandates 

of each agency” 

Consistent with this guidance and based on the findings and scientific data evaluated for the 

PPRA (USDA-APHIS, 2013), APHIS concluded that GD743 and GS784 are unlikely to pose a 

plant pest risk. Therefore, there is no basis in science for prohibiting the release of GD743 and 

GS784. 

2.5 Approve the Petition in Part

The regulations at 7 CFR 340.6(d)(3)(i) state that APHIS may "approve the petition in whole or 

in part." For example, a determination of nonregulated status in part may be appropriate if there 

is a plant pest risk associated with some, but not all lines described in a petition. Because APHIS 

has concluded that both GD743 and GS784 are unlikely to pose a plant pest risk, there is no 

regulatory basis under the plant pest provisions of the PPA for considering approval of the 

petition only in part. 

10
2.6 Isolation Distance between GD743 and GS784 and Non-GE Apple Production and 

Geographical Restrictions

In response to public concerns of gene movement between GE and non-GE plants, APHIS 

considered requiring an isolation distance separating GD743 and GS784 apples from other apple 

production. However, because APHIS has concluded that GD743 and GS784 apples are unlikely 

to pose a plant pest risk (USDA-APHIS, 2013), an alternative based on requiring isolation 

distances would be inconsistent with the statutory authority under the plant pest provisions of the 

PPA and regulations in 7 CFR part 340. 

APHIS also considered geographically restricting the production of GD743 and GS784 based on 

the location of production of non-GE apples in organic production systems or production 

systems for GE-sensitive markets in response to public concerns regarding possible gene 

movement between GE and non-GE plants. However, as presented in APHIS’ plant pest risk 

assessment for GD743 and GS784, there are no geographic differences associated with any 

identifiable plant pest risks for GD743 and GS784 (USDA-APHIS, 2013). This alternative was 

rejected and not analyzed in detail because APHIS has concluded that GD743 and GS784 do not 

pose a plant pest risk, and will not exhibit a greater plant pest risk in any geographically 

restricted area. Therefore, such an alternative would not be consistent with APHIS’ statutory 

authority under the plant pest provisions of the PPA and regulations in Part 340 and the 

biotechnology regulatory policies embodied in the Coordinated Framework.

Based on the foregoing, the imposition of isolation distances or geographic restrictions would not 

meet APHIS’ purpose and need to respond appropriately to a petition for nonregulated status

based on the requirements in 7 CFR part 340 and the agency’s authority under the plant pest 

provisions of the PPA. Individuals might choose on their own to geographically isolate their nonGE apple production systems from GD743 and GS784 or to use isolation distances and other 

management practices to minimize gene movement between apple orchards. 

2.7 Requirement of Testing for GD743 and GS784

During the comment periods for other petitions for nonregulated status, some commenters 

requested USDA to require and provide testing for GE products in non-GE production systems. 

However, because GD743 and GS784 do not pose a plant pest risk (USDA-APHIS, 2013), 

testing requirements are inconsistent with the plant pest provisions of the PPA, the regulations at 

7 CFR part 340 and biotechnology regulatory policies embodied in the Coordinated Framework. 

Therefore, imposing such a requirement for GD743 and GS784 would be inconsistent with 

APHIS’ purpose and need to respond appropriately to the petition in accordance with its 

regulatory authorities. 

2.8 Comparison of Alternatives 

Table 1 presents a summary of the potential impacts associated with selection of either of the 

alternatives evaluated in this EA. The impact assessment is presented in Section 4 of this EA.

11
Table 1. Summary of issues of potential impacts and consequences of alternatives.

Attribute/Measure Alternative A: No Action

Alternative B: Determination 

of Nonregulated Status

Meets Purpose and Need 

and Objectives No Yes

Unlikely to pose a plant 

pest risk

Satisfied through use of 

regulated field trials

Satisfied – risk assessment

(USDA-APHIS, 2013)

Socioeconomic and Cultural

Agricultural Production of 

Apple

Total commercial apple 

bearing acreage has declined 

since 2002 while total apple 

utilized production has been 

relatively unchanged since 

2007. Based on apple 

production trends and 

projections, apples will 

continue to be a major fruit

crop in the U.S. for the 

foreseeable future.

Unchanged from No Action

Alternative

Domestic Commerce

The majority of commercial 

apple production is marketed 

as fresh fruit. Of the 

approximately 9.3 billion 

pounds of utilized apple 

production, fresh fruit 

production accounted for

2.38 billion dollars and 

processed fruit production for

338 million dollars. In 2011 

about 1% of the total apple 

crop was used for fresh sliced 

apples. The majority of 

processed apples are used for 

juice or cider.

Unchanged from No Action

Alternative

12
Attribute/Measure Alternative A: No Action

Alternative B: Determination 

of Nonregulated Status

Organic Apple Production

Specialty crop growers 

employ practices and 

standards for production, 

cultivation, and product 

handling and processing to 

ensure that their products are

not pollinated by or

commingled with 

conventional or GE crops. 

Organic apples are one of the 

top three organic fresh fruits 

purchased.

Unchanged from No Action

Alternative

Foreign Trade

The U.S. produces 

approximately 16% of the 

global apple export market. 

U.S. apples and apple 

products will continue to play 

a role in global apple

production, and the U.S. will 

continue to be a supplier in 

the international market.

The foreign trade impacts 

associated with a

determination of 

nonregulated status of

GD743 and GS784 apples

are anticipated to be similar

to the No Action alternative

however, import of each

specific trait requires separate

application and approval by 

the importing country.

Environment

Soil Quality

Agronomic practices such as 

crop type, tillage, and pest 

management can affect soil 

quality. Growers will adopt 

management practices to 

address their specific needs 

in producing apples.

Unchanged from No Action

Alternative

13
Attribute/Measure Alternative A: No Action

Alternative B: Determination 

of Nonregulated Status

Water Resources

The primary cause of

agricultural non-point source

pollution is increased 

sedimentation from soil 

erosion, which can introduce

sediments, fertilizers, and 

pesticides to nearby lakes 

and streams. Agronomic 

practices such as crop 

nutrient management, pest 

management, and

conservation buffers help 

protect water quality from 

agricultural runoff

Unchanged from No Action

Alternative

Air Quality

Agricultural activities such as

burning, tilling, harvesting,

spraying pesticides, and

fertilizing, including the

emissions from farm

equipment, can directly affect

air quality. Aerial application

of herbicides may impact air

quality from drift, diffusion,

and volatilization of the

chemicals, as well as motor 

vehicle emissions from

airplanes or helicopters.

Unchanged from No Action

Alternative

Climate Change

Agriculture-related activities 

are recognized as both direct 

sources of greenhouse gases 

(GHGs) (e.g., exhaust from 

motorized equipment) and 

indirect sources (e.g., 

agriculture-related soil 

disturbance, fertilizer

production)

Unchanged from No Action

Alternative

Animal Communities

Apple orchards may be host 

to many animal and insect 

species. Many of these 

animals are typically 

considered pests and may be 

controlled by the use of

Unchanged from No Action

Alternative

14
Attribute/Measure Alternative A: No Action

Alternative B: Determination 

of Nonregulated Status

integrated pest management 

strategies.

Plant Communities

Apple is a labor intensive, 

highly managed crop. 

Members of the plant 

community that adversely 

affect apple cultivation may 

be characterized as weeds. 

Weed control is an important 

aspect of apple cultivation.

Apple growers use

production practices to 

manage weeds in and around 

orchards. Apples are an 

outcrossing species, requiring 

cross pollination from a 

different commercial variety 

or crab apple species.

Pollination efficiency 

decreases rapidly with 

distance between pollen 

sources so cross pollination 

with native crab apples 

would be unlikely.

Unchanged from No Action

Alternative

Microorganisms

The apple orchard is a highly 

managed environment which 

incorporates integrated pest 

management (IPM) 

strategies. IPM programs are 

tailored to specific areas of 

the country; however, nearly 

every IPM program 

specifically addresses the 

most common diseases of 

apple.

Unchanged from No Action

Alternative

Biological Diversity

The biological diversity in 

apple orchards is highly 

managed and may be lower 

than in the surrounding 

habitats. 

Unchanged from No Action

Alternative

Human and Animal Health

15
Attribute/Measure Alternative A: No Action

Alternative B: Determination 

of Nonregulated Status

Human Health/ Worker 

Safety

The average U.S. consumer 

ate an estimated 47.6 pounds 

of fresh apples and processed 

apple products in 2011. The 

apple orchard is a highly 

managed environment which 

incorporates the use of 

agricultural chemicals. 

Pesticides are used on most 

apple acreage in the US. The 

EPA’s Worker Protection

Standard (WPS) (EPA, 1992);

40 CFR Part 170.1, Scope and

Purpose) requires employers

to take actions to reduce the

risk of pesticide poisonings

and injuries among 

agricultural workers and 

pesticide handlers. The WPS

contains requirements for

pesticide safety training,

notification of pesticide 

applications, use of personal 

protective equipment,

restricted entry intervals

following pesticide 

application, decontamination 

supplies, and emergency

medical assistance.

OSF data demonstrates that 

the composition of GD743 

and GS784 apples does not 

substantially differ from 

conventional apple varieties. 

OSF submitted a safety and 

nutritional assessment of 

food and feed derived from 

GD743 and GS784 to the 

FDA on May 30, 2011. FDA 

is presently evaluating the 

submission.

OSF’s studies demonstrate 

no differences in 

morphological characteristics 

and agronomic requirements 

between GD743 and GS784 

apples and other apple 

varieties. OSF demonstrates 

in its petition that the 

agronomic inputs required to 

cultivate GD743 and GS784

apples are functionally 

equivalent to those required 

for conventional apple.

Accordingly, the health and 

safety protocols currently 

employed by farm workers in 

the cultivation of apple do

not require changes to 

accommodate the cultivation 

of GD743 and GS784 apples.

Therefore, human health and 

worker safety issues

associated with the

agricultural production of 

GD743 and GS784 apples

would remain the same as

those under the No Action 

Alternative.

16
Attribute/Measure Alternative A: No Action

Alternative B: Determination 

of Nonregulated Status

Animal Feed

Some whole apples or apple 

pieces may be fed to 

domestic animals, but the 

majority of apple feed

products are derived from the 

byproducts of manufacturing.

OSF submitted a safety and 

nutritional assessment of 

food and feed derived from

GD743 and GS784 to the 

FDA on May 30, 2011. 

FDA is presently evaluating 

the submission. A

compositional analysis 

concluded there were no 

biologically meaningful 

differences identified 

between GD743 and GS784 

apples and other varieties.

Therefore this is unchanged 

from the No Action 

Alternative.

Other Regulatory Approvals

U.S.

OSF submitted a safety and 

nutritional assessment of 

food and feed derived from 

GD743 and GS784 to the 

FDA on May 30, 2011. 

FDA is presently 

evaluating the submission.

OSF submitted a safety and 

nutritional assessment of 

food and feed derived from 

GD743 and GS784 to the 

FDA on May 30, 2011. 

FDA is presently 

evaluating the submission.

CFIA

Regulatory submissions for 

product approvals were 

made to Health Canada and 

the Canadian Food 

Inspection Agency (CFIA) 

on December 7, 2011. 

CFIA is presently 

evaluating the submission.

Regulatory submissions for 

product approvals were 

made to Health Canada and 

the CFIA on December 7, 

2011. CFIA is presently 

evaluating the submission.

Compliance with Other Laws

CWA, CAA, EOs Fully compliant Fully compliant

17
3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

The Affected Environment Section provides a discussion of the current conditions of those 

aspects of the human environment potentially impacted by a determination of nonregulated status 

of GD743 and GS784. For the purposes of this EA, those aspects of the human environment are: 

socioeconomic and cultural resources, apple production areas, the physical environment, 

biological resources, public health, and animal feed.

3.1 Socioeconomic and Cultural Resources

3.1.1 Agricultural Production of Apples

Apples are grown in all 50 states. People may grow apples in their backyards, small orchards or 

in larger production settings. In 2011, the U.S. total commercial apple bearing acreage was 

330,600 acres (Table 2)(USDA-NASS, 2012b). Historically, Washington, New York, and 

Michigan are the largest producers of apples. Approximately 44% of the nation’s apples acres 

are in Washington. New York and Michigan together account for about one fourth of the U.S.

apple acres (Figure 1) (USDA-NASS, 2012b). 

Table 2. Commercial apple bearing acreage in U.S. States, 2011

State

Bearing 

Apple 

Acreage

State

Bearing 

Apple 

Acreage

State

Bearing 

Apple 

Acreage

Washington 146,000 Massachusetts 4,000 Missouri 1,800

New York 42,000 Wisconsin 3,800 Maryland 1,750

Michigan 34,000 Maine 3,100 Indiana 1,700

Pennsylvania 21,000 Vermont 2,800 Utah 1,400

California 17,500 Idaho 2,600 Colorado 1,300

Virginia 11,800 Minnesota 2,450 Arizona 1,200

North Carolina 6,900 Illinois 2,200 Iowa 1,000

West Virginia 4,900 Connecticut 2,100 Tennessee 800

Ohio 4,300 New Hampshire 1,900 Rhode Island 300

Oregon 4,100 New Jersey 1,900 Total 330,600

Source: (USDA-NASS, 2012b)

18
Figure 1. Acres of Apples Produced.

3.1.2 Domestic Commerce

In 2011, 330,600 acres of apples were cultivated in the United States, yielding approximately 9.3 

million pounds at a value of 2.7 billion U.S. dollars(USDA-NASS, 2012b). The majority of 

commercial apple production is marketed as fresh fruit valued at over $2.38 billion. Processed 

fruit production is valued at $338 million dollars (USDA-NASS, 2012b).

Apples are processed into products such as juice, sauce, fresh slices, canned and frozen products. 

In 2011 about 1% of the total apple crop was used for fresh sliced apples. The majority of 

processed apples are used for juice or cider (USDA-NASS, 2012b). Crunch Pak®, the largest 

sliced apple producer in the United States, produces more than a billion apple slices a year and 

has tripled their sales in just four years (Crunch Pak, 2012). According to a Reuter’s estimate, 

approximately 10 % of McDonald’s Corporation 2010 sales were from Happy Meals. In 2012, 

McDonald’s Corporation announced that it would include a quarter cup of apples in every Happy 

Meal. Previously, apple slices with Happy Meals was an option. Currently, McDonald’s 

Corporation is the leading food service user of apple slices (Karst, 2012).

Processing steps used in the production of apple slices are similar to the steps used for processing 

apples for apple sauce. As in apple sauce production, apples are dumped, washed, graded, 

peeled, and cored; however unlike apple sauce production, sliced apples packs generally consists 

of a single cultivar rather than a mix or blend of cultivars (Barrett et al., 2005). Surface 

discoloration is one of the most common quality defects of fresh cut fruit and significantly 

19
contributes to the decreased shelf life of fresh cut fruit. When apples are peeled and cut, apple 

cells are broken and enzymes called polyphenol oxidases (PPOs) are released and come in 

contact with other molecules in the apple cell. When this happens, apple flesh discoloration or 

enzymatic browning occurs. Both physical and chemical methods can be used to prevent 

enzymatic browning. Physical methods that can be used are reducing temperature and oxygen 

levels, utilizing modified atmosphere packaging, or applying edible coatings. The most common 

chemical control method used for enzymatic browning is the application of ascorbic acid. Other 

chemical agents used are citric acid, malic acid, and EDTA. Along with enzymatic browning 

flesh texture is another common concern with fresh cut apples. Apples are typically treated with 

heat prior to slicing and with a chemical calcium solution after slicing to help maintain the 

texture of the fresh cut apple (Barrett et al., 2005)

3.1.3 Organic Apple Production

In the United States, only products produced using specific methods and certified under the 

USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) National Organic Program (NOP) definition of 

organic farming can be marketed and labeled as “organic” (USDA-AMS, 2010a). Organic 

certification is a process-based certification, not a certification of the end product; the 

certification process specifies and audits the methods and procedures by which the product is 

produced.

The organic sector is rapidly growing both in the U.S. and the European Union (EU). Together, 

consumer purchases in these two regions made up 95 percent of estimated world retail sales of 

organic food products in 2003 (Dimitri and Oberholtzer, 2005). In 2009, world retail sales of 

organic products were estimated to be on the order of $54.9 billion (USD), up from $50.9 billion 

in 2008 (Organic Monitor, 2006). 

In reporting the results of their annual manufacturer survey, the Organic Trade Association

(Organic Trade Association, 2011) reports that U.S. organic food sales were estimated to be 

$26.7 billion USD in 2010. Sales in 2010 represented 7.7 percent growth over 2009 sales. 

Experiencing the highest growth in sales during 2010 were organic fruits and vegetables, up 11.8 

percent over 2009 sales. Organic fruits and vegetables represented over 11 percent of all U.S. 

fruit and vegetable sales (Organic Trade Association, 2011). Organic food and beverage sales 

represented approximately 4 percent of overall food and beverage sales in 2010 (Organic Trade 

Association, 2011).

As of 2011, there were 377 certified organic farms (13,363 harvested acres) that produced a total 

of 300 million pounds of organic apples. The total gross value of sales was reported from 371 

farms, for a total of 286million pounds of organic apples valued at 122 million USD (USDANASS, 2012a). Organic apples are one of the top three organic fresh fruits purchased. The value 

of fresh organic apple sales in 2011 was 114 million USD compared to organic apples for 

processing valued at just under 8 million USD (USDA-NASS, 2012a). Washington State has the 

largest organic apple production in the United States followed by California and Arizona

(USDA-NASS, 2012a). Climate is the primary reason the majority of organic apple production 

takes place in these states. The relatively dry climate of Washington reduces the levels of pest 

20
and disease incidence for both conventional and organic apples compared to the more humid 

East coast states.

3.1.4 Foreign Trade

The United States produces approximately 16 percent of the global apple export market (USDAFAS, 2012). Major apple exports for the U.S. are fresh apples and apple juice. As of 2011, the 

largest importer of U.S. fresh apples was Mexico, followed by Canada and India (USDA-FAS, 

2012). The largest importer of U.S. apple juice is Canada with Japan and Mexico following 

(USDA-FAS, 2012). In 2011, the U.S. exported 833,000 metric tons of apples (USDA-FAS, 

2012).

3.2 Physical Environment 

3.2.1 Soil Quality

Soil consists of solids (minerals and organic matter), liquids, and gases. This body of inorganic 

and organic matter is home to a wide variety of fungi, bacteria, and arthropods, as well as the 

growth medium for terrestrial plant life (USDA-NRCS, 2004). Soil is characterized by its layers 

that can be distinguished from the initial parent material due to additions, losses, transfers, and 

transformations of energy and matter (USDA-NRCS, 1999). It is further distinguished by its 

ability to support rooted plants in a natural environment. Soil plays a key role in determining the 

capacity of a site for biomass vigor and production in terms of physical support, air, water, 

temperature moderation, protection from toxins, and nutrient availability. Soils also determine a

site’s susceptibility to erosion by wind and water, and flood attenuation capacity.

Soil properties change over time; temperature, pH, soluble salts, amount of organic matter, the 

carbon-nitrogen ratio, numbers of microorganisms and soil fauna all vary seasonally, as well as 

over extended periods of time (USDA-NRCS, 1999). Soil texture and organic matter levels 

directly influence its shear strength, nutrient holding capacity, and permeability. Soil taxonomy 

was established to classify soils according to the relationship between soils and the factors 

responsible for their character (USDA-NRCS, 1999). Soils are organized into four levels of 

classification, the highest being the soil order. Soils are differentiated based on characteristics 

such as particle size, texture, and color, and classified taxonomically into soil orders based on 

observable properties such as organic matter content and degree of soil profile development 

(USDA-NRCS, 2010). The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) maintains soil 

maps on a county level for the entire U.S. and its territories.

There are a multitude of organisms associated with soils, ranging from microorganisms to larger 

organisms, such as worms and insects. The microbial populations of the soil encompass an 

enormous diversity of bacteria, algae, fungi, protozoa, viruses, and actinomycetes (filamentous 

bacteria) (Doran et al., 1996). The extent of the diversity of microorganisms in soil is seen to be 

critical to the maintenance of soil health and quality. Microorganisms in soil are critical to the 

maintenance of soil function in both natural and managed agricultural soils because of their 

involvement in such key processes as soil structure formation; decomposition of organic matter; 

toxin removal; and the cycling of carbon, nitrogen, phosphorus, and sulfur (Garbeva et al., 2004; 

21
USDA-NRCS, 2004). In addition, certain microbial organisms may contribute to the protection 

of the root system against soil pathogens (Garbeva et al., 2004).

3.2.2 Water Resources

The principal law governing pollution of the nation’s water resources is the Federal Water 

Pollution Control Act of 1972, better known as the Clean Water Act (CWA). The Act utilizes 

water quality standards, permitting requirements, and monitoring to protect water quality. The 

EPA sets the standards for water pollution abatement for all waters of the U.S. under the 

programs contained in the CWA, but, in most cases, gives qualified states the authority to issue 

and enforce permits. Drinking water is protected under the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974 

(Public Law 93-523, 42 U.S.C. 300 et seq.). 

Surface water in rivers, streams, creeks, lakes, and reservoirs supports everyday life through the 

provision of water for drinking and other public uses, irrigation, and industry. Surface runoff 

from rain, snowmelt, or irrigation water can affect surface water quality by depositing sediment, 

minerals, or contaminants into surface water bodies. Surface runoff is influenced by 

meteorological factors such as rainfall intensity and duration, and physical factors such as 

vegetation, soil type, and topography.

Groundwater is the water that flows underground and is stored in natural geologic formations 

called aquifers. It sustains ecosystems by releasing a constant supply of water into wetlands and 

contributes a sizeable amount of flow to permanent streams and rivers. Based on 2005 data, the 

largest use of groundwater in the U.S. is irrigation, representing approximately 67.2% of all the 

groundwater pumped each day (McCray, 2009). In the U.S., approximately 47% of the 

population depends on groundwater for its drinking water supply. The EPA defines a sole source 

aquifer (SSA) as an aquifer that supplies at least 50% of the drinking water consumed in the area 

overlying the aquifer. An SSA designation is one tool to protect drinking water supplies in areas 

where there are few or no alternative sources to the groundwater resource. There are 77 

designated SSAs in the U.S. and its territories (US-EPA, 2011b).

Unlike a point source which is a “discernible, confined and discrete conveyance”, nonpoint 

source (NPS) pollution comes from many diffuse sources. Rainfall or snowmelt moving over the 

ground, also known as runoff, picks up and carries away natural and human-made pollutants, 

creating NPS. The pollutants may eventually be transported by runoff into lakes, rivers, 

wetlands, coastal waters and ground waters. Agricultural NPS pollution includes animal wastes, 

fertilizers, and pesticides. Surface water may be contaminated by agricultural sediments 

transported by erosion that may also include pesticides, fertilizers, and sometimes fuel and 

pathogens. Agricultural practices that introduce contaminants into the groundwater include 

fertilizer and pesticide application, spilled oil and gasoline from farm equipment, nitrates, and 

pathogens from animal manure.

NPS pollution is the leading source of water quality impacts on rivers and lakes, the second 

largest source of impairments to wetlands, and a major contributor to groundwater contamination 

(US-EPA, 2005). Management practices that contribute to NPS pollution include the type of crop 

cultivated, plowing and tillage, and the application of pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers. The 

22
primary cause of NPS pollution is increased sedimentation in surface waters following soil 

erosion (US-EPA, 2005). The major contribution to groundwater contamination derives from 

agricultural areas (nitrogen inputs from fertilizer and manure) and is influenced by regional 

environmental factors such as precipitation and soil characteristics (US-EPA, 2003). Nutrients in 

excess are listed as the second cause of impairment in lakes, reservoirs, and ponds, with 

agriculture listed as the third most probable source of the impairment (US-EPA, 2012b).

Agricultural pollutants released by soil erosion include sediments, fertilizers, and pesticides that 

are introduced to area lakes and streams when they are carried off of fields by rain or irrigation 

waters (US-EPA, 2005). Increase in sediment loads to surface waters can directly affect fish, 

aquatic invertebrates, and other wildlife maintenance and survival. It also reduces the amount of 

light penetration in water which directly affects aquatic plants. Indirectly, soil erosion-mediated 

sedimentation can increase fertilizer runoff, thereby increasing nutrient loading and facilitating 

higher water turbidity, algal blooms, and oxygen depletion (US-EPA, 2005). Extension scientists 

suggest over fertilization should be avoided preventing loss of fruit quality, nutrient leaching into 

groundwater, risk of ground water pollution with nitrates and risk of estuary pollution from 

nitrates and phosphates (Carroll and Robinson, 2006). Preservation and conservation of water 

and soil resources must be maximized and non-point-source pollution must be minimized 

(Carroll and Robinson, 2006).

3.2.3 Air Quality

The Clean Air Act (CAA) requires the maintenance of National Ambient Air Quality Standards

(NAAQS). The NAAQS, developed by the EPA to protect public health, establish limits for six 

criteria pollutants: ozone (O3), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide 

(SO2), lead (Pb), and inhalable particulates (coarse particulate matter [PM] greater than 2.5 

micrometers and less than 10 micrometers in diameter [PM10] and fine particles less than 2.5 

micrometers in diameter [PM2.5]). The CAA requires states to achieve and maintain the NAAQS 

within their jurisdiction. Each state may adopt requirements stricter than those of the national 

standard and each is also required by EPA to prepare a State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

containing strategies to achieve and maintain the national standard of air quality within the state. 

Areas that violate air quality standards are designated as non-attainment areas for the criteria 

pollutant(s), whereas areas that comply with air quality standards are designated as attainment 

areas. Emissions contributing to greenhouse gases (GHG) associated with global warming are 

discussed in Subsection 3.2.4, Climate Change.

3.2.4 Climate Change

Climate change represents a statistical change in global climate conditions, including shifts in the 

frequency of extreme weather. Agriculture is recognized as a direct (e.g., exhaust from 

equipment) and indirect (e.g., agricultural-related soil disturbance) source of greenhouse gas 

(GHG) emissions. The EPA has identified carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous 

oxide (N2O) as the most important GHGs contributing to climate change. While each of these 

gases occurs naturally in the atmosphere, human activity has significantly increased the 

concentration of these gases since the beginning of the industrial revolution. The level of human 

23
produced gases accelerated even more so after the end of the Second World War, when industrial 

and consumer consumption expanded greatly. With the advent of the industrial age, there has 

been a 36% increase in the concentration of CO2, 148 % in CH4, and 18 % in N2O (US-EPA, 

2012a).

Many agricultural activities affect air quality, including smoke from agricultural burning, 

machinery, and N2O emissions from the use of nitrogen fertilizer (Hoeft et al., 2000; Aneja et 

al., 2009; US-EPA, 2012a). The EPA report, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and 

Sinks: 1990-2010 (US-EPA, 2012a), examines the agricultural contribution to climate change 

and possible mitigation measures. APHIS refers to this report for further disscussion of the 

agricultural effects on climate change. 

Although agriculture may influence climate change, climate change, in turn, potentially affects 

agriculture. In response to climate change, the current range of weeds and pests of agriculture 

may increase (Field et al., 2007). Current agricultural practices will be required to change in 

response to these changes in the ranges of weeds and pests of agriculture (Field et al., 2007).

Climate change potentially may provide a positive impact to agriculture in general. The 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predicts that potential climate change in 

North America may result in an increase in crop yield by 5-20% for this century (Field et al., 

2007). However, this positive impact will not be observed across all growing regions as certain 

areas of the US are expected to be negatively impacted because the available water resources 

may be reduced substantially (Field et al., 2007). Note that the extent of climate change effects 

on agriculture is highly speculative. Nevertheless, North American production is expected to 

adapt to climate change impacts with improved cultivars and responsive farm management (Field

et al., 2007).

3.3 Biological Resources

3.3.1 Animal Communities

Vertebrate Animals

Apple orchards attract wildlife by providing food, cover, and nesting areas. The bark, buds, 

twigs, and fruit are used by a variety of wildlife (Wilson, 2006). Beavers, porcupines, rabbits, 

raccoons, voles, mice, deer, woodchucks, foxes, fishers, bobcats, coyotes, squirrels, black bears, 

and a variety of birds are known to feed on apple trees and apples and can cause damage to apple 

trees (Wilson, 2006; Cornell, 2012). Birds such as quail nest in the grassy understories of apple 

orchards, while songbirds and mourning doves nest in the fruit trees (Palmer and Bromley, 

1992).

Invertebrate Animals

A wide variety of invertebrates inhabit apple orchards, including beneficial as well as pest 

species. Insects commonly considered pests of apples include American plum borer, aphids, 

apple maggot, codling moth, Comstock mealybug, cutworm, dogwood borer, European apple 

24
sawfly, European corn borer, green fruitworms, internal lepidopterans, Japanese beetles, 

lacanobia fruitworm, lesser appleworm, mullein plant bug, Oriental fruit moth, oystershell scale, 

plum curculio, potato leafhopper, San Jose scale, sparganothis fruitworm, spider mites, spotted 

tentiform leaf miner, stink bugs, tarnished plant bug, variegated leaf roller, western flower thrip, 

white apple leafhopper (McVay et al., 1996; Bessin, 2003; Carroll and Robinson, 2006; 

WSU, 2010).

3.3.2 Plant Communities

Surrounding Landscapes and Other Vegetation in Apple Orchards

Apple orchards may be bordered by other agricultural crops or by woodlands, hedgerows, 

rangelands, or pasture/grassland areas. These surrounding plant communities may occur 

naturally or they may be managed for the control of soil and wind erosion. The vegetation 

adjacent to an apple orchard is often dependent on the geographic region where the orchard is 

located.

Apples as a Weed or Volunteer

As noted in the PPRA (USDA-APHIS, 2013), apple is a highly domesticated fruit tree species, 

and cultivated varieties of apple in the U.S. are not listed as weeds (Muenscher, 1980) or as 

Federal noxious weeds (7 CFR part 3604

; (USDA-NRCS, 2012). GD743 and GS784 do not 

exhibit characteristics that would cause them to be weedier than other golden delicious and 

granny smith apples. 

Volunteer plants originating from seed in apple orchards are very rare due to orchard 

management practices, such as herbicide treatment of the tree row and mowing of the alley 

between rows. Animals, such as bears, mice, and squirrels, can carry fruit containing seed or 

seeds away from cultivated areas. Apples are often discarded by travelers on roadways, or in 

compost piles. Seeds distributed in this way can result in seedling trees. Such cultivated appletree seedlings can be persistent; the species has escaped cultivation and naturalized in southern 

Canada, in the eastern USA, and from British Columbia south to California (Little, 1979). 

However, M. domestica typically occurs in commercial orchard plantings, as fruit trees in 

gardens or pastures. It is not common to find wild seedling trees; therefore, weediness is not 

thought to be a widespread problem.

3.3.3 Soil Microorganisms

Soil microorganisms play a key role in soil structure formation, decomposition of organic matter, 

toxin removal, nutrient cycling, and most biochemical soil processes (Garbeva et al., 2004). 

They also suppress soil-borne plant diseases and promote plant growth (Doran et al., 1996). The 

main factors affecting microbial population size and diversity include soil type (texture, 

4 http://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/plant_pest_info/weeds/downloads/weedlist2010doc.pdf

25

 
structure, organic matter, aggregate stability, pH, and nutrient content), plant type (providers of 

specific carbon and energy sources into the soil), and agricultural management practices (crop 

rotation, tillage, herbicide and fertilizer application, and irrigation) (Garbeva et al., 2004). Plant 

roots, including those of apples, release a variety of compounds into the soil creating a unique 

environment for microorganisms in the rhizosphere. Microbial diversity in the rhizosphere5 may 

be extensive and differs from the microbial community in the bulk soil (Garbeva et al., 2004).

Apple scab is considered the most economically destructive disease of apples worldwide. Apple 

scab is caused by the fungal pathogen Venturis inaequalis. Although there are scab resistance 

varieties, many susceptible varieties such as McIntosh and Red Delicious are widely grown due 

to consumer preference (Wilcox, 2013). Apple scab is more likely to cause severe damage in 

climates that have cool, damp weather in the spring as opposed to areas with warm, drier 

climates. The fungus usually overwinters in fallen leaves. In the spring is airborne ascopsores are 

distributed by wind and wind driven rain (Vaillancourt, 2000). Apple scab is difficult to control 

and requires as many as 12 fungicide applications a growing seasons to limit the spread and 

damage of the disease. Management of apple scab in susceptible varieties is aimed at preventing 

a primary infection in the spring. Early infection can result in poor fruit set and an increase in the 

amount of the fungal inoculum in the orchard. Both preventative and curative fungicides are 

applied to control apple scab. Preventative fungicides are used to prevent infection and curative 

fungicides are used to treat infections that have been identified. Fungicides to control apple scab 

are applied every 5 -10 days on average depending on whether it is early in the season or late in 

the season. In addition to fungicide applications, methods such as pruning, clearing leaf litter 

from the orchard floor and/or treating leaves prior to drop or fallen leaves with urea are also 

useful (Vaillancourt, 2000).

Fire blight is a devastating bacterial disease of apples and several other rosacea species. In the 

U.S., the yearly economic losses due to fire blight and control are estimated at 100 million USD 

(Norelli et al., 2009; Gardiner et al., 2012). The disease is caused by the infection of the apple 

tree with the bacteria Erwinia amylovora. The bacteria overwinter in cankers on the apple tree. 

When conditions are favorable, the bacteria will multiply. Occurrence and severity of the disease 

can vary from year to year depending on the level of bacteria present in the orchard, weather 

conditions, cultivar selection, and age of the trees. Fire blight disease can infect most parts of the 

apple tree. Insects, particularly pollinating insects, spread the bacteria throughout the orchard via 

blossoms. Several strategies such as weather monitoring, pruning, selection of resistant cultivars, 

and chemical/ antibiotic applications are used to control fire blight disease in the orchard 

(Steiner, 2000). Programs such as Maryblyt (Steiner and Lightner, 1992) and Cougarblight 

(Smith, 1999) are used to forecast when conditions are favorable for a fire blight incidence to 

occur and facilitate the efficient and effective implementation of antibiotic application. Timely 

application of the antibiotic streptomycin or oxytetracycline is critical in controlling fire blight. 

5 The rhizosphere is defined as subsoil area in the root zone of plants in which plant roots compete with the 

invading root systems of neighboring plants for space, water, and mineral nutrients, and interact with soil-borne 

microorganisms, including bacteria, fungi, and insects feeding on the organic material in the soil Walker et al. 

(2003). 

26

 
Currently the organic apple growers are allowed to use streptomycin or oxytetracycline for fire 

blight control. Use of these antibiotics in organic apple production is scheduled to be phased out 

in October 2014 (WSUTFRE, 2013).

3.3.4 Biological Diversity

Biodiversity refers to all plants, animals, and microorganisms interacting in an ecosystem

(Wilson, 1988). Agricultural biodiversity has been defined to include genetic diversity of the 

crops through and including the natural biodiversity of the surrounding ecosystem (see, e.g., 

(Carpenter, 2011). APHIS focuses its analysis of biological diversity at the ecosystem level, that 

aspect of the environment potentially impacted by the determination of nonregulated status of 

various GE crops. In this case, biodiversity refers to the ability of a highly managed ecosystem, 

such as an apple orchard, to support species that do not contribute directly to crop production but 

represent important components of the biological landscape. Such species include species 

affecting pollination (e.g., bees, butterflies) and control of insect pests; important avian (e.g., 

songbirds) and mammalian (e.g., small mammals) wildlife; and the plant community.

3.4 Public Health

Public health concerns related to GE apples focus primarily on human consumption of apples

and apple products, animal consumption of apples and apple products as related to and the 

potential changes in crop composition associated with the introduced trait, and the indirect effect 

on human health and worker safety from laborers’ exposure to agricultural chemicals.

3.4.1 Food and Feed

In 2011, the average U.S. consumer ate an estimated 15.4 pounds of fresh-market apples and 

32.2 pounds of processed apples, for a total of 47.6 pounds of fresh apples and processed apple 

products (USDA-ERS, 2012). In 2011 more than 60% of apple production in the United States 

was marketed as fresh fruit (USDA-NASS, 2012b). The remaining apple production is marketed 

as processed fruit such as fruit juice, cider, sauce, canned, fresh apple slices, and dried fruit 

products (USDA-ERS, 2010b). In 2011, 138.4 million pounds of apples were marketed as fresh 

apple slices valued at over 26 million USD (Karst, 2012; USDA-NASS, 2012b).

Recent research suggests that apples may promote better health and help maintain a healthy 

weight. Compared to many other fruits and vegetables, apples contain relatively low amounts of 

Vitamin C, but are a rich source of other antioxidant compounds (Boyer and Liu, 2004). Apples 

are an excellent source of dietary fiber, which helps regulate bowel movements and may reduce 

the risk of colon cancer, help prevent heart disease and promote weight loss. Apples are also 

cholesterol-free, and their high fiber content helps control high cholesterol levels by preventing 

cholesterol absorption, and are nutrient dense for their low calorie content like most fruits and 

vegetables (Sharma, 2005).

Some whole apples or apple pieces may be fed to domestic animals, but the majority of apple 

feed products are derived from the byproducts of manufacturing. Several wastes from apple 

processing, including pulp, peels, and cores, are suitable animal feeds (NRC, 1983). Apple 

27
pomace has feeding values similar to grass silage for wintering beef cattle (NRC, 1983). 

Between 25 to 35 percent of the fresh weight of the apple is retained in the pomace after pressing 

and is often mixed with alfalfa or corn for feeding (NRC, 1983).

Under the FFDCA, it is the responsibility of food and feed manufacturers to ensure that the 

products they market are safe and properly labeled. Food and feed derived from any GE crop 

must be in compliance with all applicable legal and regulatory requirements. GE organisms for 

food and feed may undergo a voluntary consultation process with the FDA prior to release onto 

the market. Although a voluntary process, applicants who wish to commercialize a GE variety 

that will be included in the food supply invariably complete a consultation with the FDA. In a 

consultation, a developer who intends to commercialize a bioengineered food meets with the 

agency to identify and discuss relevant safety, nutritional, or other regulatory issues regarding 

the bioengineered food and then submits to FDA a summary of its scientific and regulatory 

assessment of the food. This process includes: 1) an evaluation of the amino acid sequence 

introduced into the food crop to confirm whether the protein is related to known toxins and 

allergens; 2) an assessment of the protein’s potential for digestion; and 3) an evaluation of the 

history of safe use of the protein in food. FDA evaluates the submission and responds to the 

developer by letter. OSF indicated that they have submitted a safety and nutritional assessment 

of food and feed derived from GD743 and GS784 to the FDA on May 30, 2011 (OSF, 2012). 

FDA is presently evaluating the submission. Additionally, regulatory submission for GD743 and 

GS784 was submitted to Health Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) on 

December 7, 2011 (OSF, 2012).

As noted by the National Research Council (NRC), unexpected and unintended compositional 

changes arise with all forms of genetic modification, including both conventional hybridizing 

and genetic engineering (NRC, 2004). The NRC also noted that at the time, no adverse health 

effects attributed to genetic engineering had been documented in the human population. Reviews 

on the nutritional quality of GE foods have generally concluded that there are no significant 

nutritional differences in conventional versus GE plants for food or animal feed (Faust, 2002; 

Flachowsky et al., 2005).

The apple orchard is a highly managed environment which incorporates the use of agricultural 

chemicals. Pesticide use is common on most apple acreage in the US. Most of the major apples 

producing states/regions have guidelines for commercial apple orchard production and 

management. Each orchard/ apple production plan typically includes guidelines that address 

integrated pest management practices (Carroll and Robinson, 2006; Moulton and King, 2008; 

Donohue et al., 2011; Walgenbach, 2012). 

The widespread and common use of pesticides may result in small amounts (called residues) in 

or on apples and apple products. To ensure safety of the apple food supply, the EPA regulates the 

amount of each pesticide that may remain in or on foods. These limits, called tolerances, are 

established to ensure food safety and are the result of the EPA making a safety finding that “the 

pesticide can be used with reasonable certainty of no harm.” (US-EPA, 2013). This finding of 

reasonable certainty of no harm is obligated under the FFDCA, as amended by the Food Quality 

Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA). In addition, the FDA and the USDA monitor foods for pesticide 

28
residues and work with the EPA to enforce these tolerances (see (USDA-AMS, 2013). In setting 

pesticide tolerances, the EPA generally will consider (US-EPA, 2013):

• The toxicity of the pesticide and its break-down products;

• How much the pesticide is applied to the crop and how often; and

• How much of the pesticide (i.e., the residue) remains in or on food by the time it is

marketed and prepared.

3.4.2 Worker Safety

Worker hazards in farming are common to all types of agricultural production, and include 

hazards of equipment and plant materials. Pesticide application represents the primary exposure 

route to pesticides for farm workers. Workers engaged in apple production may encounter 

insecticides, herbicides, fungicides or fertilizers that may pose a worker health or safety risk 

unless used in accordance with the EPA -established agriculture-specific requirements in the 

Worker Protection Standard (WPS) (40 CFR Part 170) that protect workers from the hazards of 

chemical exposure. The WPS offers protections to more than two and a half million agricultural 

workers who work with pesticides at more than 560,000 workplaces on farms, forests, nurseries, 

and greenhouses. The WPS contains requirements for pesticide safety training, notification of 

pesticide applications, use of personal protective equipment, restricted entry intervals following 

pesticide application, decontamination supplies, and emergency medical assistance. The 

Occupational Safety and Health Administration requires all employers to protect their employees 

from hazards associated with agricultural chemicals. The EPA pesticide registration process, 

however, involves the design of use restrictions that if followed have been determined to be 

protective of worker health.

29
4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

4.1 Assumption used in analysis

This analysis of potential environmental consequences addresses the potential impacts to the 

human environment from the alternatives analyzed in this EA. Potential environmental impacts 

from the No Action Alternative and the Preferred Alternative for GD743 and GS784 apples are 

described in detail throughout this section. 

In this section APHIS focuses the analysis on commercial apple production because GD743 and 

GS784 are intended for commercial production for the fresh cut apple market. Based on APHIS’ 

PPRA, GD743 and GS784 are not more weedy or more susceptible to diseases of apple that 

other commercially available apple varieties. 

Although the preferred alternative would allow for new plantings of GD743 and GS784 

anywhere in the U.S., APHIS will limit the environmental analysis to those areas that currently 

support apple production. To determine areas of apple production, APHIS used data from the

USDA-NASS 2011 Noncitrus Fruits and Nuts Report (USDA-NASS, 2012b). 

4.2 Socioeconomic and Cultural Resources

Apple agriculture can affect socioeconomic resources such as the domestic economy, 

international trade economy, and the social environment. This section describes key current 

issues within each of these topics.

4.2.1 Agricultural Production of Apple

No Action Alternative: Agricultural Production of Apple

Apple is a highly managed crop. Best management practices are commonly accepted, practical 

ways to grow apples, regardless of whether the apple farmer is using organic practices or 

conventional practices with non-GE or GE varieties. These management practices consider 

choices to use certain varieties, irrigation practices, pesticides, fertilizer use and other growing 

practices to contain costs, increase production, ease maintenance requirements, and to meet 

market demand. Over the years, apple production has resulted in well-established management 

practices that are available through local Cooperative Extension Service offices and their 

respective websites. The National Information System for the regional Integrated Pest 

Management (IPM) Centers publishes crop profiles for major crops on a state-by-state basis. 

These crop profiles provide production guidance for local growers, including recommended 

practices for specific pest control. Crop profiles for many of the apple production states can be 

reviewed at www.ipmcenters.org/cropprofiles/index.cfm. 

An apple tree is a composite tree that consists of a scion grafted onto a rootstock. The rootstock 

is the bottom portion of the tree that supports the scion, and the scion is the top portion of the 

tree that produces the desired fruit variety. Apples trees are outcrossing species that require cross 

pollination. Due to the nature of the outcrossing of apple fruit trees, the seeds produced by an 

30
apple will be a hybrid of the tree that produced the fruit and the tree that was used for pollination. 

The resulting characteristics of the fruit and even the vegetative portions of the plant may not 

resemble those of the parent trees (Crasweller, 2005). Therefore, apple trees are clonally 

propagated rather than grown from seed. Furthermore, popular apple varieties such as ‘Red 

Delicious’ have numerous varietal mutants or sports. These sports can arise through random 

genetic mutations. If the genetic mutation gives rise to a unique and desirable phenotype, then 

the genetic mutation could be maintained and marketed through clonal propagation. Apple 

producing orchards are typically established from trees purchased from a fruit tree production 

nursery. Commercial nursery workers propagate new apple trees for planting. Production of an 

apple tree ready for planting takes several years.

Orchard establishment and management involve careful consideration of site characteristics and 

apple tree selection. Growers choose site locations in an environment that protects the tree from 

climactic conditions as well as has suitable soil quality. Commercial apple orchards are typically 

10 or more acres. Deciding on which apple varieties to grow is an important aspect of orchard 

planning. Factors such as the cultivars and rootstocks selected will determine tree spacing, 

training, and pest and disease management; however the overarching decision is driven by 

marketing strategy and consumer preference (Roper and Frank, 2004). It is necessary to select a 

combination of rootstock/scion that can be effectively managed and provides long term fruit 

production. The rootstock controls trees size; therefore rootstock selection is most important 

when determining tree spacing. Selecting a rootstock that is resistant to diseases and pests is also 

an important consideration when selecting a rootstock. Dwarfing rootstocks make apple tree 

management easier because of the smaller size of the apple tree and facilitates pest and disease 

management, pruning, thinning, and harvesting from the ground level (Moulton and King, 2008). 

Another important consideration is the choice of pollinizer trees. Bloom time is critical when 

choosing pollinizer trees. If the pollinizer tree’s bloom time does not overlap at the same time as 

the selected variety, then pollination will not occur. Ideally, pollinizers should not be placed 

more than 100 feet away and approximately 10% of the orchard trees should be pollinizers 

(Roper and Frank, 2004)). Various strategies are used to provide pollen sources. Interspersing 

pollinizer trees, grafting branches of pollinizer cultivars onto the tree that requires a pollen 

source, or planting rows of pollinizer trees systematically throughout the orchard are some 

common strategies used for providing pollen sources (Warmund, 1996; Schotzko and 

Granatstein, 2005). Pollinizer trees can be other compatible apple varieties or crabapples. 

Crabapples are often used as pollinizers as they are smaller and easier to manage, flower 

profusely, and reduce confusion about which fruit to pick at harvest time (Penn State, 2012) . It 

is important to note that because apple trees are an outcrossing species, any apple seeds that are 

produced will be hybrids and would have characteristics of both parents. In the case of GD743 

and GS784 apples, a portion of the seeds would carry the transgene responsible for the nonbrowning trait. GD743 carries two copies of the transgene while GS784 carries four copies

(OSF, 2012). Therefore three quarters of the GD743 seeds would carry at least one copy of the 

transgene and 15/16 of the seeds of GS784 would carry at least one copy of the transgene. 

Apples are grown in all 50 states. In 2011, the United States total commercial apple bearing 

acreage was 330,600 acres (USDA-NASS, 2012b). Historically, Washington, New York, and 

31
Michigan have been the largest apple producing states in the country. These three states alone 

account for approximately 67% of the total commercial apple bearing acreage in the country

(USDA-NASS, 2012b). Total commercial apple bearing acreage has declined since 2002 while 

total apple utilized production has been relatively unchanged since 2007 (Figures 2and 3).

Figure 2. Commercial Apple Bearing Acreage-United States: 2002-2011 (USDA-NASS, 

2012b).

Figure 3. Commercial Apple Utilized Production- United States: 2002-2011 (USDA-NASS, 

2012b).

The trend of an increase in apple production per acre can be accounted for by a number of factors 

such as, cultural practices to reduce biannual bearing, planting of high density orchards, and 

integrated pest management strategies (USITC, 2010). Apple production has remained relatively 

stable since 2005. The upward trend in apple production in 2004 can be contributed to a bumper 

crop (USITC, 2010). While apple production for the fresh market has seen a slight increase from 

32
2004 – 2008, apples utilized for processing decreased from 2004 - 2008 mainly due to the 

increase in importation of apple juice concentrate from China (USITC, 2010).

Based on apple production trends and projections, apples will continue to be a major fruit crop in 

the U.S. for the foreseeable future. The current agronomic practices utilized in apple production 

are likely to continue under the No Action Alternative. 

Preferred Alternative: Agricultural Production of Apple

Under the Preferred Alternative, a determination of a nonregulated status of GD743 and GS784

apples is unlikely to change the agricultural production of apples as described in the No Action 

alternative.

OSF’s studies demonstrate that agronomic characteristics and cultivation practices required for 

GD743 and GS784 apples are indistinguishable from practices used to grow other apple varieties

(OSF, 2012). None of the BMP currently employed for apple production are expected to change 

if GD743 and GS784 apples are no longer subject to the regulatory requirements of 7 CFR Part 

340 or the plant pest provisions of the PPA. A determination of a nonregulated status of GD743 

and GS784 apples is unlikely to expand apple acreage. Accordingly, the potential impacts on 

agricultural production of GD743 and GS784 apples resulting from management practices 

associated with the No Action and Preferred Alternative are the same.

4.2.2 Domestic Commerce

No Action Alternative: Domestic Commerce

The majority of commercial apple production is marketed as fresh fruit. Of the approximately 9.3 

billion pounds of utilized apple production valued at over 2.72 billion USD, fresh fruit 

production accounted for 2.38 billion dollars and processed fruit production for 338 million 

dollars ( Table 3). Apples are processed into products such as juice, sauce, fresh slices, canned 

and frozen products. In 2011 about 1% of the total apple crop was used for fresh sliced apples. 

The majority of processed apples are used for juice or cider (USDA-NASS, 2012b).

33
Table 3. Apple production and value by use 2011.

USE

Quantity (million 

pounds) Value (US dollars)

Fresh 6.2771 2,384,586,000

Canned 1138.7 129,242,450

Juice/ Cider 1278.4 125,283,200

Frozen 255.5 32,320,750

Dried 153.5 17,192,000

Fresh slices 138.4 26,434,400

Other 71.0 7,313,000

Source: (USDA-NASS, 2012b)

Figure 4. Fresh Sliced Apples 2009-2011 (USDA-NASS, 2012b).

Preferred Alternative: Domestic Commerce

A determination of nonregulated status of GD743 and GS784 apples is not expected to adversely 

impact domestic commerce. The adoption of GD743 and GS784 apples would add another apple 

variety to the market. OSF has estimated a total planted area of 4,000 acres or about 1.2 percent 

of total U.S. apple plantings over the first 10 years (OSF, 2012). OSF anticipates that apples, 

being a perennial crop of 20 or more years before replanting, will have a much slower adoption 

and introduction curve than annual crops (OSF, 2012).

OSF’s studies demonstrate that agronomic characteristics and cultivation practices required for 

GD743 and GS784 apples are indistinguishable from practices used to grow other apple varieties

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

2009 2010 2011

Fresh Sliced Apples, millions lbs

34
(OSF, 2012). The apple fruit from a non-GE apple tree cannot be contaminated by transgenic 

pollen, since the flesh of the fruit develops from the receptacle, or base of the flower, which is 

not genetically modified, as opposed to the seed (OSF, 2012). The flesh of the apple fruit retains 

the genetic identity of the tree it grows on, and is in no way altered by the genetic identity of the 

pollen that fertilizes the flower. 

During pollination with transgenic pollen, the genetic modification will only be present in the 

seed. But the probability of such seeds occurring is low, since only a tiny quantity of the large 

amount of pollen arriving on the stigma will germinate and only one pollen grain will fertilize 

the ovum (Hanke, 2003). It is important to note that because apple trees are an outcrossing 

species, any apple seeds that are produce will be hybrids and would have characteristics of both 

parents. In the case of GD743 and GS784, only a portion of the seeds would carry the transgene 

responsible for the non-browning trait.

GD743 and GS784 apples have the potential to improve fruit processing capabilities for 

maintaining the quality and shelf life of apples for processing and the snack food market. There 

also is an inherent reduction in food processing costs associated with a reduction in fruit 

browning and in providing alternatives to conventional technologies to prevent browning. If 

growers adopt GD743 and GS784 apple varieties and take advantage of the niche market, local 

farm economics may improve. 

All GD743 and GS784 apples will be sold under the ArcticTM brand name. This brand name will 

be utilized in a range of venues – including point-of-sale literature, price look-up code stickers 

on the apples and all forms of retail packaging – to identify ArcticTM fruit (OSF, 2012). The apple 

industry has the advantage over the field crop industry in the fact that cultivars are already 

segregated and packed in lots. It is OSF’s intent that traceability will be maintained for all 

ArcticTM Apple cultivars from field to retail and foodservice outlets (OSF, 2012). Under the 

Preferred Alternative, trends related to domestic commerce are unlikely to be substantially 

different than what would occur in the No Action Alternative.

4.2.3 Organic Apple Production

No Action Alternative: Organic Apple Production 

In the U.S., only products produced using specific methods and certified under the USDA’s 

Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) National Organic Program (NOP) definition of organic 

farming can be marketed and labeled as “organic” (USDA-AMS, 2010a). Organic certification is 

a process-based certification, not a certification of the end product; the certification process 

specifies and audits the methods and procedures by which the product is produced.

In accordance with NOP, an accredited organic certifying agent conducts an annual review of the 

certified operation’s organic system plan and makes on-site inspections of the certified operation 

and its records. Organic growers must maintain records to show that production and handling 

procedures comply with USDA organic standards. 

35
The NOP regulations preclude the use of excluded methods. The NOP provides the following 

guidance under 7 CFR Section 205.105:

...to be sold or labeled as “100 percent organic”, “organic” or “made with organic 

(specified ingredients or group(s)),” the product must be produced and handled without 

the use of...

(a) Synthetic substances and ingredients,...

(e) Excluded methods...

Excluded methods are then defined at 7 CFR Section 205.2 as:

A variety of methods used to genetically modify organisms or influence their 

growth and development by means that are not possible under natural conditions 

or processes and are not considered compatible with organic production. Such 

methods include cell fusion, microencapsulation and macroencapsulation, and 

recombinant DNA technology (including gene deletion, gene doubling, 

introducing a foreign gene, and changing the positions of genes when achieved 

by recombinant DNA technology). Such methods do not include the use of 

traditional breeding, conjugation, fermentation, hybridization, in vitro 

fertilization, or tissue culture.

Organic farming operations, as described by the NOP, are required to have distinct, defined 

boundaries and buffer zones to prevent unintended contact with excluded methods from 

adjoining land that is not under organic management. Organic production operations must also 

develop and maintain an organic production system plan approved by their accredited certifying 

agent. This plan enables the production operation to achieve and document compliance with the 

National Organic Standards, including the prohibition on the use of excluded methods. (USDAAMS, 2010a). 

Common practices organic growers may use to exclude GE products include planting only 

organic seed, planting earlier or later than neighboring farmers who may be using GE crops so 

that the crops will flower at different times, and employing adequate isolation distances between 

the organic fields and the fields of neighbors to minimize the chance that pollen will be carried 

between the fields (NCAT, 2003). For apple, the primary strategies would include sufficient 

isolation distance, use of border rows and restricted use of commercial bee hives. Although the 

National Organic Standards prohibit the use of excluded methods, they do not require testing of 

inputs or products for the presence of excluded methods. The presence of a detectable residue of 

a product of excluded methods alone does not necessarily constitute a violation of the National 

Organic Standards (USDA-AMS, 2010a). The current NOP regulations do not specify an 

acceptable threshold level for the adventitious presence of GE materials in an organic-labeled 

product. The unintentional presence of the products of excluded methods will not affect the 

status of an organic product or operation when the operation has not used excluded methods and 

has taken reasonable steps to avoid contact with the products of excluded methods as detailed in 

their approved organic system plan (Ronald and Fouche, 2006; USDA-AMS, 2010a).

36
As of 2011, there were 377 certified organic farms (with over 13,000 harvested acres) that 

produced approximately 300 million pounds of organic apples. The total gross value of sales was 

reported from 371 farms, for a total of 286 million pounds of organic apples valued at just over

122 million USD (USDA-NASS, 2012a). Organic apples are one of the top three organic fresh 

fruits purchased. The value of fresh organic apple sales in 2011 was 114 million USD compared 

to organic apples for processing valued at 8 million USD (USDA-NASS, 2012a). Washington 

State has the largest organic apple production in the United States followed by California and 

Arizona (USDA-NASS, 2012a). Climate is the primary reason the majority of organic apple 

production takes place in these states. The relatively dry climate of Washington reduces the 

levels of pest and disease incidence for both conventional and organic apples compared the more 

humid east coast states.

Preferred Alternative: Organic Apple Production

Organic farmers will not be substantially affected by a determination of nonregulated status of 

GD743 and GS784 apple. Organic apple producers would not be able to adopt GD743 and 

GS784 varieties since these varieties would be considered excluded methods as defined at 7 CFR 

Section 205.2. It is important to note that the current NOP regulations do not specify an 

acceptable threshold level for the presence of GE materials in an product labeled organic

(USDA-ERS, 2010a). The unintentional presence of the products of excluded methods will not 

affect the status of an organic product or operation when the operation has not used excluded 

methods and has taken reasonable steps to avoid contact with the products of excluded methods

(Ronald and Fouche, 2006; USDA-AMS, 2010b). Because these apples will be planted on 

limited acreage in commercial apple groves, cross-pollination from these trees to other apple 

orchards will be limited to those that are in adjoining areas. Therefore organic growers who wish 

to reduce the likelihood of pollination from GD743 or GS784 may need to discuss their needs 

with neighboring orchards to incorporate pollination control strategies in their organic plans. 

4.2.4 Foreign Trade

No Action Alternative: Foreign Trade

The United States produces approximately 16 percent of the global apple export market (USDAFAS, 2012). In 2011, the US exported 833,000 metric tons of apples including approximately 

826,000 metric tons of fresh apples and 35,000 kiloliters of apple juice valued at 941 million and 

34 million USD respectively (USDA-FAS, 2012). As of 2011, the largest importer of U.S. fresh 

apples was Mexico, followed by Canada and India (USDA-FAS, 2012). The largest importer of 

US apple juice is Canada with Japan and Mexico following (USDA-FAS, 2012). Over the past 5 

years fresh apple exports have seen a slight increase (see Figure 5). However, apple juice exports 

have seen a decline largely due to an increase in apple juice imported from China (USITC, 

2010).

37
Figure 5. U.S. Fresh Apple Exports (2007-2011) (USDA-FAS, 2012).

Preferred Alternative: Foreign Trade

A determination of nonregulated status of GD743 and GS784 apples is not expected to adversely 

impact foreign trade. To the extent that adoption of GD743 and GS784 apples add another apple 

variety to the market, its introduction may enhance US competitiveness in global markets. As 

noted above in section 4.2.2, Domestic Commerce, GD743 and GS784 apples will be labeled 

with the ArcticTM brand name (OSF, 2012). It is OSF’s intent that traceability will be maintained 

for all ArcticTM Apple cultivars from field to retail and food service outlets (OSF, 2012).

OSF anticipates that apples, being a perennial crop of 20 or more years before replanting, will 

have a much slower adoption and introduction curve than annual crops (OSF, 2012). The foreign 

trade impacts associated with a determination of nonregulated status of GD743 and GS784

apples are not expected to change from the No Action Alternative.

4.3 Physical Environment

4.3.1 Soil Quality

No Action Alternative: Soil Quality

Apples are cultivated in a wide variety of soils across the United States (see, e.g., Apple Crop 

Profiles provided at http://www.ipmcenters.org/cropprofiles/GetCropProfiles.cfm). Apples are 

typically grown in highly managed orchard environments of 10 acres or more. It takes 

0

100,000,000

200,000,000

300,000,000

400,000,000

500,000,000

600,000,000

700,000,000

800,000,000

900,000,000

1,000,000,000

0

100000

200000

300000

400000

500000

600000

700000

800000

900000

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Metric Tons

U.S. Dollars

Year

United States Fresh Apple Exports (2007 -

2011)

Quantity (Metric Tons)

Value (U.S. Dollars)

38
approximately 4 – 6 years for an apple tree to produce fruit. Site preparation for orchard 

establishment should include a crop rotation out of apples for at least one year. Planting a cover 

crop in the year before orchard establishment and incorporating the cover crop into the soil will 

improve soil organic matter content, suppress replant disease, weeds, and, depending on cover 

crop species, reduce nematodes (Carroll and Robinson, 2006). Organic matter is probably the 

most vital component in maintaining quality soil. Improving organic matter content of the soil 

helps maintain soil moisture and nutrients, is instrumental in maintaining soil stability and 

structure, reduces the potential for erosion, reduces non-point-source pollution from leached 

chemical fertilizers, provides energy for microorganisms, improves infiltration and water holding 

capacity, and is important in nutrient cycling, cation exchange capacity6

, and the breakdown of 

pesticides (Doran et al., 1996; USDA-NRCS, 1996; Carroll and Robinson, 2006). Apples need a 

variety of nutrients, such as nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, sulfur, magnesium, calcium, boron, 

iron, zinc, manganese and copper, at various levels (Spectrum). These nutrients may be deficient 

in poor, weathered soils, sandy soils, alkaline soils, or soils excessively high in organic matter. 

As with proper nutrient levels, soil pH is critical for apple development. Apples grow best in soil 

that is slightly acidic (pH 5.0 to 7.5); soil with a pH that is too high negatively affects yield 

(USDA-NRCS, 2013). 

Land management practices for apple cultivation can affect soil quality. Living cover can protect 

against erosion, provides habitat and substrate for soil organisms, and increases soil organic 

residue inputs (Doran et al., 1996). Permanent grass sod or other cover crops are typically 

planted between the tree rows to minimize soil erosion, increase soil aeration and permeability, 

and support equipment movement through the orchard during wet weather (Walgenbach, 2011).

Preferred Alternative: Soil Quality

OSF’s studies demonstrate that agronomic characteristics and cultivation practices required for 

GD743 and GS784 apples are indistinguishable from practices used to grow other apple varieties

(OSF, 2012). A determination of nonregulated status for GD743 and GS784 apples is not 

expected to change the management practices currently employed for apple production.

Accordingly, the potential impacts on soil quality of GD743 and GS784 apples resulting from 

management practices associated with the No Action and Preferred Alternative are the same.

4.3.2 Water Resources

No Action Alternative: Water Resources

Apple trees must receive sufficient water to survive summer months (Roper and Frank, 2004). 

This water demand is met by a combination of natural rainfall, stored soil moisture, and 

supplemental irrigation during the growing season. Irrigation can supplement natural rainfall to 

provide the optimum water needs of the tree. Trees must be supplied with adequate soil moisture 

6 Cation exchange capacity is the ability of soil anions (negatively charged clay, organic matter 

and inorganic minerals such as phosphate, sulfate, and nitrate) to adsorb and store soil cation 

nutrients (positively charged ions such as potassium, calcium, and ammonium).

39

 
to ensure balanced growth and high quality fruit (Carroll and Robinson, 2006). For orchards in 

full production it is very important for good fruit quality and size to be sure there is plenty of 

water available during the period (July–September) when the fruit is maturing (Moulton and 

King, 2008). Irrigation is most beneficial for young trees, which do not have extensive root 

systems and cannot explore large volumes of soil to get water. Each young tree requires about 5 

gallons of water per week (Roper and Frank, 2004). Over-irrigation constitutes a leaching 

potential for nitrates or other easily leached products applied to the orchard (Smith, 2001).

In Michigan, very few orchards receive supplemental irrigation as the fruit growing areas receive 

an average of 27 inches of rainfall per year (Donohue et al., 2011). The soils are generally sandy 

loam to loam soils with good drainage (Donohue et al., 2011). By contrast, in an average 

growing season in the northeast, rainfall is usually less than required for optimal tree 

performance during critical periods of tree establishment and growth (Robinson et al., 2013). 

Washington apples are grown in a moderate, marine-influenced, desert climate, where scant 

rainfall occurs in the winter months. The dry, sunny growing-season weather gives growers the 

advantage of low disease pressure, but requires them to irrigate regularly (Smith, 2001).

The EPA considers water resources, groundwater, surface water and drinking water, and 

potential contamination of water resources, when registering a pesticide under FIFRA.

Precautions to protect water resources, including aquatic animals and plants, if required, are 

provided on the pesticide label. 

Preferred Alternative: Water Resources 

Under the Preferred Alternative, no changes to water resources is anticipated from a 

determination of nonregulated status of GD743 and GS784 apples when compared to the no 

action alternative. OSF’s studies demonstrate no differences in morphological characteristics and 

agronomic requirements between GD743 and GS784 apples and other apple varieties (OSF, 

2012). A determination of nonregulated status of GD743 and GS784 apples is not expected to 

change the management practices currently employed for apple production. Accordingly, the 

potential impacts on water quality of GD743 and GS784 apples are expected to be the same 

under the Preferred Alternative as under the No Action Alternative.

4.3.3 Air Quality

No Action: Air Quality 

All agricultural practices have the potential to cause negative impacts to air quality. Agricultural 

emission sources include smoke from agricultural burning, tillage, heavy equipment emissions, 

pesticide drift from spraying, and indirect emissions from carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide 

emissions from the use of nitrogen fertilizer and degradation of organic materials (USDA-NRCS, 

2006b; Aneja et al., 2009; US-EPA, 2012a). 

Conservation practices, including the use of cover crops such as permanent grass sod or other 

cover crops planted between the tree rows, help to decrease dust generation and tractor 

40
emissions. Cover crops planted between tree rows physically serve to hold the soil in place, 

thereby decreasing airborne soils and pesticide drift in wind-eroded soils. 

Preferred Alternative: Air Quality

Under the Preferred Alternative, a determination of nonregulated status of GD743 and GS784

apples would not change the impacts to air quality compared to the No Action Alternative.

OSF’s studies demonstrate no differences in morphological characteristics and agronomic 

requirements between GD743 and GS784 apples and other apple varieties (OSF, 2012) and is not 

likely to change land acreage or any cultivation practices for apple production. It is expected that 

similar agronomic practices commonly utilized in commercially available apple varieties would 

also be used by growers of GD743 and GS784 apples. Accordingly, a determination of a 

nonregulated status of GD743 and GS784 apples is unlikely to change the use of agricultural 

practices with the potential to affect air quality from what is currently practiced. Based on this 

information, the potential impacts on air quality are expected to be the same under the Preferred 

Alternative as under the No Action Alternative.

4.3.4 Climate Change

No Action Alternative: Climate Change

Agriculture is recognized as a direct (e.g., exhaust from equipment) and indirect (e.g., 

agricultural-related soil disturbance) source of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Agriculture, 

including land-use changes for farming, is responsible for an estimated 6.3% of total GHG 

emissions in the United States (US-EPA, 2012a). U.S. agriculture may influence climate change 

through various facets of the production process (Horowitz and Gottlieb, 2010). The major 

sources of GHG emissions associated with crop production are soil N2O emissions, soil CO2 and 

CH4 fluxes, and CO2 emissions associated with agricultural inputs and farm equipment operation 

(Adler et al., 2007; US-EPA, 2012a). Over the twenty-year period of 1990 to 2009, total 

emissions from the agricultural sector grew by 8.7%, with 7% of the total U.S. GHG emissions 

in 2009 generated from this sector (US-EPA, 2012a). 

As discussed in Subsection 2.3.4 – Climate Change, these common agronomic practices 

contribute to GHG emissions, including tillage, cultivation, irrigation, pesticide application, 

fertilizer applications, and use of agriculture equipment. In comparison to field crops, apple 

cultivation potentially has fewer impacts on climate change. Apples are grown on few acres 

(330,600 acres) when compared to all U.S. cropland (442 million acres) (USDA-ERS, 2006)

accounting for less than 0.1 percent of agricultural land use. Apple management does not require 

tillage and cultivation each year since apples are a perennial crop of 20 or more years before 

replanting, as such apples will have a much lower impact on climate change than annual crops.

While agricultural activities may affect climate change, the converse is also true; climate change 

may affect agriculture. Climate change potentially may provide a positive impact to agriculture 

in general. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predicts that potential 

climate change in North America may result in an increase in crop yield by 5-20% for this 

41
century (Field et al., 2007). However, this positive impact will not be observed across all 

growing regions as certain areas of the US are expected to be negatively impacted because the 

available water resources may be reduced substantially (Field et al., 2007). Note that the extent 

of climate change effects on agriculture is highly speculative.

Freshwater and groundwater resources will be affected by climate change across the U.S., but the 

nature of the vulnerabilities varies from region to region (Field et al., 2007). In certain regions 

including the Columbia River and Great Lakes, surface and/or groundwater resources are 

intensively used for often competing agricultural, municipal, industrial and ecological needs, 

increasing potential vulnerability to future changes in timing and availability of water.

Over-allocated water systems, such as the Columbia River, that rely on capturing snowmelt 

runoff, will be especially vulnerable. With climate change, projected annual Columbia River 

flow changes relatively little, but timing of runoff shifts markedly toward increased winter and 

early spring flows and reduced summer and autumn flows (Karl et al., 2009). Loss of water 

availability in summer would exacerbate conflicts, over water. The challenges of managing water 

in the Columbia River basin will likely expand with climate change due to changes in snowpack 

and seasonal flows (Field et al., 2007; Karl et al., 2009).

A changing climate has a high likelihood of lowering net basin supplies and water levels for the 

Great Lakes Basin (Mortsch and Alden, 2003; Karl et al., 2009). Higher temperatures will mean 

more evaporation and hence a likely reduction in the Great Lakes water levels between 1 and 2 

feet (Mortsch and Alden, 2003; Karl et al., 2009). Lower water levels in the Great Lakes are 

likely to influence many sectors, with multi-dimensional, interacting impacts. 

Preferred Alternative: Climate Change

As described in Section 4.2.1, the range and area of U.S. apple production is not likely to expand 

under the Preferred Alternative. As described in the OSF petition (OSF, 2012) and APHIS PPRA

(USDA-APHIS, 2013), GD743 and GS784 apples requires management strategies identical to 

those for conventional apple production, thus precluding changes in agricultural activities that 

may affect climate change, such as machine usage and fertilizer application. Collectively, 

because the range, area, and agronomic practices of apple are unlikely to change following a 

determination of nonregulated status of GD743 and GS784 apples, the agricultural impacts of 

apple cultivation on climate change are also unlikely to change under the Preferred Alternative.

4.4 Biological Resources

4.4.1 Animal Communities

No Action Alternative: Animal Communities

Apple orchards may be host to many animal and insect species. Mammals and birds may use 

apple orchards and the surrounding vegetation for food and habitat throughout the year. 

Invertebrates can feed on apple trees or fruit or prey upon other insects living on apple trees as 

well as in the vegetation surrounding apple orchards. 

42
The types and numbers of birds that inhabit apple orchards may vary regionally and seasonally. 

Birds may cause problems for apple producers. On many farms or orchards bird damage is 

minimal, and growers can choose to ignore the problem or just take the loss into account as a 

cost of management. For other growers, problems from birds can be substantial, resulting in 

large portions of the fruit crop being consumed or damaged. Bird species commonly observed 

causing damage to apple orchards include (Tobin, 1989; Brittingham and Falker, 2010):

• American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos);

• American robin (Turdus migratorius);

• American goldfinch (Carduelis tristis);

• Blue jays (Cyanocitta cristata);

• Cedar waxwing (Bombycilla cedrorum);

• European starling (Sturnus vulgaris);

• House finch (Carpodacus mexicanus);

• Common grackle (Quiscalus quiscula);

• House sparrow (Passer domesticus);

Common methods of reducing or preventing bird damage to apple orchards include the use of 

exclusion methods (netting), repellants, and harassment or scare tactics (Carroll and Robinson, 

2006; Brittingham and Falker, 2010; Cooley et al., 2012).

Depending on the region, a variety of mammals may also utilize apple orchards. For the most 

part, herbivorous and omnivorous mammals feed on the apples themselves, but may also 

consume other parts of the apple tree (Wilson, 2006). Porcupines, beavers, mice, rabbits, and 

deer will consume bark of apple trees; deer will also consume buds; beaver, deer, and rabbits will 

consume twigs and leaves; and deer, fox, fisher, porcupines, bobcats, coyotes, squirrels, black 

bears, and other mammals will consume the fruit (Wilson, 2006). 

Three species of voles cause significant economic damage by feeding on apple trees in 

commercial orchards: Meadow voles (Microtus pennsylvanicus), pine voles (M. pinetorum), and 

montane voles (M. montanus). Both meadow and pine voles are major pests in apple orchards 

throughout the eastern half of the country. Montane voles are of concern to orchardists in valleys 

of the Columbia River and its tributaries in eastern Washington State (Tobin and Richmond, 

1993). Voles damage trees by gnawing the trunks and roots of the tree.

Common methods of reducing or preventing damage to apple orchards from mammals include 

the use of exclusion or barrier methods, repellants, habitat modification, harassment or scare 

tactics, and population control (Tobin and Richmond, 1993; Carroll and Robinson, 2006; Cooley

et al., 2012).

A wide variety of invertebrates inhabit apple orchards, including beneficial as well as pest 

species. For apple production facilities, much effort is expended in trying to eradicate pest 

insects from their apples (McVay et al., 1996; Bessin, 2003; Carroll and Robinson, 2006; 

WSU, 2010). Numerous insects and related arthropods perform a wide range of valuable 

functions; they pollinate plants, contribute to the decomposition and processing of organic 

43
matter, control of pests and diseases, maintenance of soil structure, detoxification of 

contaminants, and cycle soil nutrients (Gardner and Ascher, 2006; Ruiz et al., 2008; Shelton, 

2012). Arthropods may also feed upon insects and mites that are considered to be pests. Some of 

these beneficial predatory species common in apple orchards include the lady beetles (family 

Coccinellidae), syrphid flies (Syrphinae), tachinid flies, lacewings (chrysopidae), true bugs 

(Hemiptera), parasitoids (hymenoptera and Diptera), and predatory mites (UNH, 2004; Cornell, 

2012; Shelton, 2012)). 

Numerous species of bees, flies, beetles, and wasps, feed on apple blossom pollen and nectar 

and serve as pollinators of apple trees (Ladurner et al., 2004; Gardner and Ascher, 2006). Apple 

trees rely on cross-pollination for successful fruit set, making pollinating insects extremely 

valuable (Gardner and Ascher, 2006). The most widely used insect for fruit pollination is the 

European honey bee (Park et al., 2010). While honey bees are important, they are certainly not 

the only crop pollinators. Native bees play an important role in crop pollination (Park et al., 

2010). Relying on a single pollinator, such as the European honey bee, for pollination may pose 

increasing risk. Research suggests that wild bees are increasingly contributing to apple 

pollination (Park et al., 2012). Pollination studies have shown that wild bees can be more 

effective pollinators than honey bees on a per-visit basis, meaning they do not need to be as 

abundant as honey bees to provide the same level of pollination (Park et al., 2012).

Potential impacts to animal communities associated with apple cultivation are not expected to 

change in the No-Action Alternative.

Preferred Alternative: Animal Communities

Under the Preferred Alternative, potential impacts to animal communities are not anticipated to 

be different compared to the No Action Alternative. Potential impacts to animal communities 

arise from any changes in agronomic inputs associated with the crop modification and direct 

exposure to the GE crop and its products. 

OSF has presented the results of field trials which demonstrate that GD743 and GS784 apples do

not require any changes to agronomic inputs when compared with conventional apples (OSF, 

2012). Land use and agricultural production of apple under the Preferred Alternative is likely to 

continue as currently practiced. Consequently, any impact to animal communities as a result of 

apple production practices under the Preferred Alternative are expected to be the same as the No 

Action Alternative.

Consumption of GD743 and GS784 apples is unlikely to substantially affect non-target 

organisms, such as mammals, birds, or insects. OSF data demonstrates that the composition of 

GD743 and GS784 apples does not substantially differ from conventional apple varieties (OSF, 

2012). OSF indicated that they have submitted a safety and nutritional assessment of food and 

feed derived from GD743 and GS784 to the FDA on May 30, 2011 (OSF, 2012). FDA is 

presently evaluating the submission. There is no evidence that animal exposure to GD743 and 

GS784 apples would have any effect or be any less attractive as food, refuge, cover and nesting 

sites as non GE varieties of apples.

44
Collectively, because the range, area, and agronomic practices of apple are unlikely to change 

following a determination of nonregulated status of GD743 and GS784 apples, the impacts of 

apple cultivation on animal communities are also unlikely to change under the Preferred 

Alternative.

4.4.2 Plant Communities

No Action Alternative: Plant Communities

Apple is a labor intensive, highly managed crop. Members of the plant community that adversely 

affect apple cultivation may be characterized as weeds. Weed control is an important aspect of 

apple cultivation. Failure to control weeds in new apple orchards is the single greatest limiting 

factor to orchard establishment (Kamas et al.). An effective weed control program is the result of 

successfully integrating sound management strategies that includes timely applications of 

herbicide, weed surveillance, weed monitoring throughout the life of the orchard, planting 

ground covers, and mechanical cultivation (Kamas et al.; Roper, 2005; Carroll and Robinson, 

2006; Pfeiffer, 2011). Ground cover, often including an under-tree herbicide strip, is the weed 

management system most commonly used in orchards (Cornell, 2012). The goal of ground cover 

is to reduce soil erosion and nutrient runoff that contaminates surface water sources and to 

minimize the use of herbicides (Carroll and Robinson, 2006). Plants commonly used as ground 

covers in orchards include slow growing grasses such as fescues and ryegrasses, herb mixtures, 

and legumes such as alfalfa, clover, and trefoil (Roper, 2005; Carroll and Robinson, 2006; 

Cornell, 2012; Granatstein et al., 2012). Herbicides are generally used to manage groundcover 

around tree trunks and in that portion of the under-tree area that is difficult to mow (Cornell, 

2012).

Apples are self-incompatible, meaning a tree’s own pollen will not produce fertilized seeds or 

fruit, therefore nearly all apple cultivars require cross pollination for consistent fruit set and yield 

(Dennis, 2003; Schneider et al., 2005; Park et al., 2012). Because all trees within a variety are 

clones (i.e. genetically identical), pollen must move across varieties (Park et al., 2012). This can 

be achieved by either planting multiple varieties in an orchard or using native crab apples. 

Ornamental crab apples can be used as pollinizers in orchards, with trees planted in hedgerows. 

This avoids the need for having more than one commercial cultivar in an orchard and simplifies 

harvest (Dennis, 2003).

Preferred Alternative: Plant Communities

Under the Preferred Alternative, potential impacts to plant communities are not anticipated to be 

different compared to the No Action Alternative.

OSF has presented the results of field trials which demonstrate that GD743 and GS784 apples do

not require any changes to agronomic inputs when compared with conventional apples (OSF, 

2012). Growers are already managing orchards to control for competing plant life and 

surrounding areas that could provide pest and disease reservoirs using treatments and controls.

There would be no change in herbicide use or patterns. 

45
Apple is a highly domesticated fruit tree species, and cultivated varieties of apple in the U.S. are 

not listed as weeds (Muenscher, 1980) or as Federal noxious weeds (7 CFR part 360; (USDANRCS, 2012). Volunteer plants originating from seed in apple orchards are very rare due to

orchard management practices, such as herbicide treatment of the tree row and mowing of the 

alley between rows. GD743 and GS784 apples do not display or possess any weedy 

characteristics, and thus, are not expected to behave as a weed (USDA-APHIS, 2013).

Land use and agricultural production of apple under the Preferred Alternative is likely to 

continue as currently practiced. Consequently, any impact to plant communities as a result of 

apple production practices under the Preferred Alternative is the same as the No Action 

Alternative.

4.4.3 Microorganisms

No Action Alternative: Microorganisms

The soil microbial community is an integral ecosystem component that may provide and sustain 

critical ecological processes. Nutrient cycling, establishing soil structure contributing to plant 

growth, metabolism of deleterious components are all dependent on the microbial constituents. 

The health and growth of these microbes may be influenced by many processes and conditions in 

agriculture, such as the crop cultivated, tillage, herbicide and fertilizer application, and irrigation 

(Garbeva et al., 2004). 

The apple orchard is a highly managed environment which incorporates integrated pest 

management (IPM) strategies. IPM programs are tailored to specific areas of the country; 

however, nearly every IPM program specifically addresses the most common diseases of apple: 

apple scab, fire blight, and powdery mildew as well as the most common insect pests of apple 

which include codling moth, apple maggot, plum cucurlio, aphids, mites, redbanded leaf roller, 

and tentiform leaf miners (MacHardy, 2000; Beckerman, 2006; McCamant, 2007). While viral 

diseases can infect apple, primarily through the use of infected grafting wood, the use of certified 

budwood programs has had a significant impact on reducing the spread of viral diseases of apple 

(WSU, 2010). Effective management of diseases and pests in commercial apple varieties is 

especially important since the majority of the top marketed apple varieties are susceptible to one 

or more of the major diseases of apple (Table 4).

Table 4. Disease Ratings for the top five apple varieties produced in the United States.

Apple varieties* Apple Scab Fire blight Juniper rusts Powdery mildew

Red Delicious S R VS MR

Gala VS VS R—S MS

Golden delicious S S S VS

Granny Smith S VS R VS

Fuji S VS R—VS R

*Top five conventional (USAA, 2011) and organic varieties (Slattery et al., 2011)

S-susceptible, R-resistant, VS-very susceptible, MR-moderately resistant

Source: (Beckerman, 2006; Slattery et al., 2011; USAA, 2011)

46
Preferred Alternative: Microorganisms

OSF has presented the results of field trials which demonstrate that GD743 and GS784 apples do

not require any changes to agronomic inputs when compared with conventional apples (OSF, 

2012). Growers are already managing orchards to control for fungal and insect borne diseases

using treatments and controls. There would be no change in IPM programs that specifically 

addresses the most common diseases. 

Because the agronomic practices of apple are unlikely to change following a determination of 

nonregulated status of GD743 and GS784 apples, the impacts of apple cultivation on 

microorganisms are also unlikely to change under the Preferred Alternative.

4.4.4 Biodiversity

No Action Alternative: Biodiversity

All plants, animals and microorganisms interacting in an ecosystem contribute to biodiversity 

(Wilson, 1988). In agriculture, biodiversity contributes to critical functions such as pollination, 

genetic introgression, biological control, nutrient recycling, and other important processes. 

Significant impacts on any of these functions could require costly management (Altieri, 1999). 

Concerns regarding the potential impacts to biodiversity associated with the introduction of GE 

crops (and crops in general) include the loss of diversity, which can occur at the crop, farm, 

and/or landscape scale (Carpenter, 2011). 

Species diversity and abundance in apple agro-ecosystems may differ among conventional, GE, 

and organic production systems. Relative to any natural ecosystem, species abundance and 

richness will generally be less in intensively managed agro-ecosystems. The degree of 

biodiversity in an agro-ecosystem depends on four primary characteristics: 1) diversity of 

vegetation within and around the agro-ecosystem; 2) permanence of various crops within the 

system; 3) intensity of ecosystem management; and 4) extent of isolation of the agro-ecosystem 

from natural areas of native vegetation (Altieri, 1999; USDA-NRCS, 2002). Agricultural land 

subject to intensive farming practices, such as that used in crop production, generally has low 

levels of biodiversity compared with adjacent natural areas. 

Orchard management practices, including a range of practices incorporated in integrated pest 

management plans can be adopted which increase habitat preservation and plant biodiversity as 

well as reducing the amount of pesticides used (Palmer and Bromley, 1992; Carroll and 

Robinson, 2006; Cooley et al., 2012). Reduced pesticide use has a direct positive effect on 

wildlife by reducing the direct exposure of birds, mammals, and fish to pesticides. Indirect 

benefits include less alteration of suitable wildlife habitat and an available food supply of insects 

for insectivores (Palmer and Bromley, 1992).

Preferred Alternative: Biodiversity

Under the Preferred Alternative, cultivation, management, and land-use decisions related to 

GD743 and GS784 apples are not different from conventional apple varieties. Agronomic 

47
practices associated with apple production such as cultivation, irrigation, pesticide application, 

fertilizer applications and agriculture equipment would be unchanged. Animal and plant species 

that typically inhabit apple orchards will continue to be affected by currently used management 

plans and systems, which include the use of mechanical, cultural, and chemical control methods.

The consequences of current agronomic practices associated with apple production on the 

biodiversity of plant and animal communities are unlikely to be altered.

Consequently, any impact to biodiversity as a result of apple production practices under the 

Preferred Alternative is likely to be identical to the No Action Alternative.

4.5 Public Health 

4.5.1 Food and Feed

No Action Alternative: Food and Feed

In 2011, the average U.S. consumer ate an estimated 15.4 pounds of fresh-market apples and 

32.2 pounds of processed apples, for a total of 47.6 pounds of fresh apples and processed apple 

products (USDA-ERS, 2012). In 2011 more than 60% of apple production in the United States 

was marketed as fresh fruit (USDA-NASS, 2012b). The remaining apple production is marketed 

as processed fruit such as fruit juice, cider, sauce, canned, fresh apple slices, and dried fruit 

products (USDA-ERS, 2010b). In 2011, 138.4 million pounds of apples were marketed as fresh 

apple slices valued at over 26 million USD (Karst, 2012; USDA-NASS, 2012b).

Recent research suggests that apples may promote better health and help maintain a healthy 

weight. Compared to many other fruits and vegetables, apples contain relatively low amounts of 

Vitamin C, but are a rich source of other antioxidant compounds (Boyer and Liu, 2004). Apples 

are an excellent source of dietary fiber, which helps regulate bowel movements and may reduce 

the risk of colon cancer, help prevent heart disease and promote weight loss. Apples are also

cholesterol-free, and their high fiber content helps control high cholesterol levels by preventing 

cholesterol absorption, and are nutrient dense for their low calorie content like most fruits and 

vegetables (Sharma, 2005).

Some whole apples or apple pieces may be fed to domestic animals, but the majority of apple 

feed products are derived from the byproducts of manufacturing. Several wastes from apple 

processing, including pulp, peels, and cores, are suitable animal feeds (NRC, 1983). Apple 

pomace has feeding values similar to grass silage for wintering beef cattle (NRC, 1983). 

Between 25 to 35 percent of the fresh weight of the apple is retained in the pomace after pressing 

and is often mixed with alfalfa or corn for feeding (NRC, 1983).

The apple orchard is a highly managed environment which incorporates the use of agricultural 

chemicals. Pesticide use is common on most apple acreage in the US. Most of the major apples 

producing states/regions have guidelines for commercial apple orchard production and 

management. Each orchard/ apple production plan typically includes guidelines that address 

integrated pest management practices (Carroll and Robinson, 2006; Moulton and King, 2008; 

Donohue et al., 2011; Walgenbach, 2012). 

48
The widespread and common use of pesticides may result in small amounts (called residues) in 

or on apples and apple products. To ensure safety of the apple food supply, the EPA regulates the 

amount of each pesticide that may remain in or on foods. These limits, called tolerances, are 

established to ensure food safety and are the result of the EPA making a safety finding that “the 

pesticide can be used with reasonable certainty of no harm” (US-EPA, 2013). This finding of 

reasonable certainty of no harm is obligated under the FFDCA, as amended by the Food Quality 

Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA). In addition, the FDA and the USDA monitor foods for pesticide 

residues and work with the EPA to enforce these tolerances (see (USDA-AMS, 2013). In setting 

pesticide tolerances, the EPA generally will consider (US-EPA, 2013):

• The toxicity of the pesticide and its break-down products;

• How much the pesticide is applied to the crop and how often; and

• How much of the pesticide (i.e., the residue) remains in or on food by the time is it 

marketed and prepared.

Preferred Alternative: Food and Feed

OSF’s studies demonstrate no differences in morphological characteristics and agronomic 

requirements between GD743 and GS784 apples and other apple varieties (OSF, 2012). 

Agronomic practices associated with apple production such as cultivation, irrigation, pesticide 

application, fertilizer applications and agriculture equipment would continue unchanged.

Food and feed derived from GE apple must be in compliance with all applicable legal and 

regulatory requirements. Composition characteristics evaluated by OSF in these comparative 

tests include moisture, protein, fat, carbohydrates, ash, calories, dietary fiber, sugar profile, 

minerals, vitamins, antioxidant capacity, and phenolics (OSF, 2012). The main nutrients in apple 

are sugar, dietary fiber, potassium, phenolic antioxidants and, to a lesser extent, vitamin C. To 

establish that the new cultivars are nutritionally equivalent to their parent cultivars, apples from 

apple events GD743 and GS784 and the control Golden Delicious (GD) and Granny Smith (GS) 

were subjected to nutritional and proximate analysis, and measured for total phenolic and watersoluble oxygen radical absorbance capacity (ORAC) (OSF, 2012). Analysis found no significant 

changes in proximates, dietary fiber or potassium content. Variation between apple events 

GD743 or GS784 and their respective controls was not significant, and all values fell within the 

expected norms provided by USDA’s National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference for 

apple (USDA Nutrient Databank identifier 09003) (OSF, 2012). The apple events GD743 and 

GS784 demonstrated elevated vitamin C, likely due to the high phenolics that are characteristic 

of the nonbrowning apple. Apple events GD743 and GS784 are nutritionally equivalent to their 

parents and may even have improved phenolic compound content and stability (OSF, 2012).

GE organisms for food and feed may undergo a voluntary consultation process with the FDA 

prior to release onto the market. OSF indicated that they have submitted a safety and nutritional 

assessment of food and feed derived from GD743 and GS784 to the FDA on May 30, 2011 

(OSF, 2012). FDA is presently evaluating the submission. The potential impacts to food and feed

are expected to be the same under the Preferred Alternative as under the No Action Alternative.

49
4.5.2 Worker Health and Safety

No Action Alternative: Worker Health and Safety

The apple orchard is a highly managed environment which incorporates the use of agricultural 

chemicals. Pesticides are used on most apple acreage in the US, and changes in acreage, crops, or 

farming practices can affect the amounts and types of pesticides used and thus the risks to 

workers. Most of the major apples producing states/regions have guidelines for commercial 

apple orchard production and management. Each orchard/ apple production plan typically 

includes guidelines that address orchard establishment and management, IPM, and postharvest 

production practices (Carroll and Robinson, 2006; Moulton and King, 2008; Donohue et al., 

2011; Walgenbach, 2012).

EPA’s WPS (40 CFR Part 170) was published in 1992 to require actions to reduce the risk of 

pesticide poisonings and injuries among agricultural workers and pesticide handlers. The WPS 

offers protections to more than two and a half million agricultural workers who work with 

pesticides at more than 560,000 workplaces on farms, forests, nurseries, and greenhouses. The 

WPS contains requirements for pesticide safety training, notification of pesticide applications, 

use of personal protective equipment, restricted entry intervals following pesticide application, 

decontamination supplies, and emergency medical assistance. Worker safety precautions and use 

restrictions are noted clearly on pesticide registration labels. Growers are required to use 

pesticides consistent with the application instructions provided on the EPA-approved pesticide 

labels. These restrictions provide instructions as to the appropriate levels of personal protection 

required for agricultural workers. These may include instructions on personal protective 

equipment, specific handling requirements, and field reentry procedures (see, e.g., (Carroll and 

Robinson, 2006; Cornell, 2012)). 

Preferred Alternative: Worker Health and Safety

Under the Preferred Alternative, cultivation practices and corresponding worker exposures to 

agronomic inputs are unlikely to change. OSF demonstrates in its petition that the agronomic 

inputs required to cultivate GD743 and GS784 apples are functionally equivalent to those 

required for conventional apple (OSF, 2012). Accordingly, the health and safety protocols 

currently employed by farm workers in the cultivation of apple do not require changes to 

accommodate the cultivation of GD743 and GS784 apples.

Based on these findings, APHIS has determined that approval of a petition for nonregulated 

status of GD743 and GS784 apples will not impact worker safety. 

50
5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

5.1 Assumptions Used for Cumulative Impacts Analysis

Cumulative effects have been analyzed for each environmental issue assessed in Section 4, 

Environmental Consequences. The cumulative effects analysis is focused on the incremental 

impacts of the Preferred Alternative taken in consideration with related activities including past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. In this analysis, if there are no direct or 

indirect impacts identified for a resource area, then APHIS assumes there can be no cumulative 

impacts. Where it is not possible to quantify impacts, APHIS provides a qualitative assessment 

of potential cumulative impacts. 

APHIS considered the potential for GD743 and GS784 apples to extend the range of apple

production and affect the conversion of land to agricultural purposes. OSF’s studies demonstrate 

that agronomic characteristics and cultivation practices required for GD743 and GS784 apples

are indistinguishable from practices used to grow other apple varieties (OSF, 2012; USDAAPHIS, 2013). This implies that its cultural requirements would neither differ from those of 

other apples nor change the areas in which apple is currently cultivated. If the petition is 

approved, GD743 and GS784 apples could replace other commercially available apple varieties 

without requiring cultivation of new, natural lands. As such, land use changes associated with 

approving the petition for nonregulated status to GD743 and GS784 apples are not expected to 

be any different than those associated with the cultivation of other apple cultivars. Therefore, 

although the preferred alternative would allow for new plantings of GD743 and GS784 apples to 

occur anywhere in the U.S., APHIS focused the analysis of cumulative impacts on the areas in 

the U.S. that currently support apple production. 

Potential reasonably foreseeable cumulative effects are analyzed under the assumption that 

growers have used in the past and would continue to use reasonable, commonly accepted best 

management practices (BMPs) for their chosen system and varieties during apple production. 

APHIS recognizes, however, that not all growers will use such BMPs. Thus, the cumulative 

impact analysis will also make the assumption that not all growers would do so. APHIS assumes 

growers of GD743 and GS784 apples will adhere to the EPA-registered uses and EPA-approved 

labels for all pesticides applied to apples. 

5.2 Past and Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions

In the preceding analysis, the potential impacts from approving the petition for nonregulated 

status to GD743 and GS784 apples were assessed. The potential impacts under the Preferred 

Alternative for all the resource areas analyzed were the same as those described for the Noaction Alternative. 

The Preferred Alternative is not expected to directly cause a measurable change in agricultural 

acreage or area devoted to apple cultivation in the U.S. (see Subsection 4.2.1, Agricultural

Production of Apple). Because GD743 and GS784 apples are another apple variety that is 

agronomically and compositionally similar to other commercially available apple varieties, it is 

51
expected GD743 and GS784 apples would replace other similar varieties without expanding the 

acreage or area of apple production. OSF has estimated a total planted area of 4,000 acres or 

about 1.2 percent of total U.S. apple plantings over the first 10 years (OSF, 2012). There are also 

no anticipated changes to the availability of non-GE apple varieties on the market.

As described above, organic growers use common practices to maintain the organic status of 

their apples including employing adequate isolation distances between the organic orchard and 

the orchards of neighbors to minimize the chance that pollen will be carried between the 

orchards. Given the importance of maintaining varietal traits and consumer recognition and 

preference for specific apple varieties, the separation of production and processing of apples by 

varieties have been utilized by growers, packers and retailers in the United States market to 

satisfy consumer preference and demand. Availability of another apple variety, such as GD743 

and GS784 apples, under the Preferred Alternative, is not expected to impact the organic 

production of apple any differently than other apple varieties currently being grown.

Approving the petition for a determination of nonregulated status to GD743 and GS784 apples is 

not expected to result in changes to current apple cropping practices. Studies conducted by OSF

demonstrate that agronomic characteristics and cultivation practices required for GD743 and 

GS784 apples are indistinguishable from practices used to grow other apple varieties (OSF, 

2012; USDA-APHIS, 2013). Consequently, no changes to current apple cropping practices 

associated with the adoption of GD743 and GS784 apples are expected (see Subsection 4.2.1, 

Agricultural Production of Apple). 

Based on the information described in Subsection 4.2.2 – Domestic Commerce, APHIS 

concludes that a determination of nonregulated status of GD743 and GS784 apples will have no 

foreseeable adverse cumulative effects on domestic commerce. Similar Golden Delicious and 

Granny Smith varieties are already on the market. GD743 and GS784 apples have the potential 

to improve fruit processing capabilities for maintaining the quality and shelf life of apples for 

processing and the snack food market and also improve the economics of fruit processing and 

consumer nutrition. There also is an inherent reduction in food processing costs associated with a 

reduction in fruit browning and in providing alternatives to conventional technologies to prevent 

browning. Based on these factors, no net negative cumulative impacts on domestic economics 

have been identified associated with the cultivation of GD743 and GS784 apples. If growers 

adopt GD743 and GS784 apple varieties and take advantage of the niche market, local farm 

economics may improve.

Current and historic economic evidence indicates that apple production in the United States has 

decreased since 2004 as a result of greater international competition. This trend may continue 

and shift apple production acreage in the United States to alternative cropping or pasture, which 

may affect other markets and trade. As noted in Subsection 4.2.4 – Foreign Trade, OSF’s 

commercial launch of the GD743 and GS784 apples, although limited, has the potential for the 

creation of a niche market and in a small way supporting the continuation of apple production in 

the United States. However, for these apples to be sold in export markets, approvals in the 

destination country must have been obtained. So these apples may have little influence on apple 

exports. Based on these factors, APHIS has determined that there are no past, present, or 

52
reasonably foreseeable actions that would aggregate with effects of the proposed action that 

would have a negative impact on foreign trade.

Approving the petition for a determination of nonregulated status to GD743 and GS784 apples

would have the same impacts to water, soil, air quality, and climate change as that of apple

varieties currently available. Agronomic practices that have the potential to impact soil, water 

and air quality, and climate change would not change because GD743 and GS784 apples are

agronomically similar to other apple varieties. Because of its similarity to other varieties of 

apple, adoption of GD743 and GS784 apples is expected to replace other similar cultivars 

without changing the acreage or area of apple production that could impact water, soil, air 

quality, and climate change.

The impacts of the Preferred Alternative to animal and plants communities, microorganisms, and 

biodiversity would be no different than that experienced under the No-action Alternative. GD743 

and GS784 apples are both agronomically and compositionally similar to other apple varieties. 

Thus, it would not require any different agronomic practices to cultivate, and does not represent 

a safety or increased weediness risk that is any different from other currently available apples. 

There are no differences in the potential for gene flow and weediness under the Preferred Action 

Alternative. Outcrossing and weediness are addressed in the PPRA (USDA-APHIS, 2013)

GD743 and GS784 apples are similar to other apple varieties. The risk of gene flow and 

weediness of GD743 and GS784 apples is no greater than that of other apple varieties. 

Food and feed derived from GE apple must be in compliance with all applicable legal and 

regulatory requirements and may undergo a voluntary consultation process with the FDA prior to 

release onto the market to identify and discuss relevant safety, nutritional, or other regulatory 

issues regarding the bioengineered food. GD743 and GS784 apples are expected to have no toxic 

effect to human health or livestock. OSF submitted a safety and nutritional assessment of food 

and feed derived from GD743 and GS784 to the FDA on May 30, 2011 (OSF, 2012). FDA is 

presently evaluating the submission. No change in food and feed safety is expected to occur 

under the Preferred Alternative. 

In summary, the potential cumulative effects regarding past and present actions combined with 

the Preferred Alternative have been analyzed, and no changes from the current baseline under the 

No-action Alternative would occur.

5.3 Cumulative Impacts Summary

In summary, the potential for impacts of GD743 and GS784 apples would not result in any 

changes to the resources areas when compared to the No-action Alternative. No cumulative 

effects are expected from approving the petition for nonregulated status for GD743 and GS784 

apples, when taken in consideration with related activities, including past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions. 

53
6 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended, is one of the most far-reaching 

wildlife conservation laws ever enacted by any nation. Congress, on behalf of the American 

people, passed the ESA to prevent extinctions facing many species of fish, wildlife and plants. 

The purpose of the ESA is to conserve endangered and threatened species and the ecosystems on 

which they depend as key components of America’s heritage. To implement the ESA, the U.S. 

Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) works in cooperation with the National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), other Federal, State, and local agencies, Tribes, non-governmental 

organizations, and private citizens. Before a plant or animal species can receive the protection 

provided by the ESA, it must first be added to the Federal list of threatened and endangered 

wildlife and plants.

A species is added to the list when it is determined by the USFWS/NMFS to be endangered or 

threatened because of any of the following factors:

• The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or 

range;

• Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes;

• Disease or predation;

• The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; and

• The natural or manmade factors affecting its survival.

Once an animal or plant is added to the list, in accordance with the ESA, protective measures 

apply to the species and its habitat. These measures include protection from adverse effects of 

Federal activities.

Section 7 (a)(2) of the ESA requires that Federal agencies, in consultation with USFWS and/or 

the NMFS, ensure that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of a listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of 

designated critical habitat. It is the responsibility of the Federal agency taking the action to assess 

the effects of their action and to consult with the USFWS and NMFS if it is determined that the 

action “may affect” listed species or critical habitat. To facilitate APHIS’ ESA consultation 

process, APHIS met with the US-FWS from 1999 to 2003 to discuss factors relevant to APHIS’ 

regulatory authority and effects analysis for petitions for nonregulated status, and developed a 

process for conducting an effects determination consistent with the Plant Protection Act of 2000 

(Title IV of Public Law 106-224). This process is used by APHIS to assist the program in 

fulfilling their obligations and responsibilities under Section 7 of the ESA for biotechnology 

regulatory actions. 

The APHIS regulatory authority over GE organisms under the PPA is limited to those GE 

organisms for which it has reason to believe might be a plant pest or those for which APHIS does 

not have sufficient information to determine that the GE organism is unlikely to pose a plant pest 

risk (7 CFR §340.1). After completing a PPRA, if APHIS determines that GD743 and GS784 

apples do not pose a plant pest risk, then GD743 and GS784 apples would no longer be subject 

54
to the plant pest provisions of the PPA or to the regulatory requirements of 7 CFR part 340, and 

therefore, APHIS must reach a determination that the article is no longer regulated. As part of its 

EA analysis, APHIS analyzed the potential effects of GD743 and GS784 apples on the 

environment including any potential effects to TES and critical habitat. As part of this process, 

APHIS thoroughly reviews GE product information and data related to the organism to inform 

the ESA effects analysis and, if necessary, the biological assessment. For each 

transgene(s)/transgenic plant the following information, data, and questions are considered by 

APHIS: 

• A review of the biology, taxonomy, and weediness potential of the crop plant and its 

sexually compatible relatives;

• Characterization of each transgene with respect to its structure and function and the 

nature of the organism from which it was obtained;

• A determination of where the new transgene and its products (if any) are produced in 

the plant and their quantity;

• A review of the agronomic performance of the plant including disease and pest 

susceptibilities, weediness potential, and agronomic and environmental impact;

• Determination of the concentrations of known plant toxicants (if any are known in the 

plant); 

• Analysis to determine if the transgenic plant is sexually compatible with any 

threatened or endangered plant species (TES) or a host of any TES; and

• Any other information that may inform the potential for an organism to pose a plant 

pest risk.

In following this review process, APHIS, as described below, has evaluated the potential effects 

that a determination of nonregulated status of GD743 and GS784 apples may have, if any, on 

Federally-listed TES and species proposed for listing, as well as designated critical habitat and 

habitat proposed for designation. Based upon the scope of the EA and production areas identified 

in the Affected Environment section of the EA, APHIS obtained and reviewed the USFWS list of 

TES species (listed and proposed) for all 50 states where apple is produced from the USFWS 

Environmental Conservation Online System (USFWS, 2014a; 2014b). Prior to this review, 

APHIS considered the potential for GD743 and GS784 apples to extend the range of apple

production and also the potential to extend agricultural production into new natural areas. 

OSF’s studies demonstrate that agronomic characteristics and cultivation practices required for 

GD743 and GS784 apples are essentially indistinguishable from practices used to grow other 

apple varieties (OSF, 2012; USDA-APHIS, 2013). Although GD743 and GS784 apples may be 

expected to replace other varieties of apple currently cultivated, APHIS does not expect the 

cultivation of GD743 and GS784 apples to result in new apple acres to be planted in areas that 

55
are not already devoted to apple production. Accordingly, the issues discussed herein focus on 

the potential environmental consequences of approval of the petition for nonregulated status of 

GD743 and GS784 apples on TES species in the areas where apples are currently grown. 

APHIS focused its TES review on the interaction between TES and GD743 and GS784 apples, 

including the potential for sexual compatibility and the ability to serve as a host for a TES. 

APHIS does not have authority to regulate the use of any pesticide, fungicide or herbicide that 

may be used in apple production. 

6.1 Potential Effects of the Cultivation of Event GD743 and GS784 Apples on TES

Based on the information submitted by the applicant and reviewed by APHIS, GD743 and 

GS784 apples are agronomically, phenotypically, and biochemically comparable to conventional 

apple (OSF, 2012). OSF has presented results of agronomic field trials for GD743 and GS784

apples. The results of these field trials demonstrate that there are no differences in agronomic 

practices between GD743 and GS784 and conventional apples(OSF, 2012). The common 

agricultural practices that would be carried out in the cultivation GD743 and GS784 apples are 

not expected to deviate from current practices, including the use of EPA-registered pesticides. 

OSF anticipates that apples, being a perennial crop of 20 or more years before replanting, will 

have a much slower adoption and introduction curve than annual crops (OSF, 2012). OSF has 

estimated a total planted area of 4,000 acres or about 1.2 percent of total U.S. apple plantings 

over the first 10 years (OSF, 2012). The products are expected to be deployed on agricultural 

land currently suitable for production of apple, will be cultivated only as specialty apples, are not 

expected to substantially replace existing varieties, and are not expected to increase the acreage 

of apple production. 

Apples are cultivated in all 50 states, and are an important fruit crop for a number of States 

within the United States. Accordingly, the issues discussed herein focus on the potential 

environmental consequences of approval of the petition for nonregulated status of GD743 and 

GS784 apples on TES species and critical habitat in the areas where apples are currently

cultivated. As discussed in Subsection 4.2.1 – Agricultural Production of Apples, APHIS has 

determined that GD743 and GS784 apples are unlikely to extend the range of apple production. 

Moreover, new acreage is not expected to be developed to accommodate the cultivation of events 

GD743 and GS784. APHIS obtained and reviewed the USFWS list of TES species (listed and 

proposed) for all 50 states where apple is produced from the USFWS Environmental 

Conservation Online System (USFWS, 2014a; 2014b). 

6.2 Potential Effects GD743 and GS784 Apples on TES

Threatened and Endangered Plant Species

The agronomic data provided by OSF were used in the APHIS analysis of the weediness 

potential for GD743 and GS784 apples and further evaluated for the potential to impact TES. 

Agronomic studies conducted by OSF tested the hypothesis that the weediness potential of 

GD743 and GS784 apples is unchanged with respect to conventional apple (OSF, 2012; USDAAPHIS, 2013). No differences were detected between GD743 and GS784 apples and 

56
conventional apple in growth, reproduction, or interactions with pests and diseases (USDAAPHIS, 2013). Apple is a highly domesticated fruit tree species, and cultivated varieties of apple 

in the U.S. are not listed as weeds (Muenscher, 1980) or as Federal noxious weeds (7 CFR part 

360; (USDA-NRCS, 2012), nor is it listed as an invasive species by major invasive plant data 

bases. GD743 and GS784 are not likely to become weedier than their non-GE apple counterparts 

(USDA-APHIS, 2013). The introduced genes are not likely to increase weediness or fitness in 

wild relatives of apple (USDA-APHIS, 2013). APHIS has concluded the approval of the petition 

for nonregulated status of GD743 and GS784 apples does not present a plant pest risk, does not 

present a risk of weediness, and does not present an increased risk of gene flow when compared 

to other currently cultivated apple varieties. Based on the agronomic field data and literature 

survey on apple weediness potential, GD743 and GS784 apples are unlikely to affect TES as a 

troublesome or invasive weed (USDA-APHIS, 2013).

APHIS evaluated the potential of GD743 and GS784 apples to cross with a listed species. As 

discussed in Sections 3.3.2 and 4.4.2 – Plant Communities, and in the analysis of Apple as a 

Weed or Volunteer, APHIS has determined that there is no risk to unrelated plant species from 

the cultivation of GD743 and GS784 apples. The cultivated apple is a member of Rosaceae, the 

rose family consisting of about 100 genera with more than 2,000 species. The genus Malus,

which includes the cultivated apple and crab apple contains about 25 species with its center of 

diversity in central Asia, but native or naturalized species are found in Europe, Asia and western 

China (Way et al., 1990). The majority of apples are self-incompatible, meaning a tree’s own 

pollen will not produce fertilized seeds or fruit, therefore nearly all apple cultivars require cross 

pollination using another cultivar or a specialized crab-apple for consistent fruit set and yield 

(Dennis, 2003; Schneider et al., 2005; Park et al., 2012). As discussed in Section 4.2.1 –

Agricultural Production of Apple, cultivated apples are generally propagated by grafting

(Crasweller, 2005). A mature apple tree can produce numerous seeds during its annual cycle and 

survive for a number of years producing a multitude of seed. However for reasons discussed in 

Section 3.3.2 – Plant Communities, the probability of an individual apple seed developing into a 

mature tree is very small and volunteer plants originating from seed in apple orchards are very 

rare in such a managed environment (Roper, 2005; Carroll and Robinson, 2006; Cornell, 2012). 

After reviewing the list of threatened and endangered plant species in the U.S., APHIS 

determined that GD743 and GS784 apples would not be sexually compatible with any listed 

threatened or endangered plant species proposed for listing, as none of these listed plants are in 

the same genus nor are known to cross pollinate with species of the genus Malus.

A number of Malus species are native or naturalized in the United States (Little, 1979), and 

include: Malus angustifolia (southern crab apple); Malus coronaria (sweet crab apple; Malus 

fusca (Oregon crab apple); Malus ioensis (prairie crab apple); Malus platycarpa, thought to be a 

hybrid between cultivated apple and native species of crab apple (McVaugn, 1943); Malus x 

domestica (apple); Malus x soulardii (Soulard crab), a hybrid of ioensis x domestica; Malus 

baccata (Siberian crab apple); and Malus prunifolia (pear leaf apple). Four species of crab apples 

are native to North America, the Pacific Crab (Malus fusca); and three species closely related to 

Malus fusca (Hosie, 1979). The introduced species Malus baccata and Malus prunifolia, have 

escaped from cultivation but are not naturalized. Research has found no introgression of 

cultivated apple genes to native Malus species of North America (Dickson et al., 1991). 

57
Cultivated apple can be artificially cross-pollinated to produce hybrids with many if not all crab 

apple species (Warmund, 1996; Roper and Frank, 2004), but the fertility and ecological fitness of 

such possible hybrids hasn’t been well described.

After reviewing the list of threatened and endangered plant species in the U.S., APHIS 

determined, based on the agronomic field data, literature survey on apple weediness potential, 

and that there are no TES sexually compatible with apple, that GD743 and GS784 apples will 

have no effect on threatened or endangered plant species.

Threatened and Endangered Animal Species

Threatened and endangered animal species that may be exposed to the gene products in GD743 

and GS784 apples would be those TES that inhabit apple orchards and feed on GD743 and 

GS784 apples. To identify potential effects on threatened and endangered animal species, APHIS 

evaluated the risks to threatened and endangered animals from consuming GD743 and GS784 

apples or other parts of the apple tree. Some whole apples or apple pieces may be fed to domestic 

animals, but the majority of apple feed products are derived from the byproducts of 

manufacturing. Additionally, wildlife may use apple orchards as a food source, consuming parts 

of the tree, the fruit, or insects that live on the trees. However, most animals including TES 

generally are found outside of highly managed orchards. 

OSF submitted a safety and nutritional assessment of food and feed derived from GD743 and 

GS784 to the FDA on May 30, 2011 (OSF, 2012). FDA is presently evaluating the submission. 

GD743 and GS784 apples present minimal risk to TES consuming this crop. As discussed in 

Subsection 4.7, Animal Feed, there is no difference in the composition and nutritional quality of 

GD743 and GS784 apples compared with conventional apples (OSF, 2012); no expected hazards 

are associated with its consumption. OSF has presented data on the food and feed safety of 

GD743 and GS784 apples, evaluating the agronomic and morphological characteristics of 

GD743 and GS 84 apples, including compositional and nutritional characteristics as compared to 

a conventional apple variety (OSF, 2012). Composition characteristics evaluated in these 

comparative tests include moisture, protein, fat, carbohydrates, ash, calories, dietary fiber, sugar 

profile, minerals, vitamins, antioxidant capacity, and phenolics (OSF, 2012).As discussed in 

Sections 4.6 and 4.7 analysis found no significant changes in proximates, dietary fiber or 

potassium content. Variation between apple events GD743 or GS784 and their respective 

controls was not significant, and all values fell within the expected norms provided by USDA’s 

National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference for apple (USDA Nutrient Databank (NDB) 

identifier 09003) (OSF, 2012). The apple events GD743 and GS784 demonstrated significantly 

higher levels of vitamin C as compared to the control cultivars. This elevated level of vitamin C 

was likely due to the fact that the fruit tested was cut, put in bags, and put on ice, leaving the fruit 

flesh exposed for as long as 24 hours prior to testing (OSF, 2012). This resulted in some PPOdriven fruit browning within the control fruit. Despite elevated levels of vitamin C in events 

GD743 and GS784, these levels fell within, or very close to, the published range for apple (OSF, 

2012). Evidence provided here is consistent with the concept that ArcticTM Apple cultivars GS743 

and GS784 are nutritionally equivalent with their parent cultivars, prior to slicing. While after 

58
slicing, GD743 and GS784 retain their original phenolic content, whereas GD and GS suffer the 

loss of phenolic compounds, and possibly vitamin C, through the action of PPO (OSF, 2012).

Apple events GD743 and GS784 are nutritionally equivalent to their parents and may even have 

improved phenolic compound content and stability (OSF, 2012). The results presented by OSF 

show that there was no effect of the ArcticTM Apple trait on the composition of the apples, and no

biologically-meaningful differences between GD743 or GS784 apples and their non-GE 

counterparts. Therefore, based on these analyses, APHIS concludes that consumption of GD743 

and GS784 apples or plant parts would have no effect on any listed threatened or endangered 

animal species or animal species proposed for listing.

After reviewing the possible effects of allowing the nonregulated environmental release of 

GD743 and GS784 apples, APHIS has not identified any stressor that could affect the 

reproduction, numbers, or distribution of a listed TES or species proposed for listing. APHIS 

also considered the potential effect of a determination of nonregulated status of GD743 and 

GS784 apples on designated critical habitat or habitat proposed for designation, and could 

identify no differences from effects that would occur from the production of other apple

varieties. Apple is not considered a particularly competitive plant species and is not listed in the 

U.S. as a noxious weed species by the Federal government (7 CFR part 360; (USDA-NRCS, 

2012), nor is it listed as an invasive species by major invasive plant data bases. Apple does not 

serve as a host species for any listed species or species proposed for listing. Consumption of 

GD743 and GS784 apples by any listed species or species proposed for listing will not result in a 

toxic or allergic reaction. Based on these factors, APHIS has concluded that approval of the

petition for nonregulated status of GD743 and GS784 apples, and the corresponding 

environmental release of this apple variety will have no effect on listed species or species 

proposed for listing, and would not affect designated habitat or habitat proposed for designation. 

Because of this no effect determination, consultation under Section 7(a)(2) of the Act or the 

concurrences of the USFWS or NMFS are not required.

59
7 CONSIDERATION OF EXECUTIVE ORDERS, STANDARDS, AND 

TREATIES RELATING TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

7.1 Executive Orders with Domestic Implications

The following executive orders require consideration of the potential impacts of the Federal 

action to various segments of the population.

• Executive Order (EO) 12898 (US-NARA, 2010), "Federal Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations,"

requires Federal agencies to conduct their programs, policies, and activities that 

substantially affect human health or the environment in a manner so as not to exclude 

persons and populations from participation in or benefiting from such programs. It 

also enforces existing statutes to prevent minority and low-income communities from 

being subjected to disproportionately high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects. 

• EO 13045, “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks,” acknowledges that children may suffer disproportionately from 

environmental health and safety risks because of their developmental stage, greater 

metabolic activity levels, and behavior patterns, as compared to adults. The EO (to 

the extent permitted by law and consistent with the agency’s mission) requires each 

Federal agency to identify, assess, and address environmental health risks and safety 

risks that may disproportionately affect children.

The No Action and Preferred Alternatives were analyzed with respect to EO 12898 and EO 

13045. Neither alternative is expected to have a disproportionate adverse effect on minorities, 

low-income populations, or children. 

Based on the information submitted by the applicant and reviewed by APHIS, GD743 and 

GS784 apples are agronomically, phenotypically, and biochemically comparable to conventional 

apple except for the nonbrowning trait expressed in GD743 and GS784 apples. To establish that 

the new cultivars are nutritionally equivalent to their parent cultivars, apples from apple events 

GD743 and GS784 and the control Golden Delicious (GD) and Granny Smith (GS) were 

subjected to nutritional and proximate analysis, and measured for total phenolic and watersoluble oxygen radical absorbance capacity (ORAC) (OSF, 2012). Analysis found no significant 

changes in proximates, dietary fiber or potassium content. Variation between apple events 

GD743 or GS784 and their respective controls was not significant, and all values fell within the 

expected norms provided by USDA’s National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference for 

apple (USDA Nutrient Databank (NDB) identifier 09003) (OSF, 2012). The apple events GD743 

and GS784 demonstrated elevated vitamin C, likely due to the high phenolics that are 

characteristic of the nonbrowning apple. Apple events GD743 and GS784 are nutritionally 

equivalent to their parents and may even have improved phenolic compound content and stability 

(OSF, 2012). This nutritional analysis establishes the safety of GD743 and GS784 apples and 

their products to humans, including minorities, low-income populations, and children who might 

60
be exposed to them through agricultural production and/or processing. No additional safety 

precautions would need to be taken.

OSF initiated the consultation process with FDA for the commercial distribution of GD743 and 

GS784 apples and submitted a safety and nutritional assessment of food and feed derived from 

GD743 and GS784 apples to the FDA on May 30, 2011 (OSF, 2012). FDA is presently 

evaluating the submission.

Based on these factors, a determination of nonregulated status of GD743 and GS784 apple is not 

expected to have a disproportionate adverse effect on minorities, low-income populations, or 

children.

The following executive order addresses Federal responsibilities regarding the introduction and 

effects of invasive species:

EO 1311 (US-NARA, 2010), “Invasive Species,” states that Federal agencies take 

action to prevent the introduction of invasive species, to provide for their control, 

and to minimize the economic, ecological, and human health impacts that 

invasive species cause. 

Apple is not listed in the U.S. as a noxious weed species by the Federal government (7 CFR part 

360; (USDA-NRCS, 2012), nor is it listed as an invasive species by major invasive plant data 

bases. Volunteer plants originating from seed in apple orchards are very rare due to orchard 

management practices, such as herbicide treatment of the tree row and mowing of the alley 

between rows. Any volunteers that may become established are easily managed using standard 

weed control practices. Animals, such as bears, mice, and squirrels, can carry fruit containing 

seed or seeds away from cultivated areas. Apples are often discarded by travelers on roadways, 

or in compost piles. Seeds distributed in this way can result in seedling trees. Such cultivated 

apple-tree seedlings can be persistent; the species has escaped cultivation and naturalized in 

southern Canada, in the eastern USA, and from British Columbia south to California (Little, 

1979). However, M. domestica typically occurs in commercial orchard plantings, as fruit trees in 

gardens or pastures. It is not common to find wild seedling trees; therefore, weediness is not 

thought to be a widespread problem. Non-engineered apples are widely grown in the U.S. Based 

on historical experience with these varieties and the data submitted by the applicant and 

reviewed by APHIS, GD743 and GS784 apple trees are sufficiently similar in fitness 

characteristics to other apple varieties currently grown and are not expected to become weedy or 

invasive.

The following executive order requires the protection of migratory bird populations:

EO 13186 (US-NARA, 2010), “Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect 

Migratory Birds,” states that federal agencies taking actions that have, or are 

likely to have, a measurable negative effect on migratory bird populations are 

directed to develop and implement, within two years, a Memorandum of 

Understanding (MOU) with the Fish and Wildlife Service that shall promote the 

conservation of migratory bird populations. 

61
Migratory birds may be found in apple orchards. A variety of birds are known to feed on apple 

trees and apples and can cause damage to apple trees (Wilson, 2006; Cornell, 2012). Birds such 

as quail nest in the grassy understories of apple orchards, while songbirds and mourning doves 

nest in the fruit trees (Palmer and Bromley, 1992). Birds may also forage for insects and weed 

seeds found in and adjacent to apple orchards. As discussed in Sections 4.6.1 and 4.7, data 

submitted by the applicant has shown no difference in compositional and nutritional quality of 

GD743 and GS784 apples compared with other conventional apple (OSF, 2012). GD743 and 

GS784 apples are not expected to be allergenic, toxic, or pathogenic since the transgene derived 

for PPO suppression is derived from apples so no new proteins are expressed in the apples (OSF, 

2012). As discussed in Section 4.5.1, Food and Feed, OSF submitted a safety and nutritional 

assessment of food and feed derived from GD743 and GS784 to the FDA on May 30, 2011 

(OSF, 2012). FDA is presently evaluating the submission. Based on APHIS’ assessment of 

GD743 and GS784 apples, it is unlikely that a determination of nonregulated status of GD743 

and GS784 apples would have a negative effect on migratory bird populations.

7.2 International Implications

EO 12114 (US-NARA, 2010), “Environmental Effects Abroad of Major Federal Actions”

requires federal officials to take into consideration any potential environmental effects outside 

the U.S., its territories, and possessions that result from actions being taken. 

APHIS has given this EO careful consideration and does not expect a significant environmental 

impact outside the U.S. in the event of a determination of nonregulated status of GD743 and 

GS784. All existing national and international regulatory authorities and phytosanitary regimes 

that currently apply to introductions of new apple cultivars internationally apply equally to those 

covered by an APHIS determination of nonregulated status under 7 CFR part 340. 

Any international trade of GD743 and GS784 subsequent to a determination of nonregulated 

status of the product would be fully subject to national phytosanitary requirements and be in 

accordance with phytosanitary standards developed under the International Plant Protection 

Convention (IPPC, 2010). The purpose of the IPPC “is to secure a common and effective action 

to prevent the spread and introduction of pests of plants and plant products and to promote 

appropriate measures for their control” (IPPC, 2010). The protection it affords extends to natural 

flora and plant products and includes both direct and indirect damage by pests, including weeds. 

The IPPC establishes a standard for the reciprocal acceptance of phytosanitary certification 

among the nations that have signed or acceded to the Convention (172 countries as of March 

2010). In April 2004, a standard for PRA of living modified organisms (LMOs) was adopted at a 

meeting of the governing body of the IPPC as a supplement to an existing standard, International 

Standard for Phytosanitary Measure No. 11 (ISPM-11, Pest Risk Analysis for Quarantine Pests). 

The standard acknowledges that all LMOs will not present a pest risk and that a determination 

needs to be made early in the PRA for importation as to whether the LMO poses a potential pest 

risk resulting from the genetic modification. APHIS pest risk assessment procedures for 

genetically engineered organisms are consistent with the guidance developed under the IPPC. In 

addition, issues that may relate to commercialization and transboundary movement of particular 

62
agricultural commodities produced through biotechnology are being addressed in other 

international forums and through national regulations.

The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety is a treaty under the United Nations Convention on 

Biological Diversity (CBD) that established a framework for the safe transboundary movement, 

with respect to the environment and biodiversity, of LMOs, which include those modified 

through biotechnology. The Protocol came into force on September 11, 2003, and 160 countries 

are Parties to it as of December 2010 (CBD, 2010). Although the U.S. is not a party to the CBD, 

and thus not a party to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, U.S. exporters will still need to 

comply with those regulations that importing countries which are Parties to the Protocol have 

promulgated to comply with their obligations. The first intentional transboundary movement of 

LMOs intended for environmental release (field trials or commercial planting) will require 

consent from the importing country under an advanced informed agreement (AIA) provision, 

which includes a requirement for a risk assessment consistent with Annex III of the Protocol and 

the required documentation.

LMOs imported for food, feed, or processing (FFP) are exempt from the AIA procedure, and are 

covered under Article 11 and Annex II of the Protocol. Under Article 11, Parties must post 

decisions to the Biosafety Clearinghouse database on domestic use of LMOs for FFP that may be 

subject to transboundary movement. To facilitate compliance with obligations to this protocol, 

the U.S. Government has developed a website that provides the status of all regulatory reviews 

completed for different uses of bioengineered products (NBII, 2010). These data will be 

available to the Biosafety Clearinghouse. 

APHIS continues to work toward harmonization of biosafety and biotechnology consensus 

documents, guidelines, and regulations, including within the North American Plant Protection 

Organization (NAPPO), which includes Mexico, Canada, and the U.S., and within the 

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). NAPPO has completed 

three modules of the Regional Standards for Phytosanitary Measures (RSPM) No. 14, 

Importation and Release into the Environment of Transgenic Plants in NAPPO Member 

Countries (NAPPO, 2009).

APHIS also participates in the North American Biotechnology Initiative (NABI), a forum for 

information exchange and cooperation on agricultural biotechnology issues for the U.S., Mexico, 

and Canada. In addition, bilateral discussions on biotechnology regulatory issues are held 

regularly with other countries including Argentina, Brazil, Japan, China, and Korea.

7.3 Compliance with Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act

This EA evaluated the potential changes in apple production associated with a determination of 

nonregulated status of GD743 and GS784 apples (Section 4.2) and determined that the 

cultivation of GD743 and GS784 apples would not lead to the increased production or acreage of 

apple in U.S. agriculture. The nonbrowning trait conferred by the genetic modification to GD743 

and GS784 apples would not result in any changes in water usage for cultivation. As discussed in 

Section 4.4.2 and 4.4.3, there are no expected negative impacts to water resources or air quality 

63
associated with GD743 and GS784 apple production. Based on these analyses, APHIS concludes 

that a determination of nonregulated status of GD743 and GS784 apples would comply with the 

CWA and the CAA.

7.4 Impacts on Unique Characteristics of Geographic Areas

A determination of nonregulated status of GD743 and GS784 apples is not expected to impact 

unique characteristics of geographic areas such as park lands, prime farmlands, wetlands, wild 

and scenic areas, or ecologically critical areas.

OSF has presented results of agronomic field trials for GD743 and GS784 apples. The results of 

these field trials demonstrate that there are no differences in agronomic practices between 

GD743 and GS784 and conventional apples. The common agricultural practices that would be 

carried out in the cultivation GD743 and GS784 apples are not expected to deviate from current 

practices, including the use of EPA-registered pesticides. The product is expected to be deployed 

on agricultural land currently suitable for production of apple, will be cultivated only as a

specialty apple, is not expected to replace existing varieties, and is not expected to increase the 

acreage of apple production. 

There are no proposed major ground disturbances; no new physical destruction or damage to 

property; no alterations of property, wildlife habitat, or landscapes; and no prescribed sale, lease, 

or transfer of ownership of any property. This action is limited to a determination of 

nonregulated status of GD743 and GS784 apples. This action would not convert land use to 

nonagricultural use and, therefore, would have no adverse impact on prime farmland. Standard 

agricultural practices for land preparation, planting, irrigation, and harvesting of fruit would be 

used on orchard lands planted to GD743 and GS784 apples, including the use of EPA-registered 

pesticides. The Applicant’s adherence to EPA label use restrictions for all pesticides is expected 

to mitigate potential impacts to the human environment.

Based on these findings, including the assumption that EPA label use instructions are in place to 

protect unique geographic areas and that those label use instructions are adhered to, a 

determination of nonregulated status of GD743 and GS784 is not expected to impact unique 

characteristics of geographic areas such as park lands, prime farm lands, wetlands, wild and 

scenic areas, or ecologically critical areas.

7.5 National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 as Amended 

The NHPA of 1966 and its implementing regulations (36 CFR 800) require Federal agencies to: 

1) determine whether activities they propose constitute "undertakings" that have the potential to 

cause effects on historic properties and 2) if so, to evaluate the effects of such undertakings on 

such historic resources and consult with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (i.e., 

State Historic Preservation Office, Tribal Historic Preservation Officers), as appropriate. 

APHIS’ proposed action, a determination of nonregulated status of GD743 and GS784 is not 

expected to adversely impact cultural resources on tribal properties. Any farming activity that 

64
may be taken by farmers on tribal lands would only be conducted at the tribe’s request; thus, the

tribes would have control over any potential conflict with cultural resources on tribal properties.

APHIS’ Preferred Alternative would have no impact on districts, sites, highways, structures, or 

objects listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, nor would it 

likely cause any loss or destruction of significant scientific, cultural, or historical resources. This 

action is limited to a determination of non-regulated status of GD743 and GS784. 

APHIS’ proposed action is not an undertaking that may directly or indirectly cause alteration in 

the character or use of historic properties protected under the NHPA. In general, common 

agricultural activities conducted under this action do not have the potential to introduce visual, 

atmospheric, or noise elements to areas in which they are used that could result in effects on the 

character or use of historic properties. For example, there is potential for increased noise on the 

use and enjoyment of a historic property during the operation of tractors and other mechanical 

equipment close to such sites. A built-in mitigating factor for this issue is that virtually all of the 

methods involved would only have temporary effects on the audible nature of a site and can be 

ended at any time to restore the audible qualities of such sites to their original condition with no 

further adverse effects. Additionally, these cultivation practices are already being conducted 

throughout the apple production regions. The cultivation of GD743 and GS784 is not expected to 

change any of these agronomic practices that would result in an adverse impact under the NHPA.

65
8 LIST OF PREPARERS

USDA APHIS Biotechnology Regulatory Service 

Donna Lalli, Ph.D., Biotechnologist

Joanne Serrels, Environmental Protection Specialist 

Rebecca Stankiewicz Gabel, Ph.D., Branch Chief, Biotechnology Environmental Analysis 

Branch Environmental Risk Analysis Program

66
9 REFERENCES

Coordinated Framework for Regulation of Biotechnology 1986. Pub. L. Stat. June 26. 

Statement of Policy: Foods Derived from New Plant Varieties 1992. Pub. L. Stat. May 29. 

Adler, P; Del Grosso, S; and Parton, W (2007) "Life-cycle assessment of net greenhouse-gas flux 

for bioenergy cropping systems." Ecological Applications. 17 (3): p 675-91. 

Altieri, MA (1999) "The ecological role of biodiversity in agroecosystems." Agriculture, 

Ecosystems and Environment. (76): p 13. 

Aneja, VP; Schlesinger, WH; and Erisman, JW (2009) "Effects of agriculture upon the air 

quality and climate: Research, policy, and regulations." Environmental Science & 

Technology. 43 (12): p 4234–40. 

Barrett, DM; Somogyi, L; and Ramaswamy, H. (2005). ed.^eds. Processing Fruits. 2nd ed: CRC 

Press. Print.

Beckerman, J. "Disease Susceptibility of Common Apple Cultivars." Ed. University, Purdue: 

Purdue University Cooperative Extension Service, 2006. 4. Vol. BP-132-W.

Bessin, R. "Controlling Apple Insect Pests." Ed. Service, University of Kentucky Cooperative 

Extension2003. Vol. ENTFACT-201.

Boyer, J and Liu, RH (2004) "Apple phytochemicals and their health benefits." Nutrition 

Journal. 3 (5): p 1-15. 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Citati

on&list_uids=15140261.

Brittingham, MC and Falker, ST. "Controlling Birds on Fruit Crops." Ed. Sciences, Penn State 

College of Agricultural2010.

Carpenter, JE (2011) "Impact of GM crops on biodiversity." GM Crops. 2 (1): p 7-23. 

Carroll, JE and Robinson, TL (2006) "New York Integrated Fruit Production Protocol for 

Apples." New York State Agricultural Experiment Station. 

67
CBD (2010) "The Cartegena Protocol on Biosafety " Convention on Biological Diversity. 

http://www.cbd.int/biosafety/.

Cooley, DR; Los, LM; Berkett, LP; Faubert, HH; Koehler, G; and Moran, R (2012) "Wildlife 

Damage Management." 2012 New England Tree Fruit Management Guide. p 109-11. 

Cornell (2012) "2012 Cornell Pest Management Guidelines for Commercial Tree Fruit 

Production." Agnello, A. . http://ipmguidelines.org/TreeFruits/Default.aspx.

Crasweller, RM (2005) "Grafting and Propagating Fruit Trees." Penn State University. 

Crunch Pak (2012) "Crunch Pak Company History." Crunch Pak. 

http://www.crunchpak.com/aboutus/company-history/.

Dennis, F (2003) "Flowering, Pollination and Fruit Set and Development." Apples. Botany, 

Production and Uses. Cambridge, MA: CABI Publishing. p 153-66. 

Dickson, EE; Kresovich, S; and Weeden, NF (1991) "Isozymesin North America Malus

(Rosaceae): hybridization and species differentiation." Systematic Botany. 16 p 13. 

Dimitri, C and Oberholtzer, L. "Market-Led Growth vs. Government-Facilitated Growth: 

Development of the US and EU Organic Agricultural Sectors." WRS-05-05. Washington, 

DC: USDA Economic Research Service, 2005.

Donohue, D; Gut, L; and Jess, L (2011) "Updates to 2008 Michigan Apple PMSP." 

Doran, JW; Sarrantonio, M; and Liebig, MA (1996) "Soil Health and Sustainability." 56 p 1-54. 

Faust, MA (2002) "New feeds from genetically modified plants: the US approach to safety for 

animals and the food chain." Livestock Production Science. 74 p 16. 

Field, CB; Mortsch, LD; Brklacich, M; Forbes, DL; Kovacs, P; Patz, JA; Running, SW; and 

Scott, MJ (2007) "North America." Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and 

Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University 

Press. p 617-52. Last Accessed: December 3, 2010 

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch14s14-4-4.html.

Flachowsky, G; Chesson, A; and Aulrich, K (2005) "Animal nutrition with feeds from 

genetically modified plants." Archives of Animal Nutrition. 59 (1): p 1-40. 

Garbeva, P; van Veen, JA; and van Elsas, JD (2004) "MICROBIAL DIVERSITY IN SOIL: 

Selection of Microbial Populations by Plant and Soil Type and Implications for Disease 

Suppressiveness." Annual Review of Phytopathology. 42 (1): p 243-70. 

68
Gardiner, S; Norelli, J; N., dS; Fazio, G; Peil, A; Malnoy, M; Horner, M; Bowatte, D; Carlisle, 

C; Wiedow, C; Wan, Y; Bassett, C; Baldo, A; Celton, JM; Richter, K; H., A; and Bus, V 

(2012) "Putative resistance gene markers associated with quantitative trait loci for fire 

blight resistance in Malus ‘Robusta 5’ accessions." BMC Genetics 13 p 20. 

Gardner, KE and Ascher, JS (2006) "Notes on the Native Bee Pollinators in New York Apple 

Orchards." Journal of New York Entomological Society. 114 (1): p 7. 

Granatstein, D; Davenport, J; Kirby, E; Morgan, W; and Kukes, A. "Direct-seeding Legumes 

into Orchard Alleys for Nitrogen Production." Leavenworth, WA2012. 1.

Hanke, V (2003) "Genetically modified apple trees "...they don't spread unchecked"." GMO 

Safety. http://www.gmo-safety.eu/archive/326.spread-unchecked.html.

Hoeft, R; Nafziger, E; Johnson, R; and Aldrich, S (2000) Modern Corn and Soybean Production 

(1st Ed). Champaign: MCSP Publications. 

Horowitz, J and Gottlieb, J (2010) "The Role of Agriculture in Reducing Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions." U.S. Department of Agriculture–Economic Research Service. 

http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/eb15/.

Hosie, RC (1979) Native trees of Canada. Don Mills, Ontario: Fitzheury and Whiteside. 

IPPC (2010) "Official web site for the International Plant Protection Convention: International 

Phytosanitary Portal " International Plant Protection Convention. 

https://www.ippc.int/IPP/En/default.jsp.

Kamas, J; Nesbitt, M; and Stein, L. "Apples." Ed. A&M, Texas. 7.

Karl, TR; Melillo, JM; and Peterson, TC (2009) "Global Climate Change Impacts in the United 

States." US Global Change Research Program. www.globalchange.gov/usimpacts.

Karst, T (2012) "Short crop cuts into apple slices." The Packer. p 3. 

http://www.thepacker.com/fruit-vegetable-news/From-Happy-Meals-to-retail-packsshort-crops-affect-apple-slices-162405906.html.

Ladurner, E; Recla, L; Wolf, M; Zelger, R; and Burgio, G (2004) "Osmia cornuta (Hymenoptera 

Megachilidae) densities required for apple pollination: a cage study." Journal of 

Apicultural Research. 43 (3): p 5. 

Little, ELJ (1979) "Malus." Check List of United States Trees (Native and Naturalized).

Washington, DC: Forest Service, USDA. p 167-70. 

MacHardy, WE (2000) "Current status of IPM in apple orchards." Crop Protection. 19 p 6. 

69
McCamant, T (2007) Integrated Pest Management Manual for Minnesota Apple Orchards. 

Minnesota Department of Agriculture. 

McCray, K (2009) "Ground Water: Out of Sight, But Not Out of Mind." 

http://www.ngwa.org/public/awarenessweek/awareeditorial.aspx.

McVaugn, R (1943) "The status of some anomalous native crabapples in the eastern Ubited 

States." Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club. 70 p 12. 

McVay, JR; Walgenbach, JF; Sikora, EJ; and Sutton, T (1996) "A Grower's Guide To Apple 

Insects and Diseases In The Southeast " Alabama Cooperative Extension.

http://ipm.ncsu.edu/apple/contents.html.

Mortsch, LD and Alden, M (2003) "Climate Change and Water Quality in the Great Lakes 

Region." Great Lakes Water Quality Board. 

http://www.ijc.org/rel/pdf/climate_change_2003_part3.pdf.

Moulton, GA and King, J (2008) "Fruit Handbook for Western Washington: Varieties and 

Culture." Washington State University Extension. 

Muenscher, WC (1980) Weeds. Cornell University Press. 

NAPPO (2009) "NAPPO approved standards " http://www.nappo.org/Standards/Std-e.html.

NBII (2010) "United States Regulatory Agencies Unified Biotechnology Website " 

http://usbiotechreg.nbii.gov/.

NCAT. "NCAT's Organic Crops Workbook: A Guide to Sustainable and Allowed Practices." 

National Center for Appropriate Technology, 2003. http://www.attra.org/attrapub/PDF/cropsworkbook.pdf.

Norelli, J; Farrell Jr., RE; Bassett, CL; Baldo, AM; Lalli, DA; Aldwinckle, HS; and Wisniewski, 

ME (2009) "Rapid transcriptional response of apple to fire blight disease revealed by 

cDNA suppression subtractive hybridization analysis." Tree Genetics & Genomes. 5 p 

27-40. 

NRC (1983) Underutilized Resources as Animal Feedstuffs. Washington DC: National 

Academies Press. 

NRC (2004) Safety of Genetically Engineered Foods: Approaches to Assessing Unintended 

Health Effects. Washington DC: The National Academy Press. 

Organic Monitor. "Research Publication #7002-40. The Global Market for Organic Food and 

Drink: Business Opportunities and Future Outlook." 2006. 

http://www.organicmonitor.com/700240.htm.

70
Organic Trade Association (2011) "Industry Statistics and Projected Growth." 

http://www.ota.com/organic/mt/business.html?printable=1.

OSF (2012) "Petition for Determination of Nonregulated Status: ArcticTM Apple (Malus x 

domestica) Events GD743 and GS784." Okanagan Specialty Fruits Inc. 

Palmer, WE and Bromley, PT (1992) "Pesticides and Wildlife - Fruit Trees." 

http://ipm.ncsu.edu/wildlife/fruit_trees_wildlife.html.

Park, M; Danforth, B; Losey, J; Biddinger, D; Vaughan, M; Dollar, J; Rajotte, E; and Angello, A 

(2012) Wild pollinators of eastern apple orchards and how to conserve them. Cornell 

University. 

Park, MG; Orr, MC; and Danforth, BN (2010) "The Role of Native Bees in Apple Pollination." 

New York Fruit Quarterly. 18 (1): p 5. 

Penn State (2012) "Pennsylvania 2012-2013 Tree Fruit Production Guide." The Pennsylvania 

State University. 

Pfeiffer, DG, et al. (2011) "2011 Spray Bulletin for Commercial Tree Fruit Growers." Virginia 

Tech

West Virginia University

Maryland Cooperative Extension

Virginia State University. 

Robinson, T; Lakso, A; and Dominguez, L (2013) "Precision Irrigation Management." New York 

Fruit Quarterly. 21 (2): p 17-20. http://www.nyshs.org/pdf/-

NYFQ%202013.CMC/NYFQ%20Summer%202013/Pages%2017-

20%20from%20NYFQ%20Summer%20Book%206-22-2013.PRESS-4.pdf.

Ronald, P and Fouche, B (2006) "Genetic Engineering and Organic Production Systems." 

http://ucanr.org/freepubs/docs/8188.pdf.

Roper, TR (2005) "Orchard-Floor Management for Fruit Trees." University of Wisconsin 

Extension. 

Roper, TR and Frank, GG (2004) "Planning and Establishing Commercial Apple Orchards in 

Wisconsin." University of Wisconsin Extension. 

Ruiz, N; Lavelle, P; and Jimenez, J (2008) "Soil Macrofauna Field Manual." Food and 

Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 

71
Schneider, D; Stern, RA; and Goldway, M (2005) "A Comparison between Semi-and Fully 

Compatible Apple Pollinators Grown under Suboptimal Pollination Conditions." 

HortScience. 40 (5): p 3. 

Schotzko, RT and Granatstein, D (2005) "A Brief Look at the Washington Apple Industry: Past 

and Present." Washington State University. 

Sharma, R (2005) Improve your Health with Apple, Guava, Mango. Diamond Pocket Books Ltd. 

Shelton, A (2012) "Biological Control: A Guide to Natural Enemies in North America." 

http://www.biocontrol.entomology.cornell.edu/#Top.

Slattery, E; Livingston, M; Greene, C; and Klonsky, K (2011) "Characteristics of Conventional 

and Organic Apple Production in the United States." USDA-ERS. 

Smith, TJ (1999) "Report on the development and use of 98C - A situation-specific fire blight 

risk assessment model for apple and pear." Acta Horticulturae (ISHS). 489 p 429-35. 

Smith, TJ (2001) "Crop Profile for Apples in Washington." Washington State University 

Extension. Last Accessed: August 1, 2013 

http://www.ipmcenters.org/cropprofiles/docs/waapples.html.

Spectrum "Fertilizing Apples." Spectrum Analytic Inc. 

Steiner, PW (2000) "Managing Fire Blight in Apples." Last Accessed: 02/26/2013 

http://www.caf.wvu.edu/kearneysville/articles/FB-MANAGE00.html.

Steiner, PW and Lightner, GW (1992) "MARYBLYTTM: A computer model for predicting of 

fire blight disease in apples and pears." Computers and Electronics in Agriculture. 7 p 

249-60. 

Tobin, ME (1989) "Bird Damage to Apples in the Mid-Hudson Valley of New York." 

HortScience. 24 (5): p 1. 

Tobin, ME and Richmond, ME (1993) "Vole Management in Fruit Orchards." U.S. Department 

of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 

UNH (2004) "Beneficial Insects and Mites in NH Apple Trees." 

http://extension.unh.edu/Agric/AGPMP/Apples/BenefiIM.htm.

US-EPA (2003) "National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from 

Agriculture." http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/nps/agriculture/agmm_index.cfm.

US-EPA. "Protecting Water Quality from Agricultural Runoff." Washington, DC: Nonpoint 

Source Control Branch (4503T), EPA 841-F-05-001, 2005.

72
US-EPA (2011a) "Pesticides: Registration Review." U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/registration_review/.

US-EPA (2011b) "Sole Source Aquifer Protection Program." U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/drinkingwater/sourcewater/protection/solesourceaquife

r.cfm.

US-EPA (2012a) "Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2010." USEPA. 

US-EPA (2012b) "Watershed Assessment, Tracking & Environmental Report. National 

Summary. Causes of Impairment in Assessed Rivers and Streams." 

http://iaspub.epa.gov/waters10/attains_index.control.

US-EPA (2013) "Setting Tolerances for Pesticide Residues in Food." Environmental Protection 

Agency. Last Accessed: January, 2013 

http://www.epa.gov/opp00001/factsheets/stprf.htm.

US-FDA. "Guidance for Industry: Recommendations for the Early Food Safety Evaluation of 

New Non-Pesticidal Proteins Produced by New Plant Varieties Intended for Food Use." 

Rockville, MD: FDA, 2006. 

http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocumentsRegulatoryInformati

on/Biotechnology/ucm096156.htm.

US-NARA (2010) "Executive Orders disposition tables index." United States National Archives 

and Records Administration. http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executiveorders/disposition.html.

USAA (2011) "Production and Utilization Analysis." US Apple Association. 

USDA-AMS (2010a) "National Organic Program." Agricultural Marketing Service United States 

Department of Agriculture. http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/nop

USDA-AMS (2010b) "National Organic Program." United States Department of Agriculture -

Agricultural Marketing Service. http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/nop

USDA-AMS (2013) "Pesticide Data Program Annual Summary, Calendar Year 2011." U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service. 

http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=stelprdc5102692.

USDA-APHIS (2013) "Draft Plant Pest Risk Assessment for Okanagan Specialty Fruits Inc.’s 

Non-browning Apple (Malus x domestica) Events GD743 and GS784. ." 

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/biotechnology/not_reg.html.

73
USDA-ERS (2006) "Major Uses of Land in the United States, 2002." USDA-ERS. 

http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/eib-economic-information-bulletin/eib14.aspx.

USDA-ERS (2010a) "Organic Production." United States Department of Agriculture - Economic 

Research Service. http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/Organic/.

USDA-ERS (2010b) "US Apple Statistics Table 2. ." Economics, Statistics and Market 

Information System, Albert R. Mann Library, Cornell University. 

http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/MannUsda/viewDocumentInfo.do?documentID=1825,.

USDA-ERS. "Copy of table15: U.S. per capita consumption of apples." 2012. 

http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/MannUsda/viewDocumentInfo.do?documentID=1825.

USDA-FAS (2012) "Fresh Deciduous Fruit (Apples, Grapes, & Pears): World Markets and 

Trade." 

USDA-NASS (2012a) "2011 Certified Organic Production Survey." USDA-NASS. 

USDA-NASS (2012b) "Noncitrus Fruits and Nuts: 2011 summary." USDA-NASS. 

USDA-NRCS (1996) "Effects of Residue Management and No-Till on Soil Quality." Natural 

Resources Conservation Service. 

http://soils.usda.gov/sqi/management/files/sq_atn_3.pdf.

USDA-NRCS (1999) "Soil Taxonomy: A Basic System of Soil Classification for Making and 

Interpreting Soil Surveys." U.S. Department of Agriculture–Natural Resources 

Conservation Service. http://soils.usda.gov/technical/classification/taxonomy/.

USDA-NRCS. "Integrated Pest Management (IPM) and Wildlife." Ed. USDA-NRCS2002. Vol. 

24.

USDA-NRCS (2004) "Soil Biology and Land Management." U.S. Department of Agriculture–

Natural Resources Conservation Service. 

http://soils.usda.gov/sqi/publications/publications.html#atn.

USDA-NRCS (2006b) "Conservation Resource Brief: Air Quality, Number 0605." National 

Resources Conservation Service. 

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs143_023301.pdf.

USDA-NRCS (2010) "Keys to Soil Taxonomy." U.S. Department of Agriculture–Natural 

Resources Conservation Service. http://soils.usda.gov/technical/classification/tax_keys/.

USDA-NRCS "Federal Noxious Weeds." http://plants.usda.gov/java/noxious?rptType=Federal.

74
USDA-NRCS (2013) "Plants Profile Apple."

http://plants.usda.gov/java/profile?symbol=MALUS.

USFWS (2014a) "Listed Species in States and Territories Where Apples are Grown." U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service. Last Accessed: April 30, 2014 

http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/pub/adHocSpeciesForm.jsp.

USFWS (2014b) "Species Proposed for Listing in States and Territories Where Apples are 

Grown." U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Last Accessed: April 30, 2014 

http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/pub/SpeciesReport.do?listingType=P.

USITC (2010) "Apple: Industry and Trade Summary." United States International Trade 

Commission. 

Vaillancourt, LJaH, J.R. (2000) "Apple scab." APSnet. 

http://www.apsnet.org/edcenter/intropp/lessons/fungi/ascomycetes/Pages/AppleScab.asp

x.

Walgenbach (2011) "2011 Integrated Orchard Management Guide for Commercial Apples in the 

Southeast." North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service. 

Walgenbach, J (2012) "2012 Integrated Orchard Management Guide for Commercial Apples in 

the Southeast." North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service

Walker, TS; Bais, HP; Grotewold, E; and Vivanco, JM (2003) "Root exudation and rhizosphere 

biology." Plant physiology. 132 (1): p 44-51. 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12746510.

Warmund, MR (1996) Pollinating Fruit Crops. University Extension, University of MissouriColumbia. 

Way, RD; Aldwinckle, HS; Lamb, RC; Rejman, A; Sansavini, S; Shen, T; Watkins, R; 

Westwood, MN; and Yoshida, Y (1990) "Genetics resources of temperate fruit crops." 

Acta Horticulturae. p 1. 

Wilcox, WF (2013) "Apple Scab." Department of Plant Pathology, NYS Agricultural 

Experiment Station, Cornell University. 

http://nysipm.cornell.edu/factsheets/treefruit/diseases/as/as.asp.

Wilson, EO (1988) Biodiversity. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. 

Wilson, JM (2006) "Managing Abandoned Orchards and Apple Trees." Managing Grasslands, 

Shrublands and Young Forests for Wildlife: A Guide for the Northeast. The Northeast 

Upland Habitat Technical Committee

75
Massachusetts Division of Fisheries & Wildlife. p 51-57. 

WSU (2010) "2010 Crop Protection Guide for Tree Fruits in Washington (EB0419)." Pullman, 

WA. http://pubs.wsu.edu.

WSUTFRE (2013) "Organic & Integrated Tree Fruit Production: Fire Blight Control in Organic 

Apple and Pear. ." Washington State University. 

http://www.tfrec.wsu.edu/pages/organic/fireblight.

76