# Syngenta Biotechnology, Inc.

Insect Resistant MIR162 Corn

OECD Unique Identifier: SYN-IR162-4



## Draft Environmental Assessment

December 2009

Agency Contact Cynthia Eck

Document Control Officer Biotechnology Regulatory Services USDA, APHIS Riverdale, MD 20737

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, politi cal beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Pe rsons 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, Washi ngton, 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.

________________________________________________________________

1Table of Contents

I. SUMMARY 3

II. PURPOSE & NEED 3

III. INTRODUCTION 6

IV. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 7

A. Corn 7 B. Agricultural Production of Corn 8 C. Corn Lepidopteran Pests 9

V. ALTERNATIVES 10

A. No Action: Continuation as a Regulated Article 10

B. Preferred Alternative: De termination that MIR162 Corn is No Longer a Regulated Article 11

VI. POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 11

A. No Action 12

1. Corn 12 2. Agricultural Production of Corn 12 3. Corn Lepidopteran Pests 12

B. Preferred Alternatives 13

1. Corn 13 2. Agricultural Production of Corn 14 3. Potential Impacts of Line MI R162 Corn on In sect Control

Practices 14 4. Organic and Other Non-transgenic Corn Production 15 5. Potential Impact on Non-target Organisms, Including Beneficial Organisms and Threatened or Endangered Species 17

6. Cumulative Effects 20

7 . Socioeconomic Analysis 22

C. Consideration of Executive Orders, Standards and Treaties Relating to Environmental Impacts 27

VII. REFERENCES 30

VIII. PREPARERS, REVIEWERS, CONSULTATIONS,

AGENCY CONTACT 36

IX. APPENDIX Appendix I. Environmental and Human Health Safety of Vip3Aa20 Protein 37 Appendix II. Syngenta MIR162 Corn Forage and Grain Compositional Analysis 39

2

## I. Summary

The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Serv ice (APHIS), United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), has prepared an Envir onmental Assessment (E A) in response to a petition (APHIS Number 07-253-01p) from Syngenta Biotechnology, Inc. (Syngenta) regarding the regulatory status of genetically engineered (tra nsgenic) corn resistant to lepidopteran insect feeding from transformati on event MIR162. This corn is currently a regulated article under USDA regulations at 7 CFR part 340, and as such, interstate movements, importations, and field tests of MIR162 corn have been conducted under permits issued or notifica tions acknowledged by APHIS. Syngenta petitioned APHIS requesting a determination that MIR162 corn does not present a pl ant pest risk, and

therefore MIR162 corn and its progeny derived from crosses with other nonregulated corn should no longer be regulated ar ticles under these APHIS regulations.



## II. Purpose and Need

"Protecting American agriculture" is the ba sic charge of the USDA (APHIS). APHIS provides leadership in ensuring the health a nd care of plants and animals. The agency improves agricultural productivity and competiti veness, and contributes to the national economy and the public health. USDA asserts th at all methods of agricultural production (conventional, organic, or the use of gene tically engineered va rieties) can provide benefits to the environment, consumers, and farm income.



### Federal Regulatory Authority

In 1986, the Federal Government’s Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) published a policy document known as the Coor dinated Framework for the Regulation of Biotechnology. This document specifies three Fe deral agencies that are responsible for regulating biotechnology in the U.S.: USDA ’s APHIS, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Food and Drug Administration (FDA). APHIS regulates gene tically engineered (GE) organisms under the Plant Protection Act of 2000. The EPA regulat es plant-incorporated protectants under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rode nticide Act (FIFRA) and certain biological control organisms under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). FDA regulates GE organisms under the authority of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. The FDA policy statement concerning regulation of pr oducts derived from new plant varieties, including those genetically engineered, was published in the Federa l Register on May 29, 1992 (57 FR 22984-23005). Under this policy, FDA uses what is termed a consultation process to ensure that human food and animal fe ed safety issues or other regulatory issues (e.g., labeling) are resolved prior to commercial distri bution of bioengineered food. Products are regulated according to their in tended use and some pr oducts are regulated by more than one agency. Together, these agen cies ensure that th e products of modern biotechnology are safe to grow, safe to eat, and safe for the environment. USDA, EPA, and FDA enforce agency-specific regulations to products of biotec hnology that are based on the specific nature of each GE organism.

3

### USDA Regulatory Authority

The APHIS Biotechnology Regulat ory Service’s (BRS) mission is to protect the United States’ agriculture and environment using a dynamic and science-based regulatory

framework that allows for the safe devel opment and use of genetically engineered organisms. APHIS regulations at 7 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 340, which were promulgated pursuant to authority grante d by the Plant Protection Act, as amended (7 United States Code (U.S.C.) 7701–7772) , regulate the introduction (importation, interstate movement, or releas e into the environment) of certain genetically engineered (GE) organisms and products. 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 part 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 ma y be a plant pest or APHIS does not have

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

risk.

A person may petition the agency to evalua te submitted data and determine that a particular regulated article is unlikely to pose a plant pest risk, and, therefore, should no longer be regulated under 7 CFR part 340.6 entitled “Petition for Determination of Nonregulated Status.” The petitioner is required to provide information under § 340.6(c)(4) related to plant pest risk that th e agency may use to determine whether the regulated article is unlikely to present a gr eater plant pest risk than the unmodified organism. If the agency determines that the regulated article is un likely to pose a plant pest risk, the GE organism will be granted nonregulated status. In such a case, APHIS authorizations (i.e. permits and notifications) would no longer be required for environmental release, importati on, or interstate movement of the non-regulated article or its progeny.

Syngenta Biotechnology, Inc. (hereafter “Synge nta”) of Research Triangle Park, NC submitted a petition to APHIS seeking a determination of nonregulated status for their transgenic event MIR162 corn (hereafter “MIR162 corn”). The MIR162 corn has been engineered to express a bact erial protein Vip3Aa20 from Bacillus thyringiensis that is toxic to a certain lepidopteran insect pests. This corn is also engineered to express another protein, phosphomannose isomerase (PMI) from Escherichia coli , which was used as a selectable marker to identify co rn seedlings containing Vip3Aa20 gene during the development of MIR162 corn. The MIR162 corn is currently regulated under 7 CFR part 340. This corn has been considered a regulated articl e because it was genetically engineered with regulatory sequences derive d from plant pests and because a plant pest was used as a vector agent to deliver those sequences to the plant. Interstate movements

and field trials of the MIR162 corn have been conducted under permits issued or notifications acknowledged by APHIS.

4

### U.S. Environmental Protectio n Agency and Food and Drug Administration Regulatory Authority

The MIR162 corn is also subject to regulati on by other agencies. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is responsible for regulation of pesticides under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, a nd Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) (7 U.S.C. §136 et seq

. ). FIFRA requires that all pesticides be registered before distribution, sale, and use, unless exempted by EPA regulation. Before a product is registered as a pesticide under FIFRA,

it must be shown that when used in accord ance with the label, it will not result in

unreasonable adverse effects on the environmen t. Accordingly, EPA grants permits to allow a pesticide producer to test a new pesticide product ou tside the laboratory under Experimental Use Permits (EUPs), which are us ed for large-scale (more than 10 acres of land or 1 acre of water) testing of effi cacy and gathering of environmental fate, ecological effects, and crop resi due chemistry (40 CFR part 172).

Syngenta obtained an experimental use permit from EPA that allowed for broad-scale field testing of the MIR162 corn; this permit was grante d on March 26, 2007 and was in effect through March 31, 2008 (72 FR 34009-34010). On July 23, 2008 EPA announced receipt of a petition from Syngenta to condi tionally register three pesticide products containing the new active ingred ient Vip3Aa20 and the genetic material necessary for its production in corn (73 FR 42799-42801). These pesticide products included MIR162 and the two corn hybrids Bt11 x MIR162 and Bt11 x MIR162 x MIR604 (Bt11 and MIR604 contain the additional insecticidal protein active ingredients Cry1Ab and Cry3A, respectively, and both have previously been deregulated by APHIS and registered as plant-incorporated protectants by EPA). On April 30, 2009, EPA announced the approval of these conditional registrations invo lving MIR 162 and the hybrids (74 FR 19956- 19957).

Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) (21 U.S.C. §301 et seq

. ), pesticides added to (or contained in) raw ag ricultural commodities are prohibited unless a tolerance or exemption from tolerance has been established. EPA establishes residue tolerances for pesticides under the authority of the FDCA. The FDA enforces the tolerances set by the EPA. On April 4, 2007 EPA established a temporary exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for Vip3Aa20 residues in maize commodities, pursuant to §408(d) of the Federal Food, Dr ug, and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. §346a(d). On August 6, 2008, EPA granted exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for

residues of B. thuringiensis Vip3Aa proteins (i ncluding the Vip3Aa20 variant) in or on food and feed commodities of corn (73 FR 45620-45624). On May 14, 2004, EPA granted an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for re sidues in or on plant commodities of phosphomannose isomerase and the genetic material necessary for its production in all plants when applied/used as plant-incorporated protectant inert ingredients (69 FR 26770-26775). With the publication of EP A’s registration document,

APHIS will use this finalized information to provide additional scientific support to its consideration of potential environmental impacts.

5FDA, which has primary regulatory authorit y over food and feed safety, published a policy statement in the Federal Register on May 29, 1992 (57 FR 22984-23005) concerning regulation of products derived fr om new plant varieties, including those genetically engineered. Unde r this policy, FDA uses what is termed a consultation process to ensure that human food and animal fe ed safety issues or other regulatory issues (e.g. labeling) are resolved pr ior to commercial distribut ion of a bioengineered food. Syngenta submitted a summary of their safety assessment to FDA on August 3, 2007, and

additional information on Decembe r 17, 2007 and March 31, 2008. Syngenta’s

submissions to FDA indicated that food and f eed derived from corn event MIR162 are as safe (Appendix I in this EA) and nutritious as food and feed derived from conventional corn (Appendix II in this EA). FDA completed their consultation on MIR162 on December 9, 2008 and concluded that it had “no further questions concerning grain and forage derived from corn event MIR162” (FDA BNF No. 000113).

As a Federal agency subject to compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 1 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq

. ), APHIS has prepared this environmental assessment (EA) to consider the potential environmental effects of this proposed action (granting nonregulated status) and the reas onable alternatives to that action consistent with NEPA implementing regulations (40 CFR §§ 1500-1508, 7 CFR part 1(b), and 7 CFR part 372). This EA has been prepared in order to speci fically evaluate the effects on the quality of

the human environment 1 that may result from the deregulation of the MIR162 corn.



## III. Introduction

Corn is susceptible to attack by a variety of insects (Table 1, pg. 12 in petition) from the time it is planted until it is consumed as f ood or feed. Syngenta has developed a GE corn hybrid, named MIR162, that is resistant to th e feeding damage caused by corn earworm ( Helicoverpa zea ), fall armyworm ( Spodoptera frugiperda ), black cutworm ( Agrotis ipsilon ), and western bean cutworm ( Striacosta albicosta ) larvae that are not controlled well with existing technology. This insect re sistance in MIR162 come from a bacterial gene called Vip3Aa20 (Vip = Vegetative inse cticidal protein). The MIR162 corn also

contains manA gene from E. coli encoding the enzyme phosphomannose isomerase (PMI), which was used as a selectable marker during transformant selection. The manA gene expression confers no other benefit to the regenerated transf ormed corn plant.

The family of Vip3Aa proteins, in wh ich Vip3Aa20 belongs, are produced by the

bacterium B.thuringiensis (hereafter “Bt”) (Estruch et al. 1996) that act as toxins to kill insect prey (Estruch et al. 1996; Schnepf et al. 1998). Vip3Aa proteins are similar to certain Cry proteins 2 (Höfte and Whiteley 1989) and ar e demonstrated to have toxic effects only on certain insects (Table 2.1 on p. 23 in Carozzi and Koziel 1997). The mechanism by which Vip proteins exert their in secticidal activity has been studied and found to be similar, but not identical, to th at which has been described for the Bt Cry

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 Cry proteins are crystal proteins that are produced within the spores of Bt bacteria. A majority of deregulated Bt crops currently available in the U.S. market express Cry proteins.

6proteins that are contained in several commercial insecticide formulations and plants engineered for insect resistance. The Vip and Cry proteins bind to different receptors in the insect (Lee et al. 2003), and the insecticid al activity of Vip3Aa proteins is limited to species within selected families of the orde r Lepidoptera (Table 27, pg. 74-75 in petition). For example, MIR162 alone has no activity against European corn borer ( Ostrinia

nubilalis ) but is efficacious in limiting feeding damage caused by the other four insect pests (corn earworm, fall armyworm, black cutworm, western bean cutworm) (Figure 21, pg. 76 in petition); whereas the Bt11 corn (conta ining a Cry protein) is highly efficacious against European corn borer, but it has lim ited or no activity agai nst the other four insects. USDA APHIS has previously granted n onregulated status to 11 insect resistant GE corn varieties (USDA-APHIS 1997) c ontaining Cry proteins from Bt (UASDAAPHIS 2009).

The MIR162 corn has been field tested in th e United States since 1999 as authorized by APHIS. Associated notifications acknowledge d and permits issued by APHIS are listed in Appendix A of the petition (pg. 127-128). The list compiles more than 20 test sites in diverse regions of the U.S. including the major corn growing area of the Midwest and

winter nurseries in Hawaii. Field test s conducted under APHIS oversight allow for evaluation in agricultural set tings under confinement measures designed to minimize the likelihood of persistence in the environment after completion of the field trial. Under confined field trial conditions, data are gathered on multiple parameters and used by applicants to evaluate agr onomic characteristics and product performance. These data are also valuable to APHIS as the agency asse sses the potential for a new variety to pose a plant pest risk. The evaluated data may be found in the APHIS plant pest risk assessment (USDA-APHIS 2009).



## IV. Affected Environment

A. Corn

Corn is primarily grown in warm temperate climates (Norman et al

. 1995). Field corn is the leading production crop globally, with the 2009 growing season expected to yield 789 million metric tons of grain (ICG 2009). Corn is grown for animal feed, human food, vegetable oil, high fructose corn syrups, starch, fermentation into ethanol, and a multitude

of industrial uses.

Zea mays L. subsp. mays , known as maize throughout the world, and as corn in the U.S.,

is a member of the Maydeae tribe of the grass family, Poaceae . It is an annual plant with separate male and female flowers on each plant (monoecious) that requires human intervention for its seed dispersal and propa gation. Additional information on the biology of corn can be found within the Orga nisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD 2003) consensus document.

Corn is predominantly a wind-pollinated out crossing species (OEC D 2003). Transgenes in crops have the potential to move between sexually compatible populations, and more so in corn being a wind-pollinated plant with separate male and female flower bearing

7structures (inflorescences). Gene flow rate between corn populations is extremely variable depending on the spatia l, temporal, genetic and envi ronmental factors (Brookes and Barfoot et al. 2004; Messegue et al. 2006) . Yet, available experimental evidence indicates that gene flow rates drop drastical ly (1%) beyond 20 meters (Henry et al. 2003; Ma et al. 2004; Messeguer et al. 2006). To maintain varietal purity, the AOSCA (Association of Official Seed Certifying Agencies) recomme nds 200 meters isolation to nearby corn populations for the foundation cl ass of certified seed production (AOSCA 2003). The insect resistance trait of MIR162 ha s the potential to enha nce the fitness of wild and weedy relatives if gene flow occurs between crop and wild or weedy corn populations. However, there are no large widely di stributed wild corn plants (teosinte) in the U.S., and even a few non-weedy feral populations in the U.S. have limited opportunity for outcrossing with transgenic corn cultivars (see USDA-APHIS 2009). The only known propagation method for corn is thr ough seed germination (i.e., there are no reports of vegetative propagation under fiel d conditions in the United States). Mature corn seeds have no innate dormancy (Simps on 1990; Table 18, pg. 61 in petition) are sensitive to cold, and are not expected to su rvive in freezing winter conditions. Even if corn seeds from a previous year’s crop overwinter and germinate the following year, manual or chemical measures are often applied to remove these volunteers (see Table 1 in Wright et al. 2009).



### B. Agricultural Production of Corn

The U.S. accounts for nearly 41% of global corn production. Corn is the largest crop grown in the U.S. in terms of both volume and value. Approximately 86 million acres were planted in 2008 growing season, yielding 12 billion bushels (305 million metric tons) with a gross crop value of $47 bill ion ($3.9/bushel) (U SDA-NASS 2008a; USDANASS 2008b). The upper Midwest re gion of the U.S. provides an ideal combination of temperature, rainfall, and soil type for the cu ltivation of corn. Iowa, Illinois, Nebraska, Minnesota, Indiana, Ohio, Wisconsin, Miss ouri, Kansas, and South Dakota are major corn growing states. Producti on in these ten states account s for 77% of total annual production (USDA-NASS 2008b). Othe r than food, feed and industrial use, corn as a

source of fuel ethanol has increased dramatical ly over the past two years and is expected to continue doing so as the U.S. focuses on utilizing renewable sources of energy. By 2010, U.S. ethanol production could displa ce the equivalent of 311,000 barrels of imported crude oil per day.

The U.S. is by far the world’s largest e xporter of corn, accounting for 68% of global exports. Total U.S. agricultural exports in 2006 were valued at $71 billion, 10% of which was attributable to corn (Brooks 2007). Agricultural exports generate employment, income, and purchasing power in both fa rm and nonfarm sectors of the economy.

Production from almost one-third of U.S. cr opland moved into expor t channels in 2005 and generated $166.1 billion in business activity. Tec hnology advances increase agricultural productivity and keep domestic growers co mpetitive in the global market.

8Based on USDA survey data, adoption of geneti cally engineered insect-resistant corn increased from zero percent of the U.S. corn acreage in 1996 to 63 percent in 2009 (USDA-ERS 2009). The rapid comm ercialization of GE insect -resistant corn (IR corn) varieties by corn growers is attributed to benefits offere d by those corn varieties in terms

of reduced conventional insec ticide use, increased profits , and improved grain quality ( Fernandez-Coejo and Caswell 2006 ).

In addition to IR corn cultivation, the U.S. fa rmers also planted herbicide tolerant (HT)

corn varieties since 1996. A few corn cultivar s contain both IR and HT traits. Among GE varieties of corn (IR and HT corn cutliv ars), 68% of all corn planted contained a herbicide tolerant (HT) trait. Herbicides were applied to 97 percent of the corn planted acreage in 2005 (USDA-NASS 2006). Atrazine was applied to 66% of acres, glyphosate was applied to 31% of planted acres, S -metolachlor and acetochlor were each applied to 23% of planted corn acres (USDA-NASS 2006). The insect resistant MIR162 corn is not expected to alter corn weed control practices, as the main introduced trait in MIR162 is expcted to provide resistance to certain group of insect pests. Therefore, except for change in the insect resistance management , all other agricultural practices of the MIR162 corn, including corn w eed control practices, are not expected to be different

from that of conventio nal corn cultivation

According to USDA-ERS (2009) report, 15% (~13 million acres) of the U.S. corn acreage has been planted with the non-GE corn varieties in the year 2009. Likewise, according to USDA-ERS latest data on or ganic corn production, in 2005 less than 1 percent (0.16%) of corn cropped ar ea was devoted to organic corn (http://www.ers.usda.gov/data /organic/Data/Certified%20a nd%20total%20US%20acreag e%20selected%20crops%20livestock%2095-05. xls). Under the USDA National Organic Program guideline, the use of synthetic pesticid es, fertilizers, and genetically engineered crops is strictly limited. The MIR162 corn is not approved for use in organic systems because it is genetically engineered. Mainta ining the integrity of the organic production process is important to producers of orga nic corn. There are many practices organic producers use to prevent moveme nt of GE corn or the polle n from GE corn into their organic production fields. Growers may use plant only organic seed, reducing the potential of GE corn seeds enter their fields . Organic farmers may plant earlier or later than neighboring farmers who may be using GE crops, ensuring that the flowering times between GE and organically produced crops wi ll differ, thus minimizing the change of pollen movement between fields. Organic producers may also employ adequate isolation distances between the organic field and the fields of nei ghbors to minimize the chance that pollen will be carried between the fields. Organic growers must also maintain records to show that production and handling proce dures comply with USDA organic standards (7 CFR part 205).



### C. Corn Lepidopteran Pests

Corn crop is susceptible to at tack by a variety of insects th roughout its life cycle (see pg. 12 in petition). The most widespread and dama ging insects of corn in the U.S. Corn Belt are the European corn borer and corn rootwo rms. Although a few insect control practices

9(chemical and microbial insec ticides, crop rotation etc.) have been available for corn insect pests, the stalk boring insects such as the European corn borer were difficult to control and very few growers used chemical c ontrol against such insect pests. However, conventional insecticide and crop rotation pr oved effective in controlling the damage caused by corn rootworms. Prior to the introduction of rootworm-protected Bt varieties in 2003, an estimated 14 million acres were treate d annually with conventional insecticides to control corn rootworms (Ward et al. 2005), which accounted for the largest single use

of insecticides in the U.S. The conventional insecticide trea tment is less effective for the above-ground corn insect pests, as pests are shielded from aerial chemical applications.

In addition to direct damage caused by feedi ng on plant tissue, the co rn insect pests are known to play an important role in the transmission and dissemination of pathogenic organisms during corn development (Dowd 1998). For example, it has been shown that insect feeding damage enhances mycotoxin contamination of corn crop (Williams et al. 2002) that have toxic and carcinogenic effect s in humans and animals (see Wu 2006 for details). The introduction of Bt corn vari eties has shown to have provided growers solutions to some of the above-mentioned pest problem by limiting damage caused by certain lepidopteran insect pests (Hurle y et al. 2006) and f ungal disease (Wu 2006) without posing any significant risk to the envi ronment or to human health (Mendelsohn et al. 2003).



## V. Alternatives

This EA analyzes the poten tial environmental consequen ces of a proposal to grant nonregulated status to the MI R162 corn. In order for the corn under consideration to be granted nonregulated status, APHIS must dete rmine that the corn is unlikely to pose a plant pest risk. The analysis by APHIS in its plant pest risk assessment (USDA-APHIS, 2009) demonstrates that there we re sufficient data to determine that the MIR162 corn is unlikely to pose a plant pest risk and theref ore is eligible for nonregulated status.

The regulations at 7 CFR part 340.6(d)(3)(i) state that APHIS may "approve the petition in whole or in part." Because APHIS has f ound that the MIR162 corn is unlikely to pose a plant pest risk, the only action alternative considered in this EA is to grant nonregulated

status “in whole” to the corn line under c onsideration. An “in part” deregulation can be given if there is a plant pest risk associated with some, but not all lines requested in a petition. The petition for the MIR162 corn onl y requested APHIS to grant nonregulated status to a single corn event, therefore, an “in part” determination is not an appropriate consideration. Under another “in part” de termination option, the petition may be considered with geographic restrictions if th ere is a geographic variation in plant pest risk. There are no geographic differences in plant pest risks for the MIR162 corn (USDAAPHIS, 2009). Thus, only two alternatives will be considered in this EA: (1) no action, or (2) to grant nonregulated status to MIR162 corn “in whole.”

10

### A. No Action: Continuation as a Regulated Article

Under the “no action” alternative, APHIS would come to a determination that the MIR162 corn and its progeny should conti nue to be regulated under 7 CFR part 340. Permits issued or acknowledgm ent of notifications from AP HIS would still be required for their introduction. APHIS might choose this alternative if ther e were insufficient evidence to demonstrate the lack of plant pest risk from the unconfined cultivation of the MIR162 corn and its progeny. Under this no ac tion alternative, grow ers and other parties who are involved in production, handling, pr ocessing or consumption of corn would continue to have access to existing deregulat ed GE insect resistant corn as well as conventional corn varieties. However, grower s would not have widespread access to the

MIR162 corn since it would continue to be regulated under part 340. This alternative is not the preferred alternative b ecause APHIS’ evaluation of MIR162 data in the plant pest risk assessment (USDA-APHIS, 2009) and th is EA show that the MIR162 corn is unlikely to pose a plant pest risk. Choosing this alternative woul d hinder the purpose and need of APHIS to allow for the safe developm ent and use of GE organisms given that the MIR162 corn is unlikely to pose a plant pest risk.



### B. Preferred Alternative: Determina tion that Syngenta MIR162 Corn is No Longer a Regulated Article

Under this alternativ e, the MIR162 corn and its proge ny would no longer be considered regulated articles under 7 CFR part 340. Perm its or notifications to APHIS would no longer be required for introducti ons in the United States and its territories of the MIR162 corn or its progeny. A basis for this determ ination would be a finding that MIR162 is unlikely to pose a greater plant pest risk th an the unmodified organism from which it was

derived based on information submitted in the petition as stipulated in 7 CFR § 340.6(c)

and other information that the Administrator be lieves to be relevant to a determination. If Syngenta received regulatory approval from all appropriate agencies, it will make the MIR162 corn available to growers and breed ers. The MIR162 corn will likely be

introduced in areas where corn is currentl y grown, therefore MIR162 introduction is not expected to significantly alter the rang e of corn cultivation. APHIS has chosen Alternative B as the preferre d alternative. This is base d on the lack of plant pest

characteristics in MIR162 corn as documented in the petition and as analyzed in APHIS’ plant pest risk assessment (USDA-APHIS 2009) and this EA. APHIS has assessed the potential for environmental impacts fo r each alternative in the “Potential Environmental Consequences” sections below.



## VI. Potential Environm ental Consequences

According to APHIS regulations at 7 CFR pa rt 340, an organism is no longer subject to regulatory requirements when it is demonstrated not to present a plant pest risk. Under the regulations, APHIS is required to render a determination on a petition for nonregulated status. This analys is of potential environmenta l consequences addresses the

11potential impact to the human environment fr om the alternatives analyzed in this EA, namely taking no action and from unconfined cultivation of the MIR162 corn.



### A. No Action

Under the Federal “no action” alternative, MIR162 corn hybrids woul d continue to be a regulated article and so grow ers would not be able to pl ant these hybrids, which have been developed with added insect-resistance benefit that are not presented in products available in the market today.

A-1. Corn

Under the ‘no action’ alternative, conventi onal and GE transgenic corn hybrids crop husbandry will remain unchanged, while MIR1 62 corn hybrids will remain a regulated

article.

A-2. Agricultural Production of Corn

Most of the corn acreage in the U.S. is planted to GE corn hybrids. Of the total corn acres planted in 2008, 85% were GE corn hybrids that were either herbicide tolerant, insect resistant, or both (USDA-ERS 2009) . Conventional production practices that use

GE varieties will still dominate in terms of acreage, or perhaps increase in acreage, without granting nonregulated status to the MIR162 corn under the “no action” alternative. Currently availa ble seed for conventional vari eties will remain the same under the “no action” alternative, except that the MIR162 corn hybrids will not beavailable for the commercial use. Corn is currently produced in all 50 states (USDANASS 2008), and under the “no action” altern ative, this range of production will be unchanged.

Yield losses due to weeds diseases were substantial until the introduction of crop protection chemicals in the 1960s. Weeds compet e with crops for light, nutrients, water, and other growth factors. The large-scale co mmercial cultivation of herbicide tolerant (glyphosate tolerant) corn crop acreage has steadily increased from 1996 accounting for nearly 68 percent of corn acreage in 2 009 (USAD-ERS 2009). Glyphosate is a highly effective, nonselective, broad-spectrum herbicide and in general, considered “environmentally friendly” when compared to other herbicides. There would not be any affect on the availability or use of herb icide-tolerant corn under the ‘no action’ alternative. In addition, a corn crop is suscep tible to attack by a variety of insects from the time it is planted until it is consumed as food or feed. Under no action alternative, the weed and insect management will remain same.

A-3. Corn Lepidopteran Pests

Corn is susceptible to a vari ety of insect pest damage throughout its developmental cycle. The corn insect pests are categorized as majo r and consistent pests, major and sporadic pests, and moderate to minor pests based on annual destructiveness and their geographic

12distribution (pg. 12 in petition) . Yield losses due to insect pests are unpredictable and challenging for conventional corn farmers and in sect pest problems have the potential to drastically reduce crop yield and quality. Crop losses attributable to the European corn

borer and corn rootworm infe stations have been well char acterized and are significant. The introduction of transgenic cultivars wh ich encode proteins (Cry proteins from B. thuringiensis ) that are toxic to these species have provided U.S. corn growers with a powerful tool for effectively protecting crop yi elds and environmental benefits (Marvier et al. 2007). Therefore, it is reasonable to e xpect additional benefits to corn growers on wide range of insect pest pr otection when Cry and Vip protei ns are combined in a single

corn cultivar. Under this “no action” alternative, insecticid es will still be used against those lepidopteran insect pest s that would otherwise be c ontrolled by the MIR162 insect resistance trait, based on the need and effec tiveness on different insect species in the corn

field.

The large-scale commercial cultivation of both insect resistant (Bt resistant) and herbicide tolerant (glyphosate tolerant) co rn crop acreage has steadily increased from 1996, accounting for 85 % of corn acreage in 2009 (USAD-ERS 2009). The primary

reason that farmers have switched to GE corn hybrids is because they protect the inherent yield potential of corn crops by reducing grow ers input costs. Furthermore, the planting of insect-protected corn hybrids benef ited the environment by decreasing the conventional pesticide applications by mo re than 20 million pounds annually (Figure 8 in Fernandez-Cornejo and Caswell 2006; Benbrook 2004 ). There would not be any affect on the availability or use of Bt -resistant corn under the ‘no ac tion’ alternative. These GE varieties will remain non-regulated GE corn varieties.



### B. Preferred Alternative

Under this alternativ e, the MIR162 corn would no longe r be a regulated article under 7 CFR part 340. Permits issued and/or notif ications acknowledged by APHIS would no longer be required for introducti ons of the MIR162 corn. APHIS has chosen the preferred alternative for the proposed action becau se the MIR162 corn lacks plant pest characteristics, as determined in APHIS’ Plant Pest Risk Assessment (USDA-APHIS 2009) and this EA. APHIS’ assessment of environmental consequences under the preferred alternative is described below.

B-1. Corn

Under this alternativ e, the MIR162 corn would be av ailable to growers. A potential environmental impact to be considered as a result of planting this corn hybrid, as with any other commercially-available corn hybrid, is the potential impacts arising from gene introgression of the MIR162 corn with other sexually co mpatible related species. APHIS evaluated the potential for gene introgression to occur from the MIR162 corn to sexually compatible wild relatives and considered whether such introgression would result in

increased weediness in wild relatives considering various morphological and/or agronomic traits, such as seed dormancy, vegetative and reproductive traits, volunteering potential, disease and pest su sceptibility, and the fitness a dvantage of Vip3Aa20 gene of

13MIR162 corn. Based on the scientif ic analysis of weediness da ta in the plant pest risk assessment APHIS has determined that the MIR162 corn is no more likely to become a weed than other cultivated corn varieties; it is not a plant pest; and gene flow between the MIR162 corn and weedy and wild relatives is not going to occur in the United States (USDA-APHIS 2009). Based on the above cons iderations, APHIS decision to grant nonregulated status to the MIR162 corn w ill not adversely impact sexually compatible wild relatives or their weediness potential.

The food/feed nutritional and safety assessmen t for the MIR162 corn has been reviewed by the FDA. Under Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), it is the responsibility of food an d feed manufacturers to ensure th at the products they market are safe and properly labeled. Food and feed de rived from the MIR162 corn must be in compliance with all applicable legal and re gulatory requirements. FDA completed their consultation on MIR162 on December 9, 2008 a nd concluded that it had “no further questions concerning grain a nd forage derived from corn event MIR162” (FDA BNF No. 000113). APHIS’ assessment of the safety of this product focuses on its potential to pose a plant pest risk, and that an alysis is based on the comparison of the GE corn to its nonGE counterpart (USDA-APHIS 2009).

B-2. Agricultural Production of Corn

In 2009, GE insect-resistant corn occupied 63 percent of the corn acreage (USDA-ERS 2009). Conventional and GE corn production occu rs on land that is dedicated to crop production. Most corn is planted in fields th at have been in crop production for years. Syngenta field tested the MIR162 corn since 1999 across 20 representa tive corn growing areas (pg. 127 in petition). However, the ma jority of agronomic data were collected during the 2005 and 2006 growing seasons across 6-10 locations representative of the major corn-growing areas of the upper mid-west U.S. For the majority of the traits assessed (Tables 22 & 23, pg. 65-66 in petition) , there were no statistically significant differences between MIR162-derived hybrid s and their control counterparts.

APHIS assessed whether the MIR162 corn is an y more likely to become a weed than the isogenic nontransgenic corn lin e, or other corn varietie s currently under cultivation (USDA-APHIS 2009). The assessment encompa sses a thorough consideration of the basic biology of corn and an evaluation of the unique characteristics of the MIR162 corn evaluated under field conditions (USDA- APHIS 2009). Based on the agronomic field data and literature survey about corn weediness potential, the MIR162 corn lacks ability to persist as troublesome weed. If MIR162 corn is granted non regulated status, there also would be no direct impact on corn weed management practices.

B-3. Potential Impacts of Line MIR1 62 Corn on Insect Control Practices

Insect control options available to corn growers include conventional insecticide applications, microbial insecticide applicati ons, crop rotation, and planting of insect resistant cultivars. Before the introduction of GE corn varieties, the corn growers had difficulty controlling European corn borer, one of the mo st widespread and damaging

14insect of corn in the U.S. Corn Belt. The in troduction of the first Bt corn hybrids in 1996 provided growers with an effective means of limiting damage caused by European corn borer. Bt corn use grew from about zero per cent of corn acreage in 1996 to 85 percent in 2008 (USDA-ERS 2009). These hybrids express either a cry1Ab or cry1F gene from B. thuringiensis , both of which encode proteins that are highly toxic to European corn borer.

Controlling above-ground insects presents a challenge for corn growers, as many pests are shielded from aerial chemical applications . As a consequence, the majority of corn

fields are not treated for c ontrol of leaf-, stalk-, and ear-feeding insects. The MIR162 corn has the potential to cont rol certain above -ground insect pests that are not controlled by the Bt corn varieties expressing Cry pr oteins. Data obtained from the 2005 and 2006 Doane Marketing Research AgroTrak studies (Doane Marketing Research 2006) indicate that growers are currently treating approximately three million acres a year with conventional insecticides for control of corn earworm, black cutworm, western bean cutworm, and fall armyworm with an estimat ed grower cost of 20 to 23 million dollars (Table 32, pg. 94 in petition). Compared to the total number of corn acres planted annually in the U.S., this represents a rela tively small use of c onventional pesticides; however, three million acres treated represents a significant use compared to chemical usage in other crops (Gianessi and Reigner 2006).

In addition to direct damage caused by feedi ng on plant tissue, insect s play an important

role in the transmission and disseminati on of pathogenic organisms during corn development. Feeding by Diabrotica rootworms has been associated with increased frequencies of Fusarium fungal infection (Dicke a nd Guthrie 1988), and rootworm feeding may also lead to increased incidences of stalk rots. Ear, kern el, and cob rots occur wherever corn is grown and result in re duced test weight, poor grain quality, and mycotoxin contamination of food and feed. Fusarium kernel or ear rot is the most widespread disease of corn ears and is freque ntly associated with insect feeding damage. Mycotoxin contamination of corn grain presents a potential th reat to livestock health and it is occasionally necessary to reject or refo rmulate feed lots because of contamination. These pathogenic infections can lead to reduc ed crop quality, ability to harvest, and yield.

Growers only have a very narrow time window during which insecticides can be applied because many of the above-ground feeding inse cts are shielded from contact with the insecticides by virtue of th eir feeding location on the plan t. The MIR162 corn provides excellent protection against feeding damage caused by corn earworm, black cutworm, western bean cutworm, and fall armyworm. For this reason, the MIR162 corn introduction will have a positive impact on curre nt corn insect control practices. This product has the potential to displace many conve ntional insecticide a pplications on corn (see pg. 92-96 in petition).

B-4. Organic and Other Non-transgenic Corn Production

The National Organic Program (NOP) is administered by USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS). Organic production op erations must develop and maintain an organic production system plan approved by an accredited certifying agent in order to

15obtain certification. Organic certification of a production or handling operation is a process claim, not a product claim. Organi c certification involves oversight by an accredited certifying agent of the materials a nd practices used to produce or handle an organic agricultural product. Oversight by a certifying agent includes an annual review of the certified operation’s organi c system plan and on-site inspections of the certified operation and its records.

The organic system plan enables the produc tion operation to achieve and document compliance with the National Organic Standards, including the prohibition on the use of

excluded methods. Excluded methods include a variety of methods us ed to genetically modify organisms or influence their grow th and development by means that are not possible under natural conditions or processes. 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, unless a cer tifying agent has reasonable suspicion that a prohibited substance or excluded method was used. The presence of a detectable residue of a product of excluded methods alone does not necessarily constitute a violation of the National Organic Standards.

It is not likely that organic farmers, or other farmers who choose not to plant transgenic varieties or sell transgenic grain, will be significantly impacted by the expected commercial use of this product since nontransgeni c corn will likely still be sold and will be readily available to those who wish to plant. Despite the intr oduction and adoption of transgenic corn cultivars over the past decad e, including multiple varieties of Bt corn, specialty and organic corn rema ins readily available. In 2006 , there were at least 18 seed companies in the U.S. specializing in or ganic corn seed (see pg. 110-111 in petition).

Organic and other farmers have expressed concern that the widespread planting of Bt corn plants will hasten the development of pest resistance to pesticidal Bt endotoxins. Farmers purchasing seed will know this product is tr ansgenic because it will be marketed as Vip3aA20 lepidopteran resistan t; and based on the EPA insect resistance management (IRM) 1 policy (BPPD-EPA 2001), farmers w ill be educated by the Syngenta’s stewardship plan about recommended manage ment practices on MIR162 corn cultivation. Transgenic corn lines resistan t to lepidopteran insects, an d/or tolerant to specific herbicides are already in wide spread use by farmers. This particular product should not present new and different issues than existi ng insect resistant Bt corn cultivars with respect to impacts on organic farmers.

APHIS has considered that corn is open-pollin ating and it is possible that the engineered genes could move via wind-blown pollen to an adjacent field . All corn, whether genetically engineered or not, can transmit po llen to nearby fields, and a very small influx of pollen originating from a given corn variety does not appreciably change the characteristics of corn in adjacent fields. As described previously in this assessment,

1 Insect resistance management (IRM) is the term used to describe practices aimed at reducing the potential for insect pests to become resistant to a pesticide. Sp ecific IRM strategies, such as the high dose/structured refuge strategy, developed by EPA are expected to mitigate insect resistance to specific Bt proteins produced in corn

16the rate of cross-pollination from one field to an other is expected to be quite low, even if flowering times coincide. The frequency of such an occurrence decreases with increasing distance from the pollen source such that it sufficiently low at 660 feet away to be considered adequate for producti on of certified corn seeds.

Methods of spatial and temporal isolation are widely used when seed producers are seeking to minimize the influx of pollen from sources outside the seed production field. These methods are readily applicable for the production of certified organic corn seed. Data provided in the petition from agronomic trials conducted in 2005 and 2006 in a variety of locations in the U.S. demonstrated that the MIR162 corn is not significantly different in yield from its nontransgenic counterpart (P etition Tables 22 and 23, pg. 65- 66), and the MIR162 corn hybrids were not signi ficantly different from control lines in terms of pollen viability, morphology, and di ameter (Table 24, pg. 67 in petition). Therefore, MIR162 corn hybrids are not expectedto have an increased ability to crosspollinate other corn varieties.

If APHIS chooses the no action alternative th ere would be no direct impact on organic or other non-transgenic corn farmers. The cu rrent cultivation practices are unlikely to change and 85% of the corn produced would likely continue to be planted with the current biotech corn hybrids. If the MIR162 co rn is granted nonregulated status, there also would be no direct impact on organic or other non-transgenic corn farmers as the market share of transgenic corn is unlik ely to change by the introduction of MIR162

corn.

B-5. Potential Impact on Non-target Organi sms, Including Beneficial Organisms and Threatened or Endangered Species

APHIS evaluated the potential for the MIR162 corn plants a nd their products to have damaging or toxic effects dire ctly or indirectly on non-ta rget organisms (USDA-APHIS 2009). Non-target organisms considered were those representative of the agricultural environment, including those that are recognized as beneficial to agriculture (Table 31, pg. 89 in petition) or as threatened or enda ngered in the U.S. APHIS also considered potential impacts on other "non-ta rget" pests, since such impacts could potentially change agricultural practices. The tech nical details of the experi ment on non-target organisms

have been described in the Plant Pest Ri sk Assessment of MIR162 corn (USDA-APHIS 2009; see also pg. 85-88 in petition for details).

Different types (variants) of Vip proteins occur in nature , and three variants of Vip protein (Vip3Aa1, Vip3Aa19, Vip3Aa20) are used for the nontarget impact investigations. The three protein variants (Vip3Aa1, Vip3Aa19, Vi p3Aa20) differ from each other by 1-2 amino acids (Table 12, pg. 48 in petition), and a ll three are found be biochemically and functionally equivalent (see Table 13 and explanation thereof on pg. 50 in petition). The Vip3Aa19 variant is pres ent in Syngenta’s deregulated cotton event COT102. Likewise, the Vip3Aa19 variant was also present in corn cultivar Pacha maize. Syngenta discontinued Pacha maize due to ag ronomic performance reasons and replaced its commercial development by MIR162 mai ze. Therefore each one of the nontarget

17exposure investigation, detailed in the followi ng paragraphs, was carri ed out using one of the three Vip variant proteins (Table 30, pg. 84 in petition)

Potential impacts of Vip3Aa on higher animals . In the bird (bobwhite quail, Colinus
virginianus ), mammal (mouse, Mus musculus ), and honey bee ( Apis mellifera ) study conducted by Syngenta, there were no obser vable adverse effects or differences in survival noted at doses of Vip3A proteins that were well above those expected from exposure to the Vip3Aa20 protein from the MI R162 corn planted in the field (Table 31, pg. 89 of petition ).

Potential impacts of Vip3Aa on above-ground arthropods . Adult pink spotted ladybird

beetle (Coleomegilla maculata), seven-spot ladybird beetle ( Coccinella septempunctata), second-instar minute pirate bug ( Orius insidiosus ), adult green lacewings ( Chrysoperla carnea) , two- to three-day old C. carnea larvae were exposed to Vip3Aa19 protein. The

difference in survival of the beetles in the treatment and control groups was not statistically significant (see pg. 86 in petition).

Potential impacts on threatened and endangered arthropods . Given the narrow specificity of the Vip3Aa20 activity, species outside the insect or der Lepidoptera are not expected to be affected by Vip3Aa20 protein toxicity. Its receptor-mediated mechanism of action and absence of activity in bioassays with multiple species outside of the order Lepidoptera, as discussed in preceeding paragraphs , support this conclusion. Furthermore, Syngenta observed no harmful effects of Vip3Aa proteins in nontarget organism hazard identification studies that us ed a wide range of ta xa and at expected

environmental concentrations and the test results indicated a la ck of risk associated with exposure to Vip3Aa20 in the MIR162 corn (Table 31, pg. 89-90 in petition).

APHIS coordinates review of petitions with other agencies that have regulatory oversight on these same products. With respect to thre atened and endangered species, EPA also plays a role in the evalua tion. The Endangered Species Protection Program (ESPP) of EPA places geographically specific use limita tions on pesticides in order to protect endangered and threatened species from pes ticides (EPA 2009). The Vip3Aa20 protein is selectively toxic to a few species of insect pests belonging to the order Lepidoptera. The only endangered or threatened lepidopteran species with potential for exposure to insecticidal proteins in corn is the Karner blue butterfly ( Lycaeides melissa samuelis ) (EPA 2001; USFWS 2007). The Karner blue requires wild lupine (Lupinus perennis) as an oviposition substrate and larval food source, while the adults feed on wild flowers. The potential route of exposure is consump tion of maize pollen that has settled on the leaves of its food plant, the wild lupine ( Lupinus perennis ). Karner blue is known to exist along the northern extent of th e range of wild lupine, where there are prolonged periods of winter snowpack, in parts of Wiscons in, Michigan, Minnesota, Indiana, New Hampshire, New York, and Illinois (Haack 1993). Although there are two counties in

Wisconsin that have been identified as ha ving a potential overla p between corn pollen shed and the presence of Karner blue larvae (Peterson et al. 2006 ), there is no evidence of Karner blue exposure to co rn pollen in these locations. According to Peterson et al. (2006) the exposure of the Karner blue to ma ize pollen was minimal in all other locations

18because most lupine populations are separa ted from maize fields by at least 500 metres, and because maize anthesis usually occurs af ter the Karner blue has finished feeding. Although not an endangered or threatened species, Danaus plexippus (monarch butterfly) is a species of high conservation interest, and there has be en concern that it may be harmed by consuming pollen from transgenic insect-protected corn. However, the restriction of toxicity of Vip3Aa20 to Lepidoptera, and the minimal exposure of endangered Lepidoptera to corn, indicates th at Vip3Aa20 in the MIR162 corn is not expected to have any harmful effects on any e ndangered or threatened species in the U.S.

APHIS has reviewed the data in accordance w ith a process mutually agreed upon with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to determine when a cons ultation, as required under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, is needed. APHIS reached a

determination that the unconfined release following a determination of nonregulated status would have no effect on, or not lik ely to adversely affe ct, federally listed threatened and endangered species and species proposed for listing, or designed critical habitat or habitat proposed for designation (USD A-APHIS 2009).

Environmental fate in soil and effects on soil dwelling organisms

. The purpose of the soil fate study was to test the inhe rent degradability of Vip3Aa20 in a soil typical of corngrowing areas with healthy micr obial activity. Most proteins do not persist or accumulate in soil because they are inherently degradab le in soils (Burns 1982; Marx et al. 2005). Multiple investigations have demonstrated that Bt Cry proteins are rapidly degraded in a variety of soil types and that the proteins do not accumulate (EPA 2001; Head et al. 2002; Dubelman et al. 2005). Vip proteins are sim ilar to Cry proteins in that they are also found in naturally occurring soil bacteria and commercial microbial insecticides (de Maagd et al. 2001). There is no evidence that they accumulate in soil or are protected from the activity of proteases in soil.

Syngenta provided data on the effects of Vip3A a protein on a set of representative soildwelling nontarget orga nisms (earthworms, Eisenia foetida ; collembolan, Folsomia

candida ; rove beetles, Aleochara bilineata ) (see p. 32 in petition), as residual corn plant material is oftentimes incorporated into the soil after harves t. Syngenta conducted a laboratory study to determine the degradab ility of Vip3Aa19 (V ip3Aa19 and Vip3Aa20 are functionally equivalent, see earlier text) protein in five soils (clay, sandy clay, loam, sandy loam, silt loam). A rapid decline in the levels of Vip3Aa19 was observed in all soil types, wherein degradation was measured as loss of insecticidal activity. The time to 50% dissipation (DT 50 ) was estimated to be between 6.0 and 12.6 days across soil types and

test concentrations. The resu lts of this study showed that Vip3Aa protein is rapidly degradable in normal soils. Thus, the Syngent a’s soil study data indica te that that there will not be a significant environmental impact on the soil environment by granting nonregulated status in whole to MIR162 due to limited persistence of Vip3Aa20 in the soil. Thus, the inclusion of the MIR162 corn in to corn hybrids and their use in agriculture is not expected to have an adverse effect on soil or water quality, wate r use, or air quality, and is expected to continue to provide improvements in water quality due the potential

for continued reduction in use of more hazar dous chemical pesticides, many of which are toxic to aquatic organisms. It should also reduce human and environmental exposure to more toxic insecticides that can be used to control target pests.

19Based on the analysis of field and laborator y data provided by Syngenta, scientific literature (Appendix I), and safe ty data available on earlier insect-resistant GE corn hybrids, APHIS has concluded that the propos ed action to deregulate the MIR162 corn would have no significant impacts on human or animal health.

B-6. Cumulative Effects

APHIS considered whether the proposed act ion could lead to significant cumulative impacts, when considered in light of othe r past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of what agen cy or person initiated such actions. APHIS has evaluated the potential cumulative impacts of granting nonregulated status to the MIR162 corn. Both petitioner’s data a nd the USDA-APHIS revi ew do not indicate any cumulative impact on the environment as a result of the MIR 162 corn deregulation as discussed in the following paragraphs (see pg. 104-108 in petition for details).

As indicated earlier, GE insect resistant co rn acreage has been steadily increasing for the last 13 years, (0 to 63%) (USDA-ERS 2009). Th e MIR162 is not the first Bt corn product to be granted nonregulated status. APHIS has previously made determinations of nonregulated status for several other Bt corn cultivars (petition numbers: 94-319-01p at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/br s/aphisdocs2/94_31901p_com.pdf ; 95-093-01p at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/br s/aphisdocs2/95_09301p_com.pdf ; 95-195-01p at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/br s/aphisdocs2/95_19501p_com.pdf ; 96-291-01p at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/br s/aphisdocs2/96_29101p_com.pdf ; 97-013-01p at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/br s/aphisdocs2/97_01301p_com.pdf ; 97-265-01p at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/br s/aphisdocs2/97_26501p_com.pdf ; 00-136-01p at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/br s/aphisdocs2/00_13601p_com.pd ; 01-137-01p at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/br s/aphisdocs2/01_13701p_com.pdf ; 03-181-01p at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/br s/aphisdocs2/03_18101p_com.pdf ; 04-125-01p at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/br s/aphisdocs2/04_12501p_com.pdf ; 04-362-01p at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/br s/aphisdocs2/04_36201p_com.pdf ; 06-298-01p at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/br s/aphisdocs2/06_29801p_com.pdf ;

According to Syngenta, the combined-tra it Bt11xMIR162 hybrids are very efficacious against five major insect pests (European corn borer, corn earworm, fall armyworm, black cutworm, western bean cutworm) and such hybrids have the potential to provide growers the means of protecti ng their corn crops from dama ge caused by a broader range of lepidopteran pests (USDA-APHIS 2009).

Genetic purity of corn germplasm . The deregulation of MIR162 is unlikely to affect the genetic purity and diversity of non-GE corn cultivars and germplasm. The genetic purity and diversity has been a feature of corn improvement cultivation for decades as part of hybrid seed and specialty corn production, and multiple Bt corn events have not significantly affected these processes, even considering the effects of these transgenic events cumulatively. Many methods are used effectively to produce quality hybrid seed, including the following: maintaining isolati on distances to prevent pollen movement from

20other corn, planting border or barrier rows to intercept pollen, empl oying natural barriers to pollen movement such as treelines, ma nual or mechanical detasseling, genetic male sterility, and staggered planting dates. In gene ral, all the management practices used in conventional seed production to ensure qual ity standards are also employed in, and are sufficient to meet standards for the producti on of specialty corn seed. Prior to the introduction of transgenic corn products, th e corn industry developed effective methods and means to maintain product segmentation an d genetic purity standards. As a result, these widespread practices have served to en sure that the broad adoption of transgenic corn in the U.S. (including the sale and cu ltivation of multiple Bt corn varieties over more than a decade) has had no significant impact, even in the aggregate, on the production of corn seed and specialty co rn products. APHIS does not foresee a cumulative impact on the genetic purity and diversity of non-GE corn cultivars and germplasm from granting nonregulated status in whole to MIR162 corn (see pg. 105 in petition).

Genetic diversity of corn . Genetically distinct corn hybrid s have always been developed for various geographies and purposes, and ar e continually improved by plant breeding. In addition, the adoption of genetically engineer ed corn was preceded by worldwide efforts to identify and preserve sources of corn ge netic diversity, and to make these resources available for utilization by public and privat e corn breeders. Among these efforts are the Germplasm Enhancement of Maize program (“ GEM”), a cooperative effort undertaken by USDA, public and private plant sector breeders, NGOs (Non Governmental Organizations) and internationa l public cooperators, which was established to further identify corn genetic diversity and to provide it in useful form in order to broaden the genetic base of this crop. Thus, APHIS’ obs ervation of numerous ot her transgenic corn products indicates that the gene tic diversity of corn has been maintained in coexistence

with these events. APHIS does not foresee significant cumulative impacts on the genetic diversity or on the availabili ty of diverse corn germplas m resources because of the adoption of multiple varieties of transgenic corn.

Multiple Bt corn events and insect resist ance developing in the field. As MIR162 corn provides no protection against f eeding damage caused by Eur opean corn borer, therefore Syngenta intends to commercialize the MIR162 corn as a combined -trait hybrid with Syngenta’s Bt11 (contains Cry1A b Bt protein to control European corn borer damage) corn event to control a variety of lepidopteran insect pests, such as European corn borer, corn earworm, black cutworm, western bean cutworm, and fall armyworm. Syngenta has submitted an Insect Resistant Management (IRM) plan for Bt11xMIR162 corn that requires growers to plant a 20% structured refuge (see BBPD-EPA 2001 for details) that can be planted as strips within or surroundi ng the Bt corn field or as a block within, adjacent to, or up to 0.5 mile away. The proposed refuge requirements are the same in the Corn Belt and cotton growing areas (see BBPD- EPA 2001 for details).and, so far, those refuge strategies either delayed or preven ted the development of certain lepidopteran insect pest developing resistan ce to Bt (Bates et al. 2005).

According to Syngenta, the combined-tra it hybrid, such as Bt11xMIR162, has a unique benefit. In this case, the combined-trait co ntaining Cry1Ab and Vi p3Aa20 proteins have

21been demonstrated to provide high-dose cont rol of European corn borer, corn earworm , and fall armyworm. There have been no documented instances of confirmed insect resistance to Bt corn having developed in the field, and Syngenta is not aware of any studies showing insect resistance to Bt corn products, despit e the introduction of multiple previous cultivars ove r the past decade.

Potential impacts on threatened and endangered species . The restriction of toxicity of Vip3Aa20 to Lepidoptera, and the minimal e xposure of engendered Lepidoptera to corn, indicates that planting of the MIR162 corn is expected to have no harmful effects on any endangered or threatened species in the U.S.

Potential impacts on biodiversity. The im portance of corn as a food crop, and its dependence on human management, has produced a long history of great care to protect germplasm lines of corn. Decades prior to the introduction of transgenic corn products, the corn industry develope d effective methods and m eans to maintain product segmentation and genetic purity standards. Specialty corns, for example, were successfully isolated for years a nd continue to be grown today, even with transgenic corn widely adopted in the U.S. Moreover, with respect to both conventional and transgenic corn, the ability to protect and maintain the ge netic purity of breeding lines is critical to seed companies and developers of new vari eties such as MIR162. Consequently, seed companies routinely apply standard br eeding techniques – in cluding physical and temporal isolation – that ha ve proven effective at mainta ining the genetic purity of breeding lines. Genetically engineered corn lines with Bt traits (both Cry and Vip proteins) have been available on the marketsince 1994 and the body of evidence in peerreviewed literature does not suggest any negative effect on biodiversity. The APHIS review and analysis of Syngenta’s data (USDA-APHIS 2009) indicate that the line

MIR162 corn exhibits no traits that would cau se increased weediness, that its unconfined

cultivation should not lead to increased w eediness of other cultivated corn or other sexually compatible relatives, and that it is unlikely to harm non-target organisms common to the agricultural ecosystem or thre atened or endangered species recognized by

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Based on this information, APHIS has determin ed that there are no past, present, or reasonably foreseeable actions th at would aggregate with effect s of the proposed action to create cumulative impacts or reduce the long-t erm productivity or sustai nability of any of the resources associated with the ecosyste m in which the MIR162 corn is planted.

B-7. Socioeconomic Analysis

The main body of information on socioeconom ic analysis described in the following paragraphs comes from Syngenta’s soci oeconomic analysis (see pg. 108-112 and Appendix 1 in petition); the Environmenta l Protection Agency’s (EPA) Biopesticide Registration Action Document , Vip3Aa20 corn (BPPD 2009: http://www.epa.gov/oppbppd1/bi opesticides/ingredients/ tech_docs/brad_006599.pdf); USDA-Economic Research Service’ (USD A-ERS) report, “The First Decade of Genetically Engineered Crops in the Unite d States” (Fernandez-Cornejo and Caswell

222006); and BioTech InfoNet Technical Paper, “G enetically Engineered Crops and Pesticide Use in the United States” (Benbrook 2004). The APHIS/BRS assessment on the petitioner’s socioeconomic anal ysis is restricted to the MIR162 corn and its stacked hybrids with other Bt traits (Bt11xMIR162, Bt11xMIR162xMIR604).

The increased adoption of Bt corn cultivars since its introduction in the mid 1990s (USDA-ERS 2009) could imply that insect resi stance varieties provide benefits to corn farmers. This is more so since the early 2000’s when the Bt corn varieties that are effective against European co rn borer were complemented with a second generation Bt corn cultivar that provide protection agai nst corn root worm. According to USDA’s Agricultural and Resource Management Surveys (ARMS) conducted in 2001-03 (see Figure 7 in Fernandez-Cornejo and Caswell 20 06) most of the farmers adopting GE corn, cotton, and soybeans indicated that they di d so mainly to increase yields through improved pest control. Because the MIR162 co rn is effective against two major corn insect pests, corn earworm and western bean cutworm, which are not effectively controlled by earlier Bt corn cultivars, it is reasonable to assume that likewise, potential benefits do exist for farmers adopting the MIR162 corn cultivars. Although it is difficult at this time to accurately pr edict the magnitude of economic benefits of the MIR162 corn hybrids in the marketplace, because such hybrids are not currently in commercial production, the improved pest protection profile of Bt11xMIR162 corn may translate into correspondingly higher overall economic benefi ts to growers, consumers, and other downstream users of corn products.

Syngenta has suggested that their stacke d hybrids Bt11 x MIR162 x MIR604 will provide unsurpassed control of target pests and that the product’s “broad-lepidopteran control, particularly for corn earworm and western b ean cutworm, potentially results in better performance than those of competitors. Ho wever, EPA’s Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division (BPPD) notes that thes e statements are unverified assumptions. Although the data support that the stack containing the Bt 11, MIR162, and MIR604 traits produces reasonably good efficacy against western bean cutworm, the MIR604 trait when

combined with the MIR162 trait showed some evidence of a possible sy nergistic effect in

the control of corn rootworm. BPPD reasons that the sample size used by Syngenta for the investigation is too small to delineate individual Bt trai ts impact in stacked hybrids. According to BPPD, Syngenta’s specific ec onomic benefits are based on best-case assumptions (i.e., quick and broad adopti on of the product in the marketplace). Competition from previously registered Bt corn products (already established in the market) and farmer familiarity with thes e products may reduce the overall adoption, and as such the potential benefits, for MIR162 co rn and its associated products. Despite this shortcoming however, BPPD notes that both the stack and/or pyramid products, and the single-trait product appear to provide good pr otection against European corn borer and corn earworm. For many growers, the poten tial broad lepidopteran control expected by Bt11xMIR162 hybrids may provide added benefits than currently available Bt corn cultivars, as corn growers w ith multiple pest problems are expected to be protected from major corn pests.

23So far, Bt hybrids have mixed responses when it comes to monetary benefits to corn growers. In 2006, USDA-ERS published a report on “The First Decade of Genetically Engineered Crops in the United States” focu sing on GE crops and their adoption in the United States over the past 10 years (F ernandez-Cornejo and Caswell 2006). The economic analysis in that report mainly focused on the field data from 1997 and 1998 (see Table 1). On average, BT technology benefitted corn farmers with 5% higher yields in the United States, and yield effects were larger in years with high pest pressures as noted earlier by other investig ators (Carpenter et al. 2002). Many field tests and farm surveys have also examined the yield and cost effects of using Bt corn crops (Table 1). The majority of the results show Bt corn crops produce higher yields than conventional crops. A more recent ERS study using 2001 survey data found that, on average, actual corn yield was 12.5 bushels per acre higher for Bt corn than for conventional corn, an increase of 9% (Fernand ez-Cornejo and Li 2005).

The economic benefits of growing Bt corn do not appeared to be consistent across growing seasons. There was a negative associ ation between adoption of Bt corn and producer net returns in 1998. According to Fernandez-Cornejo and Caswell (2006) this negative trend suggests that Bt corn may have been used on some acreage where the value of protection against the European corn borer was lower than the premium paid for the Bt seed. Because pest infestations vary from one region to another and from one year to another, the economic benefits of Bt corn are likely to be greates t where pest pressures are most severe (Carpenter et al. 2002; Shelton et al. 2002). Farmers must decide to use Bt corn before they know what the European co rn borer pest pressure will be that year. For that reason management practices ar e tailored accordingly (Mason et al. 1996). Because of this unpredictable variation, many farmers generally ignored European corn borer infestation and accepted the lo sses it caused (Shelton et al. 2002).

According to Gurian-Sherman (2009) there was a 3-4 percent yield advantage for Bt corn varieties in the U.S. for combining the benefits of European corn borer and corn root worm resistance. However, Gurian-Sherman’s analysis also showed that Bt corn yield benefits were not much different from what was achieved through traditional breeding. For example, corn yield has been increasing on average 1 percent per year over the past several decades, and Bt corn crops had the same yearly improvement in the last 14 years since the introduction of first Bt crop in 1996. Several approaches, such as organic cultivation, wheat-corn rotation etc, other than current pesticide regimes and GE have the potential to reduce yield loss from corn borer and rootworm in corn. These approaches are also thought of as having other associated benefits such as lower levels of pesticide use, improved soil, carbon sequestration, and improved water quality (but also see the comments on the report by Sheridan 2009).

Adoption of GE crops is associat ed with reduced pesticide use. Insecticide use on fields planted to Bt corn substantially decreased si nce its introduction in mid 1990s (Figure 1; also see figure 8 in Fernandez-Cornejo a nd Caswell 2006) use rate s (in terms of active ingredient) on corn has declin ed since the introduction of GE corn in1996. More recently, using 2001 data, USDA-ERS found that insectic ide use was 8 percent lower per planted acre for adopters of Bt corn than for nonadopters (Fernandez-Cornejo and Li 2005). The USDA-ERS results generally agree with fiel d-test and other farm surveys that have examined the effects of using GE crops (Table 1).

24Table 1. Summary of primary studies on the eff ects of genetically e ngineered Bt corn on yields, pesticide use, and returns (Modified from Fernandez-Coejo and Caswell 2006).

Reference Data

Source Effects on

(NA = Not analyzed in the study)

Yield Pesticide

Use Returns

Rice and Pilcher, 1998 Survey Increase Decrease Depends on

infestation Marra et al., 1998 Survey Increase Decreas e Increase Benbrook, 2001 Survey Increase NA Decrease McBride & El-Osta, 2002 Survey NA NA Decrease Duffy, 2001 Survey Increase NA Same Pilcher et al., 2002 Survey Increase Decrease NA Baute, Sears, and Schaafsma,

2002 Experiments Increase NA Depends on

infestation Dillehay et al., 2004 Experiments Increase NA NA Fernandez-Cornejo & Li,

2005 Survey Increase Decrease NA

The MIR162 corn and stacked hybrids may fu rther reduce the inse cticide use if the current trend in insecticide usage continues (Figure 8 in Fernandez-Cornejo and Caswell 2006). But according to Benbrook (2004) the insecticide reduction rate appears to have plateaued (Figure 1), and any further reduction in insecticide use from new Bt corn cultivars may be marginal. For example, the am ount of insecticide sa ved per acre of Bt corn in 1996 was 0.16 pounds of active ingredie nt. As more acres of Bt corn were planted, insecticide use was re duced on a smaller share of these Bt acres, leading to a lower average reduction in insecticide use across all acres planted to Bt corn. In recent years, the reduction has b een only 0.02 pounds per acre (see figure 1; Benbrook 2004). Besides the monetary benefits , Fernandez-Cornejo and Casw ell (2006) noted that there are several other beneficial factors, such as ease of operation and time savings, which may have made GE crops attractive to farmers. Despite the mixed results on Bt benefits, from the corn growers’ perspective, as reflec ted in the increased rate of adoption of Bt corn cultivars ever since 1996, the farm pr ofitability has gradually been increasing through higher yields and/or lower costs (e .g., operator labor, en ergy savings, pesticide purchases) by growing Bt corn crops.

Another potential economic bene fit for growers and downstream consumers is increased competition in the marketplace for pest-con trol products, including hybrid seed from multiple marketers of lepidopteran-tolerant Bt corn varieties. The commercial availability of MIR162 hybrid corn seed ma y represent a significant new pest control option and tool for growers. Increased gr ower choice may exert downward pressure on the cost of products that offer control of lepidopteran pests (see pg. 110 in petition).

25Figure 1. Reproduced from Benbrook 2004 “Chart 2. Trends in Insecticide Applications to Manage the European Corn Borer and S outhwestern Corn Borer and the Reduction in

Insecticide Use on Bt Corn Acres”.

Human Health and Environmental Benefits

. There is no human health concerns with respect to toxicity or allergenicity and no unreasonable environmental concerns with respect to toxicity of the insecticidal proteins expre ssed in the MIR162 corn (Appendix I in this EA; http://www.epa.gov/oppbppd1/biopesticides/pips/bt_brad.htm ). Also, use of

Bt corn can decrease farm worker exposure to Bt sprays and chemical insecticides and

reduce the mold infestation on corn seeds (Carpenter et al. 2002). Consequently, any

reduction in mold toxins resulting from use of Bt corn can provide direct benefits to people and corn-fed livestock. In a variety of field studies, other insect protected corn expressing Bt proteins have been shown to have significantly lower levels of common mycotoxins that are produced by fungal pa thogens (Wu 2006); however, the mycotoxin

levels in MIR 162 corn in commercial cultiv ation is not availabl e at this time.

Insect Resistance Management Benefits

. According to EPA the MIR162 corn and its stacked Bt hybrids have the potential to dela y development of resistance in other corn varieties expressing Cry toxins. The introduc tion of MIR162 corn and its stacks and/or pyramids may have an additiona l benefit of prolonging the li fetime of other corn Plant Incorporated Protectants (P IP) technologies by providing another mode of action for European corn borer, corn earworm, fall armyworm, and corn rootworm.

Effects on the Export Market



### . Syngenta does not expect any effects on the United States corn export market by the cultivation of the MIR162 cultivars since Syngenta is actively pursuing regulatory approvals for the MIR162 corn in countries that import corn from the

United States or Canada. Re gulatory filings for the MIR 162 corn are in process for

26Colombia, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Ch ina, the Philippines, Australia and New Zealand, South Africa, the European Un ion, Russia, and Switzerland. Syngenta’s stewardship agreements with growers will incl ude a term requiring growers to divert this product away from export markets (i.e. channe ling) where the grain has not yet received regulatory approval for import. Syngenta will communicate these requirements to growers using a wide-ranging grower educ ation campaign (e.g., gr ower Stewardship Guide (see pg. 111 in the petition).



### C. Consideration of Executive Orders, Standards and Treaties Relating to Environmental Impacts

Executive Order (EO) 12898, "Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low -Income Populations," requir es Federal agencies to conduct their programs, policies, and activities that substantia lly affect human health or the environment in a manner so as not to exclude persons and populations from participation in or benefiting from such program s. It also enforces existing statutes to prevent minority and low-income communities from being subjected to disproportionately high and adverse huma n health or environmental effects.

EO 13045, “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks,” acknowledges that children may suffer dispr oportionately from envi ronmental 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) require s each Federal agency to identify, assess,

and address environmental health risks and safe ty risks that may disproportionately affect

children.

Each alternative was analyzed with respect to EO 12898 and 13045. None of the alternatives are expect ed to have a disproportionate a dverse effect on minorities, lowincome populations, or children. Collectivel y, the available mamma lian toxicity, along with the history of safe use of microbial Bt products and other corn varieties expressing Bt proteins, establishes the safety of the corn line MIR162 and its products to humans, including minorities, low income populati ons, and children who might be exposed to them through agricultural production and/or pr ocessing. No additional safety precautions would need to be taken. None of the impact s on agricultural practices expected to be associated with deregulation of the corn line MIR162 described above are expected to have a disproportionate adverse effect on mi norities, low income populations, or children. As noted above, the cultivati on of previously deregulated corn varieties with similar

insect resistant traits has been associated with a decrease and/or shift in pesticide applications for those who adopt these varietie s that is either favor able or neutral with respect to environmental and human toxicity. If pesticide applications are reduced, there may be a beneficial effect on children and low income popula tions that might be exposed to the chemicals. These popul ations might include migrant farm workers and their families, and other rural dwelling individua ls who are exposed to pesticides through ground-water contamination or other means of exposure. It is exp ected that EPA and

USDA Economic Research Servic e would monitor the use of this product to determine

27impacts on agricultural practices such as chem ical use as they have done previously for Bt products.

EO 13112, “Invasive Species”, states that Fede ral agencies take action to prevent the introduction of invasive speci es and provide for their co ntrol and to minimize the economic, ecological, and human health impacts that invasive species cause. Nonengineered corn as well as other Bt and herbicide tolerant corn varieties are widely grown in the United States. Based on historic al experience with these varieties and the data submitted by the applicant and review ed by APHIS, the engineered plant is sufficiently similar in fitness characteristics to other corn varieties currently grown, and it is not expected to have an increased invasive potential (see USDA-APHIS 2009).

EO 12114, “Environmental Effects Abroad of Major Federal Actions” requires Federal

officials to take into consid eration any potential environmen tal effects outside the U.S., its territories and possessions that result fr om actions being taken. APHIS has given this due consideration and does not expect a significant environmenta l impact outside the U.S. should nonregulated status be determined for the corn line MIR162 or if the other

alternatives are chosen. All the consider able, existing national and international regulatory authorities and phytosanitary regime s that currently appl y to introductions of new corn cultivars internationally, apply equally to those covered by an APHIS determination of nonregulated status under 7 CFR part 340. Any international traffic in MIR162 corn subsequent to a determination of non-regulated status for the line MIR162 would be fully subject to national phytosanit ary requirements and be in accordance with phytosanitary standards developed under the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC).

The purpose of the IPPC “is to secure a co mmon and effective action to prevent the spread and introduction of pest s of plants and plant products , and to promote appropriate measures for their control” (http://www.ippc.int/IPP/En/default.jsp). The protection it affords extends to natural flora and plant pr oducts and includes both direct and indirect damage by pests, including weeds. The IPPC has set a standard for the reciprocal acceptance of phytosanitary certification among th e nations that have signed or acceded to the Convention (173 countries as of August 2009). In April, 2004, a standard for pest risk analysis of living modified organism s (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 (I SPM-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 bioengineered organisms are consistent with the guidance developed under the IPPC. In addition, issues that may relate to commercialization and transboundary movement of particular agricultural commodities produced through biotechnology are being addressed in other international forums and through national regulations.

The Cartagena Protocol on Bios afety is a treaty under the United Nations Convention on

28Biological Diversity (CBD) that establishe d a framework for the safe transboundary movement, with respect to the environmen t and biodiversity, of LMOs, which includes those modified through biotechnology. The Protocol came into force on September 11, 2003 and 156 countries are parties to it as of June 24, 2009 (see http://www.biodiv.org/bi osafety/default.aspx ). 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 dome stic regulations that importing countries that are parties to the Protocol have put in place to comply w ith 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 Protoc ol, and the required documentation. LMOs imported for food, feed or processing (FFP) ar e exempt from the AIA procedure, and are

covered under Article 11 and Annex II of th e 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 m ovement. To facilitate compliance with obligations to this protocol, the US Govern ment has developed a website that provides the status of all regulatory re views completed for different us es of bioengineered products (http://usbiotechreg.nbii.gov). These data will be avai lable to the Biosafety Clearinghouse.

APHIS continues to work toward harm onization of biosafet y and biotechnology consensus documents, guidelines and regulatio ns, including within the North American Plant Protection Organization (NAPPO), which includes Mexico, Canada, and the U.S. and in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). NAPPO has completed three modules of a standard for the Importation and Release into the Environment of Transgenic Plants in NAPPO

Member Countries (see http://www.nappo.org/Standard s/Std-e.html). APHIS also participates in the North American Biot echnology Initiative (NABI), a forum for information exchange and cooperation on agri cultural biotechnology issues for the U.S., Mexico and Canada. In addition, bilateral discussions on biotechnol ogy regulatory issues are held regularly with other countries incl uding: Argentina, Brazil, Japan, China, and Korea. Many countries, e.g. Argentina, Au stralia, Canada, China, Japan, Korea, Philippines, South Africa, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the European Union have already approved Bt corn varieties to be grown or imported for food or feed ( http://www.agbios.com/dbase.php ). There should be no effects on the U.S. corn export market since Syngenta is actively pursuing re gulatory approvals for the MIR162 corn in countries with functioning regulatory system s for genetically modified organisms and that import corn from the U.S. or Canada. Regulatory filings for the MIR162 corn are in process for Colombia, Japan, South Korea, Ta iwan, China, the Philippines, Australia and New Zealand, South Africa, the Europ ean Union, Russia, and Switzerland.

29

## VI. REFERENCES

AOSCA (Association of Official Seed Ce rtifying Agencies). 2003. Operational Procedures, Crop Standards and Service Programs Publications . Meridian, Idaho.

Bates, S., J-Z, Zhao, R. T. Roush, and A. M. Shelton. 2005. Insect resistance management in GM crops: past, presen t and future. Nature Biotechnology 23: 57-

62.

Brookes, G. and P. Barfoot. 2004. Coexistence of GM and Non GM Crops: Case Study of Maize Grown in Spain

. Dorchester, UK: PG Economics Ltd. http://www.pgeconomics.co.uk

.

Burns, R.G. 1982. Enzyme activity in soil: location and possible role in microbial ecology. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 14: 423-427.

Benbrook, C. M. 2004. Genetically Engineered Crops and Pesticide Use in the United

States: BioTech InfoNet Techni cal Paper Number 7, October 2004. The First Nine Years ( http://www.biotech-info.net/F ull_version_first_nine.pdf ).

BPPD-EPA. 2001. Insect Resistan ce Management. Pp. IID1-153 In, Bt PlantIncorporated Protectants, October 15, 2001. Biopesticides Registration Action Document, Biopesticides and Pollution Pr evention Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. ( http://www.epa.gov/oppbppd1/biopesti cides/pips/bt_brad2/4-irm.pdf ) (Last updated: October 15th, 2008).

BPPD-EPA. 2009. Benefits and publ ic interest finding. Pp. 115-134 In, Bacillus thuringiensis Vip3Aa20 Insecticidal Protein and the Genetic Material Necessary for Its Production ( via Elements of Vector pNOV1300) in Event MIR162 Maize (OECD Unique Identifier: SYN-IR162-4), Biopesticides Registra tion Action Document, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. ( http://www.epa.gov/oppbppd1/biopesticides/ingredients/tech_docs/ brad_006599.pdf) (Last updated: March 2009).

Carozzi, N., and M. Koziel. 1997. Advances in Insect Control. Taylor & Francis Ltd., Bristol, PA.

Carpenter, J., A. Felsot, T. Goode, M. Hammig, D. Onstad, and S. Sankula. 2002. Comparative Environmental Impacts of Biotechnology-derived and Traditional Soybean, Corn, and Cotton Crops

. Council for Agricultural Science and Technology, Ames, Iowa. www.cast-scie nce.org. Sponsored by the United Soybean Board (www.unitedsoybean.org). http://www.soyconnection.com/soyb ean_oil/pdf/EnvironmentalImpactStudyExecutiveSummary-English.pdf

30de Maagd, R. A., A Bravo, and N. Crickmore. 2001. How Bacillus thuringiensis has evolved specific toxins to colonize th e insect world. Trends in Genetics 17: 193-

199.

Dicke, F. F. and W. D. Guthrie. 1988. Th e most important corn insects. Pp. 767-867 In Sprague, G. F. and J. W. Dudley (eds.) Corn and Corn Improvement (3 rd edition). American Society of Agronomy-Crop Sc ience Society of America-Soil Science Society of America, Madison, Wisconsin.

Doane Marketing Research. 2006. U.S. Seed corn TraitTrak Study. A Doane Marketing Research Syndicated Tracking Study. St. Louis, Missouri.

Dowd, P. F. 1998. Involvement of arthropods in the establishment of mycotoxigenic fungi under field conditions. Pp. 307- 350 In K. K. Sinha and D. Bhatnagar (eds.) Mycotoxins in Agriculture and Food Sa fety. Marcel Dekkar, Inc. New York.

Dubelman, S., B. R. Ayden, B. M. Bader, C. R. Brown, C. Jiang, and D. Vlachos. 2005. Cry1Ab protein does not persist in soil after 3 year s of sustained Bt corn use. Environmental Entomology 34: 915-921.

Estruch, J. J., G. W. Warren, M. A. Mullins, G. J. Nye, J. A. Craig, and M. G. Koziel. 1996. Vip3A, a novel Bacillus thuringiensis vegetative insecticidal protein with a wide spectrum of activities against lepidopteran insects. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sc iences (USA) 93: 5389–5394.

EPA. 2001. Biopesticides Regi stration Action Document – Bacillus thuringiensis Plant Incorporated Protectants. United Stat es Environmental Protection Agency. ( http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/b iopesticides/pips/bt_brad.htm ) (Last updated: 10/15/2008)

EPA. 2009. Pesticides: Endangered Species Protection Program. United States Environmental Protection Agency. ( http://www.epa.gov/espp/c oloring/especies.htm (Last updated: 2/9/2009)

Fernandez-Cornejo, J., and J. Li. 2005. The Impacts of Adopting Genetically Engineered Crops in the USA: The Case of Bt Corn. Pa per presented at the American Agricultural Economics Association meetings. Providence. ( http://www.ers.usda.gov/ publications/e ib11/eib11.pdf )

Fernandez-Cornejo, J., and M. Caswell. 2006. Fi rst Decade of Engineered Crops in the

United States. USDA-ERS Economic Info rmation Bulletin 11, April 2006. ( http://www.ers.usda.gov/ publications/e ib11/eib11.pdf )

Gianessi, L., and N. Reigner. 2006. Pesticid e use in U.S. crop production:2002. A report prepared by CropLife Foundation ( www.croplifefoundation.org ), Washington, D.C. ( http://www.croplifefoundation. org/Documents/PUD/NPUD%202002/ Inst%20and%20OP%20Data%20Report.pdf)

31Gurian-Sherman, D. 2009. Failure to yield: evaluationg the pe rformance of genetically engineered crops. USC (Union of Concerne d Scientists) Publications, Cambridge, MA. ( http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documen ts/food_and_agriculture/failure-toyield.pdf )

Haack, R.A., 1993. The Endangered Karner Blue Butterfly (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae): Biology, management considerations, and data gaps. Pp 83-110 In Gillespie, A.R., G.R. Parker, P.E. Pope and G. Rink (eds). Proceedings 9th Central Hardwood Forest Conference. General Technical Report NC-161. USDA-Forest Service, North Central Forest E xperiment Station, St. Paul. MN.

Head, G., J. B. Surber, J. A. Watson, J. W. Martin, and J. J. Duan. 2002. No detection of Cry1Ac protein in soil after multiple years of Bt cotton (Bollgard) use. Environmental Entomology 31:30-36.

Henry, C., D. Morgan, R. Weekes, R. Daniels and C. Boffey. 2003. Farm Scale Evaluations of GM Crops: Monitoring Gene Flow from GM Crops to Non-GM Equivalent Crops in the Vicinity. Contract Refere nce EPG 1/5/138. Final Report 2000/2003. ( http://www.defra.gov.uk/environm ent/gm/research/pdf/epg_1-5- 138.pdf ).

Höfte, H., and H. R. White. 989. Insecticidal crysta l proteins of Bacillus thuringiensis

. Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews 53: 242-255.

Hurley, T. M., I. Langrock, and K. Ostlie. 2006. Estimating the benefits of Bt corn and cost of insect resistance management ex ante. Journal of Agricultural and

Resource Economics 31: 355-375.

ICG (International Grains Council). 2009. Gr ain Market Report (GMR No. 394, 29 Oct 2009). ( http://www.igc.org.uk/en/downloads/gmrsummary/gmrsumme.pdf )

Lee, M., F. Walters, H. Hart, N. Palekar, a nd J. Chen. 2003. The mode of action of the Bacillus thuringiensis vegetative insecticidal protei n Vip3A differs from that of Cry1Ab δ -endotoxin. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 69:4648-4657.

Ma, B.L., K. D. Subedi, and L. M. Reid. 2004. Extent of crossfertilization in maize by pollen from neighbouring transgen ic hybrids. Crop Sci. 44:1273–1282.

Marra, M., G. Carlson, and B. Hubbell. 1998. Economic impacts of the first crop biotechnologies. ( http://www.ag.econ.ncsu.edu/faculty/marra/firstcrop/imp001.gif )

Marvier, M., C. McCreedy, J. Regetz, and P. Kareiva. 2007. A meta-analysis of effects of Bt cotton and maize on nontarget in vertebrates. Science 316:1475-1477.

Marx, M-C., E. Kandeler, M. Wood, N. Werm bter, and S. C. Jarvis. 2005. Exploring the enzymatic landscape: di stribution and kinetics of hydr olytic enzymes in soil particle-size fractions. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 37:35-48.

32Mason, C. E., M. E. Rice, D. D. Calvin, J. W. Van Duyn, W. B. Showers, W. D. Hutchison, J. F. Witkowski, R. A. Higgi ns, D. W. Onstad, and G. P. Dively. 1996. European corn borer ecology and manage ment. North Central Regional Extension Publication No 327. Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa. 57 pp.

Messeguer, J., G. Peñas, J. Ballester, M. Bas, J. Serra, and J. Salvia. 2006. Pollenmediated gene flow in maize in real situations of coexistence. Plant Biotechnology Journal 4: 633–645.

Mendelsohn, M., J. Kough, Z. Vaituzis, and K. matthews. 2003. Are Bt crops safe? Nature Biotechnology 21: 1003-1009.

Norman, M. J. T., C. J. Pearson, and P. G. E. Searle. 1995. The Ecology of Tropical Food Crops (2 nd edition). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K., pp 126-144.

OECD (Organization for Economic Co-opera tion and Development). 2003. Consensus document on the biology of Zea mays subsp. mays (maize). Series on Harmonisation of Regulatory Ov ersight in Biotechnology, No. 27, OECD, Paris. ( http://www.olis.oecd.org/olis/2003d oc.nsf/LinkTo/NT0000426E/$FILE/JT00147

699.PDF . (Last Modified: 23 July, 2003)

Peterson, R. K., S. J. Meyer, A. T. Wo lf, J. D. Wolt, and P. M. Davies. 2006. Genetically engineered plants, endangere d species, and risk: A temporal and spatial exposure assessment for Karner blue butterfly larvae and Bt maize pollen. Risk Analysis 26: 845-858.

Schnepf, E. N., J. C, J. Van Rie, D. Lerecl us, J. Baum, J. Feitelson, D. R. Zeigler, and

D. H. Dean. 1998. Bacillus thuringiensis and its pesticidal crystal proteins. Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews 62: 775–806.

Shelton, A. M., J.-Z. Zhao, and R. T. Roush. 2002. Economic, ecological, food safety, and social consequences of the developm ent of Bt transgenic plants. Annual Review of Entomology 47: 845-881.

Sheridan, C. 2009. Report claims no yield adva ntage for Bt crops. Nature Biotechnology

27: 588-589.

Simpson, G. M. 1990. Seed Dormancy in Gra sses. Cambridge University Press, New

York.

USDA-APHIS. 2009. Plant Pest Risk Anal ysis for Syngenta MIR162 corn. USDA, APHIS, Biotechnology Regulatory Serv ice. Riverdale, MD (URL: http://www.aphis.usda.gov/brs/not_reg.html )

33USDA-ERS. 2009. Adoption of Genetically En gineered Crops in the U.S.: Corn Varieties. United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, (Updated July 1, 2009) (Accessed August 10, 2009:) ( http://www.ers.usda.gov/ data/BiotechCrops/Ext entofAdoptionTable1.htm )

USDA-NASS. 2006. Agricultural Chemical Usage 2005 Field Crops Summary. United States Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service, May

2006. ( http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda /nass/AgriChemUsFC//2000s/2006/AgriChe mUsFC-05-17-2006.pdf )

USDA-NASS. 2007. Crop Production. United Stat es Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Sta tistics, February 2007. ( http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/CropProd//2000s/2007/CropProd-02- 09-2007.pdf )

USDA-NASS. 2008a. Statistics of Grain a nd Feed. United States Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service, Washington, D.C. ( http://www.nass.usda.gov/Public ations/Ag_Statistics/2008/Chap01.pdf )

USDA-NASS. 2008b. Acreage. United States De partment of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service, Washington, D.C. ( http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/us da/nass/Acre//2000s/2008/Acre-06-30- 2008.pdf )

USFWS. 2007. Threatened and endangered spec ies system. A database developed by

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. ( http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/SpeciesReport.do?groups=I&listingType=L&ma pstatus=1 )

Ward, D., T. De Gooyer, T. Vaughn, G. Head, M. McKee, J. Astwood, and J. Pershing. 2005. Genetically enhanced maize as a potential management option for corn

rootworm: YieldGard ® rootworm maize case study. Pp 239-262 In S. Vidal, U. Kuhlmann, and C. Edwards (eds.)West ern Corn Rootworm: Ecology and Management.CAB International, Wallingford, U.K.

Williams, P. W., P. M. Buckley, and G. L. Windham. 2002. Southwestern corn borer

(Lepidoptera: Crambidae) damage and af latoxin accumulation in maize. Journal of Economic Entomology 95:1049-1053.

Wright, B., M. Bernards, and L. Sandell. 2009. Volunteer corn presen ts new challenges. Crop. Crop Watch News Service, Univers ity of Nebraska-Lincoln Extension, Institute of Agriculture and Natura l Resources, Lincoln, Nebraska. ( http://cropwatch.unl.edu/archives/2009/crop22/weeds_volunteer_corn.htm )

34Wu, F. 2006. Mycotoxin reduction in Bt corn: potential economic, health, and regulatory impacts. Transgenic Research 15:277-289.

35

## VII. PREPARERS, REVIEWERS, CONSULTANATIONS,

AGENCY CONTACT

Biotechnology Regulatory Services (BRS) Michael Gregoire, Deputy Administrator Beverly Simmons, Associate Deputy Admini strator for Emerging and International Programs Sidney Abel, Assistant De puty Administrator

BRS, Environmental Risk Analysis Program Michael Watson, Ph.D., Division Director Susan M. Koehler, Ph.D., Branch Chief, Plants Branch (Reviewer) John Cordts, M.S., M.B.A., Biotechnologist (Reviewer) Subray Hegde, Ph. D., Biotechnologist (Preparer of Environmental Assessment)

BRS, Policy and Coordination Program David Reinhold, Branch Ch ief, Communication & International Affairs Branch (Reviewer) Andrea Huberty, Ph. D., Branch Chief, Regulatory & Environmental Analysis Branch (Reviewer) Richard Coker, Regulatory Analyst

Consultations Michael Mendelsohn, Senior Regulatory Specialist Office of Pesticide Programs/ Biopesticides & Pollution

Prevention Division U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Agency Contact Ms. Cynthia Eck, Document Control Officer USDA, APHIS, BRS 4700 River Road, Unit 147 Riverdale, MD 20737-1237 Phone: (301) 734-0667 Fax: (301) 734-8669 Cynthia.A.Eck@aphis.usda.gov

36

## VIII. APPENDIX

Appendix I. Environmental and Human Health Safety of Vip3Aa20

Protein

Previously deregulated Bt corn cultivars ha ve resulted in reduced conventional pesticide use, as farmers find Bt products more effec tive in mitigating lepidopteran insect feeding damage. It is reasonable to expect that deregulation and commercialization of the

MIR162 corn will result in further reductions in the use of conventional pesticides. This reduction in conventional pesticide use woul d diminish the environmental risks of chemical pesticide insect control, as the ch emical alternatives to MIR162 present wellcharacterized risks to humans and other w ildlife, whereas Vip3Aa 20 presents no such risk. Substantial data support a conclusion that Vip3Aa20 toxicity will be limited to sensitive lepidopteran species that are sufficiently exposed to the protein (USDA-APHIS 2009).

The toxicity of insecticidal Bt proteins, such as Vip3a 20, depends on their binding to specific receptors present in th e insect midgut. Research demons trates that this specificity limits the proteins’ toxic effect to certain lepidopteran species. A discussion on the mechanism of action for Vip3Aa20, its spectrum of activity, and its lack of toxicity to non-lepidopteran species is presente d in the petition (pg. 47-50).

Health and safety studies have been conduc ted with the novel proteins contained in MIR162 corn. A comprehensive assessment of the safety of the introduced proteins, Vip3Aa20 and PMI, demonstrate that both pr oteins are nontoxic to mammalian species and are unlikely to be food allerg ens (69 FR 26770-26775; 73 FR 45620-45624; FDA BNF No. 000113). The Vip3Aa20 protein is considered nontoxic because it does not share significant amino acid homology with known protein toxins, is nontoxic to mice at a very high dose of 1250 mg Vip3Aa20/kg bw , is rapidly degraded in simulated mammalian gastric fluid, and its insecticidal mode of action for Vip3Aa20 is not relevant

to mammals.

Vip3Aa20 is also not likely to be a food alle rgen because it is not derived from a known source of allergenic proteins, it does not have any significant amino acid sequence identity to known allergenic proteins, it is rapidly degraded in simulated mammalian gastric fluid, and it is labile upon heating at temperatures of 65oC and above. The PMI protein is considered nontoxi c because it does no t share significant amino acid homology with known protein toxins, it is nontoxic to mice at a very high dose of 3030 mg PMI/kg bw, and it is rapidly degraded in simulated mammalian gastric fluid. PMI is not likely to be a food allergen because it is not derived from a known source of allergenic proteins, it does not have any significant amino acid seque nce identity to known allergenic proteins with implications for its allergenic potent ial, it is rapidly degraded in simulated mammalian gastric fluid, and it is labile upon hea ting at temperatures of 37oC and above.

37A permanent exemption from the requirement of a food tolerance currently exists under 73 FR 45620-4562440 for Vip3Aa20 in mai ze and under 40 CFR §180.1252 for PMI in all plants.

USDA-APHIS. 2009. Plant Pest Risk Anal ysis for Syngenta MIR162 corn. USDA, APHIS, Biotechnology Regulatory Serv ice. Riverdale, MD (URL: http://www.aphis.usda.gov/brs/not_reg.html)

38

### Appendix II. Syngenta MIR162 Co rn Forage and Grain Compositional Analysis

The data for the discussion and interpretati on on the composition analysis of the MIR162 corn come from Syngenta’s petition (Petition Appendix E, pages 158-180 for experimental details and stat istical analyses, and pages 69- 73 for the interpretation and discussion of results) and was reviewed by APHIS. The rationale for the composition analysis of forage and grain is to identify a ny changes in nutrient or anti-nutrient content of the new crop in the context of its use as food or feed and to assess its biochemical equivalence and similarity to conventional maize. Assessment of the plant’s composition also allows the developer and APHIS to eval uate possible unintended effects that might arise from insertion of the Vip3Aa20 and PMI genes into the plant’s genome. This assessment was undertaken by performing quantitative analyses of 65 components (Table 25, pg. 70 in petition) both from MIR162 hybr id corn and a nontransgenic control variety. The analytes measured in this st udy were selected based on recommendations of the Organisation for Economic Co-opera tion and Development (OECD, 2002) for comparative assessment of composition of new va rieties of maize. The plant materials for the analysis come from six diverse corn gr owing regions of the U.S. (Appendix Table E1, pg. 158 in petition) during 2005. Plants were self-pollinated by hand and the developing ears were bagged to avoid cross- pollination. All anal yses were conducted using methods published and approved by the Association of Analytical Communities (AOAC) International or other industr y-standard analytical methods.

Nine components of corn forage were measured; the difference between MIR162 and

control mean values was found to be statisti cally significant for one of these analytes. Fifty-six components of gr ain were measured; the di fference between MIR162 and

control mean values was found to be statisti cally significant for 13 of these analytes. The results for these 14 analytes that had a st atistically significant outcome for genotype effect (Table 26, pg. 72 in petition) have b een discussed in the following paragraphs.

The forage compositional analyses for pr oximates and minerals revealed a single statistically significant differe nce between MIR162 and control mean values. The mean value for MIR162 Neutral Detergent Fiber (NDF) was 11.34% higher than the corresponding control value. This differen ce is considered relatively small and the MIR162 mean falls well within the range of normal values reported by International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI) (Rid ley et al. 2004; ILSI 2006) and Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). No statistically significant genotype by

location interactions were noted for the forage compositional analyses.

Compositional analyses of grain revealed no statistically significant differences between

MIR162 and control means for 43 of the 56 analytes examined in across-location comparisons. Statistically significant differen ces were noted for levels of the proximates ash, NDF, starch, three grain minerals (calcium , iron, and phosphorus), levels of vitamin A ( β -carotene), vitamin B 6 (pyridoxine), and vitamin E ( α -tocopherol), linoleic and linolenic fatty acids. These differences were small (< 8%) and the MIR162 mean values

39were well within the ranges of normal values for the control maize. Additionally, the average values for all proximates were w ithin the ranges reported by ILSI and OECD.

Statistically significant differences were not ed between MIR162 and control mean levels of vitamin A ( β -carotene), vitamin B 6 (pyridoxine), and vitamin E ( α -tocopherol). These differences were small (< 7%) and the mean values observed for these vitamins in the MIR162 grain were well within the range of values observed for the control grain. Additionally, the MIR162 means for all vitamins fell within the normal range of values reported for conventional maize by ILSI and OECD. For vitamin A and vitamin B 9 a statistically significant genotype-by-location interaction wa s noted, which suggests that the effect of genotype was not consistent across locations, hence, the comparison of genotypes averaged across locations may not be valid. Individual location means for the two analytes are provided in Table E-8 (Appendix E). The vitamin A and vitamin B 9 levels at all locations were within the ranges reported in the literature.

There were no significant di fferences noted for any of the 18 amino acids or antinutrients measured and all average values we re within the ranges reported by ILSI and OECD (Appedix E, pg. 158-180 in petition).

Statistically significant differences were not ed for linoleic and linolenic fatty acids. These differences were very small (< 4 %) and the MIR162 mean values observed for these fatty acids were within the ranges of values observed for the control grain. Furthermore, the average values for all fatty acids were within the range of normal values reported for conventional maize by ILSI and OECD.

Statistically significant differences were noted in the secondary meta bolites ferulic acid

and ρ -coumaric acid. These differences were relatively small (< 15%) and the MIR162 mean values for these secondary metabolites were within the ranges of values observed for the control grain. Additionally, the mean values for all MIR162 secondary

metabolites and anti-nutrients were within the normal range of values reported for conventional maize by ILSI and OECD.

Collectively, the observed differences between MIR162 and control means are considered of no biological significance a nd represent typical random variance. The magnitude of the differences was small, all MIR162 values fell within normal ranges for conventional maize, and the MIR162 and cont rol data ranges signifi cantly overlapped. MIR162 is therefore, not compositionally different from conventional maize.

References

ILSI. 2006. International Life Sciences Institue Crop Composition Database, 3.0.

International Life Sciences Institute. http://www.cropcomposition.org/ . Access

date: 7/26/2009.

4041 OECD (Organization for Economic Co-opera tion and Development). 2002. Consensus document on the compositional considerations for new varieties of maize ( Zea mays ): Key food and feed nutrients, anti-nutirents and secondary metabolites. Series on the Safety of Novel Foods and Feeds, No. 6. OECD Environment Directorate. Joint meeting of the chemicals committee and the working party on chemicals, pesticides and biotechnology. Paris, 42 pp.

Ridley, W. P., R. D. Shillito, I. Coats, H.-Y . Steiner, M. Shawgo, A. Phillips, P. Dussold, and L. Kurtyak. 2004. Development of the In ternational Life Sciences Institue Crop Composition Database. Journal of Food Composition and Analysis. 17:423-

438.