USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 1 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information



### Petition for Determination of Nonregulated Status for Herbicide Tolerant DAS - 68416 - 4 Soybean OECD Unique Identifier: DAS - 68416 - 4 The undersigned submits this petition under 7 CFR 340.6 to request that the Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, make a determination that the article should not be regulated under 7 CFR 340. Submitting Company: Dow AgroSciences LLC Submitted by:

__________________________________ Mark S. Krieger , Ph.D. Regulatory Leader Regulatory Sciences & Government Affairs Dow AgroSciences LLC 9330 Zionsville Road Indianapolis, IN 46268 Telephone: (317) 337 - 3458 FAX: (317) 337 - 4649 mkri eger2@dow.com December 8, 2009 Revised July 30, 2010 Revised November 1 5 , 2010USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 2 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### Release of Information Dow AgroSciences LLC (DAS) is submitting the information in this petition for deregulation to USDA APHIS as part of the regulatory process. By submitting this information, DAS does not authorize release of this information to any third party except to the extent the information is requested under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C., Section 522. In the event that USDA receives a FOIA request covering all or some of the information in this submission, DAS expects that, in advance of the release of the document(s), USDA will provide DAS with a copy of the material proposed to be released and the opportunity to object to the release of any information based upon appropriate legal grounds, e.g. responsiveness, confidentiality and/or competitive concerns. DAS expects that no information that has been identified as CBI (confidential business information) will be provided to any third party. DA S understands that a CBI- deleted copy of this information may be made available to the public in a reading room and by individual request, as part of the public comment period. Except in accordance with the foregoing, DAS does not authorize the release, publication or other distribution of this information (including website posting) without DAS’ prior notice and consent.USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 3 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### Certification The undersigned certifies that, to the best knowledge and belief of the undersigned, this petition includes all information and views on which to base a determination, and that it includes all relevant data and information known to the petitioner that are unfavorable to the petition.

Mark S . Krieger, Ph.D. Regulatory Leader Dow AgroSciences LLC 9330 Zionsville Road Indianapolis, Indiana 46268 Telephone: ( 317 ) 337 - 3458 Fax: ( 317 ) 337 - 4649 mkrieger2@dow.comUSDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 4 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### Summary Dow AgroSciences LLC (herein referred to as “DAS”), is submitting a Petition for Determination of Nonregulated Status for Herbicide Tolerant DAS - 68416 - 4 S oybean. DAS requests a determination from USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) that soybean transformation event DAS - 68416 - 4 and any soybean lines derived from crosses with DAS - 68416 - 4 soybeans no longer be considered regulated articles under 7 CFR Part 340. DAS - 68416 - 4 soybean is a transgenic soybean product that provides tolerance to the herbicides 2,4 - dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4 - D) and glufosinate. This herbicide - tolerant soybean will provide growers with greater flexibility in s election of herbicides for the improved control of economically important weeds; allow an increased application window for effective weed control; and provide an effective weed resistance management solution to the increased incidence of glyphosate resistant weeds. DAS - 68416 - 4 soybean plants have been genetically modified to express the aryloxyalkanoate dioxygenase - 12 (AAD - 12) and phosphinothricin acetyltransferase (PAT) proteins. The AAD - 12 protein is an enzyme with an alpha ketoglutarate - dependent dioxyg enase activity which results in metabolic inactivation of the herbicides of the aryloxyalkanoate family. The aad- 12 gene, which expresses the AAD - 12 protein, was derived from Delftia acidovorans, a gram- negative soil bacterium. The PAT enzyme acetylates the primary amino group of phosphinothricin rendering it inactive. The pat gene expressing the PAT protein was derived from Streptomyces viridochromogenes . The aad- 12 and pat genes were introduced into DAS - 68416 - 4 soybean using Agrobacterium - mediated transformation. Molecular characterization by Southern analyses of the DAS - 68416 - 4 event confirmed that a single, intact insert of the aad- 12 and pat genes were stably integrated into the soybean genome. A single copy of each of the genetic elements of the aad- 12 expression cassette is present and the integrity of the inserted DNA fragment was demonstrated in three different breeding generations, confirming the stability during traditional breeding procedures. Southern analyses also confirmed the absence o f unwanted DNA such as the plasmid backbone DNA in DAS - 68416 - 4 soybean. Segregation data for breeding generations confirmed the predicted inheritance of the aad- 1 2 and pat gene s . The AAD - 12 and PAT protein s in DAS - 68416 - 4 soybean were characterized biochemically and measured using AAD - 12 and PAT specific enzyme linked immunosorbent assay s (ELISA). Protein expression was analyzed in leaf, root, whole plant and grain tissues collected throughout the growing season from DAS - 68416 - 4 plants treated with 2,4 - D, glufosinate, both 2,4 - D and glufosinate, or not treated with either herbicide. The results showed a low level of expression of the AAD - 12 and PAT protein s across herbicide treatments and environments, indicating a low exposure to humans and animals. The AAD - 12 protein was assessed for any potential adverse effects to humans or animals resulting from the environmental release of crops containing the AAD - 12 protein. A step - wise, weight- of - evidence approach was used to assess the potential for toxic or allergenic effects from the AAD - 12 protein. Bioinformatic analyses revealed no meaningful homologies with known or putative allergens or toxins for the AAD - 12 amino acid sequence. The AAD - 12 proteinUSDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 5 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### hydrolyzes rapidly in simulated gastric fluid and there was no evidence of acute toxicity in mice at a dose of 2000 mg/kg body weight of AAD - 12 protein. Glycosylation analysis of the plant and microbe - derived AAD - 12 proteins revealed no detectable covalently linked carbohydrates. Results of the overall safety assessment of the AAD - 12 protein indicate that it is unlikely to cause allergenic or toxic effects in humans or animals. The safety of the PAT protein has been assessed previously and it has been approved for use in canola, corn, cotton, rice, soybeans, and sugar beets. DAS - 68416 - 4 soybean has been field tested in the major soybean growing regions of the continental United States as well as Puerto Rico. All field tests were conducted under field permits granted by USDA APHIS. Agronomic performance asse ssments were conducted on DAS - 68416 - 4 soybean in multi - site field studies to measure characteristics such as emergence, seedling vigor, plant height, lodging, and yield. All field trials were also observed for opportunistic disease or insect stressors as well as normal phenotypic characteristics. There were no meaningful differences observed between DAS - 68416 - 4 soybean and the non - transgenic control for plant pest characteristics and no indication of a selective advantage that would result in increased weediness potential of DAS - 68416 - 4 soybean. Nutrient composition analyses of forage and grain was conducted to compare the composition of DAS - 68416 - 4 soybean with the composition of a non - transgenic control . Compositional analyses were used to evaluate any changes in the levels of key nutrients and anti - nutrients in DAS - 68416 - 4 soybean which was sprayed with either 2,4 - D, glufosinate, both 2,4 - D and glufosinate, or which was not sprayed with either herbicide. Along with the agronomic data, the compositional analyses indicate that DAS - 68416 - 4 soybean is substantially equivalent to conventional soybean and will not exhibit unexpected or unintended effects with respect to plant pest risk. Since DAS - 68416 - 4 soybean is agronomically and nutritionally similar to conventional soybean, and the safety of the AAD - 12 and PAT protein s has been demonstrated, no significant impact is expected on current crop production practices, non - target or endangered species, crop rotation, volunteer management, or commodity food and feed soybean products. The availability of DAS 68416 - 4 soybean is expected to have a beneficial impact on weed control practices by providing growers with another tool to address their weed control needs. The use of DAS - 68416 - 4 soybean will allow growers to proactively manage weed populations while avoiding adverse population shifts of troublesome weeds or the development of resistance, particularly glyphosate resistance in weeds. Information collected during field trials and laboratory analyses presented herein demonstrate that DAS - 68416 - 4 soybean exhibits no plant pathogenic properties or weediness characteristics. DAS - 68416 - 4 soybean is no more likely to become a plant pest than conventional soybean , and the AAD - 12 and PAT protein s are unlikely to increase the weediness potential of any other cultivated plant or wild species. DAS hereby requests a determination from APHIS that herbicide - tolerant DAS - 68416 - 4 soybean and all progeny derived from the conventional breeding of this line no longer be considered regulated articles under 7 CFR Part 340.USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 6 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### Table of Contents Release of Information ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 2 Certification ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 3 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 4 Table of Contents ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 6 List of Figures ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 9 List of Tables ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 11 Acronyms and Scientific Terms ................................ ................................ ................................ . 13 I. Rationale for the Development of DAS - 68416 - 4 Soybean ................................ ........... 15 I- A. Basis for the Request for Nonregulated Status ................................ ..................... 15 I- B. Benefits of DAS - 68416 - 4 Soybean ................................ ................................ ...... 15 I- C. Submissions to Other Regulatory Agencies ................................ ......................... 17 I- D. References ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 17 II . The Biology of Soybean ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 18 II- A. Overview of Soybean Biology ................................ ................................ .............. 18 II- B. Characterization of the Recipient Soybean Cultivar ................................ ............. 18 II- C. References ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 19 III. Development of DAS - 68416 - 4 Soybean ................................ ................................ ......... 20 III- A. Description of the Transformation System ................................ ........................... 20 III- B. Selection of Comparators for DAS - 68416 - 4 Soybean ................................ .......... 24 III- C. References ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 24 IV. Donor Genes and Regulatory Sequences ................................ ................................ ...... 25 IV - A. Identity and Source of Genetic Material in pDAB4468 ................................ ....... 25 IV - B. References ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 27 V. Genetic Characterization ................................ ................................ ............................... 30 V - A. Overview of Molecular Analysis ................................ ................................ .......... 30 V - B. Analysis of the Insert and Its Genetic Elements ................................ ................... 36 V - B.1. Analysis of the aad- 12 Gene ................................ ................................ ........... 36 V - B.2. Analysis of the AtUbi10 Promoter ................................ ................................ . 36 V - B.3. Analysis of the AtuORF23 3’UTR ................................ ................................ . 36 V - B.4. Analy sis of the pat Gene ................................ ................................ ................. 37 V - B.5. Analysis of the CsVMV Promoter ................................ ................................ .. 37 V - B.6. Analysis of the AtuORF1 3’UTR ................................ ................................ ... 37 V - B.7. Analysis of the RB7 MAR ................................ ................................ .............. 37 V - C. Absence of Vector Backbone DNA ................................ ................................ ...... 38 V - D. Stability of the Insert across Generations ................................ ............................. 38 V - E. Segregation Analysis ................................ ................................ ............................ 64 V - E.1. Genetic and Molecular Analysis of a Segregating Generati on ....................... 64 V - E.2. Segregation Analysis of Breeding Generations ................................ .............. 68 V - F. Summary of the Genetic Characterization ................................ ............................ 68 VI. Characterization of the Introduced Proteins ................................ ............................... 69 VI- A. AAD - 12 ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 69 VI- A.1. Identity of the AAD - 12 Protein ................................ ................................ ...... 69 VI- A.2. Biochemical Characterization of the AAD - 12 Protein ................................ ... 69 VI- A.3. Expression of the AAD - 12 Protein in Plant Tissues ................................ ....... 70 VI- A.4. Food and Feed Safety Assessment for AAD - 12 Protein ................................ 72USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 7 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### VI- A.5. Summary of AAD - 12 Protein Characteriz ation ................................ .............. 73 VI- B. PAT ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 73 VI- B.1. Identity of the PAT Protein ................................ ................................ ............. 73 VI- B.2. Biochemical Characterization of the PAT Protein ................................ .......... 73 VI- B.3. Expression of the PAT Protein in Plant Tissues ................................ ............. 74 VI- B.1. Food and Feed Safety Assessment for PAT Protein ................................ ....... 75 VI- B.2. Summary of PAT Protein Characterization ................................ .................... 76 VI- C. References ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 76 VII. Agronomic Performance ................................ ................................ ................................ 79 VII- A. Phenotypic and Agronomic Characteristics ................................ .......................... 79 VII- A.1. Experiment 1 ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 79 VII- A.2. Experiment 2 ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 83 VII- A.3. Conclusions ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 85 VII- B. Ecological Evaluations ................................ ................................ .......................... 86 VII- C. Germination and Dormancy Evaluations ................................ .............................. 87 VII- D. Summary of Agronomic, Dise ase, and Pest Characteristics ................................ . 88 VII- E. References ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 88 VIII. Grain and Forage Composition ................................ ................................ ..................... 89 VIII- A. Compositional Analysis of Soybean Forage ................................ ......................... 90 VIII- B. Compositional Analysis of Soybean Grain ................................ ........................... 93 VIII- B.1. Proximates and Fiber ................................ ................................ ...................... 93 VIII- B.2. Minerals ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 96 VIII- B.3. Amino Acids ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 99 VIII- B.4. Fatty Acids ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 103 VIII- B.5. Vitamins ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 107 VIII- B.6. Isoflavones ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 110 VIII- B.7. Antinutrients ................................ ................................ ................................ . 113 VIII- C. Summary of Grain and Forage Composition ................................ ...................... 115 VIII- D. Reference s ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 115 IX. Environmental Consequences and Impact on Agronomic Practices ....................... 116 IX - A. Mode of Action of the AAD - 12 Protein ................................ ............................. 116 IX - A.1. Field Efficacy ................................ ................................ ................................ 116 IX - B. Weediness Potential ................................ ................................ ............................ 119 IX - C. Gene Fl ow Assessment ................................ ................................ ....................... 120 IX - C.1. Vertical Gene Flow Assessment ................................ ................................ ... 120 IX - C.2. Horizontal Gene Flow Assessment ................................ ............................... 120 IX - D. Current US Agronomic Practices for Soybeans ................................ .................. 120 IX - D.1. Soybean Production ................................ ................................ ...................... 120 IX - D.2. Weeds in Soybean ................................ ................................ ......................... 121 IX - D.3. Weed Management in Soybean ................................ ................................ .... 123 IX - D.4. Crop Rotation and Tillage Practices ................................ ............................. 124 IX - E. Potential Impact on Agronomic Practices ................................ ........................... 124 IX - E.1. Potential Impact on Cultivation and Management Practices ........................ 124 IX - E.2. Potential Impact on Weed Control Practices ................................ ................ 125 IX - E.3. Potential Impact on Volunteer Management ................................ ................ 127 IX - E.4. Potential Impact on Non - Target Organisms and Endangered Species ......... 128USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 8 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### IX - F. Herbicide Resistance Management ................................ ................................ ..... 129 IX - F.1. Herbicide Resistance ................................ ................................ ..................... 129 IX - F.2. Factors Impacting Development of Resistance ................................ ............. 131 IX - F.3. Herbicide Resistance Management ................................ ............................... 132 IX - G. Summary of Environmental Assessment ................................ ............................ 133 IX - H. References ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 134 X. Adverse Consequences of Introduction ................................ ................................ ...... 138 XI. Appendices ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 139 Appendix 1. Methods for Molecular Characterization of DAS - 68416 - 4 Soybean ................ 140 Appendix 2. Methods and Results for Characterization of AAD - 12 Protein ........................ 143 Appendix 3. Methods and Results for Characterization of PAT Protein ............................... 155 Appendix 4. Methods for AAD - 12 and PAT Protein Expression Analysis ........................... 158 Appendix 5. USDA Notifications for DAS - 68416 - 4 Soybean ................................ .............. 160 Appendix 6. Literature Ranges for Compositional Analysis ................................ ................. 161 Appendix 7. Glyphosate, 2,4 - D, Glufosinate and Herbicide Resistant Weeds ...................... 165 Appendix 8. Stewardship of Herbicide Tolerant DAS - 68416 - 4 Soybeans ........................... 178USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 9 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### List of Figures Figure 1. Plasmid map of pDAB4468. ................................ ................................ .......................... 21 Figure 2. Diagram of T - DNA insert in plasmid pDAB4468. ................................ ....................... 21 Figure 3. Development of DAS - 68416 - 4 soybean. ................................ ................................ ...... 22 Figure 4. Breeding diagram of DAS - 68416 - 4 soybean. ................................ ............................... 23 Figure 5 . Location of probes on pDAB4468 used in Southern blot analysis of DAS - 68416 - 4 soybean. ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 31 Figure 6. Plasmid map of pDAB4468 with restriction enzyme sites used for Southern blot analysis. ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 34 Figure 7. pDAB4468 T - DNA insert, restriction enzymes used in DNA digestion and expected hybridization bands. ................................ ................................ ........................... 35 Figure 8. Southern blot analysis of Nco I digest with aad- 12 probe. ................................ ........... 39 Figure 9. Southern blot analysis of Sph I/ Xho I digest with aad- 12 probe. ................................ .. 40 Figure 10. Southern blot analysis of Nhe I/ Xho I digest with aad- 12 probe. ............................... 41 Figure 11. Southern blot analysis of Nco I, Sph I/ Xho I, and Nhe I/

Xho I digests of T5 generation with aad- 12 probe. ................................ ................................ .......................... 42 Figure 12. Southern blot analysis of Pst I digest with aad- 12 probe. ................................ ........... 43 Figure 13. Southern blot analysis of Pst I dige st of T5 generation with aad- 12 , AtUbi10, and AtuORF23 probes. ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 44 Figure 14. Southern blot analysis of Pst I digest with AtUbi10 probe. ................................ ........ 45 Figure 15. Southern blot analysis of Pst I digest with AtuORF23 probe. ................................ .... 46 Figure 16. Southern blot analysis of Nco I digest with pat probe. ................................ ................ 47 Figure 17. Southern blot analysis of Sph I/ Xho I digest with pat probe. ................................ ...... 48 Figure 18. Southern blot analysis of Nhe I/ Xho I digest with pat probe. ................................ ...... 49 Figure 19. Southern blot analysis of Nco I, Sph I/ Xho I, and Nhe I/

Xho I digests of T5 generation with pat probe. ................................ ................................ ................................ 50 Figure 20. Southern blot an alysis of Pst I/ Xho I digest with pat probe. ................................ ....... 51 Figure 21. Southern blot analysis of Pst I/ Xho I digest of T5 generation with pat, CsVMV, and AtuORF1 probes. ................................ ................................ ........................ 52 Figure 22. Southern blot analysis of Pst I/ Xho I digest with CsVMV probe. .............................. 53 Figure 23. Southern blot analysis of Pst I/ Xho I digest with AtuORF1 probe. ............................ 54 Figure 24. Southern blot analysis of BamH I/ Nco I digest with RB7 probe. ................................ 55 Figure 25. Southern blot analysis of BamH I/ Nco I diges t with AtUbi10 probe. ......................... 56 Figure 26. Southern blot analysis of BamH I/ Nco I digest of T5 generation with RB7 and AtUbi10 probes. ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 57 Figure 27. Southern blot analysis of Nco I digest with backbone probe set 1 from plasmid pDAB4468 vector backbone. ................................ ................................ ............................ 58 Figure 28. Southern blot analysis of Nco I digest with backbone probe s et 2 from plasmid pDAB4468 vector backbone. ................................ ................................ ............................ 59 Figure 29. Southern blot analysis of Sph I/ Xho I digest with backbone probe set 1 from plasmid pDAB4468 vector backbone. ................................ ................................ .............. 60 Figure 30. Southern blot analysis of Sph I/ Xho I digest with backbone probe set 2 plasmid pDAB4468 vector backbone. ................................ ................................ ............................ 61 Figure 31. Southern blot analysis of Nco I, Sph I/ Xho I, and Nhe I/

Xho I digests of T5 generations with the backbone probe set 1 from pDAB4468 vector backbone. ............... 62USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 10 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### Figure 32. Southern blot analysis of Nco I, Sph I/ Xho I, and Nhe I/

Xho I digests of T5 generation with the backbone probe set 2 from pDAB4468 vector backbone. ................ 63 Figure 33. Southern blot analysis of Nco I digest with aad- 12 probe. ................................ ......... 66 Figure 34. Southern blot analysis of Nco I digest with pat probe. ................................ ................ 67 Figure 35. Amino acid sequence of the AAD - 12 protein. ................................ ............................ 69 Figure 36. Amino acid sequence of the PAT protein. ................................ ................................ ... 73 Figure 37. Summary of the proximate, fiber and mineral analysis of soybean forage (% dry weight). ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 92 Figure 38. Summary of the proximate and fiber analysis of soybean grain. ................................ 95 Figure 39. Summary of the mineral analysis of soybean grain (mg/100 g dry weight). .............. 98 Figure 40. Summary of the amino acid analysis of soybean grain (% dry weight). ................... 101 Figure 41. Summary of the fatty acid analysis of soybean grain (% total fatty acids). .............. 106 Figure 42. Summary of vitamin analysis of soybean grain (mg/kg dry weight). ....................... 109 Figure 43. Summary of isoflavone analysis of soybean grain ( μg/g). ................................ ........ 112 Figure 44. Summary of anti - nutrient analysis of soybean grain (% dry weight). ....................... 114 Figure 45. Degradation reaction of 2,4 - D catalyzed by AAD - 12. ................................ .............. 116 Figure 46. Adoption of genetically engineered crops in the U.S. ................................ ............... 125 Figure 47. 2,4 - D herbicide application timing and rates for conventional and DAS - 68416 - 4 soybeans. ................................ ................................ ................................ . 126 Figure 48. Glyphosate application rates in U.S. corn and soybeans from 1990 thru 2007. ........ 127 Figure 49. Resistant weed biotypes per herbicide mode of action. ................................ ............ 131 Figure 50. SDS - PAGE of soybean - and microbe - derived AAD - 12. ................................ .......... 145 Figure 51. SDS - PAGE and western blot of soybean - and microbe - derived AAD - 12 protein extracts. ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 146 Figure 52. Glycosylation analysis of soybean - and microbe - derived AAD - 12 proteins. ........... 147 Figure 53. Theoretical trypsin (top panel) and Asp - N (bottom panel) cleavage of the AAD - 12 protein. ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 149 Figure 54. Sequence coverage in the tryptic and Asp - N peptide mapping analysis of plant- derived AAD - 12 protein with MALDI- TOF and ESI/LC MS. ............................. 150 Figure 55. Sequence coverage in the peptide mapping analysis of microbe - derived AAD 12 protein with MALDI- TOF and ESI/LC MS. ................................ ............................. 151 Figure 56. SDS - PAGE and western blots of DAS - 68416 - 4 and non - transgenic Maverick soybean. ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 156 Figure 57. U.S. adoption rates of glyphosate - tolerant soybean, cotton and corn. ...................... 166 Figure 58. Number of glyphosate -resistant weeds reported globally by year from 1996 to 2008. ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 171 Figure 59. Example weed resistance management statement on DAS glyphosate brand labels. ................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 179USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 11 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### List of Tables Table 1. Genetic elements of the T - DNA insert from plasmid pDAB4468. ................................ 25 Table 2. List of probes and their positions in plasmid pDAB4468. ................................ ............. 31 Table 3. Predicted and observed sizes of hybridizing fragments in Southern blot analyses of DAS - 68416 - 4 soybean. ................................ ................................ ................................ 32 Table 4. Results of F2 individual plants tested for of AAD - 12 expression within a single segregating generation. ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 65 Table 5. Predicted and observed hybridizing fragments in Southern blot analysis of F2 population. ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 65 Table 6. Results of F2 individual plants analyzed by Southern blot with aad- 12 and pat probes within a single segregating generation. ................................ ................................ . 65 Table 7. Results of F2 individual plants tested for aad- 12 within a single segregating generation. ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 68 Table 8. Summary of AAD - 12 protein levels in tissues collected from DAS - 68416 - 4 produced in the U.S. and Canada during 2008. ................................ ................................ 71 Table 9. Summary of PAT protein levels in tissues collected from DAS - 68416 - 4 produced in the U.S. and Canada during 2008. ................................ ................................ 75 Table 10. Agronomic parameters evaluated in Experiment 1. ................................ ...................... 80 Table 11. Analysis of agronomic characteristics from Experiment 1. ................................ .......... 82 Table 12. Locations for Experiment 2 agronomic and yield trials, 2009. ................................ .... 83 Table 13. Data collected in Experiment 2 agronomic and yield trials, 2009. ............................... 84 Table 14. Agronomic parameters for sprayed (2,4 - D) and unsprayed DAS - 68416 - 4 soybean. ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 84 Table 15. Agronomic parameters for DAS - 68416 - 4 and Maverick soybean. .............................. 85 Table 16. Analysis of disease incidence and insect damage from Experiment 1. ........................ 86 Table 17. Disease and insect stressors observed in trials of DAS - 68416 - 4 and conventional soybean. ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 87 Table 18. Germination of DAS - 68416 - 4 seeds under warm and cold conditions. ....................... 88 Table 19. Summary of the proximate, fiber and mineral analysis of soybean forage (% dry weight). ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 91 Table 20. Summary of the proximate and fiber analysis of soybean grain (% dry weight). ........ 94 Table 21. Summary of the mineral analysis of soybean grain (mg/100g dry weight). ................. 97 Table 22. Summary of the amino acid analysis of soybean grain (% dry weight). .................... 100 Table 23. Summary of the fatty acid analysis of soybean grain (% total fatty acids). ............... 105 Table 24. Summary of vitamin analysis of soybean grain (mg/kg dry weight). ......................... 108 Table 25. Summary of isoflavone analysis of soybean grain ( μg/g). ................................ ......... 111 Table 26. Summary of anti - nutrient analysis of soybean grain (% dry weight). ........................ 114 Table 27. DAS - 68416 - 4 soybean tolerance to preemergence applications of 2,4 - D, 2008. ....... 117 Table 28. DAS - 68416 - 4 soybean tolerance to post - emergence applications of 2,4 - D, 2008. ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 118 Table 29. DAS - 68416 - 4 soybean tolerance to postemergence applications of glufosinate, 2008. ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 119 Table 30. Common troublesome weeds in soybeans in 2006 - 2008. ................................ ........... 122 Table 31. Yield reduction from specific weed species in soybeans. ................................ .......... 123 Table 32. Number of herbicide resistant weeds globally by herbicide group and mode of action. ................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 130USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 12 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### Table 33. Assessment of resistance risk by evaluation of cropping systems. ............................. 132 Table 34. Glyphosate - and ALS - resistant weeds controlled by 2,4 - D. ................................ ...... 133 Table 35. Summary of N - terminal sequence data of AAD - 12 soybean - and microbe derived proteins. ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 152 Table 36. Summary of C - terminal sequence data of AAD - 12 soybean - and microbe derived proteins. ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 153 Table 37. Summary of literature values for proximates in soybean forage. ............................... 161 Table 38. Summary of literature values for proximates in soybean grain. ................................ . 161 Table 39. Summary of literature values for amino acids in soybean grain. ................................ 162 Table 40. Summary of literature values for isoflavones in soybean grain. ................................ . 162 Table 41. Summary of literature values for fatty acids in soybean grain. ................................ .. 163 Table 42. Summary of literature values for vitamins in soybean grain. ................................ ..... 163 Table 43. Summary of literature values for minerals in soybean grain. ................................ ..... 164 Table 44. Summary of literature values for anti - nutrients in soybean grain. ............................. 164 Table 45. Summary of literature values for tocopherols in soybean grain. ................................ 164 Table 46. Herbicide - tolerant crops available to farmers in North America in 2005. ................. 165 Table 47. Weed species with reported glyphosate -resistant biotypes. ................................ ........ 170 Table 48. Global reports of glyphosate -resistant weed biotypes with resistance to other herbicide modes of action. ................................ ................................ .............................. 171 Table 49. Potential weed shifts with use of glyphosate in U.S. corn and soybeans. .................. 172 Table 50. Weed species with reported 2,4 - D -resistant biotypes. ................................ ................ 173USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 13 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### Acronyms and Scientific Terms 2,4 - D 2,4 - Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid A Acre aad- 12 Gene from Delftia acidovorans which encodes the AAD - 12 protein AAD - 12 Aryloxyalkanoate Dioxygenase - 12 protein ACC ase Acetyl CoA carboxylase ADF Acid detergent fiber ae Acid equivalent ae/A Acid equivalent per acre ae/ha Acid equivalent per hectare ai Active ingredient ai/A Active ingredient per acre ai/ha Active ingredient per hectare ALS Acetolactate synthase ANOVA Analysis of variance APHIS Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA AtUbi10 Ubiquitin promoter from Arabidopsis thaliana AtuORF1 3’ untranslated region from Agrobacterium tumefaciens AtuORF23 3’ untranslated region from Agrobacterium tumefaciens bp Base pair bu Bushel CFIA Canadian Food Inspection Agency CFSAN Center for Food Safety and Nutrition, US FDA CsVMV Promoter from cassava vein mosaic virus DAS Dow AgroSciences LLC DAS - 68416 - 4 Soybean line containing event DAS - 68416 - 4 DCP 2,4 - Dichlorophenol DMA Dimethylamine DNA Deoxyribonucleic acid ELISA Enzyme - linked immunosorbent assay EPA Environmental Protection Agency (US) EPSPS 5 - enolpyruvylshikimate - 3 -phosphate synthase ESA Endangered Species Act ESI- LC/MS Electrospray ionization - liquid chromatography mass spectrometry Event DAS - 68416 - 4 OECD identifier for the soybean event expressing the AAD - 12 protein FDA Food and Drug Administration (US) FDR False Disc overy Rate FIFRA Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act FWS Fish and Wildlife Service GS Glutamine synthetase ha Hectare HRAC Herbicide Resistance Action Committee IAA Indole acetic acid ILSI International Life Sciences Institute IWM Integrated weed managementUSDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 14 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### Kb Kilobase pair kDa Kilodalton L Liter LOD Limit of Detection LOQ Limit of Quantitation MALDI- TOF MS Matrix assisted laser desorption/ionization time - of - flight mass spectrometry Maverick Publicly available soybean line used in transformation to produce event DAS - 68416 - 4 MCPA 4 - chloro - 2 - methylphenoxyacetic acid MOA Mode of action NDF Neutral detergent fiber OECD Organisation for Economic Co - operation and Development pat Gene from Streptomyces viridochromogenes which enco des the PAT protein PAT Phosphinothricin N - acetyl transferase protein PBN US FDA Pre - market Biotechnology Notice pDAB4468 DNA vector carrying the transgene s (aad- 1 2 and pat) for insertion into the plant genome Pf Pseudomonas fluorescens PPO Protoporphyrinogen oxidase PTU Plant transcription unit consisting of promoter, gene, and terminator sequences RB7 MAR Matrix attachment region (MAR) from Nicotiana tabacum RCB Randomized complete block SCN Soybean cyst nematode SDS - PAGE Sodium dodecyl sulfate polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis SGF Simulated gastric fluid spp species subsp subspecies T - DNA Transfer DNA USDA United States Department of Agriculture WSSA Weed Science Society of AmericaUSDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 15 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### I. Rationale for the Development of DAS - 68416 - 4 Soybean I - A. B asis for the Request for Nonregulated Status The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has responsibility, under the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7701 - 7772) and the Plant Quarantine Act (7 U.S.C. 151 - 167), to prevent the introduction or dissemination of plant pests into or within the United States. Part 340 regulates introduction of organisms altered or produced through genetic engineering which are plant pests or for which there is a reason to believe are plant pests. The APHIS regulations at 7 CFR 430.6 provide that an applicant may petition APHIS to evaluate submitted data on the genetically engineered crop to determine that a regulated article does not present a plant pest risk and therefore s hould no longer be regulated. Dow AgroSciences is submitting data for genetically engineered herbicide - tolerant DAS - 68416 - 4 soybean and requests a determination from APHIS that event DAS - 68416 - 4 and crosses of this event with nonregulated soybean lines no longer be considered regulated articles under 7 CFR 340. I - B. Benefits of DAS - 68416 - 4 Soybean Dow AgroSciences LLC (herein referred to as “DAS”) has developed transgenic soybean plants that are tolerant to the herbicides 2,4 - dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4 - D) and glufosinate. DAS - 68416 - 4 is the unique identifier of these plants, in accordance with the Organisation for Economic Co - operation and Development’s (OECD) “Guidance for the Designation of a Unique Identifier for Transgenic Plants” (OECD, 2004). DAS - 6841 6 - 4 soybean was developed using Agrobacterium - mediated transformation to stably incorporate the aad- 12 gene from Delftia acidovorans and pat gene from Streptomyces viridochromogenes into soybean. The aad- 12 gene encodes the aryloxyalkanoate dioxygenase - 12 (AAD - 12) enzyme which, when expressed in plants, degrades 2,4 - D into herbicidally- inactive 2,4 - dichlorophenol (DCP). The pat gene encodes the enzyme phosphinothricin acetyl transferase that inactivates glufosinate. The availability of DAS - 68416 - 4 soybean is expected to have a beneficial impact on weed control practices by providing growers with another tool to address their weed control needs. The availability of DAS - 68416 - 4 soybean will allow growers to proactively manage weed populations while avoiding adverse population shifts of troublesome weeds or the development of resistance, particularly glyphosate -resistance in weeds. With the introduction of genetically engineered, glyphosate - tolerant crops in the mid- 1990’s, growers were enabled with a simple, convenient, flexible, and inexpensive tool for controlling a wide spectrum of broadleaf and grass weeds that was unparalleled in agriculture. Consequently, producers were quick to adopt glyphosate - tolerant crops, and in many instances, abandon many of the accepted best agronomic practices such as crop rotation, herbicide mode of action rotation, tank mixing, and incorporation of mechanical with chemical and cultural weed control. Currently glyphosate - tolerant soybean, cotton, corn, sugar beets, and canola are commercially available in the United States and elsewhere in the Western Hemisphere. More glyphosate tolerant crops ( e.g., wheat, rice, turf, etc. ) are poised for introduction pending global marketUSDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 16 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### acceptance. Many other glyphosate - tolerant speci es are in experimental or development stages ( e.g. , alfalfa, sugar cane, sunflower, beets, peas, carrot, cucumber, lettuce, onion, strawberry, tomato, and tobacco; forestry species like poplar and sweetgum; and horticultural species like marigold, petunia, and begonias) (USDA APHIS, 2009). Additionally, the cost of glyphosate has dropped dramatically in recent years to the point that few conventional weed control programs can effectively compete on price and performance with glyphosate - tolerant crops systems. Extensive use of glyphosate - only weed control programs is resulting in the selection of glyphosate -resistant weeds, and is selecting for the propagation of weed species that are inherently more tolerant to glyphosate than most target species ( i.e. , weed shifts) (Heap, 2009). Although glyphosate has been widely used globally for more than 30 years, only a handful of weeds have been reported to have developed resistance to glyphosate; however, most of these have been identified in the past 5 - 8 years. Re sistant weeds in the U.S. include both grass and broadleaf species

—

Lolium rigidum (Rigid ryegrass), Lolium multiflorum (Italian ryegrass), Sorghum hale

pense (Johnsongrass), Amaranthus palmeri (Palmer amaranth), Amaranthus rudis (Common waterhemp), Ambrosia artemisiifolia (Common ragweed), Ambrosia trifida (Giant ragweed), Conyza canadensis (Horseweed), and Conyza bonariensis (Hairy fleabane) . Additionally, weeds that had previously not been an agronomic problem prior to the wide use of glyphosate - tolerant crops are now becoming more prevalent and difficult to control in the context of glyphosate - tolerant crops, which now comprise >90% of U.S. soybean acres and >60% of U.S. corn and cotton acres (USDA ERS 2009). These weed shifts are occurring predominantly , but not exclusively, with difficult- to - control broadleaf weeds. Some examples include Ipomoea, Amaranthus, Chenopodium, Taraxacum, and Commelina species. In areas where growers are faced with glyphosate - resistant weeds or a shift to more difficult- to c ontrol weed species, growers can compensate by tank mixing or alternating with other herbicides that will control the surviving weeds. One popular and efficacious tank mix active ingredient for controlling broadleaf escapes has been 2,4 - diclorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4 - D). 2,4 - D has been used agronomically and in non - crop situations for broad spectrum, broadleaf weed control for more than 60 years. Individual cases of more tolerant weed species have been reported, but 2,4 - D remains one of the most widely u sed herbicides globally. The development of 2,4 - D - tolerant soybeans provides an excellent option for controlling broadleaf, glyphosate resistant (or highly tolerant and shifted) weed species for in - crop applications, allowing the grower to focus applicati ons at the critical weed control stages and extending the application window without the need for specialized sprayer equipment. Combining the 2,4 - D - tolerance trait and a glyphosate - tolerance trait through conventional breeding (“stacking” traits) would give growers the ability to use tank mixes of glyphosate/2,4 - D over- the - top of the tolerant plants to control the glyphosate -resistant broadleaf species. DAS - 68416 - 4 soybeans also provide tolerance to glufosinate herbicides. Glufosinate is a non - selective, contact herbicide that controls a broad spectrum of annual and perennial grasses and broadleaf weeds. The tolerance to glufosinate allows use of an additional mode of action as part of effective herbicide resistance management strategies. Glufosinate herbicides can also be used as selection agents in breeding nurseries to select herbicide - tolerant plants to maintain seed trait purity.USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 17 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### The commercial introduction of transgenic soybean exhibiting tolerance to 2,4 - D and glufosinate will bring new weed control alternatives for growers . This new weed management tool will allow for the improved control of key broadleaf weeds which can affect the vigor and yield of the crop, allow an increased herbicide application window for effective weed control, and provide an effective resistance management/prevention solution to the increased incidence of glyphosate - and acetolactate synthase (ALS) -resistant weeds. I - C. Submissions to Other Regulatory Agencies AAD - 12 soybean event DAS - 68416 - 4 falls within the scope of the FDA policy statement, published in the Federal Register on May 29, 1992, concerning regulation of products derived from new plant varieties, including those developed via biotechnology. DAS submitted a pre market biotechnology notification (PBN) to FDA in December 2009 . As per EPA’s authority over the use of pesticidal substances under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), plant metabolism and residue data for 2,4 - D on DAS - 68416 - 4 soybeans as well as proposed labeling for the use of 2,4 - D on DAS - 68416 - 4 soybean s will be submitted to EPA in Q1 2011 . DAS intends to submit dossiers in 2010 to the regulatory authorities of trade partners for import clearance and production approval which may include Canada, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, European Union, Australia/New Zealand, South Africa, Brazil, Argentina and Mexico. I - D. References Heap, I. (2009) The International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds. (http://www.weedscience.com) OECD (2004) OECD Guidance for the Designation of a Unique Identifier for Transgenic Plants. Organisation for Economic Co - operation and Development. Series on Harmonization of Regulatory Oversight in Biotechnology, No. 23. ENV/JM/MONO(2002)7. (http://www.olis.oecd.org/olis/2002doc.nsf/LinkTo/env - jm- mono(2002)7 ) USDA APHIS (2009) Field Test Release Applications in the U.S. Accessed November 1, 2009. http://www.isb.vt.edu/cfdocs/fieldtests1.cfm USDA ERS (2009) USDA Economic Research Service Data Sets

– Adoption of Genetically Engineered Crops in the U.S. (http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/BiotechCrops/)USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 18 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### II. The Biology of Soybean II - A. Overview of Soybean Biology Refer to the OECD Consensus Document on the Biology of Glycine max (L.) Merr. (Soybean), 2000, for information related to the following aspects of soybean biology:  general description, including taxonomy, morphology, and the uses of soybean as a crop plant  agronomic practices  centers of origin  reproductive biology  cultivated Glycine max as a volunteer weed  ability to cross inter- species/genus, introgressions into relatives, and interactions with other organisms  summary of the ecology of Glycine max The vegetative and reproductive stages of a soybean plant are described using the following nomenclature (Pedersen, 2004; Gaska, 2006): Vegetative Stages Reproductive Stages VE Emergence R1 Beginning bloom VC Unrolled unifoliate leaves R2 Full bloom V1 First- trifoliate R3 Beginning pod V2 Second- trifoliate R4 Full pod V3 Third- trifoliate R5 Beginning seed V(n) nth



### - trifoliate R6 Full seed R7 Beginning maturity R8 Full maturity II - B. Characterization of the Recipient Soybean Cultivar The publicly available cultivar ‘Maverick’ was used as the recipient line for the generation of DAS - 68416 - 4 soybean. Maverick was originally develop ed by the Missouri and Illinois Agricultural Experiment Stations at the Universities of Missouri and Illinois, respectively, and released in 1996 (Sleper et al. , 1998). Maverick was developed because of its resistance to the soybean cyst nematode (SCN) and higher yield compared with SCN -resistant cultivars of similar maturity. Maverick is classified as a late Group III maturity (relative maturity 3.8). Maverick has purple flowers, grey pubescence, brown pods at maturity, and dull yellow seed with buff hila. Maverick is resistant to phytophthora rot but is susceptible to brown stem rot and sudden death syndrome .USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 19 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### II - C. References Gaska, J. (2006) Soybean Growth and D evelopment (http://soybean.uwex.edu/library/soybean/morphology/documents/04_soy_growth_development. pdf ) OECD (2000) Consensus Document on the Biology of Glycine max (L.) Merr. (Soybean). Organisation for Economic Co - operation and Development, Paris, France. Series on Harmonization of Regulatory O versight in Biotechnology No. 15. ENV/JM/MONO(2000)9. (http:/www.olis.oecd.org/olis/2000doc.nsf/LinkTo/env - jm- mono(2000)9 ) Pedersen, P. (2004) Soybean Growth and Development, Soybean Extension and Research Program, Department of Agronomy, Iowa State University (http://extension.agron.iastate.edu/soybean/production_growthstages.html ) Sleper, D.A., Nickell, C.D.; Noel, G.R., Cary, T.R., Thomas, D.J., Clark, K.M., Rao Arelli, A.P. (1998) Registration of ‘Maverick’ Soybean. Crop Science 38:549.USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 20 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### III. Development of DAS - 68416 - 4 Soybean III - A. Description of the Transformation System Transgenic soybean ( Glycine max) DAS - 68416 - 4 was generated through Agrobacterium mediated transformation of soybean cotyledonary node explants. The disarmed Agrobacterium tumefaciens strain EHA101 (Hood et al. , 198 6), carrying the binary vector pDAB4468 was used to initiate transformation. Agrobacterium - mediated transformation was carried out using a modified procedure of Zeng et al. (2004). Briefly, soybean seeds (cv Maverick) were germinated on basal media and cotyledonary nodes were isolated and infected with Agrobacteri um. Shoot initiation, shoot elongation, and rooting media were supplemented with cefotaxime, timentin and vancomycin for removal of Agrobacterium . Glufosinate selection was employed to inhibit the growth of non transformed shoots. Selected shoots were transferred to rooting medium for root development and then transferred to soil mix for acclimatization of plantlets. Terminal leaflets of selected plantlets were leaf painted with glufosinate to screen for putative transformants. The screened plantlets were transferred to the greenhouse, allowed to acclimate and then leaf

-painted with glufosinate to reconfirm tolerance . Surviving plantlets were deemed to be putative transformants. The screened plants were sampled and molecular analyses for the confirmation of the selectable marker gene and/or the gene of interest were carried out. T 0 

### plants were allowed to self fertilize in the greenhouse to give rise to T 1 

### seed. Figure 1 shows a plasmid map of pDAB4468 with all genetic element s identified. Figure 2 shows a diagram of the T - DNA insert in plasmid pDAB4468 . Figure 3 shows the steps used to develop DAS - 68416 - 4 soybean. Figure 4 shows a breeding diagram for DAS - 68416 - 4 soybean including identification of the generations used in the various safety assessment studies.USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 21 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### Figure 1 . Plasmid map of pDAB4468.

Figure 2 . Diagram of T - DNA insert in plasmid pDAB4468 . 

# pDAB4468 

# 12154 bp AAD - 12 trfA SpecR

PAT T - DNA Border A T - DNA Border A T - DNA Border A

T - DNA Border B AtUbi10 promoter

CsVMV promoter Ori Rep AtuORF23 3'UTR

AtuORF1 3' UTR RB7 MAR 

# pDAB4468 

# 12154 bp AAD - 12 trfA SpecR

PAT T - DNA Border A T - DNA Border A T - DNA Border A

T - DNA Border B AtUbi10 promoter

CsVMV promoter Ori Rep AtuORF23 3'UTR

AtuORF1 3' UTR RB7 MAR

pDAB4468 T - DNA Insert 

### 6794 bp AAD - 12 PAT T - DNA Border A T - DNA Border A T - DNA Border A T - DNA Border B AtUbi10 promoter CsVMV promoter AtuORF23 3'UTR AtuORF1 3' UTR

RB7 MAR 

### pDAB4468 T - DNA Insert



### 6794 bp AAD - 12 PAT T - DNA Border A T - DNA Border A T - DNA Border A T - DNA Border B AtUbi10 promoter CsVMV promoter AtuORF23 3'UTR AtuORF1 3' UTR

RB7 MARUSDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 22 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### Figure 3 . Development of DAS - 68416 - 4 soybean . The aad- 12 gene sequence that encodes the AAD - 12 protein from Delftia acidovorans was synthesized to produce an aad- 12 gene sequence for expression in soybean. A plasmid containing aad- 12 gene and pat gene cassettes was assembled and inserted into a plant expression cassette to make transformation plasmid pDAB4468. The aad- 12 gene was introduced into the soybean line Maverick via Agrobacterium tumefaciens - mediated transformation. Transformed plants were selected based on in vitro tolerance to glufosinate herbicide and regeneration of T0 soybean plants. T0 plants were screened for absence of vector backbone, presence of gene of interest, copy number, and tolerance to 2,4 - D and glufosinate herbicides. T0 plants that passed the screen were self

-pollinated. Continued self pollination, molecular characterization, and evaluation of agronomic performance and herbicide efficacy were performed. Selection of homozygous plants, backcrossing and crossing for product development. Selection of DAS - 68416 - 4 event as the lead commercial candidate.USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 23 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### Figure 4 . Breeding diagram of DAS - 68416 - 4 soybean .

Analysis Petition Section(s) DAS - 68416 - 4 Soybean Generation Us ed Control Molecular Analysis V - A, V - B, V - C, V - D T 3 , T4 , T5 Maverick Segregation Analysis V - E F2 Maverick Protein Characterization VI- A.2, VI- B.2 T5 Maverick Protein Expression VI- A.3, VI- B.3 T4 Maverick Agronomics VII T4, T6 Maverick Germination/Dormancy VII- C T6 Maverick Composition VIII T4 Maverick Efficacy IX - A T4 Maverick

T0 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 F1 T6 F2 BC1F1 T7 F3 BC1F2 BC2F1 Self Self Self Self Self Self Self Self

Self Self Backcross to recurrent parents

Backcross to recurrent parents Cross to elite lines T0 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 F1 T6 F2 BC1F1 T7 F3 BC1F2 BC2F1 Self Self Self Self Self Self Self Self

Self Self Backcross to recurrent parents

Backcross to recurrent parents Cross to elite linesUSDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 24 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### III - B. Selection of Comparators for DAS - 68416 - 4 Soybean To ensure the accurate assessment of the impact of transgene insertion on various characteristics of DAS - 68416 - 4 soybean , a proper selection of comparator plants is important. The control plants should have a genetic background similar to that of DAS - 68416 - 4 soybean , but lack the transgenic insert. In all cases, the non - transgenic variety Maverick was used as the control. M averick is the recipient variety that was transformed to generate DAS - 68416 - 4 soybean. The T0 plants and all subsequent self -pollinated generations derived posttransformation were essentially genetically identical to Maverick soybean with the exception of the transgenic insert DNA. III - C. References Hood, E.E.; Helmer, G.L.; Fraley, R.T.; Chilton, M. - D. The Hypervirulence of Agrobacterium tumefaciens A281 Is Encoded in a Region of pTiBo542 Outside of T - DNA, Journal of Bacteriology , 1986 168 (3):1291 - 1301. Zeng, P .; Vadnais, D.A.; Zhang, Z.; Polacco, J.C. Refined glufosinate selection in Agrobacterium - mediated transformation of soybean [ Glycine max (L.) Merrill], Plant Cell Reports 2004 22 :478

–482USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 25 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### IV. Donor Genes and Regulatory Sequences IV - A. Identity and Source of Geneti c Material in pDAB4468 Soybean event DAS - 68416 - 4 was generated by Agrobacterium - mediated transformation using the plasmid pDAB4468 (Figure 1 ). The T - DNA insert in the plasmid contains a synthetic, plantoptimized sequence of the aad- 12 gene from Delftia acidovorans and the pat gene from Streptomyces viridochromogenes (Figure 2 ). A summary of the genetic elements is given in Table 1 . Table 1 . Genetic elements of the T - DNA insert from plasmid pDAB4468 . Location on T DNA insert of pDAB4468 1 Genetic Element Size (base pairs) Description 1 − 24 T -DNA Border B 24 Transferring DNA sequences 25 − 160 Intervening

sequence 136 Sequence from Ti plasmid pTi15955 (Barker et al. , 1983) 161 − 1326 RB7 -MAR 1166 Matrix attachment region (MAR) from Nicotiana tabacum (Hall et al. , 1991) 1327 − 1421 Intervening

sequence 95 Sequence from plasmid pENTR/D -TOPO (Invitrogen Cat. No. A10465) and multiple cloning sites 1422− 2743 AtUbi10 1322 Arabidopsis thaliana polyubiquitin UBQ10 comprising the promoter, 5' untranslated region and intron (Norris et al., 1993 ) 2744− 2751 Intervening

sequence 8 Sequence used for DNA cloning 2752− 363 3 aad- 12 882 Synthetic, plant- optimized version of an aryloxyalkanoate dioxygenase gene from Delftia acidovorans (Wright et al ., 2007 ) 363 4− 3735 Intervening

sequence 10 2 Sequence used for DNA cloning 3736−4192 AtuORF23 457 3' untranslated region (UTR) comprising the transcriptional terminator and polyadenylation site of open reading frame 23 (ORF23) of Agrobacterium tumefaciens pTi15955 (Bar ker et al ., 1983) 4193 −4306 Intervening

sequence 114 Sequence from plasmid pENTR/D -TOPO (Invitrogen Cat. No. A10465) and multiple cloning sites 4307 −4823 CsVMV 51 7 Promoter and 5' untranslated region derived from the cassava vein mosaic virus (Verdaguer et al. , 1996) 4824−4830 Intervening

sequence 7 Sequence used for DNA cloning 4831 − 5382 pat 552 Synthetic, plant- optimized version of phosphinothricin N - acetyl transferase (PAT) gene, isolated from Streptomyces viridochromogenes (Wohlleben et al. , 1988) 5383 − 5484 Intervening

sequence 102 Sequence from plasmid pCRI2.1(Invitrogen Cat. No. K205001) and multiple cloning sitesUSDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 26 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### Table 1 (cont.). Genetic elements of the T - DNA insert from plasmid pDAB4468. Location on T DNA insert of pDAB4468 1 Genetic Element Size (base pairs) Description 5485 − 6188 AtuORF1 704 3' untranslated region (UTR) comprising the transcriptional terminator and polyadenylation site of open reading frame 1 (ORF1) of Agrobacterium tumefaciens pTi15955 (Bar ker et al. , 1983) 6189 − 6416 Intervening

sequence 228 Sequence from Ti plasmid C58 (Zambryski et al. , 1982; Wood et al. , 2001) 6417 − 6440 T -DNA border A 24 Transferring DNA sequence 6441 − 6459 Intervening

sequence 19 Sequence from Ti plasmid C58 (Zambryski et al. , 1982; Wood et al. , 2001) 6460− 6483 T -DNA border A 24 Transferring DNA sequence 6484− 6770 Intervening

sequence 287 Sequence from Ti plasmid pTi15955 (Barker et al. , 1983) 6771 − 6794 T -DNA border A 24 Transferring DNA sequence 1 Base pair position. 

### Two gene expression cassettes were present in the pDAB4468 vector for insertion into soybeans. The aad- 12 expression cassette contained in the T - DNA insert of pDAB4468 is designed to express the plant- optimized aryloxyalkanoate dioxygenase (aad- 12 ) gene that encodes the AAD - 12 protein. The aad- 12 gene was isolated from Delftia acidovorans and the synthetic version of the gene was optimized to modify the G+C codon bias to a level more typical for plant expression. The native and plant- optimized DNA sequences of aad- 12 are 79.7% identical. The aad- 12 gene encodes a protein of 293 amino acids that has a molecular weight of approximately 32 kDa. The insertion of aad- 12 into soybean plants confers tolerance to herbicides such as 2,4 - D by production of the aryloxyalkanoate dioxygenase - 12 enzyme (AAD - 12). De l ftia acidovorans , which has previously been identified as Pseudomonas acidovorans and Comamonas acidovorans , is a non glucose - fermenting, gram- negative, non spore - forming rod present in soil, fresh water, activated sludge, and clinical specimens (von Gravenitz 1985 , Tamaoka et al. 1987, Wen et al. , 1999) . D. acidovorans can be used to transform ferulic acid into vanillin and related flavor metabolites (Toms and Wood, 1970; Ramachandra Rao and Ravishankar, 2000; Shetty et al. , 2006). This utility has led to a history of safe use for D. acidovorans in the food processing industry. For example, US Patent 5,128,253 “Bioconversion process for the production of vanillin” was issued on July 7, 1992 to Kraft General Foods (Labuda et al. , 1992) . Expression of aad- 12 in the T - DNA insert of pDAB4468 is controlled by the AtUbi10 promoter from Arabidopsis thaliana and AtuORF23 3’ UTR sequence from Agrobacterium tumefaciens plasmid pTi15955. The AtUbi10 promoter is known to drive constitutive expression of the genes it control s (Norris et al., 1993 ). The function of AtuORF23 (GenBank Accession: CAA25184) in pTi15955 (Genbank Accession: X00493) was not identified (Barker et al., 1983), however a search of its translated amino acid sequence returned no significant similarity with known functional proteins.USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 27 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### A matrix attachment region (MAR) of RB7 from Nicotiana tabacum was included at the 5’ end of the aad- 12 PTU (plant transcriptional unit, includes promoter, gene, and terminator sequences) to potentially facilitate expression of the aad- 12 gene in the plant. Matrix attachments regions are natural and abundant regions found in genomic DNA that are thought to attach to the matrix or scaffold of the nucleus. When positioned on the flanking ends of gene cassettes, some MARs have been shown to increase expression of transgenes and to reduce the incidence of gene silencing (Abranches et al ., 2005; Han et al. , 1997; Verma et al. , 2005). It is hypothesized that MARs may act to buffer effects from neighboring chromosomal sequences that could destabilize the expression of genes (Allen et al ., 2000). A MAR was included at the 5’ end of aad- 12 PTU to potentially increase the consistency of aad- 12 expression in transgenic plants. The pat expression cassette contained in the T - DNA insert of pDAB4468 is designed to express the plant- optimized phosphinothricin N - acetyl transferase (

pat) gene that encodes the PAT protein. The pat gene was isolated from Streptomyces viridochromogenes and the synthetic version of the gene was optimized to modif y the G+C codon bias to a level more typical for plant expression. The insertion of the pat gene into soybean genome confers tolerance to glufosinate and was used as a selectable marker during the soybean transformation. The pat gene encodes a protein of 183 amino acids that has a molecular weight of approximately 21 kDa. The pat gene has been widely used both as a selectable marker and herbicide tolerance trait in previously deregulated products ( e.g., USDA 1996, USDA 2001, USDA 2004, USDA 2005 ) Express ion of the pat gene in the T - DNA insert of pDAB4468 is controlled by the CsVMV promoter from cassava vein mosaic virus and AtuORF1 3’ UTR sequence from Agrobacterium tumefaciens plasmid pTi15955. The cassava vein mosaic virus is a double stranded DNA viru s which infects cassava plants (Manihot esculenta Crantz) and has been characterized as a plant pararetrovirus belonging to the caulimovirus subgroup. The CsVMV promoter is known to drive constitutive expression of the genes it controls (Verdaguer et al. , 1996). The function of AtuORF1 (GenBank Accession: CAA25163) in pTi15955 (GenBank Accession: X00493) was not identified (Barker et al. , 1983), but its translated amino acid sequence has a significant similarity with an indole - 3 - lactate synthase (GenBank Accession: AAK90967) from Agrobacterium tumefaciens str. C58. IV - B. References Abranches, R., Shultz, R. W., Thompson, W. F., Allen, G. C. ( 2005 ) Matrix attachment regions and regulated transcription increase and stabilize transgene expression. Plant Biotechnol ogy Journal 3: 535 - 543. Allen, G.C., Spiker, S., Thompson, W.F. ( 2000 ) Use of matrix attachment regions (MARs) to minimize transgene silencing. Plant Molecular Biology 43:361 - 376. Barker, R.F., Idler, K.B., Thompson, D.V. and Kemp, J.D. ( 1983 ) Nucleotide s equence of the T DNA region from the Agrobacterium tumefaciens octopine Ti plasmid pTi15955. Plant Mol. Biol. 2: 335 - 350.USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 28 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### Hall, G., Allen, G.C., Loer, D.S., Thompson, W.F., Spiker, S. ( 1991 ) Nuclear scaffolds and scaffold- attachment regions in higher plant s. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 88(20): 9320 - 9324. Han, K. - H., Caiping, M., Strauss, S.H. ( 1997 ) Matrix attachment regions (MARs) enhance transformation frequency and transgene expression in poplar. Trans genic Research 6: 415 - 420. Labuda, I.M., Goers, S.K., Keon, K.A. (1992) Bioconversion Process for the Production of Vanillin. US Patent #5,128,253. Norris, S.R., Meyer, S.E., Callis, J. (1993) The intron of Arabidopsis thaliana polyubiquitin genes is cons erved in location and is a quantitative determinant of chimeric gene expression. Plant Molecular Biology 21(5): 895 - 906. Ramachachandra Rao, S. and Ravishankar, G.A. (2000) Vanilla Flavor: Production by Conventional and Biotechnological Routes. Journal o f the Science of Food and Agriculture 80:289 - 304. Shetty, K., Paliyath, G., Pometto, A., Levin, R.E. (2006) Food Biotechnology, CRC Press, ISBN 0824753291, pp. 1672 - 1673. Tamaoka, J. , Ha, D.M. , Komagata, K. ( 1987 ) Reclassification of Pseudomonas acidovorans den Dooren de Jong 1926 and Pseudomonas testosteroni Marcus and Talalay 1956 as Comamonas acidovorans comb. nov. and Comamonas testosteroni comb. nov., with an emended description of the genus Comamonas . International Journal of Systematic Bacteriology 37:52 - 59. Toms, A., Wood, J.M. (1970) The Degradation of trans - Ferulic Acid by Pseudomonas acidovorans . Biochemistry 9:337 - 343. USDA (1996) Availability of Determination of Nonregulatated status for Soybeans Genetically Engineered for Glufosinate Herbicide Tolerance. Federal Register Volume 61, Number 160:42581 - 42582. USDA (2001) Availability of Determination of Non -regulatated status for Genetically Engineered Corn for Insect Resistance and Glufosinate Herbicide Tolerance (Corn line 1507). Federal Register Volume 66, Number 157:42624 - 42625. USDA (2004) Availability of Determination of Nonregulated Status for Cotton Lines Genetically Engineered for Insect Resistance . Federal Register Volume 69 , Number 1 56 :5 0154 - 50155 . USDA (2005) Availability of Determination of Non -regulated Status for Genetically Engineered Corn (Corn line DAS - 59122 - 7). Federal Register Volume 70, Number 194:58663 - 58664. Verdaguer, B., Kochko de, A., Beachy, R. N. and Fauquet, C. ( 1996 ) Isolation and expression in transgenic tobacco and rice plants, of the cassava vein mosaic virus (CVMV) promoter. Plant Molecular Biol ogy 31:1129 - 1139.USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 29 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### Verma, D., Verma, M., Dey, M., Jain, R.K., Wu, R. (2005) Molecular dissection of the tobacco Rb7 matrix attachment region (MAR): Effect of 5’ half on gene expression in rice. Plant Science 169: 704 - 711. Von Gravenitz, A, ( 1985 ) Ecology, clinical significance, and antimicrobial susceptibility encountered glucose - non - fermenting gram- negative rods, p. 181 - 232. In G. L. Gilardi (ed.), Nonfermentative gram- negative rods, laboratory identification and clinical aspects. Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York. Wen, A., Fegan, M., Hayward, C., Chakraborty, S., Sly, L.I. (1999) Phylogenetic relationships among members of the Comamonadaceae , and description of Delftia acidovor ans (den Dooren de Jong 1926 and Tamaoka et al. 1987) gen. nov., comb. nov. International Journal of Systematic Bacteriology 49:567 - 576. Wohlleben, W,, Arnold, W., Broer, I., Hillemann, D., Strauch, E. and Pühler, A. (1988) Nucleotide sequences of the pho sphinothricin N - acetyltransferase gene from Streptomyces viridochromogenes Tü494 and its expression in Nicotiana tabacum . Gene 70: 25 - 37. Wood, D.W.; Setubal, J.C.; Kaul, R.; Monks, D.E.; Kitajima, J.P.; Okura, V.K.; Zhou, Y.; Chen, L.; Wood, G.E.; Almeida , N.F. Jr.; Woo, L.; Chen, Y.; Paulsen, I.T.; Eisen, J.A.; Karp, P.D.; Bovee, D. Sr.; Chapman, P.; Clendenning, J.; Deatherage, G.; Gillet, W.; Grant, C.; Kutyavin, T.; Levy, R.; Li, M.J.; McClelland, E.; Palmieri, A.; Raymond, C.; Rouse, G.; Saenphimmachak, C.; Wu, Z.; Romero, P.; Gordon, D.; Zhang, S.; Yoo, H.; Tao, Y.; Biddle, P.; Jung, M.; Krespan, W.; Perry, M.; Gordon - Kamm, B.; Liao, L.; Kim, S.; Hendrick, C.; Zhao, Z.Y.; Dolan, M.; Chumley, F.; Tingey, S.V.; Tomb, J.F.; Gordon, M.P.; Olson, M.V.; Nes ter, E.W. (2001) The genome of the natural genetic engineer Agrobacterium tumefaciens C58. Science 294(5550):2317 - 2323. Wright, T.R.; Lira, J.M.; Walsh, T.; Merlo, D.J., Jayakumar, P., Lin, G. (2007 ) Novel Herbicide Resistance Genes. World Intellectual Property Organization International Publication Number WO 2007/053482 A2 Zambryski, P.; Depicker, A.; Kruger,K.; Goodman,H.M. (1982) Tumor induction by Agrobacterium tumefaciens : analysis of the boundaries of T - DNA. J ournal of Molecular and Applied Genetics 1(4):361 - 370.USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 30 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### V. Genetic Characterization V - A. Overview of Molecular Analysis Molecular characterization of event DAS - 68416 - 4 was conducted by Southern blot analysis. The results demonstrate that the transgene insert in soybean event DAS - 68416 - 4 occurred as a s imple integration of the T - DNA insert from plasmid pDAB4468, including a single, intact copy of the aad- 12 and pat expression cassettes. The event is stably integrated and inherited across and within breeding generations, and no plasmid backbone sequences are present in DAS - 68416 - 4 soybean. Detailed Southern blot analysis was conducted using probes specific to the gene coding sequence s , promoters , terminators , and other regulatory elements contained in the pDAB4468 transformation plasmid. The l ocations of each probe on the pDAB4468 plasmid are described in Table 2 and shown in Figure 5 . The expected and observed fragment sizes with specific digest and probe combinations, based on the kno wn restriction enzyme sites of the pDAB4468 plasmid are shown in Table 3 , Figure 6 and Figure 7 , respectively. The Southern blot analyses described here made use of two types of restriction fragments: a) internal fragments in which known enzyme restriction sites are completely contained within the T - DNA insert of pDAB4468 and b) border fragments in which a known enzyme site is located within the T - DNA insert and a second site is located in the soybean genome flanking the insert. Border fragment sizes vary by event because they rely on the DNA sequence of flanking genomic region. Since integration sites are unique for each event, border fragments provide a means to determine the number of DNA insertion s and to specifically identify the event. Genomic DNA for Southern blot analysis was prepared from leaf material of individual DAS - 68416 - 4 soybean plants from three distinct breeding generations. Genomic DNA from le aves of non - transgenic variety Maverick was used as the control material. Plasmid DNA of pDAB4468 added to genomic DNA from the conventional control served as the positive control for the Southern blot analysis . Materials and methods used for the Southern analyses are further described in Appendix 1 . The expected restriction fragments of the inserted DNA are shown in Figure 7 . Southern blot analysis showed that event DAS - 68416 - 4 contains a single intact copy of the aad- 12 and pat expression cassettes integrated at a single locus (Section V - B ). No vector backbone sequences were detected in event DAS - 68416 - 4 (Section V - C ). The hybridization patterns across four sample set s representing three generations of DAS - 68416 - 4 soybean (T 3 , T4 , and T5) were identical, indicating that the insertion is stably integrated in the soybean genome (Section V - D ). The inheritance of DAS - 68416 - 4 soybean in segregating generations was investigated using Southern blot analysis, detection of the AAD - 12 protein , and detection of the aad- 12 gene; all results confirmed the predicted inheritance of the transgene in a single locus (Section V - E).USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 31 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### Table 2 . List of probes and their positions in plasmid pDAB4468. Probe Name Size (bp) Location in pDAB4468 Flanking B 303 11894

– 42 RB7 1010 306

– 1315 AtUbi10 771 1411

– 2181 aad- 12 882 2752

– 3633 AtuORF23 413 3762

– 4174 CsVMV 478 4332

– 4809 pat 552 4820

– 5371 AtuORF1 684 5474

– 6157 Flanking A 339 6793

– 7131 Ori Rep 1068 7111

– 8178 Backbone 2 1728 8157

– 9884 Backbone 1 1310 9854

– 11163 Spec R 789 11092

– 11880 

### Figure 5 . Location of probes on pDAB4468 used in Southern blot analysis of DAS - 68416 - 4 soybean .



## pDAB4468 12154 bp AAD - 12 trfA SpecR

PAT SpecR Probe Backbone 1 Probe

Backbone 2 Probe

Ori Rep Probe

Flanking A Probe AtuOrf1 Probe pat Probe aad - 12 Probe

AtuOrf23 Probe CsVMV Probe AtUbi10 Probe RB7 Probe Flanking B Probe

T - DNA Border A T - DNA Border A T - DNA Border A T - DNA Border B

AtUbi10 promoter

CsVMV promoter Ori Rep AtuORF23 3'UTR AtuORF1 3' UTR

RB7 MAR 

## pDAB4468 12154 bp AAD - 12 trfA SpecR

PAT SpecR Probe Backbone 1 Probe

Backbone 2 Probe

Ori Rep Probe

Flanking A Probe AtuOrf1 Probe pat Probe aad - 12 Probe

AtuOrf23 Probe CsVMV Probe AtUbi10 Probe RB7 Probe Flanking B Probe

T - DNA Border A T - DNA Border A T - DNA Border A T - DNA Border B

AtUbi10 promoter

CsVMV promoter Ori Rep AtuORF23 3'UTR AtuORF1 3' UTR

RB7 MARUSDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 32 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### Table 3 . Predicted and observed sizes of hybridizing fragments in Southern blot analyses of DAS - 68416 - 4 soybean. Probe Restriction

Enzyme Sample Southern Blot Figure Fragment Size (bp) Expected Observed

aad- 12 Nco I Plasmid pDAB4468 Figure 8 , Figure 11 7957 7957 DAS - 68416 -4 Figure 8 , Figure 11 > 4043* ~5500* Control (Maverick) Figure 8 , Figure 11 none none Sph I /Xho I Plasmid pDAB4468 Figure 9 , Figure 11 12146 12146

DAS - 68416 -4 Figure 9 , Figure 11 > 6229* ~8500* Control (Maverick) Figure 9 , Figure 11 none none Nhe I/ Xho I Plasmid pDAB 4468 Figure 10 , Figure 11 12148 12148

DAS - 68416 -4 Figure 10 , Figure 11 > 6229* ~7200* Control (Maverick) Figure 10 , Figure 11 none none pat Nco I Plasmid pDAB4468 Figure 16 , Figure 19 7957 7957 DAS - 68416 -4 Figure 16 , Figure 19 > 4043* ~5500* Control (Maverick) Figure 16 , Figure 19 none none Sph I /Xho I Plasmid pDAB4468 Figure 17 , Figure 19 12146 12146

DAS - 68416 -4 Figure 17 , Figure 19 > 6229* ~8500* Control (Maverick) Figure 17 , Figure 19 none none Nhe I/ Xho I Plasmid pDAB4468 Figure 18 , Figure 19 12148 12148

DAS - 68416 -4 Figure 18 , Figure 19 > 6229* ~7200* Control (Maverick) Figure 18 , Figure 19 none none aad- 12 Pst I

(Release PTU) Plasmid pDAB4468 Figure 12 , Figure 13 2868 2868

DAS - 68416 -4 Figure 12 , Figure 13 2868 2868 Control (Maverick) Figure 12 , Figure 13 none none AtUbi10 Plasmid pDAB4468 Figure 14 , Figure 13 2868 2868 DAS - 68416 -4 Figure 14 , Figure 13 2868 2868 Control (Maverick) Figure 14 , Figure 13 none none AtuORF23 Plasmid pDAB4468 Figure 15 , Figure 13 2868 2868 DAS - 68416 -4 Figure 15 , Figure 13 2868 2868 Control (Maverick) Figure 15 , Figure 13 none none pat Pst I/

Xho I (Release PTU) Plasmid pDAB4468 Figure 20 , Figure 21 1928 1928

DAS - 68416 -4 Figure 20 , Figure 21 1928 1928 Control (Maverick) Figure 20 , Figure 21 none none Cs VMV Plasmid pDAB4468 Figure 22 , Figure 21 1928 1928 DAS - 68416 -4 Figure 22 , Figure 21 1928 1928 Control (Maverick) Figure 22 , Figure 21 none none AtuORF1 Plasmid pDAB4468 Figure 23 , Figure 21 1928 1928 DAS - 68416 -4 Figure 23 , Figure 21 1928 1928 Control (Maverick) Figure 23 , Figure 21 none none RB7 BamH I/

Nco I Plasmid pDAB4468 Figure 24 , Figure 26 2617 2617

DAS - 68416 -4 Figure 24 , Figure 26 2617 2617 Control (Maverick) Figure 24 , Figure 26 none none AtUbi10 Plasmid pDAB4468 Figure 25 , Figure 26 2617 2617 DAS - 68416 -4 Figure 25 , Figure 26 2617 2617 Control (Maverick) Figure 25 , Figure 26 none noneUSDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 33 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### Table 3 (cont.). Predicted and observed sizes of hybridizing fragments in Southern blot analyses of DAS - 6841 6 - 4 soybean. Probe Restriction

Enzyme Sample Southern Blot Figure Fragment Size (bp) Expected Observed Flanking A Nco I Plasmid pDAB4468 Figure 27 , Figure 31 7957 795 7 DAS - 68416 -4 Figure 27 , Figure 31 none none Control (Maverick) Figure 27 , Figure 31 none none Sph I/ Xho I Plasmid pDAB4468 Figure 29 , Figure 31 12146 12146

DAS - 68416 -4 Figure 29 , Figure 31 none none Control (Maverick) Figure 29 , Figure 31 none none Backbone1 Nco I Plasmid pDAB4468 Figure 27 , Figure 31 4197, 7957 4197, 7957 DAS - 68416 -4 Figure 27 , Figure 31 none none Control (Maverick) Figure 27 , Figure 31 none none Sph I/ Xho I Plasmid pDAB4468 Figure 29 , Figure 31 12146 12146

DAS - 68416 -4 Figure 29 , Figure 31 none none Control (Maverick) Figure 29 , Figure 31 none none SpecR Nco I Plasmid pDAB4468 Figure 27 , Figure 31 4197 4197 DAS - 68416 -4 Figure 27 , Figure 31 none none Control (Maverick) Figure 27 , Figure 31 none none Sph I/ Xho I Plasmid pDAB4468 Figure 29 , Figure 31 12146 12146

DAS - 68416 -4 Figure 29 , Figure 31 none none Control (Maverick) Figure 29 , Figure 31 none none Flanking B Nco I Plasmid pDAB4468 Figure 28 , Figure 32 4197 4197 DAS - 68416 -4 Figure 28 , Figure 32 none none Control (Maverick) Figure 28 , Figure 32 none none Sph I/ Xho I Plasmid pDAB4468 Figure 30 , Figure 32 12146 12146

DAS - 68416 -4 Figure 30 , Figure 32 none none Control (Maverick) Figure 30 , Figure 32 none none Backbone2 Nco I Plasmid pDAB4468 Figure 28 , Figure 32 795 7 7957 DAS - 68416 -4 Figure 28 , Figure 32 none none Control (Maverick) Figure 28 , Figure 32 none none Sph I/ Xho I Plasmid pDAB4468 Figure 30 , Figure 32 12146 12146

DAS - 68416 -4 Figure 30 , Figure 32 none none Control (Maverick) Figure 30 , Figure 32 none none Ori -Rep Nco I Plasmid pDAB4468 Figure 28 , Figure 32 7957 7957 DAS - 68416 -4 Figure 28 , Figure 32 none none Control (Maverick) Figure 28 , Figure 32 none none Sph I/ Xho I Plasmid pDAB4468 Figure 30 , Figure 32 12146 12146

DAS - 68416 -4 Figure 30 , Figure 32 none none Control (Maverick) Figure 30 , Figure 32 none none Note: * These bands include border region of soybean genome; 1. Expected fragment sizes are based on the plasmid map of the pDAB4468 and its T -DNA insert as shown in Figure 6 and Figure 7 , 2. Ob served fragment sizes are considered approximately from these analyses and are based on the indicated sizes of the DIG -labeled DNA Molecular Weight Marker II fragments. Due to the incorporation of DIG molecules for visualization, the marker fragments typi cally run approximately 5 - 10% larger than their actual indicated molecular weight.USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 34 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### Figure 6 . Plasmid map of pDAB4468 with restriction enzyme sites used for Southern blot analysis.



# pDAB4468 

# 12154 bp AAD - 12 trfA SpecR

PAT T - DNA Border A T - DNA Border A T - DNA Border A

T - DNA Border B AtUbi10 promoter

CsVMV promoter Ori Rep AtuORF23 3'UTR

AtuORF1 3' UTR RB7 MAR

SpeI (5433) Nhe I (6235) Sph I (6245)

Xho I (6229) Pst I (1433)

Pst I (4301) Nco I (2751) BamHI (134)

BamHI (5138)

BamHI (5427) BamHI (6216) Nco I (10708) 

# pDAB4468



# 12154 bp AAD - 12 trfA SpecR

PAT T - DNA Border A T - DNA Border A T - DNA Border A

T - DNA Border B AtUbi10 promoter

CsVMV promoter Ori Rep AtuORF23 3'UTR

AtuORF1 3' UTR RB7 MAR

SpeI (5433) Nhe I (6235) Sph I (6245)

Xho I (6229) Pst I (1433)

Pst I (4301) Nco I (2751) BamHI (134)

BamHI (5138)

BamHI (5427) BamHI (6216) Nco I (10708)USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 35 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### Figure 7 . pDAB4468 T - DNA insert, restriction enzymes used in DNA digestion and expected hybridization b ands .

Nco I Nhe I/ Xho I Sph I/ Xho I Pst I Pst I/ Xho I BamH I/ Nco I > 4043 bp > 6229 bp > 6229 bp 2868 bp 1928 bp 2868 bp > 2493 bp > 2751 bp > 1433 bp 2617 bp 2387 bp > 1433 bp > 559 bp > 549bp > 565 bp 789 bp > 578 bp 289 bp 

### pDAB4468 T - DNA Insert 

### 6794 bp AAD - 12 PAT T - DNA Border A T - DNA Border A T - DNA Border A T - DNA Border B AtUbi10 promoter CsVMV promoter AtuORF23 3'UTR AtuORF1 3' UTR

RB7 MAR NcoI (2751) NheI (6235) Sph I (6245) Xho I (6229) PstI (1433) PstI (4301) BamHI (134) BamHI (5138) BamHI (5427) BamHI (6216)

Nco I Nhe I/ Xho I Sph I/ Xho I Pst I Pst I/ Xho I BamH I/ Nco I > 4043 bp > 6229 bp > 6229 bp 2868 bp 1928 bp 2868 bp > 2493 bp > 2751 bp > 1433 bp 2617 bp 2387 bp > 1433 bp > 559 bp > 549bp > 565 bp 789 bp > 578 bp Nco I Nhe I/ Xho I Sph I/ Xho I Pst I Pst I/ Xho I BamH I/ Nco I > 4043 bp > 6229 bp > 6229 bp 2868 bp 1928 bp 2868 bp > 2493 bp > 2751 bp > 1433 bp 2617 bp 2387 bp > 1433 bp > 559 bp > 549bp > 565 bp 789 bp > 578 bp 289 bp 

### pDAB4468 T - DNA Insert 

### 6794 bp AAD - 12 PAT T - DNA Border A T - DNA Border A T - DNA Border A T - DNA Border B AtUbi10 promoter CsVMV promoter AtuORF23 3'UTR AtuORF1 3' UTR

RB7 MAR NcoI (2751) NheI (6235) Sph I (6245) Xho I (6229) PstI (1433) PstI (4301) BamHI (134) BamHI (5138) BamHI (5427) BamHI (6216)USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 36 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### V - B. Analysis of the Insert and Its Genetic Elements V - B.1. Analysis of the aad - 12 Gene To characterize the aad- 12 gene insert in event DAS - 68416 - 4, restriction enzymes Nco I, Sph I/ Xho I and Nhe I/

Xho I were used. These enzymes possess unique restriction sites in the pDAB4468 T - DNA insert. Border fragments of >4043 bp, >6229 bp, >6229 bp were predicted to hybridize with the aad- 12 gene probe following digestion with Nco I, Sp h I/ Xho I and Nhe I/ Xho I enzymes respectively (Table 3 ). The results showed single hybridization bands of ~5500 bp, ~8500 bp and ~7200 bp respectively when Nco I, Sph I/ Xho I and Nhe I/

Xho I enzymes were used, indicating a si ngle insertion site of aad- 12 in the soybean genome of event DAS 68416 - 4 (Figure 8 , Figure 9 , Figure 10 , Figure 11 ). An enzyme digestion with Pst I was conducted to release a PTU (plant transcription unit) fragment of 2868 bp which contains the AtUbi10 promoter, aad- 12 gene, and AtuORF23 terminator sequences. The predicted 2868 bp fragment was observed following the Pst I digestion and hybridization with aad- 12 probe (Figure 12 , Figure 13 A). Results obtained from the individual and double enzyme digestions indicated that a single copy of an intact aad- 1 2 expression cassette from pDAB4468 was inserted into the soybean genome of event DAS - 68416 - 4 as shown in the restriction map in Figure 7 .

V - B.2. Analysis of the AtUbi10 Promoter Restriction enzyme Pst I was used to characterize the AtUbi10 promoter region for aad- 12 in event DAS - 68416 - 4. Pst I digestion was expected to release a PTU (plant transcription unit) fragment of 2868 bp which contains the AtUbi10 promoter, aad- 12 gene, and AtuORF23 terminator sequences. The predicted 2868 bp fragment was observ ed following the Pst I digestion and hybridization with AtUbi10 promoter probe (Figure 13 B, Figure 14 ). The AtUbi10 promoter was further characterized with a double digestion of BamH I and Nco I which releases a fragment of 2617bp containing AtUbi10 promoter and RB7 MAR element. The predicted 2617 bp fragment was detected following the enzyme digestion and hybridization with AtUbi10 promoter probe (Figure 25 , Figure 26 B). Results obtained with Pst I or BamH I/ Nco I digestion of the DAS - 68416 - 4 sample followed by AtUbi10 promoter probe hybridization further confirmed that a single copy of an intact aad- 12 PTU from plasmid pDAB4468, along with a RB7 MAR element at its 5’ end, was inserted into the soybean genome of event DAS - 68416 - 4.

V - B.3. Analysis of the AtuORF23 3’UTR The terminator sequence, AtuORF23, for aad- 1 2 in event DAS - 68416 - 4 was characterized using Pst I digestion, followed by hybridization of AtuORF23 probe. Pst I was expected to release a PTU (plant transcription unit) fragment of 2868 bp which contains the AtUbi10 promoter, aad12 gene, and AtuORF23 terminator sequences. The predicted 2868 bp fragment was observed following the enzyme digestion and hybridization with AtuORF23 probe (Figure 13 C, Figure 15 ). Results obtained with Pst I digestion of the DAS - 68416 - 4 sample followed by AtuORF23 probe hybridization further confirmed that a single copy of an intact aad- 12 PTU from plasmid pDAB4468 was inserted into the soybean genome of event DAS - 68416 - 4.USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 37 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information



### V - B.4. Analysis of the pat Gene To characterize the pat gene insert in event DAS - 68416 - 4, restriction enzymes Nco I, Sph I/ Xho I and Nhe I/

Xho I were used. These enzymes possessed unique restriction sites in the pDAB4468 T - DNA insert. Border fragments of >4043 bp, >6229 bp, >6229 bp were predicted to hybridize with the pat gene probe following digestion with Nco I, Sph I/ Xho I and Nhe I/

Xho I enzymes respectively (Table 3 ). The results showed single hybridization bands of ~5500 bp, ~8500 bp and ~7200 bp respectively when Nco I, Sph I/ Xho and Nhe I/

Xho I enzymes were used, indicating a single site of pat gene insertion in the soybean genome of event DAS - 68416 - 4 (Figure 16 , Figure 17 , Figure 18 , Figure 19 ). An enzyme digestion with Pst I/ Xho I was conducted to release a PTU (plant transcription unit) fragment of 1928 bp which contained the CsVMV promoter, pat gene, and AtuORF1 terminator sequences. The predicted 1928 bp fragment was observed following the enzyme digestion and hybridization with pat probe (Figure 20 , Figure 21 A). Results obtained from the individual and double enzyme digestions indicated that a single copy of an intact pat expression cassette from pDAB4468 was inserted into the soybean genome of event DAS - 68416 - 4 as s hown in the restriction map in Figure 7 .

V - B.5. Analysis of the CsVMV Promoter Restriction enzyme combination of Pst I/ Xho I was used to characterize the CsVMV promoter region for pat in event DAS - 68416 - 4. Pst I/ Xho I digestion was expected to release a PTU (plant transcription unit) fragment of 1928 bp which contains the CsVMV promoter, pat gene, and AtuORF1 terminator sequences. The predicted 1928 bp fragment was observed following the enzyme digestion and hybridization with CsVMV promoter probe (Figure 21 B, Figure 22 ). Results obtained with Pst I/ Xho I digestion of the DAS - 68416 - 4 sample followed by CsVMV promoter probe hybridization further confirmed that a single copy of an intact pat PTU from plasmid pDAB4468 was inserted into the soybean genome of event DAS - 68416 - 4.

V - B.6. Analysis of the AtuORF1 3’UTR The terminator sequence, AtuORF1, for pat in event DAS - 68416 - 4 was characterized using Pst I/ Xho I double digestion, followed by hybridiz ation of AtuORF1 probe. The double digestion of Pst I/ Xho I was expected to release a PTU (plant transcription unit) fragment of 1928 bp which contained the CsVMV promoter, pat gene, and AtuORF1 terminator sequences. The predicted 1928 bp fragment was ob served following the enzyme digestion and hybridization with AtuORF1 probe (Figure 21 C, Figure 23 ). Results obtained with Pst I/ Xho I double digestion of the DAS - 68416 - 4 sample followed by AtuORF1 probe hybridization further confirmed that a single copy of an intact pat PTU from plasmid pDAB4468 was inserted into the soybean genome of event DAS - 68416 - 4.

V - B.7. Analysis of the RB7 MAR Restriction enzyme combination of BamH I and Nco I was selected to characterize the RB7 MAR elements from the T - DNA insert in pDAB 4468 (Table 3 ). A double digestion with BamH I and Nco I was expected to release a fragment of 2617 bp containing the RB7 MAR and AtUbi10 promoter. The predicted 2617 bp fragment was observed following the double enzyme digestion and hybridization with RB7 MAR and Atubi10 probe, respectively (Figure 24 , FigureUSDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 38 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### 26A , Figure 26 B ). Results obtained with BamH I/ Nco I double digestion of the DAS - 68416 - 4 sample followed by hybridization with RB7 MAR (Figure 25 , Figure 26B) further confirmed that a single copy of an intact RB7 MAR, along with an intact aad- 12 PTU from plasmid pDAB4468, was inserted into the soybean genome of event DAS - 68416 - 4. V - C. Absence of Vector Backbone DNA To verify that no plasmid vector backbone sequences exist in event DAS - 68416 - 4, six probes covering the whole backbone region of pDAB4468 w ere used to hybridize the blots from digestions with Nco I and Sph I/ Xho I (Table 2 , Figure 5 ). For the T5 generation, a blot from digestion with Nhe I/

Xho I was also hybridized with backbone probes. The probes were grouped into 2 sets by mixing them with equal ratio for hybridization purposes. Probe Set 1 included backbone1, flanking A, and SpecR, and Probe Set 2 included backbone 2, flanking B, and Ori Rep (Figure 5 , Table 2 ). The blots were hybridized with Probe Set 1, and then followed by Probe Set 2 after complete removal of previously deployed probes. No hybridization signals were detected in any sample across the T3 to T5 generation s (Table 3 , Figure 27 , Figure 28 , Figure 29 , Figure 30 , Figure 31 , Figure 32 ) except f or the positive controls, indicating no backbone sequences from pDAB4468 were incorporated into event DAS - 68416 - 4. V - D. Stability of the Insert across Generations Southern blot hybridizations were conducted with four sample set s across three distinct generations (T 3 , T4 , and T5 ) of event DAS - 68416 - 4. Prior to initiation of Southern blot analysis, all plants were tested for AAD - 12 protein expression using a lateral flow strip test kit to allow confirmation of AAD - 12 expression positive plants. All of the genetic element probes: aad- 12 gene, AtUbi1 0 promoter, AtuORF23 terminator, CsVMV promoter, pat gene, AtuORF1 terminator, and RB7 MAR, and the backbone of plasmid pDAB4468, were hybridized with the DAS - 68416 - 4 soybean samples . Results across all DAS - 68416 - 4 s amples in three generations were as expected (Table 3 , Figure 8 − Figure 32 ), indicating stable integration and inheritance of the intact, single copy insert across multiple generations of DAS - 68416 - 4 soybean.USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 39 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### Figure 8 . Southern b lot analysis of Nco I digest with aad - 12 p robe . DNA isolated from individual plants of soybean event DAS - 68416 - 4 generation s T3 (Panel A), T4 , T5 (Panel B) and the non - transgenic control were digested with Nco I and hybridized with aad- 12 probe. Nine (9) g of DNA was digested and loaded per lane. The plasmid control contained plasmid pDAB4468 mixed with 9 g of non transgenic DNA at a ratio approximately equivalent to 1 transgene copy per soybean genome. (Note: The relatively strong signal in Lane 15 wa s due to a larger amount of DNA recovered after digestion. Panel A and B were from the same blot and hybridized in the same container) . Lane Description Lane Description 1 DNA molecular marker (bp) 10 T4#6 2 pDAB4468 + control (Maverick) #2 11 T4#9 3 control (Maverick) #3 12 T4#10 4 control (Maverick) #2 13 DNA molecular marker (bp) 5 T3 #2 14 T5 #2 6 T3 #7 15 T5 #4 7 T3 #8 16 T5 #5 8 DNA molecular marker (bp) 17 T5 #7 9 T4#3 18 DNA molecular marker (bp) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1 5 16 17 18

564 4361 6557

2322 2029 9416 23130



### A B

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1 5 16 17 18

564 4361 6557

2322 2029 9416 23130 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1 5 16 17 18

564 4361 6557

2322 2029 9416 23130



### A BUSDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 40 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### Figure 9 . Southern b lot analysis of Sph I/ Xho I digest with aad

- 12 probe . DNA isolated from individual plants of soybean event DAS - 68416 - 4 generation s T3 (Panel A), T4 , T 5 (Panel B) and the non - transgenic control were digested with Sph I/ Xho I and hybridized with aad- 12 probe. Nine (9) g of DNA was digested and loaded per lane. The plasmid control contained plasmid pDAB4468 mixed with 9 g of non - transgenic DNA at a ratio approximately equivalent to 1 transgene copy per soybean genome. (Note: The relatively strong signals in Lane 10 and 15 were due to a larger amount of DNA recovered after digestion . Panel A and B were from the same blot and hybridized in the same container) . Lane Description Lane Description 1 DNA molecular marker (bp) 10 T4#6 2 pDAB4468 + control (Maverick) #2 11 T4#9 3 control (Maverick) #3 12 T4#10 4 control (Maverick) #2 13 DNA molecular marker (bp) 5 T3 #2 14 T5 #2 6 T3 #7 15 T5 #4 7 T3 #8 16 T5 #5 8 DNA molecular marker (bp) 17 T5 #7 9 T4 #3 18 DNA molecular marker (bp) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1 5 16 17 18

564 4361 6557

2322 2029 9416 23130



### A B

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1 5 16 17 18

564 4361 6557

2322 2029 9416 23130 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1 5 16 17 18

564 4361 6557

2322 2029 9416 23130



### A BUSDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 41 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### Figure 10 . Southern b lot analysis of Nhe I/ Xho I digest with aad

- 12 p robe . DNA isolated from individual plants of soybean event DAS - 68416 - 4 generation s T 3 , T4 , T 5 and the non - transgenic control were digested with Nhe I/ Xho I and hybridized with aad- 12 probe. Nine (9) g of DNA was digested and loaded per lane. The plasmid control contained plasmid pDAB4468 mixed with 9 g of non- transgenic DNA at a ratio approximately equivalent to 1 transgene copy per soybean genome. (Note: The relatively strong signal in Lane 9 was due to a larger amount of DNA recovered after digestion) . Lane Description Lane Description 1 DNA molecular marker (bp) 10 T4#6 2 pDAB4468 + control (Maverick) #2 11 T4#9 3 control (Maverick) #3 12 T4#10 4 control (Maverick) #2 13 DNA molecular marker (bp) 5 T3 #2 14 T5 #2 6 T3 #7 15 T5 #4 7 T3 #8 16 T5 #5 8 DNA molecular marker (bp) 17 T5 #7 9 T4#3 18 DNA molecular marker (bp) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

564 4361 6557

2322 2029 9416 23130 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

564 4361 6557

2322 2029 9416 23130USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 42 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### Figure 11 . Southern b lot analysis of Nco I, Sph I/ Xho I, and Nhe I/

Xho I digests of T5 generation with aad

- 12 p robe . DNA isolated from individual plants of soybean event DAS - 68416 - 4 generation T5 and the non - transgenic control was digested with Nco I, Sph I /Xho I, and Nhe I/

Xho I and hybridized with aad- 12 probe. Nine (9) g of DNA was digested and loaded per lane. The plasmid control contained plasmid pDAB4468 mixed with 9 g of non - transgenic DNA at a ratio approximately equivalent to 1 transgene copy per soybean genome. (Note: The relatively strong signal in Lane 1 9 was due to a larger amount of DNA recovered after digestion) . Lane Description Enzyme Lane Description Enzyme 1 DNA molecular marker (bp) 12 T5 #1 Sph I/ Xho I 2 pDAB4468 +

control (Maverick) #2 Nco I 13 T5 #4 3 control (Maverick) #2 14 T5 #6 4 control (Maverick) #3 15 T5 #8 5 T5 #1 16 pDAB4468 + control (Maverick) #2 Nhe I / Xho I 6 T5 #4 17 control (Maverick) #2 7 T5 #6 18 control (Maverick) #3 8 T5 #8 19 T5 #1 9 pDAB4468 +

control (Maverick) #4 Sph I/ Xho I 20 T5 #4 10 control (Maverick) #4 21 T5 #6 11 control (Maverick) #5 22 T5 #8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

564 4361 6557

2322 2029 9416 23130 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

564 4361 6557

2322 2029 9416 23130USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 43 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### Figure 12 . Southern b lot analysis of Pst I digest with aad - 12 p robe . DNA isolated from individual plants of soybean event DAS - 68416 - 4 generation s T 3 , T4 , T 5 and the non - transgenic control were digested with Pst I and hybridized with aad- 12 probe. Nine (9) g of DNA was digested and loaded per lane. The plasmid control contained plasmid pDAB4468 mixed with 9 g of non - transgenic DNA at a ratio approximately equivalent to 1 transgene copy per soybean genome. (Note: The relatively weak signal in Lane 7 was due to a lesser amount of DNA recovered after digestion) . Lane Description Lane Description 1 DNA molecular marker (bp) 10 T4#6 2 pDAB4468 + control (Maverick) #2 11 T4#9 3 control (Maverick) #3 12 T4#10 4 control (Maverick) #2 13 DNA molecular marker (bp) 5 T3 #2 14 T5 #2 6 T3 #7 15 T5 #4 7 T3 #8 16 T5 #5 8 DNA molecular marker (bp) 17 T 5 #7 9 T4 #3 18 DNA molecular marker (bp) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1 5 16 17 18

564 4361 6557

2322 2029 9416 23130 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1 5 16 17 18

564 4361 6557

2322 2029 9416 23130USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 44 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### Figure 13 . Southern b lot analysis of Pst I digest of T5 generation with aad - 12 , AtUbi10, and AtuORF23 p robes . DNA isolated from individual plants of soybean event DAS - 68416 - 4 generation T5 generation and the non transgenic control were digested with Pst I and hybridized with aad- 12 (Panel A), AtUbi10 (Panel B), and ORF23 probes (Panel C). Nine (9) g of DNA was digested and loaded per lane. The plasmid control contained plasmid pDAB4468 mixed with 9 g of non- transgenic DNA at a ratio approximately equivalent to 1 transgene copy per soybean genome.

Lane Description 1 DNA molecular marker (bp) 2 pDAB4468 + control (Maverick) #2 3 control (Maverick) #2 4 control (Maverick) #3 5 T5 #1 6 T5 #4 7 T5 #6 8 T5 #8

A B C 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

564 4361 6557

2322 2029 9416 23130

A B C

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

564 4361 6557

2322 2029 9416 23130USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 45 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### Figure 14 . Southern b lot analysis of Pst I digest with AtUbi10 p robe . DNA isolated from individual plants of soybean event DAS - 68416 - 4 generation s T 3 , T4 , T 5 and the non - transgenic control were digested with Pst I and hybridized with AtUbi10 probe. Nine (9) g of DNA was digested and loaded per lane. The plasmid control contained plasmid pDAB4468 mixed with 9 g of non - transgenic DNA at a ratio approximately equivalent to 1 transgene copy per soybean genome. (Note: The relatively weak signal in Lane 7 was due to a less er amount of DNA recovered after digestion) . Lane Description Lane Description 1 DNA molecular marker (bp) 10 T4#6 2 pDAB4468 + control (Maverick) #2 11 T4#9 3 control (Maverick) #3 12 T4#10 4 control (Maverick) #2 13 DNA molecular marker (bp) 5 T3 #2 14 T5 #2 6 T3 #7 15 T5 #4 7 T3 #8 16 T5 #5 8 DNA molecular marker (bp) 17 T5 #7 9 T4#3 18 DNA molecular marker (bp) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1 5 16 17 18

564 4361 6557

2322 2029 9416 23130 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1 5 16 17 18

564 4361 6557

2322 2029 9416 23130USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 46 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### Figure 15 . Southern b lot analysis of Pst I digest with AtuORF23 p robe . DNA isolated from individual plants of soybean event DAS - 68416 - 4 generation s T 3 , T4 , T5 and the non - transgenic control were digested with Pst I and hybridized with AtuORF23 probe. Nine (9) g of DNA was digested and loaded per lane. The plasmid control co ntained plasmid pDAB4468 mixed with 9 g of non- transgenic DNA at a ratio approximately equivalent to 1 transgene copy per soybean genome. (Note: The relatively weak signal in Lane 7 was due to a lesser amount of DNA recovered after digestion) . Lane Description Lane Description 1 DNA molecular marker (bp) 10 T4#6 2 pDAB4468 + control (Maverick) #2 11 T4#9 3 control (Maverick) #3 12 T4#10 4 control (Maverick) #2 13 DNA molecular marker (bp) 5 T3 #2 14 T5 #2 6 T3 #7 15 T5 #4 7 T3 #8 16 T5 #5 8 DNA molec ular marker (bp) 17 T5 #7 9 T4#3 18 DNA molecular marker (bp)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1 5 16 17 18

564 4361 6557

2322 2029 9416 23130 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1 5 16 17 18

564 4361 6557

2322 2029 9416 23130USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 47 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### Figure 16 . Southern b lot analysis of Nco I digest with pat p robe . DNA isolated from individual plants of soybean event DAS - 68416 - 4 generatio n s T 3 (Panel A), T4 , T 5 (Panel B) and the non - transgenic control were digested with Nco I and hybridized with pat probe. Nine (9) g of DNA was digested and loaded per lane. The plasmid control contained plasmid pDAB4468 mixed with 9 g of non - transgenic DNA at a ratio approximately equivalent to 1 transgene copy per soybean genome. (Note: The relatively strong signals in Lane 12 and 15 were due to the greater amount of DNA recovered after digestion. Panel A and B were from the same blot and hybridized in the same container) . Lane Description Lane Description 1 DNA molecular marker (bp) 10 T4#6 2 pDAB4468 + control (Maverick) #2 11 T4#9 3 control (Maverick) #3 12 T4#10 4 control (Maverick) #2 13 DNA molecular marker (bp) 5 T3 #2 14 T5 #2 6 T3 #7 15 T5 #4 7 T3 #8 16 T5 #5 8 DNA molecular marker (bp) 17 T5 #7 9 T4#3 18 DNA molecular marker (bp)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

564 4361 6557

2322 2029 9416 23130



### A B

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

564 4361 6557

2322 2029 9416 23130 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

564 4361 6557

2322 2029 9416 23130



### A BUSDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 48 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### Figure 17 . Southern b lot analysis of Sph I/ Xho I digest with pat p robe . DNA isolated from individual plants of soybean event DAS - 68416 - 4 generation s T 3 (Panel A), T4 , T 5 (Panel B) and the non - transgenic control were digested with Sph I /Xho I and hybridized with pat probe. Nine (9) g of DNA was digested and loaded per lane. The plasmid control contained plasmid pDAB4468 mixed with 9 g of non transgenic DNA at a ratio approximately equivalent to 1 transgene copy per soybean genome. (Note: The relatively strong signals in Lane 10 and 15 were due to the greater amount of DNA recovered after digestion. Panel A and B were from the same blot and hybridized in the same container . ) Lane Description Lane Description 1 DNA molecular marker (bp) 10 T4#6 2 pDAB4468 + control (Maverick) #2 11 T4#9 3 control (Maverick) #3 12 T4#10 4 control (Maverick) #2 13 DNA molecular marker (bp) 5 T3 #2 14 T5 #2 6 T3 #7 15 T5 #4 7 T3 #8 16 T5 #5 8 DNA molecular marker (bp) 17 T5 #7 9 T4#3 18 DNA molecular marker (bp)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

564 4361 6557

2322 2029 9416 23130



### A B

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

564 4361 6557

2322 2029 9416 23130 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

564 4361 6557

2322 2029 9416 23130



### A BUSDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 49 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### Figu re 18 . Southern b lot analysis of Nhe I/ Xho I digest with pat p robe . DNA isolated from individual plants of soybean event DAS - 68416 - 4 generation s T 3 , T4 , T5 and the non - transgenic control were digested with Nhe I /Xho I and hybridiz ed with pat probe. Nine (9) g of DNA was digested and loaded per lane. The plasmid control contained plasmid pDAB4468 mixed with 9 g of non - transgenic DNA at a ratio approximately equivalent to 1 transgene copy per soybean genome. (Note: The relatively strong signal in Lane 9 was due to the greater amount of DNA recovered after digestion) . Lane Description Lane Description 1 DNA molecular marker (bp) 10 T4#6 2 pDAB4468 + control (Maverick) #2 11 T4#9 3 control (Maverick) #3 12 T4#10 4 control (Maverick) #2 13 DNA molecular marker (bp) 5 T3 #2 14 T5 #2 6 T3 #7 15 T5 #4 7 T3 #8 16 T5 #5 8 DNA molecular marker (bp) 17 T5 #7 9 T4#3 18 DNA molecular marker (bp)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1 5 16 17 18

564 4361 6557

2322 2029 9416 23130 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1 5 16 17 18

564 4361 6557

2322 2029 9416 23130USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 50 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### Figure 19 . Southern b lot analysis of Nco I, Sph I/ Xho I, and Nhe I/

X ho I digests of T5 generation with pat p robe . DNA isolated from individual plants of soybean event DAS - 68416 - 4 generation T5 and the non - transgenic control was digested with Nco I, Sph I /Xho I and Nhe I/

Xho I and hybridized with pat probe. Nine (9) g of DNA was digested and loaded per lane. The plasmid control contained plasmid pDAB4468 mixed with 9 g of non - transgenic DNA at a ratio approximately equivalent to 1 transgene copy per soybean genome. (Note: The relatively strong signal in Lane 19 was due to the greater amount of DNA recovered after digestion. The faint band in Lane 16 is probably degraded plasmid DNA) . Lane Description Enzyme Lane Description Enzyme 1, 23 DNA molecular marker (bp) 12 T5 #1 Sph I/ Xho I 2 pDAB4468 +

control (Maverick) l #2 Nco I 13 T5 #4 3 control (Maverick) #2 14 T5 #6 4 control (Maverick) #3 15 T5 #8 5 T5 #1 16 pDAB4468 + control (Maverick) #2 Nhe I/ Xho I 6 T5 #4 17 control (Maverick) #2 7 T5 #6 18 control (Maverick) #3 8 T5 #8 19 T5 #1 9 pDAB 4468 +

control (Maverick) #4 Sph I/ Xho I 20 T5 #4 10 control (Maverick) #4 21 T5 #6 11 control (Maverick) #5 22 T5 #8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1 9 20 21 22 23

564 4361 6557

2322 2029 9416 23130 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1 9 20 21 22 23

564 4361 6557

2322 2029 9416 23130USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 51 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### Figure 20 . Southern b lot analysis of Pst I/ Xho I digest with pat p robe . DNA iso lated from individual plants of soybean event DAS - 68416 - 4 generation s T 3 , T4 , T 5 and the non - transgenic control were digested with Pst I/ Xho I and hybridized with pat probe. Nine (9) g of DNA was digested and loaded per lane. The plasmid control contained plasmid pDAB4468 mixed with 9 g of non - transgenic DNA at a ratio approximately equivalent to 1 transgene copy per soybean genome. Lane Description Lane Description 1 DNA molecular marker (bp) 10 T4#6 2 pDAB4468 + control (Maverick) #3 11 T4#9 3 control (Maverick) #3 12 T4#10 4 control (Maverick) #2 13 DNA molecular marker (bp) 5 T3 #2 14 T5 #2 6 T3 #7 15 T5 #4 7 T3 #8 16 T5 #5 8 DNA molecular marker (bp) 17 T5 #7 9 T4#3 18 DNA molecular marker (bp)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1 5 16 17 18

564 4361 6557

2322 2029 9416 23130 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1 5 16 17 18

564 4361 6557

2322 2029 9416 23130USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 52 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### Figure 21 . Southern b lot analysis of Pst I/ Xho I digest of T5 generation with pat, CsVMV, and AtuORF1 p robes . DNA isolated from individual plants of soybean event DAS - 68416 - 4 generation T5 generation and the non transgenic control were digested with Pst I/ Xho I and hybridized with pat (Panel A), CsVMV (Panel B), and AtuORF1 probes (Panel C). Nine (9) g of DNA was digested and loaded per lane. The plasmid control contained plasmi d pDAB4468 mixed with 9 g of non - transgenic DNA at a ratio approximately equivalent to 1 transgene copy per soybean genome. Lane Description 1 DNA molecular marker (bp) 2 pDAB4468 + control (Maverick) #2 3 control (Maverick) #2 4 control (Maverick) #3 5 T5 #1 6 T5 #4 7 T5 #6 8 T5 #8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

564 4361 6557

2322 2029 9416 23130

C B A 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

564 4361 6557

2322 2029 9416 23130

C B AUSDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 53 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### Figure 22 . Southern b lot analysis of Pst I/ Xho I digest with CsVMV p robe . DNA isolated from individual plants of soybean event DAS - 68416 - 4 generation s T 3 , T4 , T 5 and the non - transgenic control were digested with Pst I/ Xho I and hybridized with CsVMV probe. Nine (9) g of DNA was digested and loaded per lane. The plasmid control contained plasmid pDAB4468 mixed with 9 g of non- transgenic DNA at a ratio approximately equivalent to 1 transgene copy per soybean genome. Lane Description Lane Description 1 DNA molecular marker (bp) 10 T4#6 2 pDAB4468 + control (Maverick) #3 11 T4#9 3 control (Maverick) #3 12 T4#10 4 control (Maverick) #2 13 DNA molecular marker (bp) 5 T3 #2 14 T5 #2 6 T3 #7 15 T5 #4 7 T3 #8 16 T5 #5 8 DNA molecular marker (bp) 17 T5 #7 9 T4#3 18 DNA molecular marker (bp)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1 5 16 17 18

564 4361 6557

2322 2029 9416 23130 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1 5 16 17 18

564 4361 6557

2322 2029 9416 23130USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 54 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### Figure 23 . Southern b lot analysis of Pst I/ Xho I digest with AtuORF1 p robe . DNA isolated from individual plants of soybean event DAS - 68416 - 4 generation s T 3 , T4 , T 5 and the non - transgenic control were digested with Pst I/ Xho I and hybridized with AtuORF1 probe. Nine (9) g of DNA was digested and loaded per lane. The plasmid control contained plasmid pDAB4468 mixed with 9 g of non- transgenic DNA at a ratio approximately equivalent to 1 transgene copy per soybean genome. Lane Description Lane Description 1 DNA molecular marker (bp) 10 T4#6 2 pDAB4468 + control (Maverick) #3 11 T4#9 3 control (Maverick) #3 12 T4#10 4 control (Maverick) #2 13 DNA molecular marker (bp) 5 T3 #2 14 T5 #2 6 T3 #7 15 T5 #4 7 T3 #8 16 T5 #5 8 DNA molecular marker (bp) 17 T5 #7 9 T4#3 18 DNA molecular marker (bp)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1 5 16 17 18

564 4361 6557

2322 2029 9416 23130 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1 5 16 17 18

564 4361 6557

2322 2029 9416 23130USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 55 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### Figure 24 . Southern b lot analysis of Bam H I/ Nco I digest with RB7 p robe . DNA isolated from individual plants of soybean event DAS - 68416 - 4 generation s T 3 , T4 , T 5 and the non - transgenic control were digested with BamH I/ Nco I and hybridized with RB7 probe. Nine (9) g of DNA was digested and loaded per lane. The plasmid control contained p lasmid pDAB4468 mixed with 9 g of non- transgenic DNA at a ratio approximately equivalent to 1 transgene copy per soybean genome. (Note: The relatively weak signals in Lane 6 and 7 were due to the less amount of DNA recovered after digestion) . Lane Description Lane Description 1 DNA molecular marker (bp) 10 T4#6 2 pDAB4468 + control (Maverick) #2 11 T4#9 3 control (Maverick) #3 12 T4#10 4 control (Maverick) #2 13 DNA molecular marker (bp) 5 T3 #2 14 T5 #2 6 T3 #7 15 T5 #4 7 T3 #8 16 T5 #5 8 DNA molecular marker (bp) 17 T5 #7 9 T4#3 18 DNA molecular marker (bp)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1 5 16 17 18

564 4361 6557

2322 2029 9416 23130 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1 5 16 17 18

564 4361 6557

2322 2029 9416 23130USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 56 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### Figure 25 . Southern b lot analysis of Bam H I/ Nco I digest with AtUbi10 p robe . DNA isolated from individual plants of soybean event DAS - 68416 - 4 generation s T 3 , T4 , T 5 and the non - transgenic control were digested with BamH I/ Nco I and hybridized with AtUbi10 probe. Nine (9) g of DNA was digested and loaded per lane. The plasmid control contained plasmid pDAB4468 mixed with 9 g of non - transgenic DNA at a ratio approximately equivalent to 1 transgene copy per soybean genome. Lane Description Lane Description 1 DNA molecular marker (bp) 10 T4#6 2 pDAB4468 + control (Maverick) #2 11 T4#9 3 control (Maverick) #3 12 T4#10 4 control (Maverick) #2 13 DNA molecular marker (bp) 5 T3 #2 14 T5 #2 6 T3 #7 15 T5 #4 7 T3 #8 16 T5 #5 8 DNA molecular marker (bp) 17 T5 #7 9 T4#3 18 DNA molecular marker (bp)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1 5 16 17 18

564 4361 6557

2322 2029 9416 23130 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1 5 16 17 18

564 4361 6557

2322 2029 9416 23130USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 57 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### Figure 26 . Southern b lot analysis of Bam H I/ Nco I digest of T5 generation with RB7 and AtUbi10 p robes . DNA isolated from individual plants of soybean event DAS - 68416 - 4 generation T5 generation and the non transgenic control were digested with BamH I/ Nco I and hybridized with RB7 (Panel A), AtUbi10 (Panel B ) . Nine (9) g of DNA was digested and loaded per lane. The plasmid control contained plasmid pDAB4468 mixed with 9 g of non - transgenic DNA at a ratio approximately equivalent to 1 transgene copy per soybean genome .

Lane Description 1 DNA molecular marker (bp) 2 pDAB4468 + control (Maverick) #2 3 control (Maverick) #2 4 control (Maverick) #3 5 T5 #1 6 T5 #4 7 T5 #6 8 T5 #8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

564 4361 6557

2322 2029 9416 23130

A B

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

564 4361 6557

2322 2029 9416 23130

A BUSDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 58 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### Figure 27 . Southern blot analysis of Nco I digest with b ackbone p robe set 1 from p lasmid

pDAB4468 vector b ackbone . DNA isolated from individual plants of soybean event DAS - 68416 - 4 generation s T 3 (Panel A), T4 , T 5 (Panel B) and the non - transgenic control were digested with Nco I and hybridized with Backbone Probe Set 1 (Backbone1 , Flanking A, and SpecR ). Nine (9) g of DNA was digested and loaded per lane. The plasmid control contained plasmid pDAB4468 mixed with 9 g of non - transgenic DNA at a ratio approximately equivalent to 1 transgene copy per soybean genome. (Note: Panel A and B were from the same blot and hybridized in the same container) . Lane Description Lane Description 1 DNA molecular marker (bp) 10 T4#6 2 pDAB4468 + control (Maverick) #2 11 T4#9 3 control (Maverick) #3 12 T4#10 4 control (Maverick) #2 13 DNA molecular marker (bp) 5 T3 #2 14 T5 #2 6 T3 #7 15 T5 #4 7 T3 #8 16 T5 #5 8 DNA molecular marker (bp) 17 T5 #7 9 T4#3 18 DNA molecular marker (bp)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1 5 16 17 18

564 4361 6557

2322 2029 9416 23130



### A B

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1 5 16 17 18

564 4361 6557

2322 2029 9416 23130



### A BUSDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 59 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### Figure 28 . Southern b lot analysis of Nco I digest with b ackbone p robe set 2 from p lasmid

pDAB4468 vector b ackbone . DNA isolated from individual plants of soybean event DAS - 68416 - 4 generation s T 3 (Panel A), T4 , T 5 (Panel B) and the non - transgenic control were digested with Nco I and hybridized with Backbone Probe Set 2 (B ackbone2, Flanking B , and Ori -Rep ) probes. Nine (9) g of DNA was digested and loaded per lane. The plasmid control contained plasmid pDAB4468 mixed with 9 g of non - transgenic DNA at a ratio approximately equivalent to 1 transgene copy per soybean genome. (Note: Panel A and B were from the same blot and hybridized in the same container) . Lane Description Lane Description 1 DNA molecular marker (bp) 10 T4#6 2 pDAB4468 + control (Maverick) #2 11 T4#9 3 control (Maverick) #3 12 T4#10 4 control (Maverick) #2 13 DNA molecular marker (bp) 5 T3 #2 14 T5 #2 6 T3 #7 15 T5 #4 7 T3 #8 16 T5 #5 8 DNA molecular marker (bp) 17 T5 #7 9 T4#3 18 DNA molecular marker (bp)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1 5 16 17 18 23130

564 4361 6557

2322 2029 9416



### A B 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1 5 16 17 18 23130

564 4361 6557

2322 2029 9416 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1 5 16 17 18 23130

564 4361 6557

2322 2029 9416



### A BUSDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 60 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### Figure 29 . Southern b lot analysis of Sph I/ Xho I digest with b ackbone p robe s et 1 from p lasmid pDAB4468 vector b ackbone . DNA isolated from individual plants of soybean event DAS - 68416 - 4 generation s T 3 (Panel A), T4 , T 5 (Panel B) and the non - transgenic control were digested with Sph I/ Xho I and hybridized with Backbone Probe Set 1 (Backbone1 , Flanking A, and SpecR ). Nine (9) g of DNA was digested and loaded per lane. The plasmid control contained plasmid pDAB4468 mixed with 9 g of non - transgenic DNA at a ratio approximately equivalent to 1 transgene copy per soybean genome. (Note: Panel A and B were from the same blot and hybridized in the same container) . Lane Description Lane Description 1 DNA molecular marker (bp) 10 T4#6 2 pDAB4468 + control (Maverick) #2 11 T4#9 3 control (Maverick) #3 12 T4#10 4 control (Maverick) #2 13 DNA molecular marker (bp) 5 T3 #2 14 T5 #2 6 T3 #7 15 T5 #4 7 T3 #8 16 T5 #5 8 DNA molecular marker (bp) 17 T5 #7 9 T4#3 18 DNA molecular marker (bp)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 23130

564 4361 6557

2322 2029 9416



### A B 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 23130

564 4361 6557

2322 2029 9416 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 23130

564 4361 6557

2322 2029 9416



### A BUSDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 61 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### Figure 30 . Southern b lot analysis of Sph I/ Xho I digest with b ackbone p robe s et 2 p lasmid pDAB 4468 vector b ackbone . DNA isolated from individual plants of soybean event DAS - 68416 - 4 generation s T 3 (Panel A), T4 , T 5 (Panel B) and the non - transgenic control were digested with Sph I/ Xho I and hybridized with Backbone Probe Set 2 (Backbone2, Flanking B , and Ori -Rep ). Nine (9) g of DNA was digested and loaded per lane. The plasmid control contained plasmid pDAB4468 mixed with 9 g of non - transgenic DNA at a ratio approximately equivalent to 1 transgene copy per soybean genome. (Note: Panel A and B were from the same blot and hybridized in the same container) . Lane Description Lane Description 1 DNA molecular marker (bp) 10 T4#6 2 pDAB4468 + control (Maverick) #2 11 T4#9 3 control (Maverick) #3 12 T4#10 4 control (Maverick) #2 13 DNA molecular marker (bp) 5 T3 #2 14 T5 #2 6 T3 #7 15 T5 #4 7 T3 #8 16 T5 #5 8 DNA molecular marker (bp) 17 T5 #7 9 T4#3 18 DNA molecular marker (bp)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 23130

564 4361 6557

2322 2029 9416



### A B 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 23130

564 4361 6557

2322 2029 9416 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 23130

564 4361 6557

2322 2029 9416



### A BUSDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 62 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### Figure 31 . Southern b lot analysis of Nco I, Sph I/ Xho I, and Nhe I/

Xho I digests of T5 generations with the b ackbone p robe s et 1 from pDAB4468 vector b ackbone . DNA isolated from individual plants of soybean event DAS - 68416 - 4 generation T5 and the non - transgenic control was digested with Nco I, Sph I /Xho I, and Nhe I/

Xho I and hybridized with Backbo ne Probe Set 1 (Backbone1, Flanking A, and SpecR ). Nine (9) g of DNA was digested and loaded per lane. The plasmid control contained plasmid pDAB4468 mixed with 9 g of non - transgenic DNA at a ratio approximately equivalent to 1 transgene copy per soybean genome. (Note: the faint bands in lane 16 may be a result of hybridization to the degraded plasmid DNA) . Lane Description Enzyme Lane Description Enzyme 1, 23 DNA molecular marker (bp) 12 T5 #1 Sph I /Xho I 2 pDAB4468 +

control (Maverick) #2 Nco I 13 T5 #4 3 control (Maverick) #2 14 T5 #6 4 control (Maverick) #3 15 T5 #8 5 T5 #1 16 pDAB4468 + control (Maverick) #2 Nhe I /Xho I 6 T5 #4 17 control (Maverick) #2 7 T5 #6 18 control (Maverick) #3 8 T5 #8 19 T5 #1 9 pDAB4468 +

control (Maverick) #4 Sph I/ Xho I 20 T5 #4 10 control (Maverick) #4 21 T5 #6 11 control (Maverick) #5 22 T5 #8

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1 9 20 21 22 23 23130

564 4361 6557

2322 2029 9416 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1 9 20 21 22 23 23130

564 4361 6557

2322 2029 9416USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 63 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### Figure 32 . Southern b lot analysis of Nco I, Sph I/ Xho I, and Nhe I/

Xho I digests of T5 generation with the b ackbone p robe s et 2 from pDAB4468 vector backbone . DNA isolated from individual plants of soybean event DAS - 68416 - 4 generation T5 and the non - transgenic control was digested with Nco I, Sph I /Xho I and Nhe I/

Xho I and hybridized with Backbone Probe Set 2 (Backbone2, Flanking B, and Ori -Rep ). Nine (9) g of DNA was digested and loaded per lane. The plasmid controls contained plasmid pDAB4468 mixed with 9 g of non - transgenic DNA at a ratio approximately equivalent to 1 transgene copy per soybean genome. (Note: The f aint bands in lane 16 may be a result of hybridization to the degraded plasmid DNA) . Lane Description Enzyme Lane Description Enzyme 1, 23 DNA molecular marker (bp) 12 T5 #1 Sph I /Xho I 2 pDAB4468 +

control (Maverick) #2 Nco I 13 T5 #4 3 control (Maverick) #2 14 T5 #6 4 control (Maverick) #3 15 T5 #8 5 T5 #1 16 pDAB4468 + control (Maverick) #2 Nhe I /Xho I 6 T5 #4 17 control (Maverick) #2 7 T5 #6 18 control (Maverick) #3 8 T5 #8 19 T5 #1 9 pDAB4468 +

control (Maverick) #4 Sph I/ Xho I 20 T5 #4 10 control (Maverick) #4 21 T5 #6 11 control (Maverick) #5 22 T5 #8

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1 9 20 21 22 23 23130

564 4361 6557

2322 2029 9416 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1 9 20 21 22 23 23130

564 4361 6557

2322 2029 9416USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 64 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### V - E. Segregation Analysis V - E.1. Genetic and Molecular Analysis of a Segregating Generation The inheritance pattern of the transgene insert within a segregating generation was demonstrated with protein expression detection and Southern analysis of individual plants from a F2 population of DAS - 68416 - 4 soybean. The F2 generation was generated by cross ing T4 plants of DA S - 68416 - 4 soybean with a conventional soybean line. The F1 plants were self pollinated to produce the F2 seeds. A total of 147 F2 seedlings were leaf tested for the presence or absence of the AAD - 12 protein using an AAD - 12 specific lateral flow strip test kit. Of the 147 plants tested, 102 plants were positive for AAD - 1 2 protein expression, and 45 plants were negative (segregated null) (Table 4 ). Statistical analysis using a 2 goodness of fit test indicated the phenotypic segregation ratio of the plants with positive AAD - 12 protein expression versus negative is consistent with the 3:1 segregation ratio characteristic of the Mendelian inheritance pattern of a single dominant trait . Similarly, Southern blot analysis was used to determine the genetic equivalence of the inserted DNA among the same F2 individual plants. Among 147 emerged plants, four plants (2 positive and 2 negative for AAD - 12 protein expression) died prior to proceeding with DNA extraction. To further confirm if the phenotypic segregation matched the genotypic makeup of the tested F2 population, genomic DNA samples from each of the remaining 143 plants, along with DNA sample s from the non - transgenic control, were analyzed by Southern blot using Nco I restriction enzyme digestion followed by hybridization with aad- 12 and pat probe s. All the DNA samples from AAD - 12 expression positive plants displayed a ~5500 bp expected single band of the 3’ border of the transgene insert when digested by Nco I and hybridized with either the aad- 12 or pat probes (Table 5 ) . Two representative Southern blots are presented in Figure 33 and Figure 34 . The hybridization pattern s across all the individual plants that tested positive for AAD - 12 protein expression were identical, which indicated that all individual plants contained the same insert and were equivalent to one another. None of the DNA samples from AAD - 12 protein expression negative plants and non - transgenic control showed any hybridization bands. The Southern blot analysis data matches what was observed in the AAD - 12 protein expression testing, i.e ., individual plant s which tested positive for AAD - 12 expression displayed the expected hybridization bands, while plants negative for AAD - 12 protein expression (segregated nulls) did not have any hybridization signals. As observed in the protein expression testing, the ratio of aad- 12 or pat hybridization positive versus negative plants in the F2 population also fit the expected 3:1 segregation ratio characteristic of the Mendelian inheritance pattern of a single gene (Table 6 ).USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 65 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### Table 4 . Results of F2 individual plants tested for of AAD - 12 expression within a single segregating generation . Generation Total plants

tested AAD - 1 2 protein

positive AAD - 1 2 protein

negative Expected

ratio P - value a F2 147 102 45 3:1 0.116 a Based on a chi - squared goodness of fit test 

### Table 5 . Predicted and observed hybridizing fragments in Southern blot analysis of F2 population . Restriction Enzymes DNA

Probe Sample Source Southern Blot Figure Expected

Fragment Sizes (bp) a Observed

Fragment Size (bp) b

Nco I aad- 12 pDAB4468 Figure 33 7429 7429

Control (Maverick) Figure 33 none none AAD - 12 positive plants in F2 Figure 33 >4043(border) ~5500 AAD - 12 negative plants in F2 (null segregants ) Figure 33 none none pat pDAB4468 Figure 34 7429 7429 Control (Maverick) Figure 34 none none AAD - 12 positive plants in F2 Figure 34 >4043(border) ~5500 AAD - 12 negative plants in F2 (null segregant s ) Figure 34 none none a . Expected fragment sizes are based on the plasmid map of the pDAB4468 as shown in Figure 6 . b . Observed fragment sizes are considered approximate from these analyses and are based on the indicated sizes of the DIG -labeled DNA Molecular Weight Marker II fragments. Due to the incorporation of DIG molecules for visualization, the marker fragments typically run approximately 5 - 10% larger than their actual indicated molecular weight. 

### Table 6 . Results of F2 individual plants analyzed by Southern blot with aad - 12 and pat probes within a single segregating generation . Generation Total plants

analyzed Southern

hybridization positive Southern

hybridization negative Expected

ratio P - value a F2 14 3 100 43 3:1 0.162 a Based on a chi - squared goodness of fit testUSDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68416 - 4 Soybean Page 66 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### Figure 33 . Southern blot analysis of Nco I digest with aad - 12 probe . DNA isolated from individual plants of soybean event DAS - 68416 - 4 F2 population and non- transgenic Maverick was digested with Nco I and hybridized with aad- 12 probe. Nine (9) μg of DNA was digested and loaded per lane. The plasmid controls contained plasmid pDAB4468 mixed with 9 μg of non - transgenic DNA at a ratio approximately equivalent to 1 transgenic copy per soybean genome. Panel A Panel B Lane Sample Lane Sample Lane Sample Lane Sample 1, 12, 22 Molecular Marker 11 416 - 72 1, 12, 22 Molecular Marker 11 416 - 90 2 pDAB4468+ Maverick C6 13 416 - 73 2 pDAB4468+ Maverick C2 13 416 - 91 3 Maverick C6 14 416 - 74 3 Maverick C2 14 416 - 92 4 Maverick C10 15 416 - 75 4 Maverick C3 15 416 - 93 5 416 - 66 16 416 - 76 5 416 - 83 16 416 - 94 6 416 - 67 17 416 - 77 6 416 - 85 17 416 - 95 7 416 - 68 18 416 - 78 7 416 - 86 18 416 - 96 8 416 - 69 19 416 - 79 8 416 - 87 19 416 - 98 9 416 - 70 20 416 - 80 9 416 - 88 20 416 - 99 10 416 - 71 21 416 - 82 10 416 - 89 21 416 - 100

564- 4361 - 6557-

2322 - 2029 - 9416 - 23130 - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

- 564 - 4361 - 6557

- 2322

- 2029 - 9416 - 23130 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

B A B 564- 4361 - 6557-

2322 - 2029 - 9416 - 23130 - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

- 564 - 4361 - 6557

- 2322

- 2029 - 9416 - 23130 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

B A BUSDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 67 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### Figure 34 . Southern blot analysis of Nco I digest with pat probe . DNA isolated from individual plants of soybean event DAS - 68416 - 4 F2 population and non- transgenic Maverick was digested with Nco I and hybridized with pat probe. Nine (9) μg of DNA was digested and lo aded per lane. The plasmid controls contained plasmid pDAB4468 mixed with 9 μg of non transgenic DNA at a ratio approximately equivalent to 1 transgenic copy per soybean genome. Panel A Panel B Lane Sample Lane Sample Lane Sample Lane Sample 1, 12 , 22 Molecular Marker 11 416 - 40 1, 12, 22 Molecular Marker 11 416 - 56 2 pDAB4468+ Maverick C2 13 416 - 41 2 pDAB4468+ Maverick C2 13 416 - 57 3 Maverick C2 14 416 - 42 3 Maverick C2 14 416 - 58 4 Maverick C3 15 416 - 43 4 Maverick C3 15 416 - 59 5 416 - 34 16 416 - 44 5 416 - 50 16 416 - 60 6 416 - 35 17 416 - 45 6 416 - 51 17 416 - 61 7 416 - 36 18 416 - 46 7 416 - 52 18 416 - 62 8 416 - 37 19 416 - 47 8 416 - 53 19 416 - 63 9 416 - 38 20 416 - 48 9 416 - 54 20 416 - 64 10 416 - 39 21 416 - 49 10 416 - 55 21 416 - 65

564 - 4361 - 6557 -

2322 - 2029 - 9416 - 23130 - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

- 564 - 4361 - 6557

- 2322

- 2029 - 9416 - 23130

A B 564 - 4361 - 6557 -

2322 - 2029 - 9416 - 23130 - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

- 564 - 4361 - 6557

- 2322

- 2029 - 9416 - 23130

A BUSDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68416 - 4 Soybean Page 68 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information



### V - E.2. Segregation Analysis of Breeding Generations Chi - square analysis of trait inheritance data from a F2 breeding generation was conducted to determine the Mendelian inheritance of aad- 12 in DAS - 68416 - 4 soybeans. The presence or absence of aad- 12 was determined using a gene - specific fluorescence -based detection method specific for aad- 12 . The expected segregation ratio of 3:1 for plants containing aad- 12 (homozygous + hemizygous) versus plants not containing aad- 12 was observed (Table 7 ). Table 7 . Results of F2 individual plants tested for aad - 12 within a single segregating generation. Generation Total plants

tested aad

- 12 gene positive aad

- 12 gene negative Expected

ratio P - value a F2 6774 5056 1718 3:1 0.492 a Based on a chi - squared goodness of fit test 

### V - F. Summary of the Genetic Characterization AAD - 12 soybean event DAS - 68416 - 4 was produced using Agrobacterium - mediated transformation with the plasmid pDAB4468. The T - DNA insert of pDAB4468 consists of the aad- 12 gene, controlled by the AtUbi10 promoter and AtuORF23 3’ UTR regulatory sequences, the pat gene, controlled by the CsVMV promoter and AtuORF1 3’ UTR regulatory sequences, and a RB7 MAR element at the 5’ of the AtUbi10 promoter. Various breeding generations were developed and used to examine the integrity, stability, and inheritance of the aad- 12 and pat transgenic insert in soybean event DAS - 68416 - 4. Molecular characterization of soybean event DAS - 68416 - 4 by Southern blot analysis confirmed the insertion of a single intact copy of the aad- 12 and pat expression cassettes from the T - DNA insert of pDAB4468. No additional DNA fragments from the aad- 12 and pat expression cassettes were identified in DAS - 68416 - 4 and no plasmid backbone sequences were present. DAS - 68416 - 4 was also shown to be stably integrated across three breeding generations (T 3 , T4 , and T5 ) and displayed the expected inheritance pattern of a single insert/locus in a generation (F2) that was segregating for the DAS - 68416 - 4 event.USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 69 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### VI. Characterization of the Introduced Proteins VI - A. AAD - 12 VI - A.1. Identity of the AAD - 12 Protein The arylalkanoate dioxygenase (AAD - 12) protein was derived from Delftia acidovorans , a gramnegative soil bacterium. The amino acid sequence is identical to the native enzyme sequence except for the additi on of an alanine at position number 2. The additional alanine codon encodes part of an Nco I restriction enzyme recognition site (CCATGG) spanning the ATG translational start codon. This additional codon serves the dual purpose of facilitating subsequent cloning operations and improving the sequence context surrounding the ATG start codon to optimize translation initiation. The proteins encoded by the native and plant- optimized coding regions are 99.3% identical, differing only at amino acid number 2. The AAD - 12 protein is comprised of 293 amino acids and has a molecular weight of ~32 kDa (Figure 35 ). Figure 35 . Amino acid sequence of the AAD - 12 protein.

001 MAQTTLQITPTGATLGATVTGVHLATLDDAGFAALHAAWLQHALLIFPGQ 051 HLSNDQQITFAKRFGAIERIGGGDIVAISNVKADGTVRQHSPAEWDDMMK 101 VIVGNMAWHADSTYMPVMAQGAVFSAEVVPAVGGRTCFADMRAAYDALDE 151 ATRALVHQRSARHSLVYSQSKLGHVQQAGSAYIGYGMDTTATPLRPLVKV 201 HPETGRPSLLIGRHAHAIPGMDAAESERFLEGLVDWACQAPRVHAHQWAA 251 GDVVVWDNRC LLHRAEPWDFKLPRVMWHSRLAGRPETEGAALV VI - A.2. Biochemical Characterization of the AAD - 12 Protein Large quantities of purified AAD - 12 protein are required to perform safety assessment studies. Because it is technically infeasible to extract and purify sufficient amounts of recombinant protein from transgenic plants (Evans, 2004), the AAD - 12 protein was microbially-produced using Pseudomonas fluorescens (Pf) . Characterization studies were performed to confirm the equivalency of the AAD - 12 protein expressed in planta in soybean line DAS - 68416 - 4 with the Pf microbe - derived AAD - 12 protein. Sodium dodecyl sulfate polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis (SDS - PAGE), western blot, glycoprotein detection, and protein sequence analysis by matrix assisted laser desorption/ionization time - of - flight mass spectrometry (MALDI- TOF MS) and electrospray ionization - liquid chromatography mass spectrometry (ESILC/MS) were used to characterize the biochemical properties of the protein . Using these methods, the AAD - 12 protein from Pf and the transgenic soybean event DAS - 68416 - 4 were shown to be biochemically equivalent, thereby supporting the use of the microbially- produced protein in safety assessment studies. The methods and results of the biochemical characterization of the DAS - 68416 - 4 soybean - and microbe - derived AAD - 12 proteins are described in detail in Appendix 2 . Briefly, both the plant and Pf - derived AAD - 12 proteins showed the expe cted molecular weight of ~32 kDa by SDS - PAGE and were immunoreactive to AAD - 12 protein specific antibodies by western blot analysis. There was no evidence of glycosylation of the DAS - 68416 - 4 soybean - derived AAD - 12 protein. Amino acid sequence was confirmed by enzymatic peptide mass fingerprinting using MALDI- TOF MS and ESI- LC/MS. The N - terminal methionine was found to be cleaved fromUSDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 70 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### both protein sources and the N - terminal peptide of the plant AAD - 12 was determined to be acetylated after the N - terminal methionine was cleaved. These two co - translational processes, cleavage of the N - terminal methionine residue and N - terminal acetylation, are common modifications that have been found to occur on the vast majority (~85%) of eukaryotic proteins (Polevoda and Sherman, 2003).

VI - A.3. Expression of the AAD - 12 Protein in Plant Tissues A field expression study was conducted at six locations in U.S. and Canada during 2008. Six sites (Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Nebraska and Ontario, Canada (2 sites)) were planted with DAS - 684 16 - 4 soybean and the conventional control (Maverick). The test sites represented regions of diverse agronomic practices and environmental conditions for soybean in North America. Four treatments of the DAS - 68416 - 4 soybean (unsprayed, sprayed with 2,4 - D, sprayed with glufosinate, or sprayed with both 2,4 - D and glufosinate) were tested (see Appendix 4 for application rates and timings) . Plant tissues sampled included leaf, grain, root, and forage. Leaf tissues were collected at V5 and V10 stage, and root and forage were collected at the R3 stage of development. The grain was collected at the R8 stage of development (Gaska, 2006). The soluble, extractable AAD - 1 protein was measured using a validated enzyme - linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) method. AAD - 12 protein levels for all tissue types were calculated on ng/mg dry weight basis. Methods used for tissue sampling and quantification of protein expression by ELISA are detailed in Appendix 4 . A summary of the AAD - 12 protein concentrations (averaged across sites) in the various soybean matrices is shown in Table 8 . Average expression values ranged from 15. 48 ng/mg dry weight in R3 stage root to 66. 08 ng/mg dry weight in V5 stage leaf tissue. Expression values were similar for the all sprayed treatments as well as for the plots sprayed and unsprayed with 2,4 - D and glufosinate herbicides. No AAD - 12 protein was detected in the control tissues across the six locations.USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 71 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### Table 8 . Summary of AAD - 12 protein levels in tissues collected from DAS - 68416 - 4 produced in the U.S. and Canada during 2008. AAD - 12 ng/mg Tissue Dry Weight Tissue Treatment Mean Std. Dev. Range V5 Leaf DAS - 68416 -4 Unsprayed 51. 4 2 25.2 2 26. 37 - 97. 66

DAS - 68416 -4 + Glufosinate 50.6 3 23. 69 28.0 3 - 94.00 DAS - 68416 -4 + 2,4 -D 5 1. 68 2 5.4 1 27. 16 - 100.79 DAS - 68416 -4 + Glufosinate and 2,4 -D 66. 08 37.8 2 25.1 4 - 1 64.58 V10 Leaf DAS - 68416 -4 Unsprayed 5 3.95 20. 85 29.8 3 - 90. 8 9

DAS - 68416 -4 + Glufosinate 56. 06 2 1.95 25. 06 - 9 1.95 DAS - 68416 -4 + 2,4 -D 55.24 20.6 2 30.8 4 - 91.8 0 DAS - 68416 -4 + Glufosinate and 2,4 -D 57. 07 2 2.97 32.0 2 - 95. 16 Root DAS - 68416 -4 Unsprayed 17.1 0 5.68 8.80 - 27.6 2

DAS - 68416 -4 + Glufosinate 15. 48 4.58 6.30 - 23.08 DAS - 68416 -4 + 2,4 -D 16.0 1 6.64 3.16 - 27.9 1 DAS - 68416 -4 + Glufosinate and 2,4 -D 16. 66 6.81 1.84 - 26.5 0 Forage DAS - 68416 -4 Unsprayed 41.1 1 25.7 2 5.70 - 91. 17

DAS - 68416 -4 + Glufosinate 39.35 24. 47 5.49 - 8 7.96 DAS - 68416 -4 + 2,4 -D 40. 5 6 25.58 5.02 - 88.0 2 DAS - 68416 -4 + Glufosinate and 2,4 -D 39. 65 22.4 1 4.96 - 69.6 2 Grain DAS - 68416 -4 Unsprayed 16. 47 3.55 9.40 - 21. 86

DAS - 68416 -4 + Glufosinate 16.9 4 3.15 11.9 - 22.7 4 DAS - 68416 -4 + 2,4 -D 16.47 3.78 9.71 - 2 1.95 DA S - 68416 -4 + Glufosinate and 2,4 -D 16.2 1 3.62 9.91 - 23.4 0 

### The Limit of D etection (LOD) and Limit of Quantitation (LOQ) of the AAD - 12 ELISA in the tissue matrices were as follow s :

Tissue LOD

(ng/mg DW) LOQ

(ng/mg DW) Leaf (V5) 0.50 1.00 Leaf (V10) 0.50 1.00 Root 0.50 1.00 Forage 0.50 1.00 Grain 0.50 1.00USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 72 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information



### VI - A.4. Food and Feed Safety Assessment for AAD - 12 Protein Results of the overall safety assessment of the AAD - 12 protein indicate that it is unlikely to cause an allergic reaction in humans or be a toxin in humans or animals. History of Safe Use  The donor organism, Delftia acidovorans (formerly designated as Pseudomonas acidovorans and Comamonas acidovorans) is a non glucose - fermenting, gram - negative, non spore forming rod present in soil, fresh water, activated sludge, and clinical specimens (von Gravenitz 1985, Tamaoka et al. 1987, Wen et al. , 1999) .  Delftia acidovorans can be used to transform ferulic acid into vanillin and related flavor metabolites (Toms and Wood, 1970; Ramachandra Rao and Ravishankar, 2000; Shetty et al. , 2006). This utility has led to a history of safe use for Delftia acidovorans in the food processing industry. For example, see US Patent 5,128,253 “Bioc onversion process for the production of vanillin” issued on July 7, 1992 to Kraft General Foods (Labuda et al. , 1992) . Lack of allergenic potential  The step - wise, weight- of - evidence approach (Codex, 2003) was used to assess the allergenic potential of the AAD - 12 protein.  The AAD - 12 protein does not share meaningful amino acid sequence similarities with known allergens . No significant homology was identified when the AAD - 12 protein sequence was compared with known allergens in the FARRP (Food Allergy Research and Resource Program) version 9.00 allergen database, using the search criteria of either a match of eight or more contiguous identical amino acids, or >35% identity over 80 amino acid residues.  The AAD - 12 protein is rapidly degraded below the level of detection in simulated gastric fluid (SGF). The AAD - 12 protein was readily digested, i.e., not detectable after 30 seconds, under in vitro SGF conditions (0.32% pepsin, pH 1.2; 37 o

### C) as demonstrated by both SDS - PAGE and western blot analyses.  The AAD - 12 protein is not present in a glycosylated state. No glycosylation of the AAD - 12 protein was detected using SDS - PAGE and a glycosylation detection system. (see Appendix 2 ) Lack of toxic potential

 

### The AAD - 12 protein does not share meaningful amino acid sequence similarities with known toxins. Amino acid homologies were evaluated using a global sequence similarity search against the GenBank non -redundant protein dataset. The search identified 618 similar proteins, which can be broken down into a few major subclasses. The largest subclass, containing 474 proteins, was identified as tauD or taurine dioxygenases. These are proteins involved in the degradation of taurine (Eichorn et al. , 2007). The next largest class, with 138 members, was clavaminic acid synthetases or “CAS - like”(Zhang et al. , 2000). There w ere 2 TolC proteins which are known efflux pumps (Koronakis et al. , 2000). The last four proteins were: 1) a (S) - 2 - (2,4 - dichlorophenoxy)propionate, 2 - oxoglutarate dioxygenase (Schleinitz et al. , 2004 ); 2) a pvcB protein which is a known CAS - like protein ( see accession page of NP_968348); 3) an inosine - uridine preferring nucleoside hydrolase (Gopaul et al. , 1996); andUSDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 73 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### 4) a hypothetical protein with no functional annotation. None of these protein classes are known toxins.  

### In acute mouse toxicity testing, there were no mortalities or clinical signs in CD - 1 mice after oral administration by gavage of AAD - 12 protein at 2000 mg protein/kg body weight.

VI - A.5. Summary of AAD - 12 Protein Characterization The arylalkanoate dioxygenase (AAD - 12) protein was derived from Delftia acidovorans , a gram- negative soil bacterium. AAD - 12 is comprised of 293 amino acids and has a molecular weight of ~32 kDa. Detailed biochemical characterization of the AAD - 12 protein derived from plant and microbial sources was conducted. Additionally, characterization of AAD - 12 protein expression in DAS - 68416 - 4 plants over the growing season was determined by analyzing leaf, root, whole plant, and grain tissues from DAS - 68416 - 4 plants sprayed with 2,4 - D, glufosinate, both 2,4 - D and glufosinate, and non - sprayed. A step - wise, weight- of

- evidence approach was used to assess the potential for toxic or allergenic effects from the AAD - 12 protein. Bioinformatic analyses revealed no meanin gful homologies to known or putative allergens or toxins for the AAD - 12 amino acid sequence. The AAD - 12 protein hydrolyzes rapidly in simulated gastric fluid . There was no evidence of acute toxicity in mice at a dose of 2000 mg/kg body weight of AAD - 12 protein. Glycosylation analysis revealed no detectable covalently linked carbohydrates in AAD - 12 protein expressed in DAS - 68416 - 4 soybean plants. Therefore, the low level expression of the AAD - 12 protein presents a low exposure risk to humans and animals , and the results of the overall safety assessment of the AAD - 12 protein indicate that it is unlikely to cause allergenic or toxic effects in humans or animals. VI - B. PAT VI - B.1. Identity of the PAT Protein The phosphinothricin acetyltransferase (PAT) protein was derived from Streptomyces viridochromogenes , a gram-positive soil bacterium. The pat transgene in DAS - 68416 - 4 encodes a protein sequence that is identical to the native PAT protein (Accession number: Q57146 ) . PAT is comprised of 183 amino acids and has a molecular weight of ~21 kDa (Figure 36 ). Figure 36 . Amino acid sequence of the PAT protein.

001 MSPERRPVEIRPATAADMAAVCDIVNHYIETSTVNFRTEPQT PQEWIDDL 051 ERLQDRYPWLVAEVEGVVAGIAYAGPWKARNAYDWTVESTVYVSHRHQRL 101 GLGSTLYTHLLKSMEAQGFKSVVAVIGLPNDPSVRLHEALGYTARGTLRA 151 AGYKHGGWHDVGFWQRDFELPAPPRPVRPVTQI VI - B.2. Biochemical Characterization of the PAT Protein Characterization of the biochemical properties of the plant- derived PAT protein was accomplished through the use of sodium dodecyl sulfate polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis (SDS - PAGE), lateral flow strips and western blot analysis . The methods and results are described in detail in Appendix 3 . Using these methods the PAT protein produced in DAS -USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 74 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### 68416 - 4 soybean was shown to be equivalent to that produced in other transgenic crops (USDA 1996, USDA 2001, USDA 2004, USDA 200 5 ).

VI - B.3. Expression of the PAT Protein in Plant Tissues A field expression study was conducted at six locations in U.S. and Canada during 2008. Six sites (Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Nebraska and Ontario, Canada (2 sites)) were planted with DAS - 68416 - 4 soybean and the conventional control (Maverick). The test sites represented regions of diverse agronomic practices and environmental conditions for soybean in North America. Four treatments of the DAS - 68416 - 4 soybean (unsprayed, sprayed with 2,4 - D, sprayed with glufosinate, or sprayed with both 2,4 - D and glufosinate) were tested (see Appendix 4 for application rates and timings) . Plant tissues sampled included leaf, grain, root, and forage. Leaf tissues were collected at V5 and V10 stage, and root and forage were collected at the R3 stage of development. The grain was collected at the R8 stage of development (Gaska, 2006). The soluble, extractable PAT protein was measured using a validated enzyme - linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) method. PAT protein levels for all tissue types were calculated on ng/mg dry weight basis. Methods used for tissue sampling and quantification of protein expression by ELISA are detailed in Appendix 4 . A summary of the PAT protein concentrations (averaged across sites) in the various soybean matrices is shown in Table 9 . Average expression values ranged from 1.73 ng/mg dry weight in R3 stage root to 11. 76 ng/mg dry weight in V10 stag e leaf tissue. Expression values were similar for the all sprayed treatments as well as for the plots sprayed and unsprayed with 2,4 - D and glufosinate herbicides. No PAT protein was detected in the control tissues across the six locations.USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 75 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### Table 9 . Summary of PAT protein levels in tissues collected from DAS - 68416 - 4 produced in the U.S. and Canada during 2008. PAT ng/mg Tissue Dry Weight Tissue Treatment Mean Std. Dev. Range V5 Leaf DAS - 68416 -4 Unsprayed 9.17 2.99 4.33 - 13. 75

DAS - 68416 -4 + Glufosinate 9.83 2.66 3.67 - 13. 7 8 DAS - 68416 -4 + 2,4 -D 9.01 3.03 4.87 - 13.9 2 DAS - 68416 -4 + Glufosinate and 2,4 -D 10. 05 3. 7 6 3.00 - 15.0 3 V10 Leaf DAS - 68416 -4 Unsprayed 10.9 4 1.31 8.43 - 13. 35

DAS - 68416 -4 + Glufosinate 11.5 1 1.69 9.08 - 14. 44 DAS - 68416 -4 + 2,4 -D 11. 76 2.02 7.49 - 14.8 1 DAS - 68416 -4 + Glufosinate and 2,4 -D 11. 58 1.45 9.26 - 14. 15 Root DAS - 68416 -4 Unsprayed 1.73 0.51 0.47 - 2.84

DAS - 68416 -4 + Glufosinate 1.92 0.45 1.01 - 2.67 DAS - 68416 -4 + 2, 4 -D 1.73 0.68 0.42 - 2.83 DAS - 68416 -4 + Glufosinate and 2,4 -D 1.93 0.55 0.36 - 2.68 Forage DAS - 68416 -4 Unsprayed 3.63 2.88 0.06 - 12.5 4

DAS - 68416 -4 + Glufosinate 4.81 3.75 0.4 0 - 12.1 0 DAS - 68416 -4 + 2,4 -D 5.28 4.20 0.12 - 12.1 3 DAS - 68416 -4 + Glufosinate and 2,4 -D 4.73 3.63 0.45 - 12. 35 Grain DAS - 68416 -4 Unsprayed 2.73 0.34 1.96 - 3.37

DAS - 68416 -4 + Glufosinate 2.74 0.28 2.29 - 3.39 DAS - 68416 -4 + 2,4 -D 2.79 0.26 2.21 - 3.13 DAS - 68416 -4 + Glufosinate and 2,4 -D 2.82 0.23 2.43 - 3.25 

### The Limit of D etection (LOD) and Limit of Quantitation (LOQ) of the PAT ELISA in the tissue matrices were as follow s :

Tissue LOD

(ng/mg DW) LOQ

(ng/mg DW) Leaf (V5) 0.06 0.12 Leaf (V10) 0.06 0.12 Root 0.06 0.12 Forage 0.06 0.12 Grain 0.06 0.12 VI - B.1. Food and Feed Safety Assessment for PAT Protein The PAT protein produced in DAS - 68416 - 4 soybean was shown to be equivalent to that produced in other transgenic crops that have been previously deregulated by USDA (USDA 1996, USDA 2001, USDA 2004, USDA 2005). The food and feed safety of PAT was assessed in these products and shown to present to significant food or feed safety risk.USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 76 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### Additionally, the US EPA has concluded, after reviewing data on the acute toxicity and digestibility of the PAT protein, that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the U.S. population, including infants and children, to the PAT protein and the genetic material necessary for its introduction (US EPA, 1997). US EPA has consequently establi shed an exemption from tolerance requirements pursuant to FFDCA section 408(j)(3) for PAT and the genetic material necessary for its production in all plants.

VI - B.2. Summary of PAT Protein Characterization The phosphinothricin acetyltransferase (PAT) protein was derived from Streptomyces viridochromogenes , a gram-positive soil bacterium. PAT is comprised of 183 amino acids and has a molecular weight of ~21 kDa. Detailed biochemical characterization of the PAT protein derived from DAS - 68416 - 4 soybean was conducted. Western blot analysis techniques were used to determine that the PAT protein expressed in soybean was the same molecular weight and immunoreactivity as the native protein. Polyclonal and monoclonal antibodies were used that recognize antigenic epitop es on the protein. Any protein that was smaller (a degradation fragment) or larger (fusion protein or post- translationally modified version) in size would have been detected as a band of different molecular weight. Characterization of PAT protein express ion in DAS - 68416 - 4 plants over the growing season was determined by analyzing leaf, root, whole plant, and grain tissues from DAS - 68416 - 4 plants sprayed with 2,4 - D, glufosinate, both 2,4 - D and glufosinate, and non - sprayed. VI - C. References Codex Alimentarius C ommission (2003) Guideline for the conduct of food safety assessment of foods derived from recombinant- DNA plants, Annex 1: Assessment of Possible Allergenicity, CAC/GL 45 - 2003, pg 9 - 11. (www.codexalimentarius.net/download/standards/10021/CXG_045e.pdf ) Eichhorn, E., Van Der Ploeg, J.R., Kertesz, M.A., Leisinger, T. (1997) Characterization of alphaketoglutarate - dependent taurine dioxygenase from Escherichia coli. Journal of Biological Chemistry 272:23031 - 23036. Evans , S. L. ( 2004 ) Producing Proteins from Genetically Modified Organisms for Toxicology and Environmental Fate Assessment of Biopesticides. In: Parekh, S. R. (Ed), The GMO Handbook: Genetically Modified Animal s, Microbes, and Plants in Biotechnology, Humana Press Inc., Totowa, New Jersey, pp. 53 - 84. Gaska, J. (2006) Soybean growth and development (http://s oybean.uwex.edu/library/soybean/morphology/documents/04_soy_growth_development. pdf ) Gopaul, D.N., Meyer, S.L. , Degano, M. , Sacchettini, J.C. , Schramm, V.L. ( 1996 ) Inosine - uridine nucleoside hydrolase from Crithidia fasciculata. Genetic characterization, crystallization, and identification of histidine 241 as a catalytic site residue . Biochemistry 35:5963 - 5970.USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 77 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### Koronakis, V. , Sharff, A. , Koronakis, E. , Luisi, B. , Hughes, C. ( 2000 ) Crystal structure of the bacterial membrane protein TolC central to multidrug efflux and protein export. Nature 405:914 - 9. Labuda, I.M., Goers, S.K., Keon, K.A. (1992) Bioconversion Process for the Production of Vanillin. US Patent #5,128,253. Polevoda, B. and Sherman, F. (2003) N - terminal Acetyltransferases and Sequence Requirements for N - terminal Acetylation of Eukaryotic Proteins. Journal of. Molecular Biology. 325:595 - 622 . Ramachachandra Rao, S. and Ravishankar, G.A. (2000) Vanilla Flavor: Production by Conventional and Biotechnological Routes. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 80:289 - 304. Schleinitz, K.M. , Kleinsteuber, S. , Vallaeys,T. , Babel, W. ( 2004 ) Localization and Characterization of Two Novel Genes Encoding Stereospecific Dioxygenases Catalyzing 2(2,4 - Dichlorophenoxy)propionate Cleavage in Delftia aci dovorans MC1 . Applied and Environmental Microbiology 70:5357 - 65. Shetty, K., Paliyath, G., Pometto, A., Levin, R.E. (2006) Food Biotechnology, CRC Press, ISBN 0824753291, pp. 1672 - 1673. Tamaoka, J., Ha, D.M., Komagata, K. (1987) Reclassification of Pseudo monas acidovorans den Dooren de Jong 1926 and Pseudomonas testosteroni Marcus and Talalay 1956 as Comamonas acidovorans comb. nov. and Comamonas testosteroni comb. nov., with an emended description of the genus Comamonas. International Journal of Systematic Bacteriology 37:52 - 59. Toms, A., Wood, J.M. (1970) The Degradation of trans - Ferulic Acid by Pseudomonas acidovorans . Biochemistry 9:337 - 343. US EPA (1997) Phosphinothricin Acetyltransferase and the Genetic Material Necessary for Its Production in All Plants; Exemption From the Requirement of a Tolerance On All Raw Agricultural Commodities. Federal Register Volume 62, Number 70:17717 - 17720. USDA (1996) Availability of Determination of Nonregulatated status for Soybeans Genetically Engineered for Glufosinate Herbicide Tolerance. Federal Register Volume 61, Number 160:42581 - 42582. USDA (2001) Availability of Determination of Non -regulatated status for Genetically Engineered Corn for Insect Resistance and Glufosinate Herbicide Tolerance (Corn line 1507). Federal Register Volume 66, Number 157:42624 - 42625. USDA (2004) Availability of Determination of Nonregulated Statusfor Cotton Lines Genetically Engineered for Insect Resistance. Federal Register Volume 69, Number 156:50154 - 50155. USDA (2005) Availability of Determination of Non -regulated Status for Genetically Engineered Corn (Corn line DAS - 59122 - 7). Federal Register Volume 70, Number 194:58663 - 58664.USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 78 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### Von Gravenitz, A, ( 1985 ) Ecology, clinical significance, and antimicrobial susceptibility encountered gluc ose - non - fermenting gram- negative rods, p. 181 - 232. In G. L. Gilardi (ed.), Nonfermentative gram- negative rods, laboratory identification and clinical aspects. Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York. Winkelmann G, Drechsel H (1997). Wen, A., Fegan, M., Hayward, C., Chakraborty, S., Sly, L.I. (1999) Phylogenetic relationships among members of the Comamonadaceae , and description of Delftia acidovorans (den Dooren de Jong 1926 and Tamaoka et al. 1987) gen. nov., comb. nov. International Journal of Systematic Bacteriol ogy 49:567 - 576. Zhang, Z. , Ren, J. - S. , Stammers, D.K. , Baldwin, J.E. , Harlos, K. , Schofield, C.J. ( 2000 ) Structural origins of the selectivity of the trifunctional oxygenase clavaminic acid synthase . Nature Structural and Molecular Biology 7:127 - 133.USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 79 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### VII. Agronomic Performance VII - A. Phenotypic and Agronomic Characteristics Agronomic trials were conducted with DAS - 68416 - 4 soybeans in 2008 at 6 locations in the U.S. and Canada (Experiment 1) and in 2009 at 21 locations in the U.S (Experiment 2) . These studies compared DAS - 68416 - 4 soybeans with the non - transgenic control (Maverick). Experiment 1 used the same plots that were used for the protein expression (Sections VI- A.3 and VI- B.3 ) and nutrient composition (Section VIII) studies. In Experiment 1, DAS - 68416 - 4 soybeans were evaluated with and without 2,4 - D and glufosinate herbicide spray treatments. Experiment 2 was conducted at 21 locations to allow for testing in a broader range o f environmental conditions. The results of both experiments showed that the DAS - 68416 - 4 soybean was equivalent to non transgenic soybean.

VII - A.1. Experiment 1 An agronomic study with DAS - 68416 - 4 soybean and a non - transgenic control (Maverick) was conducted in 200 8 at six sites located in Iowa (Keokuk county) , Illinois (Clinton county) , Indiana (Parke county) , Nebraska (York county) and Ontario, Canada (2 sites). Agronomic determinants, including stand count, emergence, seedling vigor, plant height, lodging, days to flowering, and final population were evaluated to investigate the equivalency of the DAS - 68416 - 4 transgenic soybeans (with and without herbicide treatments) to the control (Table 10 ). The test and control soybean seed were pl anted at a seeding rate of approximately 112 seeds per 25 ft row with a row spacing of approximately 30 inches. At each site, 3 replicate plots of each treatment were established, with each plot consisting of 2 - 25 ft rows. Plots were arranged in a randomized complete block (RCB) design, with a unique randomization at each site. Each soybean plot was bordered by 2 rows of a non - transgenic soybean of similar maturity. The entire trial site was surrounded by a minimum of 10 ft of a non - transgenic soybean of similar relative maturity. Appropriate insect, weed, and disease control practices were applied to produce an agronomically acceptable crop. Herbicide treatments were applied with a spray volume of approximately 20 gallons per acre (187 L/ha). These applications were designed to replicate maximum label rate for commercial practices. 2,4 - D was applied as 3 broadcast over- the - top applications for a seasonal total of 3 lb ae/A. Individual applications of 1.0 lb ae/A (1120 g ae/ha) were made at pre - emergence and approximately V4 and R2 growth stages. Glufosinate was applied as 2 broadcast over- the - top applications for a seasonal total of 0.74 lb ai/A (828 g ai/ha). Individual applications of 0.33 lb ai/A and 0.41 lb ai/A (374 and 454 g ai/ha) were made at approximately V6 and R1 growth stages.USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 80 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### Table 10 . Agronomic parameters evaluated in Experiment 1. Parameter Evaluation Timing Description Scale or Units Stand count VC -V2 Number of plants emerged in rows of each plot Actual count per plot Emergence VC -V2 Stand count divided by the number of seeds planted % Seedling vigor VC -V2 Visual estimate of average vigor of emerged plants per plot 1 - 10 scaled based on growth

of the non -transformed soybeans 10 = Growth equivalent to non -transformed 9 = Plant health is 90% as compared to non transformed, etc. Plant vigor / injury After post- emergent

herbicide applications Injury from herbicide

applications 1 - 10 scale based on growth of

the non -transformed soybeans 10 = Growth equivalent to non -transformed 9 = Plant health is 90% as compared to non transformed, etc. Days to flower R1 Number of days from planting to when 50% of plants reached R1 Days Plant height Approximately R6 Height from soil surface to the tip of the highest leaf when extended by hand Height in cm

(average of 10 plants per plot) Lodging Approximately R8 Visual estimate of lodging severity Visual estimate on 0 - 100%

scale based on the number of plants lodged Final population Approximately R8 The number of plants remaining in rows of each plot Actual count per plot,

including plants removed during previous sampling 

### Analysis of variance was conducted across the field sites for the agronomic data using a mixed model (SAS Version 8; SAS Institute 1999). Entry was considered a fixed effect, and location, block within location, location -by- entry, and entry -by- block within location were designated as random effects. The significance of an overall treatment effect was estimated using an F- test. Paired contrasts were made betw een DAS - 68416 - 4 (unsprayed AAD - 12), DAS - 68416 - 4 sprayed with glufosinate (AAD - 12 + glufosinate), DAS - 68416 - 4 sprayed with 2,4 - D (AAD - 12 + 2,4 - D), and DAS - 68416 - 4 sprayed with both glufosinate and 2,4 - D (AAD - 12 + both herbicides), and the control entry using t- tests. Multiplicity is an issue when a large number of comparisons are made in a single study to look for unexpected effects. Under these conditions, the probability of falsely declaring differences based on comparison - wise p - values is very high (1 - 0.95 number of comparisons 

### ). In this study thereUSDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 81 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### were four comparisons per analyte and 12 quantitated observation types (including disease incidence and insect damage, Section V II- B ) , resulting in 48 comparisons made in the across - site analysis. Therefore, the probability of declaring one or more false differences based on unadjusted p - values was > 91 % (1 - 0.95 48 

### ). One method to account for multiplicity is to adjust p - values to control the experiment- wise error rate (probability that all declared differences are significant), but when many comparisons are made in a study, the power for detecting specific effects can be reduced significantly. An alternative with much greater power is to adjust p - values to control the probability that each declared difference is significant. This can be accomplished using False Discovery Rate (FDR) procedures (Benjamini and Hochberg, 1995). Therefore the p - values were adjusted using FDR to improve discrimination of true differences among treatments from random effects (false positives). Experiment 1 Results An analysis of the agronomic data collected from the control, AAD - 12 unsprayed, AAD - 12 + 2,4 - D, AAD - 12 + glufosinate, and AAD - 12 + both herbicides was conducted. No statistically significant differences were observed for stand count, emergence , seedling vigor, days to flower, lodging, or final population (Table 11 Table 11 . Analysis of agronomic characteristics from Experiment 1. ). For plant height, a significant paired t- test was observed between the control and the AAD - 12 + 2,4 - D spray. However, no significant overall treatment effect was observed, differences were very small between the AAD - 12 treatment and the control, and differences were not shared among the different AAD - 12 treatments. Based on these results, DAS - 68416 - 4 soybean was agronomically equivalent to the non - transgenic control.USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 82 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### Table 11 . Analysis of agronomic characteristics from Experiment 1.

P - value for Treatment Means Overall (P - valueb, Adj. Pc) Parameter Treatment

Effecta Control Unsprayed Sprayed Glufosinate Sprayed

2,4 - D Sprayed

Both Stand Count 0.774 170 172 175 173 175 (0.709,0.824) (0.311,0.575) (0.476,0.672) (0.269,0.575) Emergence 0.714 76.7 77.4 79.1 79.0 79.4 (0.738,0.824) (0.301,0.575) (0.327,0.575) (0.256,0.575) Seedling Vigor 0.547 9.72 9.39 9.50 9.44 9.39 (0.146,0.575) (0.326,0.575) (0.222,0.575) (0.146,0.575) Vigor/Injury 0.511 10.0 9.86 9.89 9.83 9.67 App. 2 d (0.461,0.671) (0.555,0.718) (0.378,0.611) (0.087,0.575) Vigor/Injury 0.462 10.0 10.0 9.89 9.83 9.89 App. 3 e (1.000,1.000) (0.320,0.575) (0.141,0.575) (0.320,0.575) Vigor/Injury 0.431 9.94 9.89 9.78 9.67 9.78 App. 5 f (0.721,0.824) (0.289,0.575) (0.085,0.575) (0.289,0.575) Days to Flower 0.452 49.0 49.5 49.4 48.7 49.2 (0.261,0.575) (0.395,0.611) (0.568,0.718) (0.668,0.801) Plant Height 0.144 101 98.1 99.2 96.1 97.2 (0.145,0.575) (0.390,0.611) ( 0.020 ,0.575) (0.062,0.575) Lodging (%) 0.94 8 17.2 18.2 21.3 20.7 21.7 (0.885,0.904) (0.551,0.718) (0.606,0.746) (0.511,0.700) Final Population 0.268 156 154 161 155 163 (0.770,0.840) (0.335,0.575) (0.817,0.853) (0.127,0.575) a Overall treatment effect estimated using an F -test . b Comparis on of the sprayed and unsprayed treatments to the control using a t -test . c P - values adjusted using a False Discovery Rate (FDR) procedure. d Evaluated after application of 2,4 -D at the V4 growth stage. e Evaluated after application of 2,4 -D at the R2 growth stage. f Evaluated after application of glufosinate at the R1 growth stage. Bolded P -values are significant (<0.05).USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 83 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information



### VII - A.2. Experiment 2 An agronomic study with DAS - 68416 - 4 soybean and a non - transgenic control (Maverick) was conducted in 2009 at 2 1 sites in the U.S. (Table 12 ). Ten locations had both a 2,4 - D sprayed and unsprayed component, while the remaining eleven locations had no 2,4 - D applied. Table 12 . Locations for Experiment 2 agronomic and yield trials, 2009 . County State County State Sprayed and non - sprayed Non - sprayed only Keokuk IA Madison IA Clinton IL Story IA Benton IN Ford IL LaGrange IN Saline IL Parke IN Stark IL Butler MO Benton IN Henry MO Newton IN Seward NE Queen Anne MD York NE Adair MO Fulton OH Jasper MO Polk NE 

### Agronomic determinants, including emergence, seedling vigor, days to flower, days to maturity, plant height, lodging, shattering, and yield were evaluated to investigate the equivalency between the non - sprayed and sprayed DAS - 68416 - 4 soybeans, and between non - sprayed DAS - 68416 - 4 soybeans and the control (Table 13 ). Each plot consisted of 2 rows planted 0.762 meters apart. Plots were 5.3 or 3.8 meters in length depending on the location of the trial. Planting density was 27.5 seeds per meter. A pre emergent herbicide typical of soybean production was applied at most locations. Hand weeding or conventional post- emergent herbicides were used for weeds that were not controlled by the pre - emergent herbicide or by 2,4 - D application. A randomized- complete - block design was used for the 21 experiments that did not have a 2,4 - D spray component. Each location of the trial consisted of 4 replications of each treatment. A modifi ed split-plot design with 4 replications was used for the 10 trials that included the 2,4 - D spray component. Whole plots were herbicide treatments and subplots were test lines. Treatments consisted of a non - 2,4 - D - sprayed treatment and 2,4 - D applied at the V3 and R2 growth stages. For both applications, 2,4 - D was applied at a rate of 2 lbs ae/A (2240 g ae/ha, equivalent to twice the maximum proposed use rate). Whole -plots which received the 2,4 - D treatment were grouped together for ease of application. The non - transgenic control (Maverick) was forced to a set position within the herbicide treated whole -plots. This was done to reduce any chance of border effect which would have occurred had the control been placed beside a 2,4 - D - tolerant entry. The control plots were expected to die after herbicide application and so would have left bare ground adjacent to resistant plots had they been randomized among the other entries. Both experiments were anayzed using a mixed model with entry designated as a fixed effect and location, block within location, and location -by- entry designated as random effects. Differences were considered statistically significant at alpha < 0.05 .USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 84 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### Table 13 . Data collected in Experiment 2 agronomic and yield trials, 2009. Parameter Evaluation

Timing Description Scale or Units Emergence VC - V2 Stand count in 1 meter section of row divided by number of seeds planted per meter % Seedling vigor V1 - V3 General seedling vigor 1 (low) to 10 (high) Days to Flower R1 Number of days from planting to when 50% of plants are at R1 days Stand count R1 Number of plants in one meter section of row Disease incidence ~R6 Opportunistic note on any disease that occurred at a location % Insect damage ~R6 Opportunistic note on any insect damage that occurred at a location % Plant Height R8 Final height of plot at R8 cm Days to Maturity R8 Number of days from planting to when 95% of plants in plot have reached their mature color days Lodging R8 Degree of lodging in a plot 1 (none) - 5 (flat) Shattering R8 Percent of pods shattered % Yield R8 Quantity of seed produced by the plot bu/acre 100 seed weight R8 Weight of 100 random seeds from the harvested plot g 

### Experiment 2 Results

– Comparison of Sprayed vs. Non - Sprayed DA S- 68416-4 Soybean All agronomic observations for the 2,4 - D sprayed and non - sprayed DAS - 68416 - 4 soybeans were statistically indistinguishable across the ten field locations, indicating phenotypic equivalence even when sprayed with 2,4 - D at twice the maximum proposed use rate (Table 14 ). Insect damage ratings were taken at seven of the ten locations and were identical for sprayed and non sprayed plots, and all values were ≤5% damage. Table 14 . Agronomic parameters for sprayed (2,4 - D) and unsprayed DAS - 68416 - 4 soybean. Mean Parameter Unit Sprayed Unsprayed SE 1 Pr>F Emergence % 78.4 79.8 3.6 0.5820 Seedling vigor 1 - 10 scale 8.8 8.9 0.4 0.4757 Days to flower days 40.6 39.8 3.8 0.3822 Stand count No./m 21.1 21.4 1.0 0.6601 Disease incidence % 8.7 8.7 3.0 1 .0000 Plant height at senescence cm 79.8 83.1 8.7 0.0888 Days to maturity days 133.1 132.8 5.3 0.2847 Lodging 1 - 5 scale 1.5 1.8 0.3 0.1866 Shattering % 1.2 1.2 0.6 0.3434 Yield bu/acre 48.2 51.3 6.6 0.2818 100 seed weight g 15.1 15.3 0.4 0.6912 1 SE = pooled standard error of the mean. Bolded P -values are significant (<0.05).USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 85 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### Experiment 2 Results - Comparison of DAS- 68416-4 and Control (Maverick) Soybean All agronomic observations for non - sprayed control (Maverick) and DAS - 68416 - 4 soybeans were statistically indistinguishable across the 21 locations except for days to maturity and 100 seed weight (Table 15 ). On average, Maverick took less than one additional day to mature compared with event DAS - 68416 - 4 soybean. This difference in maturity is not biologically significant. The weight per 100 seeds was statistically lower for event DAS - 68416 - 4 soybean compared with Maverick soybean, but the difference was less than 3.5% and was not accompanied by reduced yield. Therefore this difference is not considered to be biologically significant. Overall, event DAS - 68416 - 4 soybean was agronomically equivalent to the non transgenic control (Maverick) soybean. Table 15 . Agronomic parameters for DAS - 68416 - 4 and Maverick soybean. Mean Parameter Unit Maverick DAS - 68416 - 4 SE 1 Pr>F Emergence % 79.4 77.6 2.7 0.3154 Seedling vigor 1 - 10 scale 8.7 8.7 0.2 1.0000 Days to flower days 42.3 42.3 2.1 0.7961 Stand count No./m 21.8 21.7 0.8 0.7482 Disease incidence % 5 .9 6.0 1.8 0.6703 Insect damage % 2.4 2.4 0.7 0.3364 Plant height cm 92.7 91.6 5.5 0.1389 Days to maturity days 129.3 128.4 3.3 0.0017 Lodging 1 - 5 scale 2.0 2.1 0.2 0.3100 Shattering % 0.8 0.8 0.3 0.6787 Yield bu/acre 53.9 54.1 3.7 0.8043 100 seed w eight g 15.8 15.3 0.3 0.0014 1 SE = pooled standard error of the mean. Bolded P -values are significant (<0.05).



### VII - A.3. Conclusions Results from experiments in 2008 and 2009 indicate that DAS - 68416 - 4 soybean is agronomically equivalent to non - transgenic control (Maverick) soybean. Treatments of 2,4 - D and/or glufosinate did not significantly change the agronomic performance of DAS - 68416 - 4 soybean.USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 86 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### VII - B. Ecological Evaluations The DAS - 68416 - 4 soybean field trials were monitored and observed by personnel familiar with so ybean cultivation practices (breeders, field station managers, field agronomists, field associates). The personnel conducting the field tests visually monitored the incidence of plant disease and pests on DAS - 68416 - 4 soybeans compared to the conventional soybean varieties in the same trials. As part of Experiment 1 described in Section VII- A.1 , disease and insect damage was rated on a numerical scale of 0 - 100%, with 0% representing no damage due to disease incidence or insect resistance. Table 16 shows results across the 6 sites described in Experiment 1. Table 16 . Analysis of disease incidence and insect damage from Experiment 1.

P - value for Treatment Means Overall (P - valueb, Adj. Pc) Parameter Treatment

Effecta Control Unsprayed Sprayed Glufosinate Sprayed

2,4 - D Sprayed

Both Disease 0.422 13.1 12.6 11.8 11.1 10.1 Incidence (%) d (0.803,0.853) (0.456,0.671) (0.251,0.575) (0.091,0.575) Insect Damage d 0.332 24.1 2 1.8 22.1 22.3 20.9 (0.140,0.575) (0.204,0.575) (0.236,0.575) ( 0.044 ,0.575) a Overall treatment effect estimated using an F -test . b Comparison of the sprayed and unsprayed treatments to the control using a t -test . c P - values adjusted using a False Disc overy Rate (FDR) procedure. d Visual estimate on 0 - 100% scale; 0% = no damage. 

### No statistically significant differences were observed for disease incidence. For insect damage, a significant paired t- test was observed between the control and the AAD - 12 + both herbicides. However , no significant overall treatment effect was observed, the difference between the AAD - 12 treatment and the control was small, and differences were not shared among the different AAD - 12 treatments. Insect damage and disease incidence was also measured at 21 field sites in Experiment 2 (Section VII- A.2 ). No significant difference was observed between DAS - 68416 - 4 soybeans that had been sprayed with 2,4 - D and non - sprayed. No significant differences were observed between DAS - 68416 - 4 soybeans and the non - transgenic control. Ecological observations w ere also made from all USDA APHIS notified field trials conducted in 2006 - 2009 (Appendix 5 ). Incidence of disease and insect presence in trials of DAS - 68416 - 4 soybeans were recorded and differences in incidence or response of DAS - 68416 - 4 soybeans compared with the conventional control were examined. In all cases, no differences were seen in any of the trials of DAS - 6 8416 - 4 soybeans compared with the conventional controls. The disease and insect stressors observed in trials of DAS - 68416 - 4 and conventional soybeans are summarized in Table 17 . These observations support the conclusion that the response of DAS - 68416 - 4 soybean to ecological stressors does not differ from that of conventional soybean.USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 87 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### Table 17 . Disease and insect stressors observed in trials of DAS - 68416 - 4 and conventional soybean. Year USDA Notification Number State (County) Diseases Insects 2007 06 - 292 - 105n IN (Benton) none aphids, bean leaf beetles, corn rootworm beetles, Japanese beetles, lady bugs, leaf hoppers 2007 - 2008 07 - 242 - 107n PR (Santa Isabel) Carla virus spider mites, whiteflies 2008 08 - 071 - 107n CA (Tulare), IL (Clinton), IN (Benton, Parke), IA (Jefferson, Story), MN (Dakota), MS (Washington), NE (York) brown spot, Cercospora leaf blight, rust, Septoria leaf spot aphids, bean leaf beetles, grasshoppers, Japanese beetles, lady bugs, stink bu gs, thrips, yellow - striped armyworms 2008 08 - 121 - 102n IL (Schuyler, Stark), IN (LaGrange), MO (Adair, Henry), NE (Polk, Seward, York), OH (Fulton, Lucas) Septoria brown aphids, grasshoppers, lady bugs, thrips 2008 08 - 121 - 103n IA (Boone) none none 

### VII - C. Germination and Dormancy Evaluations Changes in seed dormancy characteristics were evaluated by looking at the germination of DAS - 68416 - 4 seed compared with the non - transgenic control (Maverick) under warm and cold conditions. For the warm germination test, event DAS - 68416 - 4 and control soybean seeds were placed at 25 seeds/plate into Petri dishes containing germination pads saturated with water and excess water drained . The plates were placed at 25 oC and held under these conditions for 5 days. Sixteen plates (400 seeds) were prepared per line. After five days, the number of non germinated seeds was recorded. For the cold germination test, seeds were planted at 100 seeds per half - flat filled with potting soil. Flats were sub - watered and held at 10 oC for 7 days followed by exposure to 25 oC for 5 days, after which the number of non - germinated seed was recorded. Data from each test were analyzed by ANOVA using a completely randomized design with four replicates of 100 seeds per replicate. Data were transformed using the arcsine of the square root of the number of germinated seeds divided by 100 for statistical analysis. Percent germination is summarized in Table 18 . Differences were considered statistically significant at alpha < 0. 05.USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 88 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### Table 18 . Germination of DAS - 68416 - 4 seeds under warm and cold conditions. Replicate Test Line 1 2 3 4 Mean Warm DAS - 68416 -4 97 100 99 100 99.0 Warm Control 100 100 99 97 99.0 Cold DAS - 68416 -4 92 92 92 89 91.3 Cold Control 98 88 98 96 95.0 

### There were no significant differences in germination between DAS - 68416 - 4 and control soybeans in either the warm or cold germination experiments (Pr > F = 1.0 and 0.13, respectively). These results indicate that the seed dormancy ch aracteristics have not been changed in DAS - 68416 - 4 soybeans. VII - D. Summary of Agronomic, Disease, and Pest Characteristics Agronomic data evaluating plant growth characteristics throughout the growing season demonstrate the equivalence of DAS - 68416 - 4 soybean with conventional non - transgenic soybean. Plant growth and phenotypic characteristics, response to ecological stressors as indicated by susceptibility to disease and insect pressure, and germination and dormancy characteristics were unchanged between DAS - 684 16 - 4 soybeans and conventional soybeans across diverse environments. Therefore, these data support the conclusion that agronomic, disease and pest characteristics of DAS - 68416 - 4 soybean are not significantly different from that of conventional soybeans, and there is no indication that DAS - 68416 - 4 soybeans will pose an increased plant pest risk. VII - E. References Benjamini, Y., Hochberg, Y. (1995) Controlling the false discovery rate: A practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J. Royal Statistical Soc . B, 57:289 - 300.USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 89 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### VIII. Grain and Forage Composition Compositional analysis was performed on soybean forage and grain to investigate the equivalency between DAS - 68416 - 4 soybean (sprayed with 2,4 - D, glufosinate, 2,4 - D + glufosinate, or not sprayed with 2,4 - D or glufosinate) and conventional soybean . Trials were conducted at six test sites located within the major soybean -producing regions of the U.S and Canada ; with one site each in Iowa (Keokuk county), Illinois (Clinton county), Indiana (Parke county), Nebraska (York county) and two sites in Ontario, Canada. The herbicide treatments were identical to those used in studies for protein expression analysis (Sections VI- A.3 , VI- B.3 ) and agronomic Experiment 1 (Section VII- A.1 ). Herbicide treatments were applied with a spray volume of approximately 20 gallons per acre (187 L/ha). These applications were designed to replicate maximum label rate for commercial practices. 2,4 - D was applied as 3 broadcast over- the - top applications for a seasonal total of 3 lb ae/A. Individual applications of 1.0 lb ae/A (1120 g ae/ha) were made at pre - emergence and approximately V4 and R2 growth stages. Glufosinate was applied as 2 broadcast over- the - top applications for a seasonal total of 0.74 lb ai/A (828 g ai/ha). Individual applications of 0.33 lb ai/A and 0.41 lb ai/A (374 and 454 g ai/ha) were made at approximately V6 and R1 growth stages. Samples of soybean forage and grain were analyzed for nutrient content with a variety of tests (OECD 2001). The analyses performed for forage included protein, fat, ash, moisture, carbohydrate, acid detergent fiber (ADF), neutral detergent fiber (NDF), calcium and phosphorus. The analyses performed for grain included proximates (ash, total fat, moisture, protein, cholesterol, carbohydrate), fiber, minerals, amino acids, fatty acid, vitamins, anti nutrients. The results of the nutritional analysis for soybean forage and grain were compared with values rep orted in literature. A summary of the compositional data used for comparison can be found in Appendix 6 . Analysis of variance was also conducted across the field sites using a mixed model. Entry was considered a fixed effect , and location, block within location, and location -by- entry were designated as random effects. The significance of an overall treatment effect was estimated using an F- test. Paired contrasts were made between DAS - 68416 - 4 (unsprayed AAD - 12), DAS 68416 - 4 sprayed with glufosinate (AAD - 12 + glufosinate), DAS - 68416 - 4 sprayed with 2,4 - D (AAD - 12 + 2,4 - D), and DAS - 68416 - 4 sprayed with both glufosinate and 2,4 - D (AAD - 12 + both herbicides ), and the control entry using t- tests. Multiplicity is an issue when a large number of comparisons are made in a single study to look for unexpected effects. Under these conditions, the probability of falsely declaring differences based on comparison - wise p - values is very high (1 - 0.95 number of comparisons 

### ). In this study there were four comparisons per analyte (75 quantitated analytes), resulting in 300 comparisons made in the across - site composition analysis. Therefore, the probability of declaring one or more false differences based on unadjusted p - values was >99.99%. One method to account for multiplicity is to adjust p - values to control the experiment- wise error rate (probability that all declared differences are significant), but when many comparisons are made in a study, the power for detecting specific effects can be reduced significantly. An alternative with much greater power is to adjust p - values to control the probability that each declared difference is significant. This can be accomplished using False Discovery Rate (FDR)USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 90 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### procedures (Benjamini and Hochberg, 1995). Therefore the p - values were adjusted using FDR to improve discrimination of true differences among treatments from random effects (false positives). VIII - A. Compositional Analysis of Soybean Forage An analysis of the protein, fat, ash, moisture, carbohydrate, acid detergent fiber (ADF), neutral detergent fiber (NDF), calcium and phosphorus in soybean forage samples from the control, unsprayed AAD - 12, AAD - 12 + glufosinate, AAD - 12 + 2,4 - D and AAD - 12 + both herbicides was performed. A summary of the results acros s all locations is shown in Table 19 and Figure 37 . No statistical differences were observed in the across - site analysis between the control and transgenic entries for protein, fat, ash, moisture, carbohydrates, ADF, NDF, calcium or phosphorus. Mean ash values across sites for AAD - 12 + glufosinate and AAD - 12 + both herbicides was outside of the literature range as was the NDF value for AAD - 12 + glufosinate and AAD - 12 + 2,4 - D. ADF values for all treatments including the non - transgenic control were also outside of the literature values. Mean values were not significantly different between the non - transgenic control and any transgenic entry for any proximate, fiber type, or mineral in forage. Based on these compositional constituents, the forage from DAS - 68416 - 4 soybean was substantially equivalent to that of non - transgenic soybean.USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 91 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### Table 19 . Summary of the proximate, fiber and mineral analysis of soybean forage (% dry weight) . P - value for Treatment Means Overall (P - value, c Adj. Pd) Analyte Literature

Values a Treatment

Effectb Control Unsprayed Sprayed Glufosinate Sprayed

2,4 - D Sprayed

Both Proximate Protein 11.2 - 24.7 0.805 19.1 19.0 19.4 18.9 18.6 (0.881,0.93 0) (0.666,0.819) (0.744,0.860) (0.441,0.634) Fat 1.30 - 5.1 0.046 4.11 4.46 3.66 4.17 3.74 (0.216,0.403) (0.107,0.254) (0.844,0.908) (0.186,0.360) Ash 6.7 - 10.8 0.092 10.6 10.1 11.1 10.2 12.3 (0.567,0.767) (0.546,0.741) (0.672,0.819) (0.051,0.151) Moisture 73.5 - 81.6 0.569 77.8 78.5 78.4 77.8 77.8 (% fresh weight) (0.255,0.444) (0.330,0.539) (0.960,0.970) (0.976,0.979) Carbohydrates 59.8 -74.7 0.675 66.2 66.5 65.9 66.7 65.3 (0.830,0.902) (0.739,0.860) (0.641,0.808) (0.366,0.564) Fiber Acid Detergent 32.0 - 38.0 0.967 30.2 30.4 30.6 29.7 30.7 Fiber (ADF) (0.904,0.936) (0.797,0.875) (0.746,0.860) (0.740,0.860) Neutral Detergent 34.0 -40.0 0.375 34.4 34.7 33.1 32.0 34.5 Fiber (NDF) (0.877,0.930) (0.397,0.596) (0.135,0.297) (0.948, 0.962) Minerals Calcium NR 0.246 1.39 1.36 1.40 1.38 1.43 (0.361,0.560) (0.664,0.819) (0.842,0.908) (0.178,0.352) Phosphorus NR 0.957 0.263 0.266 0.269 0.266 0.265 (0.671,0.819) (0.442,0.634) (0.696,0.831) (0.754,0.860) a Combined range from Appendix 6 . b Overall treatment effect estimated using an F -test . c Comparison of the transgenic treatments to the control using t -tests . d P -values adjusted using a False Discovery Rate (FDR) procedure . NR = not reported Bolded mean values are outside of the reported literature range. Bolded P -values are significant (<0.05).USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 92 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### Figure 37 . Summary of the proximate, fiber and mineral analysis of soybean forage (% dry weight). Percent dry- weight for all analytes, except moisture which was percent fresh - weight. Values at each location shown: diamond = IA, square = IL, triangle = IN, X = NE, star = ON1, and circle = ON2. Literature ranges (Appendix 6 ) are s haded.

ADF

20 25 30 35 40

Control No spray Glufosinate 2,4-D 2,4-D + Glufos Protein

5 10 15 20 25 30

Control No spray Glufosinate 2,4-D 2,4-D + Glufos Total Fat

0.2 1.2 2.2 3.2 4.2 5.2 6.2

Control No spray Glufosinate 2,4-D 2,4-D + Glufos Ash

2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0

Control No spray Glufosinate 2,4-D 2,4-D + Glufos Carbohydrates

50 55 60 65 70 75 80

Control No spray Glufosinate 2,4-D 2,4-D + Glufos Calcium

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

Control No spray Glufosinate 2,4-D 2,4-D + Glufos Phosphorus

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

Control No spray Glufosinate 2,4-D 2,4-D + Glufos NDF

20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Control No spray Glufosinate 2,4-D 2,4-D + Glufos Moisture

65 70 75 80 85 90

Control No spray Glufosinate 2,4-D 2,4-D + GlufosUSDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 93 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### VIII - B. Compositional Analysis of Soybean Grain VIII - B.1. Proximates and Fiber An analysis of the protein, fat, ash, moisture, cholesterol, carbohydrate, ADF, NDF and total dietary fiber in soybean grain samples from the control, unsprayed AAD - 12, AAD - 12 + glufosinate, AAD - 12 + 2,4 - D and AAD - 12 + both herbicides was performed. A summary of the results across all locations is shown in Table 20 and Figure 38 . No statistical differences were observed in the across - site analysis between the control and transgenic entries for the fat, ADF or total dietary fiber. However, ADF was slightly higher than the literature range for the AAD - 12 + 2,4 - D entry. Protein levels were significantly diff erent in the across - site analysis based on the unadjusted p - value for the unsprayed, AAD - 12 + 2,4 - D, and AAD - 12 + both herbicides compared with the control. However, after FDR adjustment, only the p - value for the AAD - 12 + 2,4 - D was significant, and overall mean protein values for all treatments were within the reported literature values, indicating that the differences were not biologically meaningful. A significant unadjusted p - value was observed in the across site analysis of ash between the control and the 2,4 - D sprayed AAD - 12 treatment, but no overall treatment effect or adjusted p - value was observed. Ash values were also within the reported literature values, indicating that the differences were not biologically meaningful. Moisture levels were si gnificantly different in the across - site analysis based on the unadjusted p - value for the unsprayed, AAD - 12 + 2,4 - D, and AAD - 12 + both herbicides compared with the control. However, the overall treatment effect was not significant for moisture, only the AAD - 12 + 2,4 - D treatment had a significant FDR- adjusted p - value, and the mean moisture levels for all treatments were within the literature ranges. This indicated that the differences were not biologically meaningful. Cholesterol values were all <LOQ and no literature values were reported. Carbohydrate levels were significantly different in the across - site analysis based on the unadjusted p - value for the unsprayed, AAD - 12 + glufosinate, and AAD - 12 + 2,4 - D compared with the control. However, only the AAD - 12 + 2,4 - D treatment was significantly different from the control based on the FDR adjusted p - value and all treatment means were within the reported literature values, indicating equivalence to non - transgenic soybean. NDF levels were significantly diff erent in the across - site analysis based on the unadjusted p value for AAD - 12 + glufosinate compared with the control, but this was not accompanied by a significant adjusted p - value or an overall treatment effect. NDF across - site values were slightly higher than the reported literature values for the AAD - 12 + glufosinate and AAD - 12 + 2,4 - D entries, but the differences were <9% compared with the non - transgenic control. Based on these compositional constituents, the grain from DAS - 68416 - 4 soybean was substantially equivalent to that of non - transgenic soybean.USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 94 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### Table 20 . Summary of the proximate and fiber analysis of soybean grain (% dry weight) . P - value for Treatment Means Overall (P - value, c Adj. Pd) Analyte Literature

Values a Treatment

Effectb Control Unsprayed Sprayed Glufosinate Sprayed

2,4 - D Sprayed

Both Proximate Protein 32.0 -45.5 0.004 39.2 38.3 38.8 37.8 38.5 ( 0.009 ,0.051) (0.186,0.360) ( 0.0003 , 0.009 ) ( 0.035 ,0.122) Fat 8.10 - 24.7 0.105 17.1 17.1 16.6 16.7 17. 2 (0.877,0.930) (0.059,0.169) (0.142,0.305) (0.674,0.819) Ash 3.89 - 6.99 0.315 4.92 5.04 5.04 5.10 5.07 (0.176,0.351) (0.175,0.351) ( 0.048 ,0.145) (0.099,0.240) Moisture 4.70 - 34.4 0.066 14.9 14.1 14.3 13.7 14.0 % fresh weight ( 0.047 ,0.143) (0 .122,0.276) ( 0.006 , 0.043 ) ( 0.037 ,0.124) Cholesterol NR NA < LOQ < LOQ < LOQ < LOQ < LOQ Carbohydrate 29.6 - 50.2 0.010 38.8 39.6 39.6 40.3 39.3 ( 0.046 ,0.143) ( 0.044 ,0.138) ( 0.001 , 0.011 ) (0.241,0.432) Fiber Acid Detergent 7.81 - 18.6 0.561 17.8 1 7.6 18.0 18.8 18.1 Fiber (ADF) (0.772,0.868) (0.772,0.868) (0.190,0.362) (0.685,0.825) Neutral Detergent 8.53 - 21.3 0.184 20.1 20.8 21.9 21.6 20.3 Fiber (NDF) (0.386,0.585) ( 0.042 ,0.134) (0.090,0.225) (0.754,0.860) Total Dietary NR 0.770 31.6 31. 7 31.7 32.1 32.5 Fiber (0.899,0.936) (0.897,0.936) (0.466,0.653) (0.286,0.482) a Combined range from Appendix 6 . b Overall treatment effect estimated using an F -test . c Comparison of the transgenic treatments to the control using t -tests . d P -values adjusted using a False Discovery Rate (FDR) procedure. NA = statistical analysis was not performed since a majority of the data was < LOQ. NR = not reported. Bolded mean values are outside of the reported literature range. Bolded P -values are significant (<0.05).USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 95 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### Figure 38 . Summary of the proximate and fiber analysis of soybean grain. Percent dry- weight for all analytes, except moisture which was percent fresh - weight. Values at each location shown: diamond = IA, square = IL, triangle = IN, X = NE, star = ON1, and circle = ON2. Literature ranges (Appendix 6 ) are shaded. Grain was also analyzed for cholesterol, but results were less than the limit of quantitation.

ADF

5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0

Control No spray Glufosinate 2,4-D 2,4-D + Glufos Protein

25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0

Control No spray Glufosinate 2,4-D 2,4-D + Glufos Total Fat

5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0

Control No spray Glufosinate 2,4-D 2,4-D + Glufos Ash

2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0

Control No spray Glufosinate 2,4-D 2,4-D + Glufos Moisture

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0

Control No spray Glufosinate 2,4-D 2,4-D + Glufos Carbohydrate

20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0 55.0 60.0

Control No spray Glufosinate 2,4-D 2,4-D + Glufos Total Fiber

20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0

Control No spray Glufosinate 2,4-D 2,4-D + Glufos NDF

5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0

Control No spray Glufosinate 2,4-D 2,4-D + GlufosUSDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 96 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information



### VIII - B.2. Minerals The analysis of the calcium, chromium, copper, iodine, iron, magnesium, manganese, molybdenum, phosphorus, potassium, selenium, sodium and zinc in soybean grain samples from the control, unsprayed AAD - 12, AAD - 12 + glufosinate, AAD - 12 + 2,4 - D and AAD - 12 + both herbicides was performed. A summary of the results across all locations is shown in Table 21 and Figure 39 . No statistical differences were observed in the across - site analysis between the control and transgenic entries based on the unadjusted p - value for the chromium, copper, iodine, iron, manganese, molybdenum, phosphorus, selenium and sodium (not detected). Calcium had a significant difference in the across - site analysis based on the unadjusted p - value for the AAD - 12 + 2,4 - D , but this was not associated with a significant FDR adjusted p - value or overall treatment effect, and all treatment means fell within the literature range, indicating that the difference was not biologically meaningful. Magnesium levels were significantly different in the across - site analysis for the AAD12 + both herbicides and AAD - 12 + glufosinate compared with the control based on the unadjusted p values, but this was not associated with a significant FDR adjusted p - value or overall treatment effect . Magnesium across site mean values were slightly lower than the reported literature values, but the differences were small (<3%) in comparison to the control and all AAD - 12 entries were closer to literature values compared with the control. The mean value for the control is further from the literature range than any of the transgenic treatments, therefore by including the control values as part of the range seen for non - transgenic varieties, all the transgenic treatments fall within the range . All AAD - 12 entries had significantly higher potassium values compared with the control in the across - site analysis. However, differences were small (<5%) in comparison to the control, and all AAD - 12 entries were closer to the literature range compared with the control. The mean value for the control is further from the literature range than any of the transgenic treatments, therefore by including the control values as part of the range seen for non - transgenic varieties, all the transgenic treatments fall within the range . A difference in zinc levels was significant in the across - site analysis based on the unadjusted p - value for AAD - 12 + both herbicides, however this was not accompanied by a significant FDR- adjusted p - value or overall treatment effect, and the difference was small (<4%). Based on these compositional constituents, the grain from DAS - 68416 - 4 soybean was substantially equivalent to that of non - transgenic soybean.USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 97 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### Table 21 . Summary of the mineral analysis of soybean grain (mg/100g dry weight). P - value for Treatment Means Overall (P - value, c Adj. Pd) Analyte Literature

Values a Treatment

Effectb Control Unsprayed Sprayed Glufosinate Sprayed

2,4 - D S prayed

Both Calcium 117 - 307 0.102 256 265 264 274 269 (0.174,0.351) (0.237,0.432) ( 0.010 ,0.057) ( 0.050 ,0.148) Chromium NR 0.775 145 149 175 126 137 (ppb) (0.912,0.941) (0.468,0.653) (0.613,0.796) (0.855,0.916) Copp er NR 0.887 1.31 1.28 1.30 1. 27 1.28 (0.534,0.728) (0.788,0.873) (0.367,0.564) (0.461,0.649) Iodine NR 0.285 0.027 0.023 0.021 0.032 0.023 (0.430,0.632) (0.182,0.358) (0.348,0.551) (0.348,0.551) Iron 5.54 - 11.0 0.917 8.15 8.46 8.95 8.53 8.59 (0.719,0.853) (0.353,0.552) (0.656,0.819) (0.608,0.796) Magnesium 219 - 313 0.082 210 212 215 213 215 (0.437,0.634) ( 0.020 ,0.087) (0.143,0.305) ( 0.021 ,0.088) Manganese NR 0.984 2.56 2.60 2.60 2.58 2.59 (0.608,0.796) (0.618,0.799) (0.781,0.873) (0.698,0.831) Molybdenum NR 0.845 2165 2557 2462 2563 2284 (ppb) (0.353,0.552) (0.479,0.665) (0.346,0.551) (0.722,0.853) Phosphorus 507 - 935 0.675 583 589 599 596 594 (0.630,0.804) (0.191,0.363) (0.272,0.469) (0.349,0.551) Potassium 1868 - 2316 0.0005 1801 1876 1882 1883 1864 ( 0.0003 , 0.009 ) ( 0.0001 , 0.006 ) ( 0.0001 , 0.006 ) ( 0.001 , 0.019) S elenium NR 0.490 490 523 520 511 418 (ppb) (0.626,0.802) (0.659,0.819) (0.758,0.861) (0.280,0.475) Sodium NR NA <LOQ < LOQ <LOQ <LOQ <LOQ Zinc NR 0.096 5.06 5.07 5.19 5.21 5.25 ( 0.868,0.926) (0.117,0.268) (0.074,0.197) ( 0.027 ,0.105) a Combined range from Appendix 6 . b Overall treatment effect estimated using an F -test . c Comparison of the transgenic treatments to the control using t -tests . d P -values adjusted using a False Discovery Rate (FDR) procedure. NR = not reported. NA= statistical analysis was not performed since a majority of the data was < LOQ. Bolded mean values are outside of the reported literature range. Bolded P -value s are significant (<0.05).USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 98 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### Figure 39 . Summary of the mineral analysis of soybean grain (mg/100 g dry weight). Values at each location shown: diamond = IA, square = IL, triangle = IN, X = NE, star = ON1, and circle = ON2. Literature ranges (Appendix 6 ) are shaded. Grain was also analyzed for sodium, but results were less than the limit of quantitation.

Iodine

0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06

Control No spray Glufosinate 2,4-D 2,4-D + Glufos Iron

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0

Control No spray Glufosinate 2,4-D 2,4-D + Glufos Magnesium

100 150 200 250 300 350

Control No spray Glufosinate 2,4-D 2,4-D + Glufos Manganese

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

Control No spray Glufosinate 2,4-D 2,4-D + Glufos Phosphorus

450 550 650 750 850 950

Control No spray Glufosinate 2,4-D 2,4-D + Glufos Molybdenum

500 1500 2500 3500 4500 5500 6500 7500 8500 9500

Control No spray Glufosinate 2,4-D 2,4-D + Glufos Chromium

0 100 200 300 400 500

Control No spray Glufosinate 2,4-D 2,4-D + Glufos Copper

0.5 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.7 1.9

Control No spray Glufosinate 2,4-D 2,4-D + Glufos Calcium

0 100 200 300 400 500

Control No spray Glufosinate 2,4-D 2,4-D + Glufos

Zinc

2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0

Control No spray Glufosinate 2,4-D 2,4-D + Glufos Selenium

100 300 500 700 900 1100 1300 1500 1700

Control No spray Glufosinate 2,4-D 2,4-D + Glufos Potassium

1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 2400

Control No spray Glufosinate 2,4-D 2,4-D + GlufosUSDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 99 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information



### VIII - B.3. Amino Acids An analysis of the following amino acids: alanine, arginine, aspartic acid, cysteine, glutamic acid glycine, histidine, isoleucine, leucine, lysine, methionine, phenylalanine, proline, serine, threonine, tryptophan, tyrosine, and valine; in soybean grain samples from the control, unsprayed AAD - 12, AAD - 12 + glufos inate, AAD - 12 + 2,4 - D and AAD - 12 + both herbicides was performed. A summary of the results across all locations is shown in Table 22 and Figure 40Figure 40 . Summary of the amino acid analysis of soybean grain (% dry weight). No statistical differences were observed between the control and transgenic entries for cysteine, methionine, proline, tyrosine or tryptophan. The isoleucine level for AAD - 12 + 2,4 - D was significantly different from the control based on the unadjusted p - value, but this was not accompanied by a significant FDR- adjusted p - value or a significant overall treatment effect. The levels of the remaining 12 amino aci ds were slightly lower (<7%) for two or more of the AAD - 12 entries compared with the control, but all fell within the literature range for non transgenic soybean. All amino acids for all entries were within the literature ranges, indicating that the differences were not biologically meaningful. Based on these compositional constituents, the grain from DAS - 68416 - 4 soybean was substantially equivalent to that of non - transgenic soybean .USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 100 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### Table 22 . Summary of the amino acid analysis of soybean grain (% dry weight). P - value for Treatment Means Overall (P - value, c Adj. Pd) Analyte Literature

Values a Treatment

Effectb Control Unsprayed Sprayed Glufosinate Sprayed

2,4 - D Sprayed

Both Alanine 1.51 - 2.10 0.003 1.74 1.70 1.70 1.69 1.71 ( 0.001 , 0.017) ( 0.004 , 0.033 ) ( 0.0003 , 0.009 ) ( 0.014 ,0.067) Arginine 2.29 - 3.40 0.007 3.15 2.97 3.00 2.94 2.96 ( 0.004 , 0.033 ) ( 0.012 ,0.066) ( 0.001 , 0.015 ) ( 0.003 , 0.026) Aspartic Acid 3.81 - 5.12 0.007 4.52 4.41 4.44 4.38 4.43 ( 0.004 , 0.033 ) ( 0.037 , 0.124) ( 0.0005 , 0.010 ) ( 0.014 ,0.067) Cysteine 0.37 - 0.8 1 0.254 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.6 1 0.61 (0.637,0.808) (0.787,0.873) (0.900,0.936) (0.110,0.260) Glutamic Acid 5.84 - 8.20 0.002 6.98 6.76 6.83 6.70 6.80 ( 0.001 , 0.015 ) ( 0.019 ,0.086) ( 0.0001 , 0.006 ) ( 0.0 06 , 0.043 ) Glycine 1.46 - 2.00 0.001 1.74 1.69 1.70 1.69 1.70 ( 0.0004 , 0.009 ) ( 0.002,0.023 ) ( 0.0001,0.006 ) ( 0.001,0.017) Histidine 0.88 - 1.22 0.003 1.09 1.06 1.07 1.05 1.07 ( 0.002,0.023 ) ( 0.014 ,0.067) ( 0.0002 , 0.007 ) ( 0.013 ,0.067) Isoleucine 1.5 4 - 2.08 0.232 1.87 1.83 1.85 1.82 1.85 (0.100,0.241) (0.450,0.642) ( 0.042 ,0.134) (0.514,0.708) Leucine 2.20 -4.00 0.010 3.06 3.00 3.02 2.98 3.01 ( 0.007 , 0.046) (0.068,0.186) ( 0.001 , 0.011 ) ( 0.037 ,0.124) Lysine 2.29 - 2.84 0.005 2.56 2.51 2.52 2.49 2. 52 ( 0.004 , 0.034) ( 0.028 ,0.105) ( 0.0003 , 0.009 ) ( 0.022 ,0.093) Methionine 0.43 - 0.68 0.433 0.56 0.55 0.5 5 0.5 5 0.55 (0.377,0.575) (0.245,0.438) (0.089,0.225) (0.742,0.860) Phenylalanine 1.60 - 2.35 0.008 2.02 1.97 1.98 1.94 1.97 ( 0.014 ,0.067) ( 0 .044 ,0.138) ( 0.0004 , 0.009 ) ( 0.027 ,0.105) Proline 1.69 - 2.28 0.374 1.91 1.85 1.88 1.87 1.87 (0.059,0.169) (0.400,0.597) (0.155,0.324) (0.240,0.432) Serine 1.11 - 2.48 0.063 1.99 1.95 1.95 1.91 1.93 (0.082,0.210) (0.115,0.268) ( 0.006 , 0.043 ) ( 0.021 ,0 .088) Threonine 1.14 - 1.89 0.001 1.62 1.57 1.58 1.55 1.57 ( 0.002 , 0.020) ( 0.008 , 0.048 ) ( <0.0001 , 0.006 ) ( 0.002 , 0.022) Tryptophan 0.36 - 0.67 0.330 0.43 0.4 3 0.43 0.43 0.42 (0.593,0.787) (0.981,0.981) (0.904,0.936) (0.095,0.235) Tyrosine 1.02 - 1.61 0 .449 1.36 1.34 1.35 1.33 1.33 (0.275,0.471) (0.517,0.708) (0.096,0.235) (0.153,0.321) Valine 1.50 - 2.44 0.159 1.97 1.92 1.94 1.92 1.95 ( 0.032 ,0.116) (0.279,0.475) ( 0.038 ,0.124) (0.346,0.551) a Combined range from Appendix 6 . b Overall treatment effect estimated using an F -test . c Comparison of the transgenic treatments to the control using t -tests . d P -values adjusted using a False Discovery Rate (FDR) procedure. Bolded mean values are outside of the reported literature range . Bolded P -values are significant (<0.05).USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 101 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### Figure 40 . Summary of the amino acid analysis of soybean grain (% dry weight). Values at each location shown: diamond = IA, square = IL, triangle = IN, X = NE, star = ON1, and circle = ON2. Literature ranges (Appendix 6 ) are shaded. Aspartic Acid

3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0

Control No spray Glufosinate 2,4-D 2,4-D + Glufos Arginine

2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0 3.2 3.4 3.6

Control No spray Glufosinate 2,4-D 2,4-D + Glufos

Histidine

0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3

Control No spray Glufosinate 2,4-D 2,4-D + Glufos Leucine

1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5

Control No spray Glufosinate 2,4-D 2,4-D + Glufos Alanine

1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4

Control No spray Glufosinate 2,4-D 2,4-D + Glufos Cystine

0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9

Control No spray Glufosinate 2,4-D 2,4-D + Glufos Glutamic Acid

5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0

Control No spray Glufosinate 2,4-D 2,4-D + Glufos Glycine

1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4

Control No spray Glufosinate 2,4-D 2,4-D + Glufos Isoleucine

1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6

Control No spray Glufosinate 2,4-D 2,4-D + GlufosUSDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 102 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### Figure 40 (cont.) Summary of the amino acid analysis of soybean grain (% dry wei ght). Methionine

0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8

Control No spray Glufosinate 2,4-D 2,4-D + Glufos

Valine

1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0

Control No spray Glufosinate 2,4-D 2,4-D + Glufos Proline

1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0

Control No spray Glufosinate 2,4-D 2,4-D + Glufos Serine

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0

Control No spray Glufosinate 2,4-D 2,4-D + Glufos Threonine

0.75 0.95 1.15 1.35 1.55 1.75 1.95 2.15

Control No spray Glufosinate 2,4-D 2,4-D + Glufos Tryptophan

0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80

Control No spray Glufosinate 2,4-D 2,4-D + Glufos Tyrosine

0.5 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.7 1.9

Control No spray Glufosinate 2,4-D 2,4-D + Glufos Phenylanlanine

1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8

Control No spray Glufosinate 2,4-D 2,4-D + Glufos Lysine

2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0

Control No spray Glufosinate 2,4-D 2,4-D + GlufosUSDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 1 03 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information



### VIII - B.4. Fatty Acids An analysis of 22 fatty acids in soybean grain samples from the control, unsprayed AAD - 12, AAD - 12 + glufosinate, AAD - 12 + 2,4 - D and AAD - 12 + both herbicides was performed. A summary of the results across all locations is shown in Table 23 and Figure 41 . The fatty acids 10:0 capric, 15:0 pentadecanoic, 15:1 pentadecenoic, 20:3 eicosatrienoic, 20:4 arachidonic, 8:0 caprylic, 12:0 lauric, 14:0 myristic, 14 :1 myristoleic, 17:1 heptadecenoic, 18:3 gamma linolenic, and 20:2 eicosadienoic acids were analyzed and the results were <LOQ. The fatty acids 16:0 palmitic, 17:0 heptadecanoic, and 20:1 eicosenoic were not significantly different between the control and the AAD - 12 entries, although 20:1 eicosenoic values were lower than the reported literature values for AAD - 12 + glufosinate and AAD - 12 + both herbicides. However, the differences were small (<5%) in comparison to the control. The level of 16:1 palmitoleic was significantly different between the control and the unsprayed, AAD - 12 + glufosinate, AAD - 12 + 2,4 - D, and AAD - 12 + both herbicides based on unadjusted p values. However, only the unsprayed AAD - 12 entry had a FDR- adjusted p - value that was significant for 16:1 palmitoleic. The 16:1 palmitoleic across - site value was lower for this treatment compared with the reported literature values, but the difference was small (<13%) in comparison to the non - transgenic control. The level of 18:0 stearic was significantly different between the control and the unsprayed and AAD - 12 + glufosinate, based on unadjusted p - values. However, no significant differences were observed based on the adjusted p - values or the overall treatment effect, and all entries were within the reported literature values, indicating equivalence to non - transgenic soybean. The level of 18:1 oleic was significantly different between the control and the unsprayed, AAD 12 + glufosinate, AAD - 12 + 2,4 - D, and AAD - 12 + both herbicides. However, 18 :1 oleic levels were within the reported literature values for all treatments, indicating equivalence to non transgenic soybean. The level of 18:2 linoleic was significantly different between the control and the unsprayed and AAD - 12 + 2,4 - D, based on unadjusted p - values. However, no significant differences were observed in the adjusted p - values or the overall treatment effect, and 18:2 linoleic levels were within the reported literature values for all treatments, indicating equivalence to non - transgenic soybean. Levels of 18:3 linolenic were significantly different between each of the AAD - 12 entries and the control based on unadjusted p - values, and the adjusted p - values were also significant between the unsprayed AAD - 12 and AAD - 12 + both herbicide treatment compared with the control. D ifferences between the AAD - 12 and control treatment were small (<6%) and all fell within the literature range . The level of 20:0 arachidic was significantly different between the control and the unsprayed, AAD - 12 + glufo sinate, AAD - 12 + 2,4 - D, and AAD - 12 + both herbicides based on unadjusted p values, and 20:0 arachidic also had significant differences in the across - site analysis in the adjusted p - value for the unsprayed and AAD - 12 + glufosinate treatments. However, 20: 0USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 104 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### arachidic levels were within the reported literature values for all treatments, indicating equivalence to non - transgenic soybean. The level of 22:0 behenic was significantly different between the control and the unsprayed, AAD - 12 + glufosinate, AAD - 12 + 2,4 - D, and AAD - 12 + both herbicides based on unadjusted p values, and the level of 22:0 behenic also had a significant difference in the across - site analysis in the adjusted p - value for the AAD - 12 + glufosinate. However, there were no significant overall treatment effect, and 22:0 behenic levels were within the reported literature values for all treatments, indicating equivalence to non - transgenic soybean. Of the 22 fatty acids investigated, all four AAD - 12 entries were either statistically indistinguishable from the control or within literature values for 21 of the fatty acids. In one case (unsprayed AAD - 12; 16:1 palmitoleic), the value was slightly under the minimum literature values and statistically different from the control (<13% lower), however , all three sprayed treatments were within the literature range. Based on these compositional constituents, the grain from DAS - 68416 - 4 soybean was substantially equivalent to that of non - transgenic soybean.USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 105 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### Table 23 . Summary of the fatty acid analysis of soybean grain (% total fatty acids). P - value for Treatment Means Overall (P - value, c Adj. Pd) Analyte Literature

Values a Treatment

Effectb Control Unsprayed Sprayed Glufosinate Sprayed

2,4 - D Sprayed

Both 8:0 Caprylic 0.1 5 NA < LOQ < LOQ < LOQ < LOQ < LOQ 10:0 Capric NR NA < LOQ < LOQ < LOQ < LOQ < LOQ 12:0 Lauric 0.08 - 0.13 NA < LOQ < LOQ < LOQ < LOQ < LOQ 14:0 Myristic 0.07 - 0.24 NA < LOQ < LOQ < LOQ < LOQ < LOQ 14:1 Myristoleic 0.12 - 0.1 3 NA < LOQ < LOQ < LOQ < LOQ < LOQ 15:0 Pentadecanoic NR NA < LOQ < LOQ < LOQ < LOQ < LOQ 15:1 Pentadecenoic NR NA < LOQ < LOQ < LOQ < LOQ < LOQ 16:0 Palmitic 9.55 - 15.77 0.607 10.1 10.0 9.78 9.94 9.85 (0.625,0.802) (0.148,0.313) (0.455,0.644) (0.249,0.441) 16:1 Palmitoleic 0.0 9 - 0. 19 0.029 0.097 0.085 0.088 0.087 0.089 ( 0.003 , 0.028 ) ( 0.038 ,0.124) ( 0.027 ,0.105) ( 0.029 ,0.109) 17:0 Heptadecanoic 0.0 9 - 0.1 5 0.640 0.111 0.114 0.113 0.114 0.113 (0.162,0.336) (0.331,0.539) (0.239,0.432) (0.296,0.493) 17:1 Heptadecenoic 0.07 - 0.0 9 NA < LOQ < LOQ < LOQ < LOQ < LOQ 18:0 Stearic 2.70 - 5.88 0.136 4.28 4.03 3.98 4.05 4.06 ( 0.048 ,0.145) ( 0.018 ,0.081) (0.060,0.169) (0.073,0.196) 18:1 Oleic 14.3 - 32.2 0.010 21.8 19.8 19.5 19.9 19.9 ( 0.004 , 0.033 ) ( 0.001 , 0.017) ( 0.006 , 0.043 ) ( 0.006 , 0.043 ) 18:2 Linoleic 42.3 - 58.8 0.145 50.3 52.5 51.9 52.6 52.0 ( 0.030 ,0.109) (0.116,0.268) ( 0.024 ,0.095) (0.087,0.222) 18:3 γ -Linolenic NR NA < LOQ < LOQ < LOQ < LOQ < LOQ 18:3 Linolenic 3.00 - 12.52 0.022 7.83 8.23 8.15 8.10 8.21 ( 0.003 , 0.031 ) ( 0.016 ,0.073) ( 0.034 ,0.119) ( 0.004 , 0.034) 20:0 Arachidic 0.16 - 0.48 0.023 0.307 0.284 0.282 0.285 0.287 ( 0.007 , 0.045 ) ( 0.004 , 0.033 ) ( 0.009 ,0.052) ( 0.014 ,0.067) 20:1 Eicosenoic 0.14 - 0.35 0.683 0.143 0.140 0.136 0.141 0.138 (0.582,0.779) (0.201,0. 380) (0.794,0.875) (0.327,0.538) 20:2 Eicosadienoic 0.0 8 - 0.25 NA < LOQ < LOQ < LOQ < LOQ < LOQ 20:3 Eicosatrienoic NR NA < LOQ < LOQ < LOQ < LOQ < LOQ 20:4 Arachidonic NR NA < LOQ < LOQ < LOQ < LOQ < LOQ 22:0 Behenic 0.28 - 0.60 0.053 0.305 0.288 0.285 0 .288 0.288 ( 0.023 ,0.095) ( 0.008 , 0.048 ) ( 0.020 ,0.087) ( 0.020 ,0.087) a Combined range from Appendix 6 . b Overall treatment effect estimated using an F -test . c Comparison of the transgenic treatments to the control using t-tests . d P -values adjusted using a False Discovery Rate (FDR) procedure. NA = statistical analysis was not performed since a majority of the data was < LOQ. 

### NR = not reported. Bolded mean values are outside of the reported literature ran ge. Bolded P - values are significant (<0.05).USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 106 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### Figure 41 . Summary of the fatty acid analysis of soybean grain (% total fatty acids). Values at each location shown: diamond = IA, square = IL, triangle = IN, X = NE, star = ON1, and circle = ON2. Literature ranges (Appendix 6 ) are shaded. Grain was also analyzed for 8:0 Caprylic, 10:0 Capric, 12:0 Lauric, 14:0 Myristic, 14:1 Myristoleic, 15:0 Pentadecanoic, 15:1 Pentadecenoic, 17:1 Heptadec enoic, 18:3 gamma- Linolenic, 20:2 Eicosadienoic, 20:4 Arachidonic, 20:3 Eicosatrienoic, but levels were below the limit of quantitation .

16:0 Palmitic

8.0 12.0 16.0

Control No spray Glufosinate 2,4-D 2,4-D + Glufos 16:1 Palmitoleic

0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20

Control No spray Glufosinate 2,4-D 2,4-D + Glufos 17:0 Heptadecanoic

0.05 0.07 0.09 0.11 0.13 0.15 0.17

Control No spray Glufosinate 2,4-D 2,4-D + Glufos 18:0 Stearic

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0

Control No spray Glufosinate 2,4-D 2,4-D + Glufos 18:1 Oleic

3.0 8.0 13.0 18.0 23.0 28.0 33.0

Control No spray Glufosinate 2,4-D 2,4-D + Glufos 18:2 Linoleic

30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0

Control No spray Glufosinate 2,4-D 2,4-D + Glufos

22:0 Behenic

0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60

Control No spray Glufosinate 2,4-D 2,4-D + Glufos 18:3 Linolenic

0.0 3.0 6.0 9.0 12.0

Control No spray Glufosinate 2,4-D 2,4-D + Glufos 20:0 Arachidic

0.00 0.50

Control No spray Glufosinate 2,4-D 2,4-D + Glufos 20:1 Eicosenoic

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4

Control No spray Glufosinate 2,4-D 2,4-D + GlufosUSDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 107 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information



### VIII - B.5. Vitamins An analysis of vitamins in soybean grain samples from the control, unsprayed AAD - 12, AAD - 12 + glufosinate, AAD - 12 + 2,4 - D and AAD - 12 + both herbicides was performed. A summary of the results across all locations is shown in Table 24 and Figure 42 . No literature values were found for beta- tocopherol, delta- tocopherol, gamma- tocopherol, Vitamin A, Vitamin B5, Vitamin B6, Vitamin B12, Vitamin C, Vitamin D and niacin in soybean grain. Beta tocopherol, Vitamin A, Vitamin B12 and Vitamin D were all <LOQ. No differences were observed between the control, unsprayed AAD - 12 and the treated AAD - 12 for Vitamin B1, Vitamin B2, Vitamin B6, Vitamin C, Vitamin E or niacin. Of those vitamins with available literature ranges, all treatments f ell within these ranges with the exception of vitamin B2 where values exceeded the range for all treatments including the non - transgenic control. Delta- tocopherol levels were significantly different between the control and the AAD - 12 + glufosinate and AAD - 12 + 2,4 - D entries based on unadjusted p - values. However this was not accompanied by a significant adjusted p - value or overall treatment effect. Gamma- tocopherol was significantly different between the control and the unsprayed and AAD - 12 + 2,4 - D entri es based on unadjusted and adjusted p - values. However, gamma tocopherol was <11% higher for the AAD - 12 treatments compared with the non - transgenic control. Vitamin B5 levels were significantly different between the control and the AAD - 12 + glufosinate entry based on the adjusted p - value. However this was not accompanied by a significant overall treatment effect. Folic acid was significantly different between the control and the unsprayed, AAD - 12 + 2,4 - D and AAD - 12 + both herbicides based on unadjusted p - values. Folic acid also had significant differences in the adjusted p - values for two of the AAD - 12 entries compared with the control. However, folic acid levels were within the reported literature values for all treatments and the AAD - 12 entries differed from the non - transgenic control by <9%, indicating equivalence to non transgenic soybean. Based on these compositional constituents, the grain from DAS - 68416 - 4 soybean was substantially equivalent to that of non - transgenic soybean.USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 108 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### Table 24 . Summary of vitamin analysis of soybean grain (mg/kg dry weight). P - value for Treatment Means Overall (P - value, c Adj. Pd) Analyte Literature

Values a Treatment

Effectb Control Unsprayed Sprayed Glufosinate Sprayed

2,4 - D Sprayed

Both Beta Carotene (Vitamin A) NR NA < LOQ < LOQ < LOQ < LOQ < LOQ Vitamin B1 1.01 - 2.54 0.560 2.10 2.14 1.94 1.97 2.14 (Thiamin) (0.809,0.886) (0.312,0.517) (0.414,0.615) (0.787,0.873) Vitamin B2 1.90 - 3.21 0.994 4.49 4.52 4.60 4.52 4.55 (Riboflavin) (0.933,0.952) (0.677,0.819) (0.922,0.948) (0.817,0.891) Vitamin B3 NR 0.211 27.4 25.3 25.4 26.9 26.7 (Niacin) (0.060,0.169) (0.076,0.201) (0.698,0.831) (0.513,0.708) Vitamin B5 NR 0.183 15.1 14.9 14.2 14.5 14.3 (Pantothenic acid) (0.601,0.794) ( 0.041 ,0.134) (0.170,0.350) (0.065,0.178) Vitamin B6 NR 0.788 5.50 5.51 5.40 5.40 5.39 (Pyridoxine) (0.929,0.951) (0.439,0.634) (0.451,0.642) (0.420,0.620) Vitamin B12 NR NA < LOQ < LOQ < LOQ < LOQ < LOQ Vitamin C NR 0.338 84.1 79.6 85.4 82.5 83.5 (0.126,0.281) (0.639,0.808) (0.580,0.779) (0.838,0.907) Vitamin D NR NA < LOQ < LOQ < LOQ < LOQ < LOQ Vitamin E 1.90 - 61.7 0.182 14.8 15.1 14.5 15.9 14.3 (Alpha-tocopherol) (0.762,0.863) (0.611,0.796) (0.137,0.301) (0.439,0.634) Beta-tocopherol NR NA < LOQ < LOQ < LOQ < LOQ < LOQ Delta-tocopherol NR 0.095 92.6 95.1 96.5 97.1 94.5 (0.142,0.305) ( 0.030 ,0.109) ( 0.013 ,0.067) (0.257,0.446) Gamma -tocopherol NR 0.0004 153 164 158 169 157 ( 0.002 , 0.021 ) (0.117,0.268) ( 0.0005 , 0.006 ) (0.174,0.35 1) Folic Acid 2.39 -4.71 0.006 3.70 3.49 3.56 3.38 3.48 ( 0.011 ,0.060) (0.078,0.203) ( 0.0004 , 0.009 ) ( 0.008 , 0.048 ) a Combined range from Appendix 6 . b Overall treatment effect estimated using an F -test . c Comparison of the transgenic treatments to the control using t -tests . d P -values adjusted using a False Discovery Rate (FDR) procedure. NR = not reported. NA= statistical analysis was not performed since a majority of the data was < LOQ. Bolded mean valu es are outside of the reported literature range. Bolded P -values are significant (<0.05).USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 109 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### Figure 42 . Summary of vitamin analysis of soybean grain (mg/kg dry weight). Values at each location shown: diamond = IA, square = IL, trian gle = IN, X = NE, star = ON1, and circle = ON2. Literature ranges (Appendix 6 ) are shaded. Grain was also analyzed for Beta- Tocopherol, Vitamin A, Vitamin B12, and Vitamin D, but results were less than the limit of quantitation.

Delta Tocopherol

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

Control No spray Glufosinate 2,4-D 2,4-D + Glufos Thiamine Hydrochloride/Vitamin B1

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0

Control No spray Glufosinate 2,4-D 2,4-D + Glufos Panthotenic acid/Vitamin B5

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0

Control No spray Glufosinate 2,4-D 2,4-D + Glufos Riboflavin/Vitamin B2

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0

Control No spray Glufosinate 2,4-D 2,4-D + Glufos Gamma Tocopherol

100 150 200

Control No spray Glufosinate 2,4-D 2,4-D +Glufos Pyridoxine HCl/Vitamin B6

2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0

Control No spray Glufosinate 2,4-D 2,4-D + Glufos Vitamin C

0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175

Control No spray Glufosinate 2,4-D 2,4-D + Glufos Alpha Tocopherol/Vitamin E

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0

Control No spray Glufosinate 2,4-D 2,4-D + Glufos Niacin/Vitamin B3

15 20 25 30 35 40

Control No spray Glufosinate 2,4-D 2,4-D + Glufos Folic Acid

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0

Control No spray Glufosinate 2,4-D 2,4-D + GlufosUSDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 110 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information



### VIII - B.6. Isoflavones The analysis of isoflavones in soybean grain samples from the control, unsprayed AAD - 12, AAD - 12 + glufosinate, AAD - 12 + 2,4 - D and AAD - 12 + both herbicides was performed. A summary of the re sults across all locations is shown in Table 25 and Figure 43 . The genistein and glycitein results were below the LOQ for the treated samples. Diadzin levels were significantly different between the control and the AAD - 12 + both herbicides entries based on unadjusted and adjusted p - values. However, the overall treatment effect was not significant. Although there are no reported literature values, the AAD - 12 + both herbicides treatment was <9% different from the non - transgenic control. Genistin levels were significantly different between the control and the AAD - 12 + both herbicides entries based on unadjusted and adjusted p - values. However, the overall treatment effect was not significant. Although there are no reported literature values for genistin, the AAD - 12 treatments were <9% different compared with the non - transgenic control . Glycitin values were significantly different between the control and the AAD - 12 + both herbicides based on unadjusted and adjusted p - values. While there were no reported literature values for glycitin, all AAD - 12 entries were <13% different compared with the non - transgenic entry. In addition, all total isoflavone aglycone equivalents were within reported literature ranges. Based on these compositional constituents, the grain from DAS - 68416 - 4 soybean was substantially equivalent to that of non - transgenic soybean.USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 111 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### Table 25 . Summary of isoflavone analysis of soybean grain ( μg/g). P - value for Treatment Means Overall (P - value, c Adj. Pd) Analyte Literature

Values a Treatment

Effectb Control Unsprayed Sprayed Glufosinate Sprayed

2,4 - D Sprayed

Both Daidzein NR NA <LOQ <LOQ <LOQ <LOQ < LOQ Daidzin e 60.0 - 2454 f 0.068 1085 1103 1112 1128 1179 (0.5 84,0.779) (0.391,0.589) (0.187,0.360) ( 0.007 , 0.045 ) Genistein NR NA <LOQ < LOQ < LOQ < LOQ < LOQ Genistin e 144 - 2837 f 0.069 1282 1321 1327 1357 1389 (0.292,0.490) (0.220,0.408) (0.052,0.152) ( 0.007 , 0.044) Glycitein NR NA < LOQ < LOQ < LOQ < LOQ < LO Q Glycitin e 15.3 - 310 f 0.032 253 267 270 268 285 (0.142,0.305) (0.076,0.201) (0.121,0.274) ( 0.002,0.021 ) a Combined range from Appendix 6 . b Overall treatment effect estimated using an F -test . c Compari son of the transgenic treatments to the control using t -tests . d P -values adjusted using a False Discovery Rate (FDR) procedure. e Expressed as aglycone equivalent. f Ranges represent total aglycone equivalents. NA= statistical analysis was not performe d since a majority of the data was < LOQ. NR = not reported. Bolded mean values are outside of the reported literature range. Bolded P -values are significant (<0.05).USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 112 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### Figure 43 . Summary of isoflavone analysis of soybean grain ( μg/g). Values at each location shown: diamond = IA, square = IL, triangle = IN, X = NE, star = ON1, and circle = ON2. Literature ranges (Appendix 6 ) are shaded. Grain was also analyzed for genistein and glycitein , but results were less than the limit of quantitation.

Total Daidzein

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Control No spray Glufosinate 2,4-D 2,4-D + Glufos Total Genisetin

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

Control No spray Glufosinate 2,4-D 2,4-D + Glufos Daidzin

0 500 1000 1500 2000

Control No spray Glufosinate 2,4-D 2,4-D + Glufos Genistin

0 500 1000 1500 2000

Control No spray Glufosinate 2,4-D 2,4-D + Glufos Glycitin

0 100 200 300 400 500

Control No spray Glufosinate 2,4-D 2,4-D + Glufos Total Glycitein

0 200 400

Control No spray Glufosinate 2,4-D 2,4-D + GlufosUSDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 113 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information



### VIII - B.7. Antinutrients An analysis of anti - nutrients in soybean grain samples from the control, unsprayed AAD - 12, AAD - 12 + glufosinate, AAD - 12 + 2,4 - D and AAD - 12 + both herbicides was performed. A summary of the results across all locations is shown in Table 26 and Figure 44 . No statistical differences were observed between the control and transgenic entries for lectin, phytic acid, or trypsin inhibitor. These three anti - nutrients were also all within the literature ranges, indicating equivalence to non - transgenic soybean. Raffinose was significantly lower (<10%) for the AAD - 12 + glufosinate treatment compared with the control based on unadjusted p - values. Raffinose was not significantly different in the across - site analysis based on the adjusted p - value or the overall treatment effect. Raffinose levels were also within the reported literature values for all treatments, indicating equivalence to non - transgenic soybean. Stachyose was significantly different between the control and the AAD - 12 + glufosinate entry based on the unadjusted p - value. Stachyose levels were not si gnificant different in the across site analysis based on the adjusted p - value or the overall treatment effect. Stachyose levels were also within the reported literature values for all treatments, indicating equivalence to non transgenic soybean. Anti - nutrient analysis for lectin, phytic acid, raffinose, stachyose and trypsin inhibitor were all within the reported literature values, and the two significant differences based on unadjusted p - values had lower levels of anti - nutrients for the AAD - 12 treatment s compared with the control. Based on these compositional constituents, the grain from DAS - 68416 - 4 soybean was substantially equivalent to that of non - transgenic soybean.USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 114 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### Table 26 . Summary of anti - nutrient analysis of soybean grain (% dry weight). P - value for Treatment Means Overall (P - value, c Adj. Pd) Analyte Literature

Values a Treatment

Effectb Control Unsprayed Sprayed Glufosinate Sprayed

2,4 - D Sprayed

Both Lectin 0.1 1 - 9.04 0.552 2.18 2.74 2.84 2.98 3.09 (H.U./mg) (0.333,0.540) (0.254,0.444) (0.176,0.351) (0.124,0.277) Phytic Acid 0.63 - 2.74 0.725 1.20 1.20 1.22 1.21 1.25 (0.949,0.962) (0.673,0.819) (0.896,0.936) (0.253,0.444) Raffinose 0. 2 1 2 - 0. 661 0.111 0.344 0.339 0.310 0.317 0.315 (0.753,0.860) ( 0.033 , 0.118) (0.082,0.210) (0.062,0.173) Stachyose 1.2 - 3.5 0.217 2.42 2.34 2.23 2.28 2.32 (0.378,0.575) ( 0.027 ,0.105) (0.105,0.253) (0.231,0.425) Trypsin Inhibitor 19.6 - 184 0.435 25.3 27.2 24.7 24.9 25.3 (TIU/mg) (0.204,0.383) (0.657,0.819) (0.748,0.8 60) (0.973,0.979) a Combined range from Appendix 6 . b Overall treatment effect estimated using an F -test . c Comparison of the transgenic treatments to the control using t -tests . d P -values adjusted using a False Discovery Rate (FDR) procedure. Bolded mean values are outside of the reported literature range. Bolded P -values are significant (<0.05). 

### Figure 44 . Summary of anti - nutrient analysis of soybean grain (% dry weight). Values at each location shown: diamond = IA, square = IL, triangle = IN, X = NE, star = ON1, and circle = ON2. Literature ranges (Appendix 6 ) are shaded. Phytic Acid

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5

Control No spray Glufosinate 2,4-D 2,4-D + Glufos Lectin

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0

Control No spray Glufosinate 2,4-D 2,4-D + Glufos Stachyose

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0

Control No spray Glufosinate 2,4-D 2,4-D + Glufos Trypsin Inhibitor

15 65 115 165

Control No spray Glufosinate 2,4-D 2,4-D + Glufos Raffinose

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

Control No spray Glufosinate 2,4-D 2,4-D + GlufosUSDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 115 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### VIII - C. Summary of Grain and Forage Comp osition The composition of DAS - 68416 - 4 soybean was either statistically indistinguishable from the non - transgenic control , <13% different from the non - transgenic control , or within the literature range for non - transgenic soybean. Plots of the composition results do not indicate any biologically meaningful treatment-related compositional differences among unsprayed AAD - 12, AAD - 12 + glufosinate, AAD - 12 + 2,4 - D and AAD - 12 + both herbicides soybean and the control soybean line. In conclusion, unsprayed AAD - 1 2, AAD - 12 + glufosinate, AAD - 12 + 2,4 - D and AAD - 12 + both herbicides composition results confirm the substantial equivalence of DAS - 68416 - 4 soybean and conventional soybean. VIII - D. References Benjamini, Y., Hochberg, Y. ( 1995 ) Controlling the false discovery rate : A practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J. Royal Statistical Soc. B, 57 : 289 - 300. OECD (2001) Consensus Document on Compositional Considerations for New Varieties of Soybean: Key Food and Fee Nutrients and Anti - Nutrients.USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 116 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### IX. Environmental Consequences and Impact on Agronomic Practices IX - A. Mode of Action of the AAD - 12 Protein Expression of the AAD - 12 protein in transgenic crops provides tolerance to the herbicide 2,4 - dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4 - D) by catalyzing the conversion of 2,4 - D to 2,4 - di chlorophenol (DCP) (Müller et al. , 1999; Westendorf et al. , 2002 and 2003; Wright et al., 2007 ), a herbicidally inactive compound. AAD - 12 is also able to degrade related achiral phenoxyacetate herbicides such as MCPA ((4 - chloro - 2 - methylphenoxy)acetic aci d) and pyridyloxyacetate herbicides such as triclopyr and fluroxypyr to their corresponding inactive phenols and pyridinols, respectively. AAD - 12 has enantiomeric selectivity for the (S) - enantiomers of the chiral phenoxy acid herbicides ( e.g. , dichlorprop and mecoprop), but does not catalyze degradation of the (R) - enantiomers. It is the R- enantiomers in this class of chemistry that are herbicidally active, therefore AAD - 12 does not provide tolerance to commercially- available chiral phenoxy acid herbicide s. Figure 45 . Degradation reaction of 2,4 - D catalyzed by AAD - 12. O O O H Cl Cl 

### 2,4-D O H Cl Cl 

### AAD-12 DCP 

### IX - A.1. Field Efficacy The efficacy of DAS - 68416 - 4 soybean for the detoxification of 2,4 - D and subsequent protection from injury caused by this comp ound has been characterized in field studies conducted in 2007 and 2008. Trials were designed to evaluate the preemergence (2008 only) and postemergence tolerance to 2,4 - D. The preemergence trials were conducted as a randomized complete block design and postemergence trials were a split plot design with application timing as the main plots and herbicide rates as the sub plots. Experimental units consisted of single - row plots for postemergence trials and two -row plots for preemergence trials, approximately 3 m in length and all trials contained three replications. Postemergence trials received an application of glufosinate at 0.41 lb ae/A at the V1 growth stage on all DAS - 68416 - 4 plots to remove unintended nulls prior to application of herbicide treatment s. All herbicide applications were made with gas pressurized small -plot spray equipment delivering approximately 140

– 190 l/ha of spray volume. The formulation of 2,4 - D used was a 456 g ae/liter dimethylammonium salt (DMA) . Visual injury ratings were taken approximately 7 days after crop emergence in the case of preemergence trials and 7 days after application of herbicide treatments in the case of postemergence trials. Ratings were taken on a 0 to 100 scale which reflects a visual compositeUSDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 117 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### of all inj ury symptoms observed across all plants in a plot, with 0 = no injury as compared to untreated plots and 100 = death of all plants. Tolerance to 2,4 -D In 2007, data from a field study in Indiana indicated excellent tolerance of DAS - 68416 - 4 soybean to 2,4 - D at rates ranging from 0.5 to 4.0 lb ae/A applied at either the V4 or R2 growth stages. At 7 days after the V4 application mean injury to DAS - 68416 - 4 soybeans ranged from 0 to 8% as the 2,4 - D rate increased from 0.5 to 4.0 lb ae/A . Injury to the non - transgenic Maverick soybean from the same treatments ranged from 58 to 85% injury. Similar evaluations after the R2 application produced mean injury ranging from 0 to 5% for DAS - 68416 - 4 soybeans and 32 to 72% for non - transgenic Maverick. Injury symptoms to the non - transgenic Maverick soybean consisted mainly of stem and leaf malformation, growth inhibition, and tissue necrosis. Further field evaluations of 2,4 - D tolerance were conducted in 2008. Studies examining the response of DAS - 68416 - 4 soybeans and non - transgenic Maverick soybeans to applications of 2,4 - D DMA preemergence and at the V2 - V3, V6 and R2 growth stages were conducted at locations in Mississippi, Indiana, and Minnesota. Averaged across the three locations, preemergence application of 2,4 - D DMA to DAS - 68416 - 4 resulted in ≤2% injury regardless of application rate (Table 27 ). The same treatments caused 34 to 60% injury to non - transgenic Maverick. Injury from pre - emergence applications of 2,4 - D consisted of stand los s and reduction in growth. Table 27 . DAS - 68416 - 4 s oybean tolerance to p reemergence applications of 2,4 - D, 2008. Herbicide Rate a Application Stage b Percent Plant Injury c

DAS - 68416 - 4 Maverick 2,4 -D amine 1.0 lb ae/A Pre - emergence 2 ns 34 b 2,4 -D amine 2.0 lb ae/A Pre - emergence 2 ns 58 b 2,4 -D amine 4.0 lb ae/A Pre - emergence 0 ns 63 a a ae/A = acid equivalent/acre b Application stage in terms of soybean plant growth development. c Ratings were taken approximately 7 days after application. Means within each column followed by the same letter are not significantly different as determined by restricted maximum likelihood methods for mixed models and Tukey, or for unbalanced data, Tukey - Kramer HSD test (0.05). ns indicates no significant differences. 

### The most evident symptoms from post- emergence 2,4 - D treatments to non - transgenic Maverick were stem twisting, leaf malformation, and necrosis at this evaluation timing, with overall injury ranging from 60 to 93% depending on application rate and timing. Injury to DAS - 68416 - 4 soybeans (Table 28 ) was < 5% and consisted almost entirely of small necrotic patches on the leaves observed at the 2.0 to 4.0 lb ae/A rates and was confined to the leaves near the top of the canopy a the time of application. No injury was observed on newly emerging leaves . Sequential applications of 2,4 - D at 1.0 lb ae/A followed by a second application of 1.0 lb ae/A caused no injury to DAS - 68416 - 4 soybeans, but caused 89% injury to non - transgenic Maverick when applied at V2 followed by V6, and 95% injury when applied at V6 followed by R2.USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 118 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### Table 28 . DAS - 68416 - 4 soybean tolerance to post- emergence applications of 2,4 - D, 2008. Herbicide Rate a Application Stage b Percent Plant Injury c

DAS - 68416 - 4 Maverick 2,4 -D amine 1.0 lbs ae/A V2 -V3 0 ns 81 b 2,4 -D amine 2.0 lbs ae/A V2 -V3 1 ns 90 ab 2,4 -D amine 4.0 lbs ae/A V2 -V3 5 ns 93 a 2,4 -D amine 1.0 lbs ae/A V6 0 b 67 cd 2,4 -D amine 2.0 lbs ae/A V6 0 b 81 abc 2,4 -D amine 4.0 lbs ae/A V6 4 a 86 ab 2,4 -D amine 1.0 lb s ae/A R2 0 b 60 a 2,4 -D amine 2.0 lbs ae/A R2 1 ns 69 c 2,4 -D amine 4.0 lbs ae/A R2 2 ns 74 bc 2,4 -D amine 1.0 f/b 1.0 lbs ae/A V2 f/b V6 0 ns 89 b 2,4 -D amine 1.0 f/b 1.0 lbs ae/A V6 f/b R2 0 ns 95 a a ae/A = acid equivalent/acre b Application stage in terms of soybean plant growth development. c Ratings were taken approximately 7 days after application. Means within each columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different as determi ned by restricted maximum likelihood methods for mixed models and Tukey, or for unbalanced data, Tukey - Kramer HSD test (0.05). ns indicates no significant differences. 

### Tolerance to Glufosinate Since DAS - 68416 - 4 soybeans also contain the pat gene, the pos t- emergence tolerance to glufosinate as the 183 g ae/liter ammonium salt was also evaluated in trials during 2007 and 2008 at the same locations as the 2,4 - D tolerance studies. Trial methods and evaluations were similar to those utilized for 2,4 - D studies . In 2007, field testing of applications of glufosinate to DAS - 68416 - 4 soybeans at the V4 stage of development resulted in 3, 10, and 22% injury 7 days after application of 0.375, 0.75, and 1.5 lbs ae/A (420, 840, and 1680 g ae/ha) , respectively. The same applications to non transformed Maverick resulted in 78, 90, and 98% injury. Injury symptoms were mainly of chlorosis, necrosis, and growth inhibition, typical of injury normally observed from glufosinate. Field trials with glufosinate in 2008 demonstrated results consistent with the 2007 data (Table 29 ) . A similar dose response of DAS - 68416 - 4 soybean to glufosinate was noted, regardless of soybean growth stage at application. Glufosinate injury to non - transformed Maverick ranged from 54 to 98% depending on application rate and timing.USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 119 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### Table 29 . DAS - 68416 - 4 soybean tolerance to postemergence applications of glufosinate , 2008 . Application Stage b Percent Plant Injury c Herbicide Rate a DAS - 68416 - 4 Maveri ck glufosinate 0.366 lbs ae/A V2 -V3 2 b 91 ns glufosinate 0.73 lbs ae/A V2 -V3 9 b 97 ns glufosinate 1.46 lbs ae/A V2 -V3 19 a 98 ns glufosinate 0.366 lbs ae/A V6 3 b 78 b glufosinate 0.73 lbs ae/A V6 9 b 88 ab glufosinate 1.46 lbs ae/A V6 16 a 92 a glufosinate 0.366 lbs ae/A R2 2 b 54 a glufosinate 0.73 lbs ae/A R2 3 b 77 b glufosinate 1.46 lbs ae/A R2 18 b 90 ab glufosinate 0.366 f/b 0.366 lbs ae/ha V2 f/b V6 5 a 98 a glufosinate 0.366 f/b 0.366 lbs ae/ha V6 f/b R2 1 b 87 a a ae/A= acid equivalent/acre b Application stage in terms of soybean plant growth development. c Ratings were taken approximately 7 days after application. Means within each column followed by the same letter are not significantly different as determined by restricted maximum likelihood methods for mixed models and Tukey, or for unbalanced data, Tukey - Kramer HSD test (0.05). ns indicates no significant differences. 

### Summary of Herbicide Tolerance For DAS - 68416 - 4 soybeans, the proposed maximum single application rate of 2,4 - D will be 1.0 lb ae/A (see section IX - E.2 ). Results of field testing indicate that DAS - 68416 - 4 soybeans provide acceptable tolerance to 2,4 - D at rates of at least two times this proposed maximum use rate. The maximum use rate of glufosinate on herbicide - tolerant soybeans is 2 applications at 0.366 lb ae/A. Results of field testing indicate that DAS - 68416 - 4 soybeans provide acceptable tolerance to glufosinate at rates of at least two times this rate. IX - B. Weediness Potential Commercial soybean varieties in the United States are not considered weeds and are not effective in invading established ecosystems. Cultivated soybean seed rarely displays any dormancy characteristics and only under certain environmental conditions grows as a volunteer in the year following cultivation. If this should occur, volunteers do not compete well with the succeeding crop, and can easily be controlled mechanically or chemically. The soybean plant is not weedy in character. In North America, Glycine max i s not found outside of cultivation. In managed ecosystems, soybean does not effectively compete with other cultivated plants or primary colonisers (OECD, 2000). The introduction of aryloxyalkanoate herbicide - tolerance into soybean will not alter the weediness characteristics of soybean. Agronomic properties of DAS - 68416 - 4 soybean related to weediness, such as germination, emergence, seedling vigor, and response to environmentalUSDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 120 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### stressors, have been shown to be identical to conventional soybean. These findings demonstrate that DAS - 68416 - 4 soybean do not have increased weediness potential relative to conventional soybean. IX - C. Gene Flow Assessment IX - C.1. Vertical Gene Flow Assessment Soybean is considered to be a self -pollinated species, although natural crossing can oc cur (OECD, 2000) at low rates. The level of cross pollination can vary as a function of growing conditions, spatial arrangement of plants, and genotype. Cross pollination levels ranging from 0.09% up to 3.6% in adjacent rows have been reported (Beard and Knowles, 1971; Ahrent and Caviness, 1994), but outcrossing frequency rapidly declines with distance. Cross pollination rates have been reported to be <0.1% at distances of >5 m (Caviness, 1966; Ray et al. , 2003). Cultivated soybeans can cross only with members of its subgenus Soja . Wild soybean species of the subgenus Soja are native to Korea, Japan, Taiwan, northeastern China, and areas of the former USSR, but do not exist naturally in the United States (OECD, 2000). Therefore there is no potential for gene flow from DAS - 68416 - 4 soybeans to wild soybean relatives in the United States. IX - C.2. Ho rizontal Gene Flow Assessment There is no known mechanism for, or definitive demonstration of, DNA transfer from plants to microbes (Connor et al. , 2003). Even if such a transfer were to take place, transfer of the aad- 12 gene from DAS - 68416 -4 soybean would not present a human health or plant pest risk, based on the safety data presented in this petition. The gene encoding the AAD - 12 protein is from a naturally occurring soil bacterium, Delftia acidovorans, and is already present in nature. Transfer recipients would, therefore, not pose a greater plant pest risk than the environmentally prevalent wild type microbes from which the genes originated. IX - D. Current US Agronomic Practices for Soybeans IX - D.1. Soybean Production Processed soybeans are the largest source of protein feed and the second largest source of vegetable oil in the world. The United States is the world's leading soybean producer and exporter. Farm value of U.S. soybean production in 2007/08 was $27 billion, the second- highest value among U.S. -produced crops, trailing only corn. Soybean and soybean product exports accounted for 43 percent of U.S. soybean production in 2007/08. Soybeans are about 90 percent of U.S. total oilseed production, while other oilseeds

— such as cottonseed, sunflower seed, canola, and peanuts

—account for the remainder (USDA ERS, 2008). A total of 75.7 million acres were planted to soybeans in the United States in 2008 (USDA NASS, 2008). Of these planted acres, about 74.6 million acres were harvested, valued at $27.4 billion. The majority of these soybeans were grown within the North Central states. About 80% of the planted soybean acres and 80% of the harvested soybean acres were concentrated in 11USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 121 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### states

– Iowa, Illinois, Minnesota, Indiana, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio, South Dakota, North Dakota, Kansas, and Arkansas.

IX - D.2. Weeds in Soybean Weeds in soybean compete with the crop for light, nutrients and soil moisture. When weeds are uncontrolled for the entire season, yield losses can exceed 68 to 75% (Krausz et al. 2001; Dalley et al. 2002). Hartzler and Pringnitz (2000) define the critical period of competition in soybeans as the point of time when weeds that emerge with the crop begin to impact yields. Most studies have found that soybean yields are protected if weeds are controlled before they reach a height of 6 to 8 inches . The critical period varies widely, depending upon weed species and densities, environmental conditions, and cultural practices. To maximize soybean yields, weeds must be removed or controlled when they are no more than 6 inches tall (Loux et al. 2006). Field trials conducted in Ohio in 2001 found that applying glyphosate when weeds are already 9 to 12 inches tall resulted in a 6 - 10% yield loss due to weed competition prior to control of the weeds (Loux et al. 2006 ) . Dalley et al. (2002) studied the effect of row width and weed competition on soybean yield in 1998 - 2001. They found that weed competition could reduce soybean yields by the time weeds reached 6, 6, and >12 inches in height in 7.5, 15, and 30 inch rows, respectively. The most common weed problems in soybeans are the annual grass and broadleaf weeds (see Table 30 ). Some fields are also infested with perennial weeds (quackgrass, Johnsongrass, Canada thistle, others) which are more difficult to control since they can reproduce from seed or underground rhizomes.USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 122 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### Table 30 . Common troublesome weeds in soybeans in 200 6 - 2008. (Data from DMR - Kynetec). Weed Species Total Soybean Acres Treated 1 2006 2007 2008 Annual Broadleaf Weeds Lambsquarters, Common 21,859,614 24,459,895 28,242,972 Velvetleaf 23,820,731 23,373,573 26,786,349 Pigweed, Redroot 21,093,224 21,788,121 26,715,150 Cocklebur, Common 23,657,980 22,389,376 23,962,063 Waterhemp, Common 18,399,609 15,970,794 21,364,980 Ragweed, Giant 13,369,296 14,684,000 16,565,209 Marestail 4,044,060 5,382,190 11,257,267 Morningglory Spp. 10,711,087 11,432,9 04 11,011,185 Ragweed, Common 9,417,252 9,438,871 9,518,051 Sunflower, Wild 5,558,526 5,759,216 5,709,292 Kochia 4,859,759 3,671,795 5,317,528 Smartweed Pennsylvania 2,366,851 1,835,825 3,529,114 Waterhemp, Tall 2,301,380 2,926,358 3,826,647 Horseweed 2,188,359 3,159,712 3,470,274 Mustard, Wild 2,019,346 1,975,291 2,688,590 Sicklepod 2,024,031 1,650,086 2,535,829 Sida, Prickly 1,639,261 1,567,275 2,432,701 Sunflower, Volunteer 1,089,460 1,007,691 1,913,860 Chickweed 1,652,712 1,259,096 1,823,638 Nightshade, Black 1,766,649 1,277,416 1,385,751 Buckwheat, Wild 1,167,746 855,879 1,331,675 Pigweed, Smooth 188,160 801,569 1,322,732 Annual Grass Weeds Foxtail Spp. 24,409,043 18,489,746 18,446,420 Foxtail, Giant 11,817,612 17,513,493 17, 804,622 Foxtail, Yellow 10,870,761 11,217,512 13,947,018 Foxtail, Green 5,629,880 7,109,316 7,610,855 Crabgrass 5,170,684 5,928,919 7,424,879 Barnyardgrass 4,189,156 3,967,425 3,805,391 Corn, Volunteer 2,292,705 2,088,371 3,704,330 Oat, Wild 1,792,38 9 1,478,890 2,886,300 Cupgrass, Woolly 1,765,244 2,470,437 2,108,135 Shattercane 2,408,592 2,715,388 1,879,416 Panicum, Fall 2,251,014 2,241,088 1,852,417 Perennial / Biennial Weeds Johnsongrass 10,152,393 11,057,825 10,368,155 Thistle, Canada 4,123,437 3,584,676 4,840,383 Quackgrass 2,628,187 2,570,688 2,786,633 Dandelion 1,578,579 1,528,332 2,154,008 Thistle 1,479,038 647,315 1,513,566 1 Total soybean acres in 2006, 2007, and 2008 was 75.5, 64.7, and 75.7 million acres, respectively ( USDA NASS, 2008). However, the total soybean herbicide -treated acreage is much more, due to multiple sprays on each acre.USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 123 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### The economic threshold for weeds is the density of a weed population at which control is economically justified due to the potential for yield reduction, quality loss, harvesting difficulties, or other problems that weeds may cause (Penn State Agronomy Guide, 2009 - 2010). Broadleaf and grass weeds compete at different levels of intensity depending upon the competitiveness of the crop, tillage system, environmental conditions , and other weeds present. Generally, broadleaf weeds are more damaging to a broadleaf crop, while grass weeds are more competitive in a grass crop. Crop yield loss information is available for certain single weed species growing with soybeans in the U.S. Midwest (Table 31 ). Table 31 . Yield reduction from specific weed species in soybeans. (from Penn State Agronomy Guide, 2009 - 2010). Weed Species Percent soybean yield reduction 1 1 2 4 6 8 10

Weeds per 100 feet of row Cocklebur 1 2 4 6 8 10 Pigweed or Lambsquarters 2 4 6 10 15 20 Shattercane (5 - 8/clump) 2 5 8 11 14 17 Giant foxtail 15 25 80 300 400 600 Velvetleaf 1 3 6 10 13 16 Smartweed 2 4 6 10 15 20 Volunteer corn 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 Interference data are from Stoller et al ., 1985, Reviews of Weed Science ; E. L. Knake and F. W. Slife, 1962, Weeds 10:26; and E. L. Werner and W. S. Curran, 1995, Proc. NEWSS 49:23. 

### IX - D.3. Weed Management in Soybean In 2005, USDA NA SS surveyed 17 states (AR, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, MI, MN, MS, MO, NE, NC, OH, SD, TN, VA; about 90% of the total U.S. soybean acreage) and found that 98% of the planted soybean acreage was treated with herbicides, an indication of the intensive weed management that is used in U.S. soybeans (USDA NASS, 2006). In 2006, 95% of the planted soybean acres received an average of 2.2 herbicide applications to control weeds (USDA ERS ARMS, 2006). Many herbicides are registered for pre -plant, pre - emergent and/or p ost- emergent application to selectively control most weed species commonly found in soybeans. In general, soybeans sometimes receive a soil applied or burndown herbicide prior to planting or at plant, but always receive a post- emergence herbicide application. In 2005, the most widely used herbicide in soybeans was glyphosate, driven by the high adoption of glyphosate tolerant soybeans (USDA NASS, 2006). Soybeans received an average of 1.5 applications of glyphosate on 91% of the acres planted in 2005. Herbicides such as 2,4 - D (6% of acres), chlorimuron (4% of acres), and trifluralin (23% of acres) were applied on significantly fewer acres. All other herbicides applied in soybeans that year comprised 3% or less of the total acres planted. Integrated weed management (IWM) programs advocate the use of a combination of preventive, cultural, mechanical and chemical tools to keep weed pressure below threshold levels that reduce yield and profits (Knezevic, 2002). Herbicides are only one of several tools avail able for growers to consider using in an IWM approach. Herbicide - tolerant soybeans represent another tool that can be used in an IWM program.USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 124 of 18 1

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### As with any technology, some concerns have been raised about using herbicides and herbicide tolerant crops as part of an IWM program (Knezevic, 2002). Some of these concerns include selection for herbicide -resistant weeds, shifts in weed species, drift to sensitive non - target crops or non - agricultural habitats, herbicide persistence in the soil resulting in carryover to the next crop, herbicide misapplications, and over- reliance on herbicides to control weeds. Weed management decisions are difficult decisions for growers since no one tool will effectively control all possible weed problems. In general, growers need to implement management practices that limit the introduction and spread of weeds, help the crop to compete with weeds, and not allow weeds to adapt. The combination of weed control practices that a grower chooses is dependent upon the weed spectrum, level of infestation, soil type, cropping system, weather, and time and labor available for the treatment option.

IX - D.4. Crop Rotation and Tillage Practices In 2006, 71% of U.S. soybean acres were grown in rotation after corn, 13% were grown after soybeans, and 16% w ere grown after small grains, cotton, fallow or other crops (USDA ERS ARMS, 2006). Crop rotation is a widespread management practice that has been recognized and exploited for centuries to increase crop yields (Lauer, 2007). In the Midwestern U.S., a corn soybean rotation produces at least 10% greater yields in both crops, and sometimes as much as 19% higher corn yields. The exact mechanism for the rotation effect is unknown, but may be influenced by increases in organic matter and soil fertility, as well as management of diseases , insects, and weeds. The introduction of numerous herbicides in the decades following launch of 2,4 - D in the mid- 1940s allowed reduced and conservation tillage systems to become more feasible and popular (Givens et al. , 2009). The introduction of glyphosate -resistant (GR) crops in 1996 brought a technology that enabled many producers to adopt reduced - tillage production systems. By 2002, only 17% of U.S. soybeans were produced under conventional tillage (<15% residue) systems (U SDA ERS ARMS 2002). Some form of conservation tillage was being used on the other 83% of U.S. soybean acres, as follows: 18% reduced tillage (15 - 30% residue), 32% mulch till, 1 - 2% ridge till, and 31% no - till. Increased yields coupled with decreases in erosion and water runoff and lower fuel use and fuel cost strongly support the premise that soybean produced with conservation tillage in any production system is more economically and environmentally sustainable (CAST, 2009). In fact, considering the generally accepted 30% minimum residue cover and the 3 to 5 tons/acre/year tolerable soil loss for a sustainable soybean production system (CAST 2009) , conservation tillage is the only system that seems to support sustainable soybean production from an environmental standpoint. IX - E. Potential Impact on Agronomic Practices IX - E.1. Potential Impact on Cultivation and Management Practices Soybean lines that contain herbicide - tolerance traits (glyphosate) have been on the market since 1996 and have experienced broad adoption (Figure 46 ). The adoption track record of biotechnology- derived soybean represents the most rapid case of technology adoption in the history of agriculture (Sankula and Blumenthal, 2004) . Based on USDA survey data,USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 125 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### herbicide - tolerant soybeans (glyphosate - tolerant) went from 17 percent of U.S. soybean acreage in 1997 to 68 percent in 2001 and 91 percent in 2009 (USDA ERS 2009a). Glyphosate has provided simple, inexpensive , and highly effective weed control and has resulted in an increase in no - till soybean production, a practice that is now accepted as improving soil health and agricultural sustainability. With 91% of soybean acres in the U.S. in 2009 planted to glyphosate - tolerant soybeans, typical cultivation and management practi ces used by growers today already take into account the management of herbicide - tolerant traits. DAS - 68416 - 4 soybeans are comparable to conventional soybeans phenotypically and agronomically (Section VII- D ), and are not expected to alter the geographic range or seasonality of soybean cultivation. Furthermore, ecological observations during field testing have shown no changes in insect susceptibility of DAS - 68416 - 4 soybeans (Section VII- B ) and therefore, no impacts are expected on insect control practices for DAS - 68416 - 4 soybeans. It is anticipated that the same management practices used today for soybeans with the glyphosate - tolerance trait will also be appropriate for DAS - 68416 - 4 soybeans. Figure 46 . Adoption of genetically engineered crops in the U.S. From USDA ERS, 2009b

IX - E.2. Potential Impact on Weed Control Practices DAS - 68416 - 4 soybeans confers tolerance to the herbicides 2,4 - D and glufosinate, both of which will provide expanded weed management options in soybeans. Post- emergence applications of 2,4 - D control a broad spectrum of broadleaf weeds. 2,4 - D also has some short- lived soil residual activity (4 - 10 day soil half life) which provides limited residual control of later germinating broadleaf weeds. Post- emergence applications of glufosinate will control a broad spectrum of grass and broadleaf weeds. Thus, DAS - 68416 - 4 soybeans will provide alternatives to glyphosate in weed management systems. 2,4 - D and/or glufosinate would control the already glyphosate -USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 126 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### resistant and hard to control broadleaf weeds, plus slow down the selection for more glyphosate resistant broadleaf weeds (Powles, 2008a). Currently, for soybeans without the aad- 12 gene, 2,4 - D can be applied only as a burndown or pre - emergence application at up to 1.0 lb ae/A ( 1120 g ae/ha) . 2,4 - D currently cannot be applied at burndown or pre - emergence to conventional s oybeans any later than 7 - 15 days (0.5 - 1.0 lbs ae/A, or 560 - 1120 g ae/ha of ester formulations) or 15 - 30 days (0.5

– 1.0 lbs ae/A, or 560 - 1120 g ae/ha of amine formulations) prior to planting, due to potential for crop injury. In DAS - 68416 - 4 soybe ans, the proposed use pattern will be to allow application of 2,4 - D at burndown or pre - emergence ( 1 lb ae/A or 1120 g ae/ha) without plant back restrictions , followed by one or two post- emergence (0.5

– 1.0 lb ae/A or 560 - 1120 g ae/ha) applications at leas t 10 days apart over- the - top of the soybeans up to the R2 stage (full flower) of development (Figure 47 ). Thus, the proposed maximum seasonal rate of 2,4 - D on soybeans will increase from 1.0 lb ae/A (current) to 3.0 lbs ae/ha (DA S - 68416 - 4 soybeans). DAS - 68416 - 4 soybeans will allow growers to apply 2,4 - D from burndown or pre - emergence up through R2 stage soybeans without risk of crop injury. This will provide new options for improved weed control during the soybean development period when weeds have the greatest potential yield impact . Figure 47 . 2,4 - D herbicide application timing and rates for conventional and DAS - 68416 - 4 soybeans.

The use pattern for glufosinate on DAS - 68416 - 4 soybeans will be consistent with the current use pattern of glufosinate on other soybean products that contain the pat gene. While 2,4 - D is currently registered as a pesticide, supporting information on proposed label changes for its use with DAS - 68416 - 4 soybeans is being provided by Dow AgroSciences to U.S. EPA for review. Dow AgroSciences is also developing an extensive stewardship program that will include technological advancements in application and off - target movement, as well as utilizing several media venues to educate and facilitate adoption of the technology and decision management tools to ensure the proper use and stewardship of both the trait and chemical technologies. Post 0.5 - 1 lb (up to 2 applications 10 days apart) Burndown/Pre 1 lb

Burndown 0.5- 1 lb R2 Full flower 

### DAS - 68416 - 4 Soybean

Conventional Soybean Post 0.5 - 1 lb (up to 2 applications 10 days apart) Burndown/Pre 1 lb

Burndown 0.5- 1 lb R2 Full flower 

### DAS - 68416 - 4 Soybean

Conventional SoybeanUSDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 127 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### In the future, DAS - 68416 - 4 soybeans could be stacked with glyphosate - tolerance traits. Such combined trait products (stacks) would have the potential to improve weed control by allowing use of herbicide combinations or mixtures which can provide more consistent performance in post- emergence weed control programs, and counteract glyphosate “rate - creep” ( steady increase in rates needed to obtain effective weed control; Figure 48 ) on hard- to - control weeds (Jaehnig, 2005). DAS - 68416 - 4 soybeans, which will enable the use of 2,4 - D, will allow use of a low cost, high performance solution to reduce the escalation of glyphosate - and ALS - resistance in weed populations. Figure 48 . Glyphosate application rates in U.S. corn and soybeans from 1990 thru 2007. (Data from DMR - Kynetec)

0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75 0.80 0.85199019911992199319941995199619971998199920002001200220032004200520062007 Glyphosate Rate in Lbs ae/acre



### IX - E.3. Potential Impact on Volunteer Management Cultivated soybean seed rarely displays any dormancy characteristics and only under certain environmental conditions grows as a volunteer in the year following cultivation (OECD 2000). If this should occur, volunteers do not compete well with the s ucceeding crop, and can easily be controlled mechanically or chemically. The soybean plant is not weedy in character. In North America, Glycine max is not found outside of cultivation. In managed ecosystems, soybean does not effectively compete with other cultivated plants or primary colonisers. DAS - 68416 - 4 soybeans are tolerant to 2,4 - D and glufosinate. In the unlikely event that they would grow as volunteers in the year following cultivation, they can still be effectively controlled with herbicides (York et al. , 2005). Soybean is considered a self -pollinated species (OECD 2000). Crossing does not generally occur. Soybean can only cross with other members of Glycine subgenus Soja . Approximately 91% of all soybeans planted in the U.S. in 2009 were glyphosate - tolerant soybeans (USDA ERS 2009c). If DAS - 68416 - 4 soybeans cross with soybean varieties expressing tolerance toUSDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 128 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### herbicides with different modes of action to produce soybean volunteers with multiple herbicide tolerance, they can still be effectively controlled mechanically or with other herbicide modes of action; such as paraquat in burndown programs, fluometuron in cotton (Hayes, 2000), and atrazine in corn. Additionally, agronomic practices such as appropriate variety selections, crop rotation, and rotation of herbicides with different modes of action can be used to avoid or manage volunteer soybeans tolerant to one or a few herbicides.

IX - E.4. Potential Impact on Non - Target Organisms and Endangered Species Based on substrate specificity of the aryloxyalkanoate dioxygenase - 12 (AAD - 12) enzyme activity, no effect on non - target organisms or endangered species is anticipated for DAS - 68416 - 4 soybean. The aad- 12 gene and expressed protein are present in nature in the soil bacterium Delftia acidovorans. AAD - 1 2 is not a potential food allergen or toxin (Section VI- A.4 ) and DAS - 68416 - 4 soybean has been shown to be substantially equivalent to conventional soybean based on the compositional analysis of grain and forage (Section VIII). Observations made during field testing of DAS - 68416 - 4 soybean revealed no effects on invertebrate populations (Section VII- B ) and agronomic characteristics equivalent to conventional soybean (Secti on VIIA). The Endangered Species Act (ESA) (16 USC 1531) is administered by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS). Under ESA, Section 6 requires federal agencies who conduct activities which may affect listed species to con sult with the FWS to ensure that listed species are protected should there be a potential impact. It is not anticipated that DAS - 68416 - 4 soybean will impact any currently listed species of concern since it is not anticipated that DAS - 68416 - 4 soybean will cause new soybean acres to be planted in areas that are not already in agricultural use. Commercial cropping systems routinely disturb the ground in which crops are grown. Habitat disruption within DAS - 68416 - 4 soybean fields would be comparable to other no - till or herbicide - tolerant cropping systems. Soybean is not an invasive or weedy species, there are no invasive or weedy sexually compatible relatives of soybean in the US, and these properties are not anticipated to be altered by the insertion of the aad- 12 gene conferring tolerance to 2,4 - D. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that DAS - 68416 - 4 soybean will not affect threatened or endangered species or adversely affect or change designated critical habitats as compared to current commercial agricultural practices. 2,4 - D is currently registered for use in soybean production for pre -plant and burndown herbicide treatment. The environmental fate and ecological effects on non - target organisms for the proposed extension of the existing use pattern of 2,4 - D in soybeans will be addressed by the EPA as part of their review process. Corn and soybean are typically planted in rotation in the US. In corn, 2,4 - D is used both as a pre -plant burn down prior to planting and post- emergence. The proposed new po st- emergent and seasonal use patterns in DAS - 68416 - 4 soybeans are consistent with those currently approved for use in conventional corn, and are consistent with those proposed for use in DAS - 40278 - 9 corn that also provides tolerance to 2,4 - D. Therefore, n o significant new geography will be treated with 2,4 - D beyond what is already available through pre - emergent applications in soybeans andUSDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 129 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### pre - and post- emergent applications in corn. This consistency in the application rates, timings, and the maximum seas onal rate with currently registered use patterns indicates that there should be no change in the ecological risk assessments or endangered species assessments for 2,4 - D with DAS - 68416 - 4 soybean. IX - F. Herbicide Resistance Management IX - F.1. Herbicide Resistance Herbicides have revolutionized weed control in most countries around the world. Herbicides are often the most reliable and least expensive method of weed control available, but reliance upon herbicides as the primary method of weed control can have unintended con sequences. The widespread use of herbicides can lead to weed populations that are no longer susceptible to the herbicide being used. The Weed Science Society of America defines herbicide resistance as "the inherited ability of a plant to survive and repro duce following exposure to a dose of herbicide normally lethal to the wild type” (WSSA, 1998). Target plants with genes conferring resistance to a given herbicide can occur naturally within a population , but in extremely small numbers. Such plants remain reproductively compatible with the wild- type and can pass resistance genes on to their progeny (Mallory- Smith, 2008). Repeated use of the herbicide may allow these resistant plants to survive and reproduce. The number of resistant plants then increases in the population until the herbicide no longer effectively controls the weed. Thus, this is an evolutionary process (Moss, 2002), whereby a population changes from being susceptible to being resistant. Individual plants do not change from being susceptible to being resistant; rather, the proportion of resistant individuals within the population increases over time. Herbicide -resistant weeds have been a problem for growers for decades (Heap, 1997). The earliest documented reports of herbicide -resistant w eeds were resistance to 2,4 - D in wild carrot (Daucus carota ) in 1952 and spreading dayflower ( Commelina diffusa ) in 1957 (Heap, 2009). During the 1970s, up to 30 different weed species were reported to be resistant to the triazine herbicides (Bandeen et a l ., 1982). Today, more than 330 weed biotypes around the world have been reported to have some populations that are resistant to one or more herbicides (Heap, 2009). A weed biotype is a sub - type or sub -population of a weed species, in this case one that has developed resistance to one or more herbicides. Report of a resistant biotype for a given weed species does not mean that weed resistance is common, widespread, or persistent in that species. There are generally many other options available to control these resistant biotypes. Table 32 shows a tabular summary of the total number of resistant species for each herbicide mode of action as of November 2009 . Figure 49 shows the number of resistant weed biotypes that have been reported over time for each herbicide mode of action. Additional information on glyphosate, 2,4 - D, glufosinate , and the evolution of herbicide resistant weeds can be found in Appendix 7 .USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 130 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### Table 32 . Number of herbicide resistant weeds globally by herbicide group and mode of action . (Heap, 2009) Herbicide Group Mode of ActionHRACGroupaWSSAGroupa Example HerbicideTotalCount ALS Inhibitors Inhibition of acetolactate synthase ALS (acetohydroxyacid synthase AHAS) B 2 Chlor s ulfuron 101 Photosystem II Inhibitors Inhibition of photosynthesis at photosystem II C1 5 Atrazine 68 ACCase Inhibitors Inhibition of acetyl CoA carboxylase (ACCase) A 1 Diclofop - methyl 36 Synthetic Auxins Synthetic auxins (action like indoleacetic acid) O 4 2,4 - D 27 Bipyridiliums Photosystem- I - electron diversion D 24 Paraquat 24 Ureas and Amides Inhibition of photosynthesis at photosystem II C2 7 Chlorotoluron 21 Glycines Inhibition of EPSP synthase G 9 Glyphosate 16 Dinitroanilines and others Microtubule assembly inhibition K1 10 Trifluralin 10 Thiocarbamates and others Inhibition of lipid synthesis

– not ACCase inhibition N 8 Triallate 8 Triazoles, Ureas, Isoxazolidiones Bleaching: Inhibition of carotenoids biosynthesis (unknown target) F3 11 Amitrole 4 PPO Inhibitors Inhibition of protoporphyrinogen oxidase (PPO) E 14 Oyxfluorfen 3 Chloroacetamides and others Inhibition of cell division (inhibition of very long chain fatty acids) K3 15 Butachlor 3 C arotenoid Biosynthesis Inhibitors Bleaching: Inhibition of carotenoids biosynthesis at the phytoene desaturase F1 12 Flurtamone 2 Arylaminopropionic Acids Unknown Z 25 Flamprop - methyl 2 Nitriles and others Inhibition of photosynthesis at photosystem II C 3 6 Bromoxynil 1 Mitosis Inhibitors Inhibition of mitosis / microtubule polymerization inhibitor K2 23 Propham 1 Cellulose Inhibitors Inhibition of cell wall (cellulose) synthesis L 27 Dichlobenil 1 Unknown Unknown Z 8 (chloro)

– flurenol 1 Unknown Unknown Z 17 MSMA 1 Total Number of Unique Herbicide Resistant Biotypes 330 a Two different classification systems have been developed independently by HRAC (alphabetical) and the WSSA (numerical) to communicate the mode of action of herbicides. Weeds which have developed resistance to one herbicide will also be resistant to all other herbicides which have the same mode of action.USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 131 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### Figure 49 . Resistant weed biotypes per herbicide mode of action.

IX - F.2. Factors Impacting Development of Resistance There are several factors to consider when assessing the risk for herbicide resistance in a weed species. Some of these relate to the biology of the weed species in question, others relate to particular farming practices. The key factors inf luencing a plant’s potential to develop resistance have been outlined by the Herbicide Resistance Action Committee (HRAC), an industry initiative that fosters cooperation between plant protection manufacturers, government, researchers, advisors and farmers . These key factors include the number or density of weeds, natural frequency of resistant plants in the population, seed soil dormancy potential, frequent use of herbicides with a similar mode of action, cropping rotations with reliance primarily on herbicides for weed control, and lack of non - chemical weed control practices (HRAC, 1998). A matrix that can be used to evaluate the risk of selection for herbicide - resistant weeds based on cropping system practices in shown in Table 33 . This table assesses the risk of herbicide resistance development for each management practice as either “low”, “medium”, or “high”. The greatest chance for resistance development occurs when several of these management practices fall into the “high” category.USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 132 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### Table 33 . Assessment of resistance risk by evaluation of cropping systems. (Nevill et al ., 1998) Management Option Risk of Resistance Low Moderate High Herbicide mix or rotation in cropping system >2 modes of action 2 modes of action 1 mode of action Weed control in cropping system Cultural, mechanical and chemical Cultural* and chemical Chemical only Use of same MOA per season Once More than once Many times Cropping system Full rotation Limited rotation No rotation Resistance status to MOA Unknown Limited Common Weed infestation Low Moderate High Control in last 3 years Good Declining Poor *Cultural control can be by using cultivation, stubble burning, competitive crops, stale seedbeds, etc. See HRAC guidelines f

or more details. 

### Development of herbicide -resistance is often thought of as a problem caused by the herbicide itself. However, it is well documented that resistance results from management practices that have relied too heavily on a particular herbicide a s the sole method of weed control. Under these conditions, the risk of weeds developing herbicide -resistance is greatest and the best defense is diversity in weed management practices.

IX - F.3. Herbicide Resistance Management Although no cases of glyphosate -resistant weeds were documented for 20 years after the launch of glyphosate (Dyer, 1994), glyphosate -resistant biotypes of several weed species have now been reported in the United States (Powles, 2008b). This may be attributed to increased reliance on glyphosate for weed control after the launch of glyphosate - tolerant soybeans (1996), cotton (1997), and corn (1998). This evolution of glyphosate -resistant weed populations threatens the ongoing sustainability of glyphosate and its contributions to world food pro duction (Duke and Powles, 2008). As the number of glyphosate -resistant weed species increases, it becomes increasingly important for growers to introduce greater diversity into their weed management programs (Powles, 2008a). This diversity could be achi eved with herbicide rotations/sequences, mixtures of robust herbicides with different modes of action, and use of non - herbicide weed control tools. Glyphosate is increasingly being mixed with effective doses of other herbicides to manage these hard- to - control and resistant weed species. New herbicide - tolerant traits that allow selective use of additional herbicides with a wider weed control spectrum compared to conventional herbicides can be used to control glyphosate -resistant weed populations and reduce selection pressure for additional glyphosate -resistant weed species. Table 34 shows that several common weeds in U.S. corn and soybeans which are resistant to or difficult to control with glyphosate or ALS herbicides and can be effectively controlled with 2,4 - D.USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 133 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### Introduction of DAS - 68416 - 4 soybeans will give farmers one more tool for use in their weed management programs which will help insure the long term sustainability of weed management programs, including the use of glyphosate. DAS - 68416 - 4 soybeans will allow use of 2,4 - D to control glyphosate -resistant weeds and significantly delay the selection for glyphosate -resistance in other weed species. The same benefits of DAS - 68416 - 4 soybeans can be extended to other herbicide - tolerant cropping systems, such as those with tolerance to glufosinate or ALS inhibiting herbicides. Furthermore, DAS - 68416 - 4 soybeans will allow use of glufosinate herbicides to significantly delay the selection for glyphosate -resistance in grass and broadleaf weed species. Table 34 . Glyphosate - and ALS - resistant weeds controlled by 2,4 - D. (Heap, 2009) Weed Species Glyphosate ALS Herbicides 2,4 - D Common lambsquarters Difficult: Suspected Resistant (2004) Resistant (2001) Susceptible Common ragweed Confirmed Resistant (2004) Resistant (1998) Susceptible Eastern black nightshade Difficult (2004) Resistant (1999) Susceptible Giant ragweed Confirmed Resistant (2004) Resistant (1998) Susceptible Marestail (horseweed) Confirmed Resistant (2000) Resistant (2000) Susceptible Palmer amaranth Confirmed Resistant (2005) Resistant (1991) Susceptible Waterhemp spp. Confirmed Resistant (2005) Resistant (1993) Susceptible Prickly sida Difficult (2004) Resistant (1993) Susceptible 

### DAS - 68416 - 4 soybeans will expand the range of herbicides that can be used in herbicide - tolerant soybean production systems, improving the ease and effectiveness of managing resistant and hard- to - control weeds and delaying the evolution of resistance to glyphosate and other herbicides. IX - G. Summary of Environmental Assessment The AAD - 12 protein is an enzyme with alpha- ketoglutarate - dependent dioxygenase activity which results in metabolic inactivation of several herbicides of the aryloxyalkanoate family. Field testing res ults confirm that AAD - 12 protein expressed in DAS - 68416 - 4 soybean provides robust tolerance to 2,4 - D. There are no new phenotypic characteristics in DAS - 68416 - 4 soybean to indicate it is any different from conventional soybean in weediness potential, and like conventional soybean, the risk of gene flow from DAS - 68416 - 4 soybean to wild relatives in the U.S. is negligible. No significant impact is expected on current crop management practices, non - target or endangered species, crop rotation, or volunteer man agement from the introduction of DAS - 68416 - 4 soybean. The availability of DAS - 68416 - 4 soybean will have a beneficial impact on weed control practices by providing growers with another tool to address their weed control needs. The availability of DAS - 6841 6 - 4 soybean will allow growers to proactively manage weed populations while avoiding adverse population shifts of troublesome weeds or the development of resistance, particularly glyphosate -resistance in weeds.USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 134 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### IX - H. References Ahrent, D.K., Caviness, C.E. (1994 ) Natural cross -pollination of twelve soybean cultivars in Arkansas. Crop Science 34:376 - 378. Bandeen, J.D., Stephenson, G.R., Cowett, E.R. (1982) Discovery and distribution of herbicide resistant weeds in North America. In Lebaron H.M. and Gressel J., eds . , Herbicide Resistance in Plants. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, pp 9 - 30. Beard, B.H., Knowles, P.F. (1971) Frequency of cross -pollination of soybeans after seed irradiation. Crop Science 11:489 - 492. CAST (2009) Sustainability of U.S. Soybean Production: Conventional, Transgenic, and Organic Production Systems. Council for Agricultural Science and Technology - Special Publication No. 30, Ames, Iowa. June, 2009 Caviness, C.E. (1966) Estimates of natural cross -pollination in Jackson soybeans in Arkansas, Crop Science 6:211 - 212. Connor, A.J., Glare, T.R., Nap, J.P. (2003) The release of genetically modified crops into the environment. Part II. Overview of ecological risk assessment. The Plant Journal 33:19 - 46. Dalley, C.D., Renner, K.A, Kells, J.J . (2002) Weed Competition in Roundup Ready Soybeans and Corn. Michigan State University, Integrated Pest Management Fact Sheet. (www.ipm.msu.edu/CAT05_fld/pdf/5 - 26FactSheet.pdf ) Duke, S.O. and Powles, S.B. (2008) Editorial: Glyphosate - Resistant Weeds and Crops. Pest Management Science 64:317 - 318. Dyer, W.E. (1994) Resistance to glyphosate, in Herbicide Resistance in Plants: Biology and Biochemistry, ed. by S.B. Powles and J.A.M. Holtum. CRC Lewis Publishers, New York, NY, pp. 229 - 241. Givens, W.A., Shaw, D.R., Kruger, G.R., Johnson, W.G., Weller, S.C., Young, B.G., Wilson, R.G., Owen, M.D.K., Jordan, D. (2009) Survey of Tillage Trends Following the Adoption of Glyphosate - Resistant Crops. Weed Technology 23:150 - 155. Hartzler, B. and Pringnitz, B. (2000) Early Season Weed Competition - Integrated Crop Management IC - 484 (8), Iowa State University. (http://www .ipm.iastate.edu/ipm/icm/2000/5 - 8 - 2000/earlyweed.html ) Hayes, R.M. (2000) Herbicide Resistant Crops and Weed Species Shifts. Proceedings: Third Annual National Conservation Tillage Cotton and Rice Conference. (http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpWESSEX/Documents/cottonrrproblems.htm) Heap, I.M. (1997) The Occurrence of Herbicide - Resistant Weeds Worldwide. Pesticide Science 51:235 - 243.USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 135 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### Heap, I. (2009) The International Survey o f Herbicide Resistant Weeds. (http://www.weedscience.com) HRAC (1998) Herbicide Resistance Action Committee. Guidelines to the management of herbicide resistance. (http://www.hracglobal.com/Publications/ManagementofHerbicideResistance/tabid/225/Default. aspx#guidelines ) Jaehnig, K.C. (2005) Farmers facing rise of herbicide resistant weeds. Southern Illinois University Carbondale Country Column. (http://news.siu.edu/news/April04/042704kj4032.jsp ) Knezevic, S. Z. (2002) Use of Herbicide Tolerant Crops as a Component of an Integrated Weed Management Program, University of Nebraska NebGuide , p . 1484. (http://elkhorn.unl.edu/epublic/live/g1484/build/#concerns ) Krausz, R.F., B.G. Young, G. Kapusta, and J.L. Matthews. (2001) Influence of Weed Competition and Herbicides on Glyphosate - Resistant Soybean ( Glycine max). Weed Technology 15:530 - 534. Lauer, J. (2007) Continuous Corn or Rotate in 2008? The Principle of Crop Rotation. University of Wisconsin Agronomy Department, Agronomy Advice, Field Crops 28.426 - 51. (http://corn.agronomy.wisc.edu/AA/A051.aspx ) Loux, M., Stachler, J., Johnson, B, Nice, G. (2006) The Benefits of Preemergence Herbicides in Roundup Ready Soybean. Fact Sheet from The Ohio State University and Purdue University. (http://agcrops.osu.edu/weeds/documents/prefactfinal.pdf ) Mallory- Smith, C. (2008) Pacific Northwest Weed Management Handbook

– Managing Herbicide -resistant Weeds. (http://weeds.ippc.orst.edu/pnw/weeds?06W_HRES01.dat) Moss, S. (2002) Chapter 11

– Herbicide - Resistant Weeds. Weed Management Handbook, Ninth Edition, Edited by Robert Naylor, Blackwell Publishing, British Crop Protection Council Müller, R.H. , Jorks, S. , Kleinsteuber, S. , Babel, W. ( 1999 ) Comamonas acidovorans strain MC1: a new isolate capable of degrading the chiral herbicides dichlorprop and mecoprop and the herbicides 2,4 - D and MCPA . Microbiological Research 154:241 - 246. Nevill, D., Cornes, D. and Howar, S. (1998) The Role of HRAC in the Management of Weed Resistance. (http://www.hracglobal.com/Publications/HRACManagementandWeedResistance/tabid/228/Def ault.aspx ) OECD (2000) Consensus Document on the Biology of Glycine max (L.) Merr. (Soybean). Organisation for Economic Co - operation and Development, Paris, France. Series on Harmonization of Regulatory Oversight in Biotechnology No. 15. EVN/JM/MONO(2000)9. (http:/www.olis.oecd.org/olis/2000doc.nsf/LinkTo/env - jm- mono(2000)9)USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 136 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### Penn State Agronomy Guide. 2009 - 2010. Part 2, Section 1: Pest Management. (http://agguide.agronomy.psu.edu/pm/sec1/sec12f.cfm) Powles, S.B. (2008a) Evolution in action: glyphosate -resistant weeds threaten world crops. Outlooks on Pest Management 19:256 - 259. Powles, S.B. (2008b) Review: Evolved glyphosate -resistant weeds around the globe: lessons to be learnt. Pest Management Science 64:360 - 365. Ray, J.D., Kilen, T.C., Abel, C.A., Paris, R.L. (2003) Soybean natural cross -pollination rates under field conditions. Environmental Biosafety Research 2:133 - 138. Sankula, S., Blumenthal, E. (2004) Impacts on U.S. Agriculture of Biotechnology- Derived Crops Planted in 2003

– An Update of Eleven Case Studies. National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy. (http://www.ncfap.org/documents/2004finalreport.pdf.) USDA ERS ( 2008 ) USDA Economic Research Service

– Soybeans and Oil Crops Briefing Room (http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/SoybeansOilCrops/) USDA ERS (2009a) USDA Economic Research Service Adoption of Genetically Engineered Crops in the U.S.: Extent of Adoption. (http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/BiotechCrops/adoption.htm) USDA ERS(2009b) USDA Economic Research Service Data Sets

– Adoption of Genetically Engineered Crops in the U.S. (http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/BiotechCrops/) USDA ERS (2009c) USDA Economic Research Service Data Sets

– Adoption of Genetically Engineered Crops in the U.S.

– Soybean Varieties. (http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/BiotechCrops/ExtentofAdoptionTable3.htm) USDA ERS ARMS (2002) USDA Economic Research Service

– Agricultural Resource Management Survey. (http://www.ers.usda.gov/data/ARMS/app/Crop.aspx .) USDA ERS ARMS (2006) USDA Economic Research Service

– Agricultural Resource Management Survey. (http://www.ers.usda.gov/data/ARMS/app/Crop.aspx .) USDA NASS (2006) USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service

– Agricultural Chemical Usage

– 2005 Field Crops Summary. (http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/AgriChemUsFC/2000s/2006/AgriChemUsFC - 05 - 17 - 2006.pdf ) USDA NASS ( 2008 ) USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service

– Quick Stats. (http://www.nass.usda.gov/Data_and_Statistics/Quick_Stats/)USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 137 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### WSSA (1998) Resistance and Tolerance Definitions. Weed Science Society of America. (http://www.wssa.net/Weeds/Resistance/definitions.htm) Westendorf, A.; Benndorf, D.; Müller, R.; Babel, W. ( 2002 ) The two enantiospecific dichlorprop/α- ketoglutarate - dioxygenases from Delftia acidovorans MC1 -protein and sequence data of RdpA and SdpA Microbiological Research 157:317 - 22. Westendorf, A. , Müller, R.H. , Babel, W. ( 2003 ) Purification and characterization of the enantiospecific dioxygenases from Delftia acidovorans MC1 initiating the degradation of phenoxypropionates and phenoxyacetate herbicides . Acta Biotechnologica 23: 3 - 17. Wright, T.R.; Lira, J.M.; Walsh, T.; Merlo, D.J., Jayakumar, P., Lin, G. (2007 ) Novel Herbicide Resistance Genes. World Intellectual Property Organization International Publication Number WO 2007/053482 A2 York, A.C., Beam, J.B., Culpepper, A.S. (2005) Control of Glyphosate -resistant Soybean in Cotton. Journal of Cotton Science 9:1 02 - 109.USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 138 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### X. Adverse Consequences of Introduction Field and laboratory testing of DAS - 68416 - 4 soybean has demonstrated that it has no significant differences from non - transgenic conventional soybean apart from the intended change of herbicide - tolerance. DAS knows of no study results or other observations associated with DAS - 68416 - 4 soybean that would be anticipated to result in adverse consequences from introduction. Soybean varieties derived from DAS - 68416 - 4 will be the first soybean varieties to express tolerance to 2,4 - D. As such, they will be an important tool to growers in areas where weeds have become resistant to other broad spectrum herbicides, such as glyphosate.USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 139 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### XI. AppendicesUSDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 140 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### Appendix 1. Methods for Molecular Characterization of DAS - 68416 - 4 Soybean 1.1. DAS- 68416-4 Soybean Material Transgenic soybean seeds from three distinct generations of soybean containing event DAS - 68416 - 4 were planted in the greenhouse. After at least two weeks of growth, leaf punches were taken from each plant and were tested for AAD - 12 protein expression using a rapid lateral flow test strip according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Each plant was given a “+” or “ - “ for the presence or absence of the AAD - 12 protein. 1.2. Control Soybean Material Seeds from the unmodified Maverick were planted in the greenhouse. The Maverick seeds had a genetic background representative of the transgenic seeds but did not contain the aad- 12 gene. 1.3. Reference Materials DNA of the plasmid pDAB4468 was added to samples of the Maverick control genomic DNA at a ratio approximately equivalent to 1 copy of the transgene per soybean genome and used as the positive control to verify probe hybridization and sizes of internal fragments. 1.4. DNA Probe Preparation DNA probes specific to the genetic elements in the T - DNA insert of pDAB4468 and the vector backbone were produced via polymerase chain reaction (PCR) amplification using pDAB4468 plasmid DNA as a template, followed by purification. 1.5. Sample Collection and DNA Extraction Labeled leaf samples were collected from green hous e for DNA extraction or being stored in - 80°C freezer for future use. Genomic DNA was extracted with 2 methods. Method 1 is based on the method of Guillemant , 1 992 . Briefly, leaf samples were ground individually in liquid nitrogen, and then extraction buf fer was added to samples at a ratio of about 3:1 plus 10 μL of RNase - A (Qiagen, Valencia, catalog # 1007885). After precipitation using isopropyl alcohol, crude DNA samples were purified using PCI (phenol:chloroform:isoamyl alcohol = 25:24:1, Sigma, St. Louis, MO, catalog #: P2069) and CI (chloroform:isoamyl alcohol = 24:1, Sigma, St. Louis, MO, catalog # C0549) extraction. DNA was precipitated again by addition of 1/10 volume of 3 M NaOAc and equal volume of isopropyl alcohol. The precipitated DNA was rinsed with 70% ethanol, then dissolved in appropriate volume of 0.1X TE buffer. Method 2 is based on the modified CTAB method. Briefly, leaf samples were individually ground in liquid nitrogen followed by the addition of extraction buffer (~5:1 ratio milliliter CTAB extraction buffer: gram leaf tissue) and RNase - A (>10 μL) (Qiagen, Valencia, catalog # 1007885). After approximately 2 hours of incubation at ~65 °C with gentle shaking, samples were spun down and the supernatants were extracted with equal v olume of chloroform:octanol = 24:1 (chloroform, Sigma, Catalog # 366922 - 4L; octanol, Sigma, catalog # O4504 - 100mL). DNA was precipitated by mixing the supernatants with equal volume of precipitation buffer (1% CTAB, Sigma, Catalog # H6269 - 2506; 50 mM Tri s - HCl, Invitrogen, Catalog # 15568 - 025; 10USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 141 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### mM EDTA, AcruGene, Catalog # 51234). The precipitated DNA was dissolved in high salt TE buffer (1X TE pH8.0, thermo, Catalog # 17890; 1.0M NaCl, AccuGene, Catalog # 51202) followed by precipitation with isopropyl alcohol (Mallinckrot, Catalog # 3031 - 08). The precipitated DNA was rinsed with 70% ethanol, air- dried, then dissolved in appropriate volume of 1 X TE buffer (pH8.0). To check the quality of the resultant genomic DNA, an aliquot of the DNA samples was electrophoretically separated on a 1% agarose gel containing ethidium bromide (~1 μg/mL) with 1X TBE buffer (89 mM Tris - Borate, 20 mM EDTA, pH 8.3). The gel was visualized under ultraviolet (UV) light to confirm that the DNA was not degraded and that the RNA had been removed by the RNase - A. The concentration of DNA in solution was determined by a picogreen kit (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA, catalog # P7589) in a fluorometer (Bio - TEK, FLX800). 1.6. DNA Digestion and Electrophoretic Separation of the DNA Fragments Genomic DNA extracted from the soybean leaf tissue was digested with restriction enzymes by combining approximately 9 g of genomic DNA with approximately 5 - 11 units of the selected restriction enzyme per g of DNA in the corresponding reaction buffer. Each s ample was incubated at 37 o

### C overnight. The positive control sample was prepared by combining pDAB4468 plasmid DNA with genomic DNA from the Maverick control (at a ratio approximately equivalent to 1 copy of the transgene per soybean genome) and was digested using the same procedures and restriction enzymes as the transgenic DNA samples. DNA from the Maverick control was digested using the same procedures and restriction enzymes as the test samples to serve as the negative control. The digested DNA samples were precipitated with Quick- Precip (Edge BioSystems) and re suspended to achieve the desired volume for gel loading. The DNA samples and molecular size markers were then electrophoresed through 0.8% agarose gels with 1  TBE buffer (89mM Tris, 89mM Boric acid, 2mM EDTA) at 55 - 65 V for 18 - 22 hours to achieve fragment separation. The gels were stained with ethidium bromide and the DNA was visualized under UV light. A photographic record was made of each stained gel. 1.7. Southern Transfer The DNA fragments on the agarose gels were transferred to nylon membranes via Southern transfer, essentially as described by Memelink et al ., 1994. The agarose gels were depurinated, denatured, neutralized in situ and transferred to a nylon membrane in 10  SSC buffer (3M NaCl , 0.3M Na citrate) using a wicking system. Following transfer to the membrane, the DNA was bound to the membrane by crosslinking through UV treatment. 1.8. Probe Synthesis and Hybridization The hybridization probes were generated using a PCR -based incorporation of a digoxigenin (DIG) labeled nucleotide, [DIG- 11] - dUTP, from DNA fragments generated by primers specific to the gene elements and other regions from plasmid pDAB4468. The PCR synthesis of the probes was performed using PCR DIG Probe Synthesis Kit (Roche Diagnostics) and following the manufacturer’s recommended procedures.USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 142 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### Labeled probes were hybridized to the target DNA on the nylon membranes using the DIG Easy Hyb Solution according to manufacturer’s instructions (Roche Diagnostics). DIG - labeled DNA molecular weight marker II was used to determine the hybridizing fragment size on the Southern blots. 1.9. Detection DIG- labeled probes bound to the nylon membranes after stringent washing were incubated with AP (Alkaline Phosphatase) - conjugated anti - Digoxigenin antibody for ~1 hr in room temperature. The anti - DIG antibody specifically bound to the probes was then visualized using CDP - Star Chemiluminescent Nucleic Acid Detection System (Roche Diagnostics). Blots were exposed to chemiluminescent film for one or more time points to detect the hybridizing fragments and to visualize the molecular weight standards. The images were then scanned and stored. The number and size of each of the detected bands were documented for each digest and for each probe. Once the data was recorded, membranes were rinsed with milli - Q water and then stripped of the probe in a solution of 0.2M NaOH and 1.0% SDS. The alkali -based stripping procedure successfully removes the labeled probes from the membranes, allowing them to be re -probed with a different gene probe. After stripping, the membranes were exposed to chemiluminescent film to ensure all the previous DNA probes had been removed. 1.10. References Guillemant, P. (1992) Isolation of Plant DNA: A Fast, Inexpensive, and Reliable Method. Plant Molecular Biology Reporter 10(1): 60 - 65. Memelink, J., Swords, K., Harry, J., Hoge, C. 1994. Southern, Northern, and Western Blot Analysis. Plant Molecular Biology Manual F1:1 - 23.USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 143 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### Appendix 2. Methods and Results for Characterization of AAD - 12 Protein 2.1. DAS- 68416-4 Transgenic Soybean Material Greenhouse - grown DAS - 68416 - 4 soybean plants (T5 generation) were used as the plant source of the AAD - 12 protein. Prior to use, individual plants were leaf tested to confirm expression of the AAD - 12 protein using a rapid lateral flow test strip according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Leaves (and some stems) from AAD - 12 expressing plants were harvested, lyophilized, ground to a fine powder, and stored frozen until needed. 2.2. Control Soybean Material Control soybean line Maverick had a genetic background representative of the DAS - 68416 - 4 soybean plants, but did not contain the aad- 12 gene. Absence of AAD - 12 expression in the control plants was confirmed by immunoassay using an AAD - 12 specific rapid lateral flow test strip. Leaves (and some stems) of control plants were harvested, lyophilized, ground and stored under the same conditions as the DAS - 68416 - 4 soybean. 2.3. Reference Material Recombinant AAD - 12 microbial protein was produced in Pseudomonas fluorescens (Pf ) and purified to a lyophilized powder . The microbe - derived AAD - 12 protein preparation was stored dry and resuspended in a buffer to maintain activity prior to use. 2.4. Protein Purification of AAD - 12 from DAS- 68416- 4 Soybean Plant Tissue The AAD - 12 protein was extracted from lyophilized leaf tissue in a PBST (Phosphate Buffered Saline with 0.05% Tween 20, pH 7.4) based buffer with added stabilizers, and the soluble proteins were separated from the insoluble plant material by centrifugation. The supernatant was filtered and the soluble proteins were allowed to bind to Phenyl Sepharose (PS) beads (GE Healthcare). After an hour of incubation, the PS beads were washed with PBST and the bound proteins were eluted with Milli - Q water. Sodium chloride was added to increase the conductivity and the PS purified proteins were loaded onto an anti - AAD - 12 immunoaffinity column which had been conjugated with an AAD - 12 specific polyclonal antibody. The non bound proteins were collected from the column and the column was washed extensively with pre - chilled PBS (phosphate buffered saline, pH 7.4). The bound proteins were eluted from the column with a 3.5 M NaSCN, 50 mM Tris, pH 8.0 buffer and examined by SDS - PAGE (stained with GelCode Blue total protein stain from Thermo - Pierce) and western blotting. 2.5. SDS-PAGE and Western Blot Analysis of Crude Extracts Lyophilized leaf tissue from event DAS - 68416 - 4 and Maverick was mixed with PBST buffer containing ~2.0% protease inhibitor cocktail (Sigma) and the protein was extracted by grinding with ball bearings in a Geno - Grinder. The samples were centrifuged and the supernatants were mixed with Laemmli sample buffer, heated, and briefly centrifuged. The samples were loaded directly on to a Bio - Rad Criterion SDS - PAGE gel. The positive reference standard, microbe derived AAD - 12, was also mixed with sample buffer and loaded on to the gel. Electrophoresis was conducted with Tris/glycine/SDS buffer (Bio - Rad). Following electrophoresis, the gel wasUSDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 144 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### cut in half, with one half stained with Pierce GelCode Blue protein stain and the other gel half was electro -blotted onto a nitrocellulose membrane. The nitrocellulose membrane was then probed with AAD - 12 specific polyclonal and monoclonal antibodies. A chemiluminescent substrate was used to visualize the immunoreactive bands. 2.6. Detection of Post- Translational Glycosylation The immunoaffinity- purified, plant- derived AAD - 12 protein was analyzed for evidence of glycosylation by electrophoresis with microbe - derived AAD - 12 protein, soybean trypsin inhibitor, bovine serum albumin, and horseradish peroxidase as controls. The control protein samples were adjusted to concentrations approximately equal with the plant - derived AAD - 12 protein and mixed with Laemmli buffer. The proteins were heated, centrifuged, and applied directly to a Bio - Rad Criterion SDS - PAGE gel. Following electrophoresis, the gel was cut in half. One gel half was stained with Pierce GelCode Blue stain for total protein. The remaining half of the gel was stained with GelCode Glycoprotein Stain to visualize the glycoproteins. The glycoproteins present on the gel were visualized as magenta bands on a light pink background. 2.7. Mass Spectrometry Peptide Mass Fingerprinting and Sequence Analysis of Plant- and Microbe -Derived AAD - 12 Protein The immunoaffinity purified AAD - 12 plant- derived protein was subjected to in - solution digestion by trypsin and Asp - N followed by matrix assisted laser desorption/ionization time - offlight mass spectrometry (MALDI- TOF MS) and electrospray- ionization liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry (ESI- LC/MS). The peptide fragments of the plant- derived AAD - 12 protein (including the N - and C - termini) were analyzed and compared with the sequence of the microbe - derived protein. 2.8. Results of the SDS-PAGE and Western Blot Analysis In the microbe - derived AAD - 12, the major protein band, as visualized on the Coomassie stained SDS - PAGE gel, was approximately 32 kDa (Figure 50 ). As expected, the corresponding plantderived AAD - 12 protein was identical in size to the microbe - derived protein. Predictably, the plant purified fractions contained a minor amount of non - immunoreactive impurities in addition to the AAD - 12 protein. The co -purified proteins were likely retained on the column by weak interactions with the column matrix (Holroyde et al ., 1976, Kennedy and Barnes, 1983 and Williams et. al. , 2006 ) . The microbe - derived AAD - 12 and DAS - 68416 - 4 plant tissue extract showed a positive signal of the expected size on the w estern blot using the anti - AAD - 12 polyclonal antibody (Figure 51 ). In the AAD - 12 western blot analysis, no immunoreactive proteins were observed in the control Maverick extract and no alternate size proteins (aggregates or degradation products) were seen in the samples from the transgenic plant. The monoclonal antibody did detect a small amount of the AAD - 12 dimer in the microbe - derived protein. These results add to the evidence that the protein expressed in soybean is not glyco sylated which would add to the overall protein molecular weight.USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 145 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### Figure 50 . SDS - PAGE of soybean - and microbe - derived AAD - 12 . Note: Affinity- purified soybean - derived AAD - 12 and microbe - derived AAD - 12 were separated by SDS - PAGE. Following electrophoresis, the gel was stained with Thermo - Pierce GelCode Blue stain for total protein according to the manufacturer’s protocol.

AAD - 12

6.0 - 14.4 - 21.5 - 31.0 - 36.5 - 55.4 - 66.3 - 97.4 - 116.3 - 200 - kDa

3.5 - 2.5 - Soy Pf MW AAD - 12 AAD - 12



### Lane Sample Amount M Invitrogen Mark12 MW markers 10 L Soy Soybean - Derived AAD - 12 (DAS - 68416 - 4) 500 L Pf Microbe - Derived AAD - 12 1000 ng SDS - PAGE AAD - 12

6.0 - 14.4 - 21.5 - 31.0 - 36.5 - 55.4 - 66.3 - 97.4 - 116.3 - 200 - kDa

3.5 - 2.5 - Soy Pf MW AAD - 12 AAD - 12

AAD - 12

6.0 - 14.4 - 21.5 - 31.0 - 36.5 - 55.4 - 66.3 - 97.4 - 116.3 - 200 - kDa

3.5 - 2.5 - Soy Pf MW AAD - 12 AAD - 12



### Lane Sample Amount M Invitrogen Mark12 MW markers 10 L Soy Soybean - Derived AAD - 12 (DAS - 68416 - 4) 500 L Pf Microbe - Derived AAD - 12 1000 ng SDS - PAGEUSDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 146 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### Figure 51 . SDS - PAGE and western blot of soybean - and microbe - deri ved AAD - 12 protein

extracts. Note: Crude extracts from lyophilized leaf tissue of event DAS - 68416 - 4 and Maverick were separated by SDS - PAGE along with microbe - derived AAD - 12 and bovine serum albumin. Following electrophoresis the gel was cut in half, one half was stained with Pierce GelCode Blue stain for total protein and the remaining half was electro -blotted onto a nitrocellulose membrane. The nitrocellulose membrane was then probed with AAD - 12 specific polyclonal and monoclonal antibodies and detected with HRP - labeled antibodies. A chemiluminescent substrate was used to visualize the immunoreactive bands. Mav 416 12

- 15 - - 20 - - 30 - - 40 - - 50 - - 60 - - 80 - - 110 - - 160 - - 260 - kDa

- 10 -

- 3.5 - 6.0 - 14.4 - 21.5 - 31.0 - 36.5 - 55.4 - 66.3 - 97.4 - 116.3 - 200 - kDa

3.5 - 2.5 - M Mav 416 12 AAD BSA P P

M Mav 416 12

AAD AAD

Western blot film SDS - PAGE a) monoclonal b) polyclonal AAD - 12



### Lane Sample Amount M Invitrogen Mark12 MW markers 10 L Mav Nontransgenic Soybean Extract 32 L 416 Event DAS - 68416 - 4 extract 32 L AAD - 12 Microbe - Derived AAD - 12 ~785 ng BSA Bovine Serum Albumin (BSA) ~785 ng P Novex Prestained MW Markers 10 L Mav 416 12

- 15 - - 20 - - 30 - - 40 - - 50 - - 60 - - 80 - - 110 - - 160 - - 260 - kDa

- 10 -

- 3.5 - 6.0 - 14.4 - 21.5 - 31.0 - 36.5 - 55.4 - 66.3 - 97.4 - 116.3 - 200 - kDa

3.5 - 2.5 - M Mav 416 12 AAD BSA P P

M Mav 416 12

AAD AAD

Western blot film SDS - PAGE a) monoclonal b) polyclonal AAD - 12



### Lane Sample Amount M Invitrogen Mark12 MW markers 10 L Mav Nontransgenic Soybean Extract 32 L 416 Event DAS - 68416 - 4 extract 32 L AAD - 12 Microbe - Derived AAD - 12 ~785 ng BSA Bovine Serum Albumin (BSA) ~785 ng P Novex Prestained MW Markers 10 LUSDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 147 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### 2.9. Results of Detection of Glycosylation of AAD - 12 Protein No covalently- linked carbohydrates were detectable on the plant- or microbe - derived AAD - 12 proteins (Figure 52 ). Horseradish peroxidase, a glycoprotein, was used as a positive indicator for glycosylation. Soybean trypsin inhibitor and bovine serum albumin, both non - glycoproteins, served as negative controls. Figure 52 . Glycosylation analysis of soybean - and microbe - derived AAD - 12 proteins. Note: The affinity -purified soybean - derived AAD - 12, microbe - derived AAD - 12, soybean trypsin inhibitor, bovine serum albumin, and horseradish peroxi dase were diluted to a similar concentration prior to separation by SDS -PAGE . After electrophoresis, the gel was cut in half and one half was stained with GelCode Blue stain for total protein, and the other half of the gel was stained with a GelCode Glycoprotein Staining Kit to visualize the glycoproteins.

- 15 - - 20 - - 30 - - 40 - - 50 - - 60 - - 80 - - 110 - - 160 - - 260 - kDa

- 10 -

- 3.5 - 6.0 - 14.4 - 21.5 - 31.0 - 36.5 - 55.4 - 66.3 - 97.4 - 116.3 - 200 - kDa

3.5 - 2.5 - M 1 2 3 4 5 P P 1 2 3 4 5 M



### Lane Sample Amount M Invitrogen Mark12 MW markers 10 L 1 Soybean- Derived AAD - 12 (Frac 3) 500 L 2 Microbe- Derived AAD - 12 500 ng 3 Soybean Trypsin Inhibitor (STI) 500 ng 4 Horseradish Peroxidase (HRP) 500 ng 5 Bovine Serum Albumin (BSA) 500 ng P Novex Prestained MW markers 10 L Total protein stain Glycoprotein stain

- 15 - - 20 - - 30 - - 40 - - 50 - - 60 - - 80 - - 110 - - 160 - - 260 - kDa

- 10 -

- 3.5 - 6.0 - 14.4 - 21.5 - 31.0 - 36.5 - 55.4 - 66.3 - 97.4 - 116.3 - 200 - kDa

3.5 - 2.5 - M 1 2 3 4 5 P P 1 2 3 4 5 M



### Lane Sample Amount M Invitrogen Mark12 MW markers 10 L 1 Soybean- Derived AAD - 12 (Frac 3) 500 L 2 Microbe- Derived AAD - 12 500 ng 3 Soybean Trypsin Inhibitor (STI) 500 ng 4 Horseradish Peroxidase (HRP) 500 ng 5 Bovine Serum Albumin (BSA) 500 ng P Novex Prestained MW markers 10 L - 15 - - 20 - - 30 - - 40 - - 50 - - 60 - - 80 - - 110 - - 160 - - 260 - kDa

- 10 -

- 3.5 - 6.0 - 14.4 - 21.5 - 31.0 - 36.5 - 55.4 - 66.3 - 97.4 - 116.3 - 200 - kDa

3.5 - 2.5 - M 1 2 3 4 5 P P 1 2 3 4 5 M



### Lane Sample Amount M Invitrogen Mark12 MW markers 10 L 1 Soybean- Derived AAD - 12 (Frac 3) 500 L 2 Microbe- Derived AAD - 12 500 ng 3 Soybean Trypsin Inhibitor (STI) 500 ng 4 Horseradish Peroxidase (HRP) 500 ng 5 Bovine Serum Albumin (BSA) 500 ng P Novex Prestained MW markers 10 L Total protein stain Glycoprotein stainUSDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 148 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### 2.10. Results of MALDI

- TOF and ESI/LC- MS Tryptic and Asp -N Peptide Mass Fingerprints of AAD - 12 Proteins Following digestion of the plant- derived AAD - 12 protein by trypsin and Asp - N, the masses of the detected peptides were compared with those deduced based on potential cleavage sites in the sequence of the AAD - 12 protein. Figure 53 illustrates the theoretical peptide cleavage which was generated in silico using PAWs software (Proteometrics LLC). The trypsin and Asp - N digestion of soybean - derived AAD - 12 protein yielded high detection of the expected peptides, resulting in 73.4% coverage of the AAD - 12 protein sequence (Figure 54 ). The analysis confirmed the plant- derived protein amino acid sequence matched that of the microbe - derived AAD - 12 protein and that of the predicted amino acid sequence. Results of these analyses indicated that the amino acid sequence of the soybean - derived AAD - 12 protein was equivalent to the P. fluorescens - expressed protein. 2.11. Results of Tryptic and Asp -N Peptide N - and C- terminal Sequence Analysis of AAD - 12 The N - terminal sequence of the first 27 residues of the plant- derived and all 292 residues of the microbe - derived AAD - 12 protein was obtained by mass spectrometry. The amino acid sequences for N - terminus of both proteins was A 2 

### H A A L S P L S Q I T P T G A T L G A T V T G V H L A T L27 

### , indicating the N - terminal methionine had been removed (Table 35 and Figure 54 ). These results suggest that during or after translation in the plant and P. fluorescens , the N - terminal methionine is cleaved by a methionine aminopeptidase. In addition to the methionine being removed, the N - terminal peptide of the AAD - 12 protein was shown to be acetylated after the N - terminal methionine was cleaved. These two co - translational processes, cleavage of N - terminal methionine residue and N - terminal acetylation, are by far the most common modifications and occur on the vast majority (~85%) of eukaryotic proteins (Polevoda and Sherman, 2000 ; Polevoda and Sherman, 2002 ). The C - terminal sequences of the plant- and microbe - derived AAD - 12 proteins were determined to be identical to the expected sequences (Table 36 and Figure 54 ).USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 149 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### Figure 53 . Theoretical trypsin (top panel) and Asp - N (bottom panel) cleavage of the AAD 12 protein. Note: Alternating blocks of upper (black) and lower (red) case letters within the amino acid sequence are used to differentiate the potential peptides after protease digestion. The numbers on the left and right sides indicate the amino acid residue numbers. Digestion at K (lysine) and R (arginine)

Digestion at D (aspartate)USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 150 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### Figure 54 . Sequence coverage in the tryptic and Asp - N peptide mapping analysis of plantderived AAD - 12 protein with MALDI - TOF and ESI/LC MS . Note: The numbers on the left and right sides of the protein sequence indicate the amino acid residue numbers. Letters highlighted in gray represent tryptic peptide sequence detected by MALDI- TOF MS and ESI- LC/MS. Underlined letters represent Asp - N peptide sequence detected. The overall sequence coverage was 73.4%. The down arrow indicates the N - terminal methionine was removed by an aminopeptidase and the N - terminal alanine was N - acetylated.

N - Ac 001 M A Q T T L Q I T P T G A T L G A T V T G V H L A T L D D A 30 031 G F A A L H A A W L Q H A L L I F P G Q H L S N D Q Q I T F 60 061 A K R F G A I E R I G G G D I V A I S N V K A D G T V R Q H 90 091 S P A E W D D M M K V I V G N M A W H A D S T Y M P V M A Q 120 121 G A V F S A E V V P A V G G R T C F A D M R A A Y D A L D E 150 151 A T R A L V H Q R S A R H S L V Y S Q S K L G H V Q Q A G S 180 181 A Y I G Y G M D T T A T P L R P L V K V H P E T G R P S L L 210 211 I G R H A H A I P G M D A A E S E R F L E G L V D W A C Q A 240 241 P R V H A H Q W A A G D V V V W D N R C L L H R A E P W D F 270 271 K L P R V M W H S R L A G R P E T E G A A L V

- Trypsin

- Asp N Total number of amino acids covered: 215* Total number of amino acids in protein: 293 Combined sequence coverage: 73.4% *The N - terminal methionine was missing N - Ac 001 M A Q T T L Q I T P T G A T L G A T V T G V H L A T L D D A 30 031 G F A A L H A A W L Q H A L L I F P G Q H L S N D Q Q I T F 60 061 A K R F G A I E R I G G G D I V A I S N V K A D G T V R Q H 90 091 S P A E W D D M M K V I V G N M A W H A D S T Y M P V M A Q 120 121 G A V F S A E V V P A V G G R T C F A D M R A A Y D A L D E 150 151 A T R A L V H Q R S A R H S L V Y S Q S K L G H V Q Q A G S 180 181 A Y I G Y G M D T T A T P L R P L V K V H P E T G R P S L L 210 211 I G R H A H A I P G M D A A E S E R F L E G L V D W A C Q A 240 241 P R V H A H Q W A A G D V V V W D N R C L L H R A E P W D F 270 271 K L P R V M W H S R L A G R P E T E G A A L V

- Trypsin

- Asp N Total number of amino acids covered: 215* Total number of amino acids in protein: 293 Combined sequence coverage: 73.4% *The N - terminal methionine was missing N - Ac 001 M A Q T T L Q I T P T G A T L G A T V T G V H L A T L D D A 30 031 G F A A L H A A W L Q H A L L I F P G Q H L S N D Q Q I T F 60 061 A K R F G A I E R I G G G D I V A I S N V K A D G T V R Q H 90 091 S P A E W D D M M K V I V G N M A W H A D S T Y M P V M A Q 120 121 G A V F S A E V V P A V G G R T C F A D M R A A Y D A L D E 150 151 A T R A L V H Q R S A R H S L V Y S Q S K L G H V Q Q A G S 180 181 A Y I G Y G M D T T A T P L R P L V K V H P E T G R P S L L 210 211 I G R H A H A I P G M D A A E S E R F L E G L V D W A C Q A 240 241 P R V H A H Q W A A G D V V V W D N R C L L H R A E P W D F 270 271 K L P R V M W H S R L A G R P E T E G A A L V

- Trypsin

- Asp N Total number of amino acids covered: 215* Total number of amino acids in protein: 293 Combined sequence coverage: 73.4% *The N - terminal methionine was missingUSDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 151 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### Figure 55 . S equence coverage in the peptide mapping analysis of microbe - derived AAD - 12 protein with MALDI - TOF and ESI/LC MS . Note: The numbers on the left and right sides of the protein sequence indicate the amino acid residue numbers. Letters highlighted in gray represent tryptic peptide sequence detected by MALDI- TOF MS and ESI- LC/MS. Letters in boxes indicates sequence coverage detected with Arg - C digestion. Underlined letters indicates sequence coverage detected with Asp - N, chymotrypsin and Glu - C digestions. The overall sequence coverage was 99.7%. The down arrow indicates the N - terminal methionine was removed by an aminopeptidas e.

Total number of amino acids covered: 292* Total number of amino acids in protein: 293 Combined sequence coverage: 99.7% *The N - terminal methionine was missing 

### Total number of amino acids covered: 292* Total number of amino acids in protein: 293 Combined sequence coverage: 99.7% *The N - terminal methionine was missingUSDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 152 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### Table 35 . Summary of N - terminal sequence data of AAD - 12 soybean - and microbe - derived

proteins . Source Expected N - terminal Sequence 1 

### P. fluorescens M 1 A Q T T L Q I T P T G A T L G A T V T G V H L A T L D 27 

### Soybean Event M 1 A Q T T L Q I T P T G A T L G A T V T G V H L A T L D 27 

### DAS - 68416 - 4 Source Detected N - terminal Sequence2 

### P. fluorescens A 2 Q T T L Q I T P T G A T L G A T V T G V H L A T L D 27 

### Soybean Event N - AcA 2 Q T T L Q I T P T G A T L G A T V T G V H L A T L D 27 

### DAS - 68416 - 4 3

1 

### Expected N - terminal sequence of the first 27 amino acid residues of P. fluorescens - and soybean - derived AAD - 12. 2

### Detected N - terminal sequences of P. fluorescens - and soybean - derived AAD - 12. 3

### The MALDI- TOF MS data for the N - terminal peptide revealed that the soybean - derived AAD 12 protein was acetylated (N - Acetyl- A Q T T L Q I T P T G A T L G A T V T G V H L A T L D). Notes : Numbers in superscript (Rx

### ) indicate amino acid residue numbers in the sequence. Amino acid residue abbreviations: A: alanine D: Aspartate G: glycine H: histidine I: isoleucine L: leucine M: methionine P: proline Q: glutamine T: threonine V: valineUSDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 153 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### Table 36 . Summary of C - terminal sequence data of AAD - 12 soybean - and microbe - derived proteins . Source Expected C - terminal Sequence 1 

### P. fluorescens 281 

### L A G R P E T E G A A L V 293 

### Soybean Event DAS - 68416 - 4 281 

### L A G R P E T E G A A L V 293



### Source Detected C - terminal Sequence2 

### P. fluorescens 281 

### L A G R P E T E G A A L V 293 

### Soybean Event 281 

### L A G R P E T E G A A L V 293 

### DAS - 68416 - 4

1 

### Expected C - terminal sequence of the last 13 amino acid residues of P. fluorescens - and soybean - derived AAD - 12. 2

### Detected C - terminal s equences of P. fluorescens - and soybean - derived AAD - 12 . Notes : Numbers in superscript (Rx

### ) indicate amino acid residue numbers in the sequence. Amino acid residue abbreviations: A: alanine E: glutamate G: glycine L: leucine P: proline R: arginine T: threonine V: valineUSDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 154 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### 2.12. Conclusions The biochemical identity of microbe - derived AAD - 12 protein was equivalent to the protein purified from leaf tissue of event DAS - 68416 - 4. The plant- and microbe - derived AAD - 12 proteins showed the expected molecular weight of ~32 kDa by SDS - PAGE and were immunoreactive to AAD - 12 protein specific antibodies by western blot analysis. The amino acid sequence of both proteins was confirmed by enzymatic peptide mass fingerprinting by MALDITOF MS and ESI- LC/MS. In addition, the lack of glycosylation of the plant- derived AAD - 12 protein provided additional evidence that the AAD - 12 protein produced by P. fluorescens and DAS - 68416 - 4 soybean are biochemically equivalent. 2.13. References Holroyde, M. J., Chesher, J. M. E., Trayer, I. P., and Walker, D. G. ( 1976 ) Studies on the Use of Sepharose

–

N - (6 - Aminohexanoyl) - 2 - Amino - 2 - Deoxy- D 

### - Glucopyranose for the Large - Scale Purification of Hepatic Glucokinase. Journal of Biochemistry 153 : 351 - 361. Kennedy J. F. and Barnes J. A . ( 1983 ) Immunochemic al studies of the non - specific interactions of cyanogen bromide - activated macroporous agarose -based immunoadsorbents. J ournal of Chromatography 281, 83 - 93. Polevoda, B. and Sherman, F. ( 2000 ) N  

### - terminal Acetylation of Eukaryotic Proteins. Journal of Biological Chemistry 275:36479

–36482 . Polevoda, B. and Sherman, F. (2002) The Diversity of Acetylated Proteins . Genome Biology 3 :0006.1

–0006 .6. Williams, A. J. K., Norcross, A. J., Chandler, K. A. and Bingley, P. J. ( 2006 ) Non - specific binding to protein A Sepharose and protein G Sepharose in insulin autoantibody assays may be reduced by pre - treatment with glycine or ethanolamine. Journal of Immunological Methods 314, 170

– 173 .USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 155 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information



### Appendix 3. Methods and Results for Characterization of PAT Protein 3.1. DAS- 68416-4 Transgenic Soybean Material Greenhouse - grown DAS - 68416 - 4 T5 plants were used as the plant source of the PAT protein. Prior to use, individual plants were leaf tested to confirm expression of the PAT protein using a rapid lateral flow test strip according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Leaves (and some stems) from PAT expressing plants were harvested, lyophilized , ground to a fine powder, and stored frozen until needed. 3.2. Control Soybean Material Control soybean line Maverick had a genetic background representative of the DAS - 68416 - 4 soybean plants , but did not contain the pat gene. Absence of PAT expression in the control plants was confirmed by immunoassay using a PAT specific rapid lateral flow tes t strip. Leaves (and some stems) of control plants were harvested, lyophilized, ground and stored under the same conditions as the DAS - 68416 - 4 soybean. 3.3. Reference Material Recombinant PAT microbial protein was produced in Pseudomonas fluorescens (Pf ) and purified to homogeneity. The microbe - derived PAT protein preparation was aliquoted and stored at - 80 oC to maintain activity. 3.4. SDS-PAGE and Western Blot Analysis of Crude Extracts Lyophilized leaf tissue from event DAS - 68416 - 4 and Maverick was mixed with PB ST buffer containing ~2.0% protease inhibitor cocktail (Sigma) and the protein was extracted by grinding with ball bearings in a Geno - Grinder. The samples were centrifuged and the supernatants were mixed with Laemmli sample buffer, heated and briefly centrifuged. The samples were loaded directly on to a Bio - Rad Criterion SDS - PAGE gel. The positive reference standard, microbe derived PAT, was also mixed with sample buffer and loaded on to the gel. Electrophoresis was conducted with Tris/glycine/SDS buffer (Bio - Rad). Following electrophoresis, the gel was cut in half, with one half stained with Pierce GelCode Blue protein stain and the other gel half was electro -blotted onto a nitrocellulose membrane. The nitrocellulose membrane was then cut in half with one probed with a PAT specific polyclonal rabbit antibody and the remaining half probed with a PAT specific monoclonal antibody. A chemiluminescent substrate was used to visualize the immunoreactive bands. 3.5. Results of the SDS-PAGE and Western Blot Analysis The soybean - derived PAT protein was visualized by immunospecific polyclonal and monoclonal antibodies and showed the expected band at approximately 21 kDa (Figure 56 , Panel B and C). In the PAT western blot analysis, no immunoreactive proteins were observed in the control Maverick extract and no alternate size proteins (aggregates or degradation products) were seen in the transgenic soybean extract. This result adds to the evidence that the protein expressed in soybean is not post- translationally modified which would have added to the overall protein molecular weight.USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 156 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### Figure 56 . SDS - PAGE and western blots of DAS - 68416 - 4 and non - transgenic Maverick

soybean . Note: Crude extracts from lyophilized leaf tissue of event DAS - 68416 - 4 and Maverick were separated by SDS - PAGE along with microbe - derived PAT and bovine serum albumin. Following electrophoresis the gel was cut in half, one half was stained with Pierce GelCode Blue stain for total protein and the remaining half was electro -blotted onto a nitrocellulose membrane. The nitrocellulose membrane was then probed with PAT specific polyclonal and monoclonal antibodies and detected with HRP - labeled antibodies. A chemiluminescent substrate w as used to visualize the immunoreactive bands

Lane Sample Amount M Invitrogen Mark12 molecular weight markers 10 L 1 Non -transgenic (Maverick) soybean extract 40 L 2 Transgenic (Event DAS - 68416 -4) soybean extract 40 L 3 Microbe - derived PAT protein (TSN105742) 750 ng gel, 35 ng blot 4 Bovine serum albumin (BSA) 780 ng gel P Novex Sharp prestained molecular weight markers 10 L 

### 3.6. Conclusions The PAT protein produced in DAS - 68416 - 4 soybean was shown to be equivalent to that produced in other transgenic crops (USDA 1996, USDA 2001, USDA 2004, USDA 200 5 ). 3.7. References USDA (1996) Availability of Determination of Nonregulatated status for Soybeans Genetically Engineered for Glufosinate Herbicide Tolerance. Federal Register Volume 61, Number 160:42581 - 42582. kDa

- 260 -

- 110 - - 160 -

- 60 - - 80 -

- 50 -

- 40 -

- 30 -

- 20 -

- 15 -

- 10 -

- 3.5 - kDa 200 - 97.4 - 116.3 - 55.4 - 66.3 - 36.5 - 31.0 - 21.5 - 14.4 - 6.0 - 3.5 - 2.5 - kDa

- 260

- 110 - 160

- 60 - 80

- 50

- 40

- 30

- 20

- 15

- 10

- 3.5 M 1 2 3 4 P P 1 2 3 P 1 2 3 P

Panel A: SDS - PAGE Panel B: Polyclonal Panel C: Monoclonal antibody western blot antibody western blot PAT dimer PAT monomer kDa

- 260 -

- 110 - - 160 -

- 60 - - 80 -

- 50 -

- 40 -

- 30 -

- 20 -

- 15 -

- 10 -

- 3.5 - kDa 200 - 97.4 - 116.3 - 55.4 - 66.3 - 36.5 - 31.0 - 21.5 - 14.4 - 6.0 - 3.5 - 2.5 - kDa

- 260

- 110 - 160

- 60 - 80

- 50

- 40

- 30

- 20

- 15

- 10

- 3.5 M 1 2 3 4 P P 1 2 3 P 1 2 3 P

Panel A: SDS - PAGE Panel B: Polyclonal Panel C: Monoclonal antibody western blot antibody western blot kDa

- 260 -

- 110 - - 160 -

- 60 - - 80 -

- 50 -

- 40 -

- 30 -

- 20 -

- 15 -

- 10 -

- 3.5 - kDa 200 - 97.4 - 116.3 - 55.4 - 66.3 - 36.5 - 31.0 - 21.5 - 14.4 - 6.0 - 3.5 - 2.5 - kDa

- 260

- 110 - 160

- 60 - 80

- 50

- 40

- 30

- 20

- 15

- 10

- 3.5 M 1 2 3 4 P P 1 2 3 P 1 2 3 P

Panel A: SDS - PAGE Panel B: Polyclonal Panel C: Monoclonal antibody western blot antibody western blot PAT dimer PAT monomerUSDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 157 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### USDA (2001) Availability of Determination of Non -regulatated status for Genetically Engineered Corn for Insect Resistance and Glufosinate Herbicide Tolerance (Corn line 1507). Federal Register Volume 66, Number 157:42624 - 42625. USDA (2004) Availability of Determination of Nonregulated Statusfor Cotton Lines Genetically Engineered for Insect Resistance. Federal Register Volume 69, Number 156:50154 - 50155. USDA (2005) Availability of Determination of Non -regulated Status for Genetically Engineered Corn (Corn line DAS - 59122 - 7). Federal Register Volume 70, Number 194:58663 - 58664.USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 158 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information



### Appendix 4. Methods for AAD - 12 and PAT Protein Expression Analysis 4.1. Experimental Design The experimental design included six (6) field sites; Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Nebraska and Ontario, Canada (2 sites) (referred to as IA, IL, IN, NE, ON1 and ON2). Each site consisted of one plot of each treatment p er block, with 3 blocks per location. Plot size was 2 rows by 25 feet. Plots were arranged in a randomized complete block (RCB) design, with a unique randomization at each site. Each soybean plot was bordered by 2 rows of a non - transgenic soybean of similar maturity. The entire trial site was surrounded by a minimum of 20 feet of a non -regulated soybean of similar relative maturity. At each location, all blocks were used for collection of samples for expression and nutrient composition analysis. Herbi cide treatments were designed to replicate maximum label rate commercial practices. 2,4 - D (Weedar 64) was applied as 3 broadcast over- the - top applications (seasonal total of 3 lb ae/A). Individual applications were at pre - emergence and approximately V4 and R2 stages. Individual target application rates were 1.0 lb ae/A for Weedar 64 ( 1120 g ae/ha) . Glufosinate (Liberty) was applied as 2 broadcast over- the - top application. Application timing was at approximately V6 and R1 growth stages. The target application rate was 0.33 lb ai/A and 0.41 lb ai/A (374 and 454 g ai/ha). 4.2. Sample Collection Samples were shipped to Dow AgroSciences Regulatory Science and Government Affairs laboratories and maintained frozen until use. Samples of soybean tissues were prep ared for expression analysis by coarse grinding, lyophilizing and/or fine - grinding with a Geno/Grinder (Certiprep, Metuchen, New Jersey). Leaf (V5 and V10) One leaf sample per plot, each sample containing 8 trifoliate set of leaves collected from separate plants, were collected for each test and control entry. Each leaf sample was the youngest set of fully expanded trifoliate leaves. Root (R3) One root sample (representing 3 plants) per plot were collected for each test and control entry at the R3 stage by cutting a circle around the base of the plant. The root ball was removed and cleaned. Forage (R3) One forage sample (representing 3 plants) per plot each consisting of the aerial portion (no roots) of 3 whole plants were collected from each test and control entry. Grain (R8

– Maturity)USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 159 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### One individual sample was collected from each plot of each test and control entry. Each sample contained approximately 500 - gram of grain. 4.3. Determination of AAD - 12 Protein Concentration The AAD - 12 protein was extracted from soybean tissues except grain with a phosphate buffered saline solution with Tween - 20 (PBST) and 0.75% ovalbumin (OVA). For grain, the protein was extracted with a PBST buffer containing 0.1% Triton - 100. The plant tissue and grain extracts were centrifuged; the aqueous supernatant was collected, diluted with appropriate buffer if necessary, and analyzed using an AAD - 12 ELISA kit in a sandwich format. Briefly, an aliquot of the diluted sample and a horseradish peroxidase (HRP)/anti - AAD - 12 monoclonal antibody conjugate are incubated in the wells of a microtiter plate coated with an immobilized anti AAD - 12 polyclonal antibody. These antibodies bind with AAD - 12 protein in the wells and form a "sandwich" with AAD - 12 protein bound between soluble and the immobilized antibodies. The unbound samples and conjugate are then removed from the plate by washing with PBST. Subsequent addition of an enzyme substrate generated a colored product. The reaction was stopped by adding a dilute acid solution. Since the AAD - 12 was bound in the antibody sandwich, the level of color development was related to the concentration of AAD - 12 in the sample (i.e., lower protein concentrations result in lower color development). The absorbance at 450 nm minus 650 nm was measured using a Molecular Devices Spectra Max 190 or Spectra Max M2 plate reader. A calibration curve was generated and the AAD - 12 concentration in unknown samples was calculated from the polynomial regression equation using Soft- MAX ProTM software which was compatible with the plate reader. Samples were analyzed in duplicate wells with the average concentration of the duplicate wells being reported. 4.4. Determination of PAT Protein in Soybean Tissue Samples The PAT protein was extracted from soybean tissues with a phosphate buffered saline solution with Tween - 20 (PBST) and 1% polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP) . The extract was centrifuged; the aqueous supernatant was collected, diluted with PBST/1% PVP, and analyzed using a PAT ELISA kit. Briefly, an aliquot of the diluted sample was incubated with enzyme - conjugated anti PAT antibody and anti - PAT antibodies coated in the wells of a 96 - well plate in a sandwich ELISA format. At the end of the incubation period, the unbound reagents were removed from the plate by washing. Sub sequent addition of an enzyme substrate generated a colored product. The reaction was stopped by adding a dilute acid solution. Since the PAT was bound in the antibody sandwich, the level of color development was related to the concentration of PAT in the sample (i.e., lower residue concentrations result in lower color development). The absorbance at 450 minus 650 nm was measured using a Molecular Devices Spectra Max 190 or Spectra max M2 plate reader. A calibration curve was generated and the PAT concentration in unknown samples was calculated from the polynomial regression equation using Soft- MAX ProTM software which was compatible with the plate reader. Samples were analyzed in duplicate wells with the average concentration of the duplicate wells being reported.USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 160 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information



### Appendix 5. USDA Notifications for DAS - 68416 - 4 Soybean USDA Notification Number Notification

Authorization Date Notification

Expiration Date State(s) Total Number of Trials Planted 1 Status of

Trial 2 09 - 259 - 105n 9/25/2009 9/25/2010 PR TBD Pending 09 - 0 86 - 101n 5/30/2009 5/30/2010 IL, IN, IA, MN, MO, NE, WI 10 Pending 09 - 084 - 110n 4/15/2009 4/15/2010 AL, AR, CA, GA, IL, IN, IA, MI, MN, MO, MS, NE, OH 45 Pending 09 - 075 - 105n 4/15/2009 4/15/2010 HI, IN, IA, PR 0 Pending 09 - 068 - 101n 4/13/2009 4/13/2010 AR, IL, IN, IA, MD, MI, MO, ND, NE, OH, PR, WI 77 Pending 09 - 061 - 104n 4/6/2009 4/6/2010 AR, IL, IN, IA, MN, MS, NY, OH, TN 29 Pending 09 - 005 - 108n 1/1/2009 1/1/2010 HI 2 Pending 08 - 323 - 102n 12/3/2008 12/3/2009 PR 0 Pending 08 - 254 - 110n 9/26/2008 9/26/200 9 PR 10 Pending 08 - 170 - 103n 6/26/2008 6/26/2009 MO 1 Pending 08 - 137 - 103n 6/5/2008 6/5/2009 MD 1 Pending 08 - 121 - 103n 5/14/2008 5/14/2009 IA 1 Submitted 08 - 121 - 102n 5/15/2008 5/15/2009 IL, IN, MO, NE, OH 11 Submitted 08 - 071 - 107n 4/14/2008 4/14/2009 CA, IL, IN, IA, MN, MN, NE 22 Submitted 07 - 242 - 107n 9/30/2007 9/30/2008 PR 4 Submitted 06 - 292 - 105n 12/1/2006 12/1/2007 IN 2 Submitted 1 Trials not yet planted as of October 15 , 2009 are indicated as TBD (to be determined) . 2Pending reports as of December 1 , 2009 to be submitted within 6 months of the notification expiration date .USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 161 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information



### Appendix 6. Literature Ranges for Compositional Analysis Literature ranges for compositional analysis of soybean grain and forage are from ILSI (International Life Sciences Institute) (2006) ILSI Crop Composition Database. Version 3.0 (http://www.cropcomposition.org/) OECD (2001) Consensus Document on Compositional Considerations for New Varieties of Soybean: Key Food and Fee Nutrients and Anti - Nutri ents. Table 37 . Summary of literature values for p roximates in s oybean f orage . Tissue/Component OECD ILSI Proximate (% DW) Moisture (% FW) NA 73.5 - 81.6 Protein 11.2 - 17.3 14.38 - 24.71 Total Fat 3.1 - 5.1 1.302 - 5.132 Ash 8.8 - 10.5 6.718 - 10.782 Carbohydrates (calculated) NA 59.8 -74.7 Fiber (% DW) Neutral Detergent Fiber (%) 34 -40 NA Acid Detergent Fiber (%) 32 - 38 NA Minerals (% DW) Calcium NA NA Phosphorus NA NA NA

– Literature Values Not Available 

### FW=Fresh Weight; DW=Dry Weight Table 38 . Summary of literature values for p roximates in s oybean grain .

NA

– Literature Values Not Available FW=Fresh Weight; DW=Dry Weight Tissue/Component OECD ILSI Proximate (% DW) Moisture (% FW) NA 4.7 - 34.4 Protein 32 -43.6 33.19 -45.48 Total Fat 15.5 - 24.7 8.1 - 23.56 Ash 4.5 - 6.4 3.89 - 6.99 Carbohydrates (calculated) 31.7 - 31.8 29.6 - 50.2 Cholesterol NA NA Fiber (% DW) Neutral Detergent Fiber 10.0 - 14.9 8.53 - 21.25 Acid Detergent Fiber 9 - 11.1 7.81 - 18.61 Total Dietary Fiber NA NAUSDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 162 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### Table 39 . Summary of literature values for amino acids in s oybean grain . Amino Acids OECD (% DW) ILSI

(% DW) Aspartic Acid NA 3.81 - 5.12 Threonine 1.4 - 1.89 1.14 - 1.86 Serine NA 1.11 - 2.48 Glutamic Acid NA 5.84 - 8.20 Proline NA 1.69 - 2.28 Glycine NA 1.46 - 2.00 Alanine NA 1.51 - 2.10 Cysteine 0.45 - 0.67 0.370 - 0.808 Valine 1.5 - 2.44 1.60 - 2.20 Methionine 0.5 - 0.67 0.431 - 0.681 Isoleucine 1.76 - 1.98 1.54 - 2.08 Leucine 2.2 -4.0 2.59 - 3.62 Tyrosine NA 1.02 - 1.61 Phenylalanine 1.6 - 2.08 1.63 - 2.35 Lysine 2.5 - 2.66 2.29 - 2.84 Histidine 1.0 - 1.22 0.88 - 1.18 Arginine 2.45 - 3.1 2.29 - 3.40 Tryptophan 0.51 - 0.67 0.356 - 0.502 NA

– Literature Values Not Available DW=Dry Weight 

### Table 40 . Summary of literature values for isoflavones in s oybean grain . Isoflavones ( μg/g) OECD ILSI Daidzein NA 60 - 2453.5 Glycitein NA 15.3 - 310.4 Genistein NA 144.3 - 2837.2 Daidzin NA NA Glycitin NA NA Genistin NA NA NA

– Literature Values Not AvailableUSDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 163 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### Table 41 . Summary of literature values for f atty acids in s oybean grain. Fatty Acids ILSI (% Total FA) 8:0 Caprylic 0.148 10:0 Capric NA 12:0 Lauric 0.082 - 0.132 14:0 Myristic 0.071 - 0.238 14:1 Myristoleic 0.121 - 0.125 15:0 Pentadecanoic NA 15:1 Pentadecenoic NA 16:0 Palmitic 9.55 - 15.77 16:1 Palmitoleic 0.086 - 0.194 17:0 Heptadecanoic 0.085 - 0.146 17:1 Heptadecenoic 0.073 - 0.087 18:0 Stearic 2.70 - 5.88 18:1 Oleic 14.3 - 32.2 18:2 Linoleic 42.3 - 58.8 18:3 γ -Linolenic NA 18:3 Linolenic 3.00 - 12.52 20:0 Arachidic 0.163 - 0.482 20:1 Eicosenoic 0.140 - 0.350 20:2 Eicosadienoic 0.077 - 0.245 20:4 Arachidonic NA 20:3 Eicosatrienoic NA 22:0 Behenic 0.277 - 0.595 NA

– Literature Values Not Available FA

– Fatty Acids 

### Table 42 . Summary of literature values for vitamins in soybean grain. Vitamins (mg/kg) ILSI Thiamine Hydrochloride 1.01 - 2.54 Riboflavin/Vitamin B2 1.90 - 3.21 Niacin/Vitamin B3 NA Pyridoxine HCl NA Folic Acid 2.39 -4.71 Pantothenic acid NA Vitamin B12 NA Vitamin D NA Vitamin C NA Vitamin A NA NA

– Literature Values Not AvailableUSDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 164 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### Table 43 . Summary of literature values for minerals in soybean grain. Minerals (mg/100g) ILSI Calcium 116.55 - 307.1 C opper NA Iron 5.54 - 10.95 Magnesium 219.4 - 312.8 Manganese NA Phosphorus 506.7 - 935.2 Potassium 1868.01 - 2316.14 Sodium NA Zinc NA Iodine NA Minerals (ppb) Chromium NA Selenium NA Molybdenum NA NA

– Literature Values Not Available 

### Table 44 . Summary of literature values for anti - nutrients in soybean grain. Anti - Nutrients OECD ILSI Phytic Acid (% DW) 1.0 - 2.74 0.63 - 1.960 Raffinose (% DW) NA 0.212 - 0.661 Stachyose (% DW) NA 1.21 - 3.50 Lectin (H.U./mg) * NA 0.105 - 9.038 Trypsin Inhibitor (TIU/mg) ** NA 19.59 - 118.68 NA

– Literature Values Not Available *H.U. - Hemagglutinating Unit **TIU - Trypsin Inhibitor Unit DW

– dry weight 

### Table 45 . Summary of literature values for tocopherols in soybean grain. OECD ILSI Alpha Tocopherol NA 1.9 - 61.7 Beta Tocopherol NA NA Gamma Tocopherol NA NA Delta Tocopherol NA NA NA

– Literature Values Not AvailableUSDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 165 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### Appendix 7. Glyphosate, 2,4 - D, Glufosinate and Herbicide Resistant Weeds 7.1. Herbicide Tolerant Crops Soon after the first weeds evolved resistance to herbicides, scientists began to consider altering crops to make them resistant to herbicides (Duke, 2005). Initially, non - transgenic methods were used until the early 1980s when the tools for producing transgenic crops were becoming available. The first transgenic herbicide -resistant crops included bromoxynil resistant cotton and canola. However, transgenic crops with resistance to broad- spectrum, non - selective herbicides were perceived as a better approach for weed management and for capturing market share. This was soon realized with development of glyphosate - and glufosinate - tolerant crops. Since these transgenic crops would tolerate the application of those broad spectrum herbicides, they could survive and prosper while reducing the amount and number of applications of herbicides by the growers. Herbicide - tolerance (often called resistance) in plants employs one of two strategies (or a combination) to make the plant tolerant to the applied herbicide:  the plant produces a new protein which detoxifies the herbicide, or  the protein in the plant which is normally the target of the herbicide’s action is replaced by a new protein which is unaffected by the herbicide. Herbicide - tolerant crops which were available to f armers in 2005 are listed in Table 46 (Duke, 2005). Transgenes were only used to confer tolerance to bromoxynil, glufosinate, and glyphosate. The bromoxynil - tolerant crops are no longer sold. This leaves only glyphosate - and glufosinate - tolerant transgenic crops, and of those, glyphosate has had a strongest impact on weed management (Duke, 2005). Table 46 . Herbicide - tolerant crops available to farmers in North America in 2005.

Herbicide Crop Year Available Bromoxynil Cottonb 1995 Canolab 2000 Cyclohexanediones (sethoxydim) ab Corn 1996 Glufosinate Canola 1995 Corn 1997 Cotton 2004 Glyphosate Soybean 1996 Canola 1996 Cotton 1997 Corn 1998 Imidazolinones a Corn 1993 Canola 1997 Wheat 200 2 Rice 2002 Sulfonylureas a Soybean 1994 Triazines a Canola 1984 aNot transgenic, bNo longer available by 2005USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 166 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### Growers choose glyphosate - tolerant crops because it makes weed control easier and more effective, increases profit, requires less tillage, and does not restrict crop rotations (Green, 2009). Thus, glyphosate - tolerant corn, soybeans, and cotton have experienced an unprecedented rapid adoption rate by U.S. farmers (Figure 57 . U.S. adoption rates of glyphosate - tolerant soybean, cotton and corn. ). The planting of glyphosate - tolerant crops has increased steadily since their introduction in 1996 (glyphosate - tolerant soybean plantings are currently >90% of all soybean planting in the US). Figure 57 . U.S. adoption rates of glyphosate - tolerant soybean, cotton and corn.

Many growers now rely only on glyphosate for their weed control in these crops (Foresman and Glasgow, 2008; Gustafson, 2008). This has significantly increased selection pressure for gl yphosate -resistant weeds. Thus, introduction of combined event products (“stacks”) which are tolerant to glyphosate plus at least one other class of herbicides is needed as a tool to delay selection for glyphosate -resistant weed species. 7.2. Characteristics o

f Glyphosate, 2,4 -D, and Glufosinate Herbicides Glyphosate Glyphosate is a nonselective, foliar applied herbicide which is registered for use on over one hundred food and feed crops, several non - food field crops (fallow, fencerows, woody ornamentals, golf courses, etc.), forestry uses (conifer release and reforestation), and non - crop areas where total vegetation control is desired (aquatics, rights of way, industrial sites, etc.) (US EPA, 1993). When applied at lower rates, glyphosate also is a plant growth regulator. Pre -plant or pre - emergence uses of glyphosate in food and feed crops include most of the major agricultural crops around the globe, including alfalfa, barley, buckwheat, corn, dry beans, grass forage/fodder/hay, lentils, millet, oats, pasture s, rye, sorghum, soybeans, and wheat. In addition,

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008%ofAcres

RR Soybean RR Cotton RR Corn Source: DMRKynetec Estimate for 1997 CottonUSDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 1 67 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### it can be foliar applied over- the - top of recent glyphosate - tolerant transgenic crops, including corn, soybeans, cotton, canola, and sugarbeets. Glyphosate is absorbed relatively rapidly through plant surf aces (Duke and Powles, 2008a). Leaf uptake rates vary considerably between species, accounting for at least some of the difference in glyphosate susceptibility between species. Once in the plant, glyphosate moves in the phloem with sugar to the growing p oints. Foliar post- emergence applications of glyphosate at 560 to 1120 g acid equivalent/hectare (ae/ha) control a broad spectrum of grass, broadleaf, and sedge weeds in agronomic crops. The mode of action for glyphosate is unique in that it is the only herbicide that is highly effective at inhibiting an essential plant enzyme called EPSPS (5 - enolpyruvylshikimate - 3 -phosphate synthase), which produces EPSP from shikimate - 3 -phosphate and phosphoenolpyruvate in the shikimic acid pathway (Vencill, 2002). Many assume that this EPSPS inhibition leads to depletion of the aromatic amino acids tryptophan, tyrosine, and phenylalanine (Duke and Powles, 2008a). However, others support the view that increased carbon flow to the shikimate pathway by deregulation of the pathway by inhibiting EPSPS results in shortages of carbon for other essential pathways (Siehl, 1997). The EPSPS of all higher plants appears to be inhibited by glyphosate (Duke and Powles, 2008a), which makes it nonselective with activity on a wide range of plant species. In general, glyphosate is an environmentally benign molecule (Franz et al ., 1997). It is degraded microbially in soil and water. Glyphosate binds tightly to most types of soil, so it is not available for uptake by roots of nearby pl ants (Monsanto, 2005). Therefore, even though glyphosate has a typical field half life of 47 days, crops can be planted immediately after application due to its strong adsorption to soil. Glyphosate is not appreciably metabolized in plants when applied at normal use rates for weed control. It is slowly metabolized to amino methylphosphonic acid (AMPA) (FAO, 1997; Vencill, 2002). Glyphosate is also one of the least toxic pesticides to animals (Duke and Powles, 2008a). The enzyme, EPSP synthase, is not present in humans or animals, which contributes to the low risk to human health when glyphosate is used according to label directions (Monsanto, 2005). 2,4 - Dichlorophenoxyacetic Acid (2,4 - D) 2,4 - Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4 - D) was introduced in 1946 as the first selective herbicide and rapidly became the most widely used herbicide in the world (Industry Task Force II, 2005). Today, it is still the third most widely used herbicide in the U.S. and Canada, as well as the most widely used herbicide globally. Approximately 46 million pounds of 2,4 - D is used domestically in the U.S. annually, with 30 million pounds (66%) used by agriculture and 16 million pounds (34%) used in non - agriculture settings such as pasture/rangeland and lawn/garden (US EPA, 2006). 2,4 - D is an ingredient in approximately 660 agricultural and home use products as a sole active ingredient and in conjunction with other active ingredients. Agriculturally, it is used on a variety of crops including corn, rice, sorghum, sugar cane, wheat , rangeland and pasture as well as being used on rights - of - way, roadsides, non - crop areas, forestry, lawn and turf care and on aquatic weeds (Industry Task Force II, 2005). A major use today of 2,4 - D is in combination with other herbicides because it economically enhances the weed control spectrum of many other herbicides such as glyphosate, dicamba, mecoprop, ALS herbicides, etc (US EPA, 2006). 2,4 - DUSDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 168 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### controls many broadleaf weeds including carpetweed, dandelion, cocklebur, horseweed, morning glory, pigweed sp., lambsquarters, ragweed spp., shepherd’s -purse and velvetleaf. It has little to no activity on grasses (Industry Task Force II, 2005). In over 60 years since its discovery, probably few other compounds have been as thoroughly and extensively evaluated for health and safety as 2,4 - D. There have been more than 40,000 research studies conducted and more than 140 peer- reviewed published epidemiologic studies specific to 2,4 - D. In August, 2005, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) completed its reregistration assessment of 2,4 - D. The EPA concluded that 2,4 - D does not present risks of concern to human health when users follow its product instructions (US EPA, 2006). 2,4 - D data has been reviewed by more than a dozen government and expert panel s since 1986 and not one regulatory agency has ever identified 2,4 - D as a human carcinogen. The mode of action of 2,4 - D is described as an “auxin mimic”, meaning that it kills the target weed by mimicking auxin plant growth hormones like IAA. Auxins and s ynthetic auxinic herbicides all regulate virtually every aspect of plant growth and development (Mockaitis and Estelle, 2008). At low doses, auxinic herbicides possess similar hormonal properties to natural auxin (Kelley and Riechers, 2007). However, as rates increase, they can cause various growth abnormalities in sensitive dicots. Observable plant responses to 2,4 - D can include epinasty, root growth inhibition, meristematic proliferation/callusing, leaf cupping/narrowing, stem cracking, adventitious ro ot formation, senescence, and chlorosis. This uncontrolled and disorganized plant growth eventually leads to plant death when applied at effective doses (Tu et. al ., 2001). IAA and auxin herbicides work through stimulation of the ubiquination and degradation of the Aux/IAA family of transcriptional regulators. Degradation of these Aux/IAA proteins results in derepression of auxin -regulated genes that in turn leads to the physiological and morphological events associated with auxin action (Mockaitis and Es telle, 2008; Walsh et al ., 2006; Kelley and Riechers, 2007). Stated another way, high concentrations of IAA or auxin herbicides (like 2,4 - D) promote ubiquitin mediated degradation of Aux/IAA protein repressors, which permits auxin response factor (ARF) dependent transcription of auxin -regulated genes. This results in “uncontrolled” growth which leads to plant death in susceptible species. In the environment, 2,4 - D is mainly degraded by soil microorganisms. Once it contacts soils, all 2,4 - D forms are rapi dly converted to the acid form and thus, the rate of soil dissipation is often the same as for the acid (Tu et al ., 2001). 2,4 - D has a relatively short soil half - life and no significant carryover effects to subsequent crops are encountered, adding to 2,4 - D’s herbicidal utility. 2,4 - D has different levels of selectivity on certain plants, i.e., dicots are more sensitive than monocots. Differential metabolism of 2,4 - D by different plants is one explanation for varying levels of selectivity. In general, pl ants metabolize 2,4 - D slowly, so varying plant response to 2,4 - D may be more likely explained by different activity at the target site(s). Plant metabolism of 2,4 - D typically occurs via a two -phase mechanism of hydroxylation followed by conjugation with amino acids or glucose (Vencill, 2002). Glufosinate Glufosinate was first reported as a herbicide in 1981 (Vencill, 2002). Glufosinate (phosphinothricin; DL- homoalanin - 4 - yl(methyl)phosphinic acid) is a racemic phosphinic aminoUSDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 169 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### acid (Vencill, 2002). Its ammonium salt (glufosinate - ammonium) is widely used as a non selective herbicide and is the active ingredient of the commercial herbicide formulations, Liberty and Ignite. The L- isomer of glufosinate is a structural analogue of glutamate and, therefore, is a competitive inhibitor of the enzyme glutamine synthetase (GS) of bacteria and plants. The D - isomer is not a GS inhibitor and is not herbicidally active. Due to the inhibition of GS, non - tolerant plant cells accumulate large amounts of toxic ammonia produced by nitrate assimilation and photorespiration and the level of available glutamine drops (OECD, 2002). Damage of cell membranes and inhibition of photosynthesis are followed by plant cell death. In genetically modified glufosinate - tolerant plants (OEC D, 2002), the L- isomer of glufosinate is rapidly metabolized by the action of the enzyme phosphinothricin acetyltransferase (PAT) into the non -phytotoxic stable metabolite N - acetyl - L- glufosinate (2 - acetamido - 4 - methylphosphinico butanoic acid). N - acetyl - L- glufosinate does not inhibit glutamine synthetase. Therefore, no phytotoxic physiological effects are observed in genetically modified glufosinate - tolerant plants. Glufosinate is a contact herbicide which is taken up by the plant primarily through the leaves. There is no uptake from the soil through the roots, presumably because of the rapid degradation of glufosinate by soil microorganisms. There is limited translocation of glufosinate within the plant. Glufosinate is a nonselective herbicide (Vencill, 2002). It controls a broad spectrum of annual and perennial grasses and broadleaf weeds. Due to its limited systemic action, there is no enduring effect on perennial weeds. Weeds which emerge after herbicide application are not affected. Glufosinate is rapidly broken down in soil due to microbial degradation (Vencill, 2002). At 20°C, the soil half life is less than 7 days. The end products of microbial degradation are CO 2 

### and natural phosphorus compounds. 7.3. Evolution of Resistance to Glyphosate, 2,4 -D, and Glufosinate Glyphosate Resistance and Weed Shifts Glyphosate Resistance It was initially thought that evolution of glyphosate -resistant weeds would be very slow, and the levels of resistance would be very low (Bradshaw et al ., 1997). This was based on the amount of glyphosate applied over many years, the repeated applications made to many perennial crops, the high level of herbicidal activity that it had demonstrated, and the uniqueness of its metabolic activity in the plant. More than twenty years after the launch of glyphosate, rigid ryegrass in Australia was reported as the first glyphosate -resistant weed in 1996 (Powles et al ., 1998). About the same time, sales of glyphosate began to increase dramatically in the U.S. due to the launch of glyphosate - tolerant transgenic soybeans (1996), cotton (1997), and corn (1998). Rapid adoption of this new technology drove dramatic increases in the use of glyphosate - only weed control , which resulted in increased selection pressure for glyphosate -resistant weeds.USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 170 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### Table 47 shows a summary of the sixteen glyphosate -resistant weed species that have been reported from 1996 to November 2009 . These data clearly show that glyphosate -resistance in weeds is expanding around the globe. Most notab ly, there have been reports of nine new weed species with some biotypes resistant to glyphosate in the U.S. since 2000 (Figure 58 ). Two of these glyphosate -resistant weed species have already become a significant problem for farmers across a large geographic area. Conyza canadensis infests at least two million hectares of glyphosate - tolerant crops in the U.S. (Main et al ., 2004) and glyphosate - resistance in Palmer amaranth has serious ramifications for future weed management in the Southeast U.S. due to its rapid growth rate, extremely competitive nature, and resistance to other herbicide modes of action (Culpepper et al ., 2008). Researchers have also reported that individual biotypes of seven of the 16 glyphosate -resistant speci es are also resistant to herbicides with other modes of action (Table 48 ). The Palmer amaranth, common waterhemp, and Conyza canadensis biotypes were reported in the corn and soybean growing states. Although herbicide options to control these biotypes with multiple herbicide resistance will be more limited, 2,4 - D is still a viable control option for the broadleaf weeds. Table 47 . Weed species with reported glyphosate - resistant biotypes. (Heap, 2009) First Confirmed Report Later

Confirmed Reports Common Name Species Name Year Country** Rigid ryegrass Lolium rigidum 1996 Australia USA, S.Africa, France, Spain Goosegrass Eleusine indica 1997 Malaysia Colombia Horseweed/Marestail* Conyza canadensis 2000 USA Brazil, China, Spain, Czech Republic Italian ryegrass Lolium multiflorum 2001 Chile Brazil, USA, Spain, Argentina Hairy fleabane Conyza bonariensis 2003 S.Africa Spain, Brazil, Colombia, USA Buckhorn plantain Plantago lanceolata 2003 S.Africa Common ragweed* Ambrosia artemisiifolia 2004 USA Giant ragweed* Ambrosia trifida 2004 USA Ragweed parthenium Parthenium hysterophorus 2004 Colombia Palmer amaranth* Amaranthus palmeri 2005 USA Common waterhemp* Amaranthus rudis 2005 USA Johnsongrass* Sorghum halepenses 2005 Argentina USA Sourgrass Digitaria insularis 2006 Paraguay Brazil Wild poinsettia* Euphorbia heterophylla 2006 Brazil Junglerice Echinochloa colona 2007 Australia Liverseedgrass Urochloa panicoides 2008 Australia * Important weeds in US corn, soybean, and cotton production. ** Nine new species confirmed resistant in US since 2000.USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 171 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### Figure 58 . Number of glyphosate - resistant weeds reported globally by year from 1996 to 2008. (Compiled from Heap, 2009)

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 181996199719981999200020012002200320042005200620072008#ofGly-ResWeedSpecies



### Table 48 . Global reports of glyphosate -resistant weed biotypes with resistance to other herbicide modes of action. (Heap, 2009) Common Name Species Name Year – Country (State) Multiple Resistance to Other Herbicide MOAs Palmer amaranth Amaranthus palmeri 2008

– US (MS) ALS Common waterhemp Amaranthus rudis 2005

– US (MO) ALS, PPO 2006

– US (IL) ALS Horseweed Conyza Canadensis 2003

– US (OH) ALS 2007

– US (MS) Bipyridiliums Goosegrass Eleusine indica 1997

– Malaysia ACCa se Wild poinsettia Euphorbia heterophylla 2006

– Brazil ALS Italian ryegrass Lolium multiflorum 2002

– Chile ALS Rigid ryegrass Lolium rigidum 1999 - Australia ACCase, ALS, Dinitroanilines 2003

– S.Africa ACCase, Bipyridiliums 

### In addition, researchers in Virginia have been testing a biotype of common lambsquarters that survived 1.0 lb ae/acre (1120 g ae/ha) glyphosate, and thus appears to have low level resistance to glyphosate (Hite et al ., 2007). Weed scientists in Ohio and Indiana have also identified a biotype of common lambsquarters in at least a dozen fields that appears to have low - level glyphosate -resistance (Curran et al ., 2007). The increased reports of glyphosate -resistant species, plus the geographic spread of their infestations, have c aused some to raise concerns about the long term sustainability for glyphosate. Some researchers have stated that applying glyphosate alone over wide areas on highly variable and prolific weeds made the evolution of resistant weeds inevitable (Owen, 2001; Thill and Lemerle, 2001).USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 172 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### Weed Shifts When glyphosate - tolerant crops are grown intensively with high reliance on glyphosate for weed control, species which possess some level of natural tolerance to glyphosate will become more prevalent. These “weed shif ts” can occur more rapidly than selection for glyphosate -resistance (Shaner, 2000). Coble and Warren (1997) demonstrated that continuous use of glyphosate caused an increase in the infestation of morningglory (Ipomoea spp. ) species over a three year perio d compared with other herbicide programs. Some common hard to control weed species that could become “weed shifts” in U.S. corn and soybeans are listed below in Table 49 . Table 49 . Potential weed shifts with use of glyphosate in U.S. corn and soybeans. (Duke and Powles, 2008b; Owen, 2008) Common Name Species Name Asiatic dayflower Commelina communis Brazil callalily Richardia brasiliensis Broadleaf buttonweed Spermacoce latifolia Common waterhemp Amaran thus rudis Common lambsquarters Chenopodium album Eastern black nightshade Solanum ptycanthum Giant ragweed Ambrosia trifida Hemp sesbania Sesbania exaltata Kochia Kochia scoparia Marestail / Horseweed Conyza canadensis Morningglory spp. Ipomoea spp . Nutsedge spp. Cyperus spp. Prickly sida Sida spinosa Russian thistle Salsola iberica Tall waterhemp Amaranthus tuberculatus Tridax daisy Tridax procumbens Tropical spiderwort Commelina benghalensis Velvetleaf Abutilon theophrasti 

### 2,4 - D Resistanc e The earliest documented reports of herbicide - resistant weeds were for resistance to 2,4 - D in wild carrot (Daucus carota ) (observed in 1952 but not reported until 1957) and spreading dayflower ( Commelina diffusa ) in 1957 (Heap, 2009). Today, a total of s ixteen weed species have documented reports of 2,4 - D resistant biotypes someplace around the globe (Table 50 ). Wild carrot in soybeans and roadsides, field bindweed in cropland, and prickly lettuce in cereals are the only ones reported on the U.S. mainland (Heap, 2009). Wild carrot, yellow bur- head, wild radish, musk thistle, and corn poppy are the only 2,4 - D resistant weeds that have reported infestations in more than 1,000 acres. Some of these 2,4 - D resistant biotypes have documented cross resistance to other auxin herbicides or multiple resistance to some ALS - inhibiting herbicides. It is notable that most of these resistant species do not appear to be spreading, as indicated by few reports of additional sites after the initial report.USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 173 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### Table 50 . Weed species with reported 2,4 - D - resistant biotypes. (Heap, 2009) Common Name Species Name Herbicide(s) Year Country or State Wild carrot Daucus carota 2,4 -D 1952 Ontario 2,4 -D 1993 Michigan 2,4 -D 1994 Ohio Dayflower Commelina diffusa 2,4 -D 1957 Hawaii Field bindweed Convolvulus arvensis 2,4 -D 1964 Kansas Musk thistle Carduus nutans 2,4 -D, MCPA 1981 New Zealand Scentless chamomile Matricaria perforate 2,4 -D 1975 France 2,4 -D 1975 United Kingdom Go oseweed Spenoclea zeylanica 2,4 -D 1983 Philippines 2,4 -D 1995 Malaysia 2,4 -D 2000 Thailand Canada thistle Cirsium arvense 2,4 -D, MCPA 1985 Hungary Globe fringerush Fimbristylis miliacea 2,4 -D 1989 Malaysia Wild mustard Sinapsi arvensis 2,4 -D, most other auxins 1990 Manitoba Corn poppy Papaver rhoeas 2,4 -D, tribenuron 1993 Spain Yellow bur-head Limnocharis flava 2,4 -D 1995 Indonesia 2,4 -D, bensulfuron methyl 1998 Malaysia Italian thistle Carduus pycnocephalus 2,4 -D 1997 New Zealand Wild radis h Raphanus raphanistrum 2,4 -D 1999 Australia Marshweed Limnophila erecta 2,4 -D, ALS 2002 Malaysia Indian hedge mustard Sisymbrium orientale 2,4 -D, metsulfuron methyl 2005 Australia Prickly lettuce Lactuca serriola 2,4 -D, dicamba, MCPA 2007 Washington 

### Few of these auxin resistant weeds have had a significant economic impact due to the wide array of alternatives that successfully control these resistant weeds (Heap, 1997). The overall incidence of auxinic herbicide -resistance after more than 60 years of use is low compared with other herbicide families such as the ALS inhibitors (imidazolinones, sulfonylureas, and sulfonamides), triazines, and ACCase herbicides in a much shorter period of use ( Section IX - F.1 , Figure 49 ). Furthermore, there is no widespread resistance to auxinic herbicides. It has been suggested by various researchers that the rarity of auxinic herbicide -resistant biotypes in the field is due to: a) a commonly held belief that these herbicides have multiple sites of action in the plant (Jasieniuk et al ., 1996), b) redundancy in auxin receptors (AFBs) and other components of the auxin signal response (Walsh et al ., 2006), c) moderate selection pressure and their use in mixtures with other herbicides (Kern et al ., 2005), d) fitness penalties (Bourdot et al ., 1996), and e) quantitative inheritance of the resistance trait (Cranston et al ., 2001). The mechanism of resistance to auxinic herbicides has been investigated, in varying degrees for only a few of these resistant biotypes. Resistance mechanisms in these biotypes have proven to be difficult to elucidate. A lack of differences between biotypes in auxinic herbicide absorption, translocation, and metabolism has led to the hypothesis that auxinic herbicide -resistance is mostUSDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 174 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### often likely due to differences at the target site or differences along the signal transduction pathway (Van Eerd et al ., 2005). Patterns and mechanisms of cross resistance in auxin herbicide -resistant biotypes to other classes of auxin herbicides are not yet well understood. Further research is needed across a range of resistant species and biotypes to identify the potentially numerous gene mutations that cause resistance. It is also possible, but less likely, that a biotype might be resistant to all of these auxin herbicides. Due to the diversity of chemistry representing the synthetic auxin mode of action, it is unlikely plants will derive a single metabolic mechanism for tolerance to this class broadly: 2,4 - D (phenoxy auxins), fluroxypyr (pyridyloxy auxin), dicamba (benzoate structure) or clopyralid (picolinate structure). To summarize, selection for auxin resistant weed bioytpes after more than 60 years of use has been slow, none show significant spread from initial sites, none are of significant economic importance, and none have been found in corn fields to date. Use of 2,4 - D in DAS - 68416 - 4 soybeans should not result in 2,4 - D resistant weeds becoming significant issue in soybeans . 2,4 - D will likely be used in a mixture with one or more other herbicides. Other alternative herbicides which are effective on the same weeds can be used to control any 2,4 - D resistant weeds that might occur. Glufosinate Resistance There are currently no reports of weed biotypes which have developed resistance to glufosinate (Heap, 2009). Thus, glufosinate is an excellent tool to include in a weed management program. 7.4. References Bourdot, G.W., Saville, D.J., and Hurrell, G.A. ( 1996 ) Ecological fitness and the decline of resistance to the herbicide MCPA in a population of Ranunculus acris . Journal of Applied Ecology 33:151 - 160. Bradshaw, L.D., Padgette, S.R., Kimball, S.L. and Wells, F.H. (1 997 ) Perspectives on Glyphosate Resistance. Weed Technology 11:189 - 198. Coble, H.D. and Warren , L.S. (1997) Weed control investigations in corn, cotton, crop rotations, soybean, small grain. Annual Report, Department of Crop Science, North Carolina State University 28:103 - 113. Cranston, H.J., Kern, A.J., Hackett, J.L., Miller, E.K., Maxwell, B.D., and Dyer, W.E. ( 2001 ) Dicamba resistance in kochia. Weed Science 49:164 - 170. Culpepper, A.S., Whitaker, J.R., MacRae, A.W. and York, A.C. ( 2008 ) Distribution of Glyphosate - Resistant Palmer Amaranth ( Amaranthus palmeri) in Georgia and North Carolina during 2005 and 2006. Journal of Cotton Science 12:306 - 310. Curran, B., Sprague, C., Stachler, J. and Loux, M. ( 2007 ) The Glyphosate, Weeds, and Crops Series: Biology and management of common lambsquarters (GWC - 11) . (http://www.glyphosateweedscrops.org/Info/GWC - 11.pdf )USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 175 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### Duke, S.O. ( 2005 ) Taking stock of herbicide -resistant crops ten years after introduction. Pest Management Science 61:211 - 218. Duke, S.O. and Powles, S.B. ( 2008a) Editorial: Glyphosate -resistant weeds and crops. Pest Management Science 64:317 - 318. Duke, S.O. and Powles, S.B. ( 2008b ) . Mini -review

– Glyphosate: a once - in - a- century herbicide. Pest Management Science 64:319 - 325. FAO ( 1997 ) Pesticide Residues in Food

– Glyphosate report. (http://www.fao.org/docrep/W8141E/w8141e0u.htm) Foresman, C. and Glasgow, L. (2008) Grower perception and experiences with glyphosate resistant weeds. Pest Management Science 64:388 - 391. Franz J.E., Mao, M.K, Sikorski, J.A. (1997) Glyphosate: A Unique and Global Herbicide . ACS Monograph No. 189 . American Chemical Society, Washington, DC, 653 pp. Green, J.M. ( 2009 ) Evolution of glyphosate - resistant crop technology. Weed Science 57:108 - 117 . Gustafson, D.I. (2008) Sustainable use of glyphosate in North American cropping systems. Pest Management Science 64:409 - 416. Heap, I.M. ( 1997 ) The occurrence of herbicide - resistant weeds worldwide. Pesticide Science 51:235 - 243. Heap, I. ( 2009 ) The International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds. (http://www.weedscience.com) Hite, G.A., King, S.R., Hagood, E.S. ( 2007 ) Response of selected Virginia common lambsquarters ( Chenopodium album) biotypes to glyphosate . Weed Science Society of America Abstracts 47:22. Industry Task Force II on 2,4 - D Research Data: Issue Backgrounder

– What is 2,4 - D (2005) (http://www.24d.org/background/Backgrounder- What- is - 24D - Dec - 2005.pdf ) Jasieniuk, M., Brule - Babel, A.L. and Morrison, I.N. ( 1996 ) The evolution and genetics of herbicide resistance in weeds. Weed Science 44:176 - 193. Kelley, K.B. and Riechers, D.E. (2007) Recent developments in auxin bi ology and new opportunities for auxinic herbicide research. Pesticide Biochemistry and Physiology 89:1 - 11. Kern, A.J., Chaverra, M.E. and Dyer, W.E. ( 2005 ) Dicamba-responsive genes in herbicide resistant and susceptible bioytpes of kochia (Kochia scoparia ). Weed Science 53:139 - 145.USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 176 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### Main, C., Mueller, T.C., Hayes, R.M., and Wilkerson, J.B. ( 2004 ) Response of selected horseweed ( Conyza canadensis ) populations to glyphosate. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 52:879 - 883. Mockaitis, K. and Estelle, M . ( 2008 ) Auxin receptors and plant development: A new signaling paradigm. Annual Review of Cell Developmental Biology 24:55 - 80. Monsanto ( 2005 ) . Backgrounder: History of Monsanto’s Glyphosate Herbicides. (http://www.monsanto.com/monsanto/content/products/productivity/roundup/back_history.pdf ) OECD ( 2002 ) Module II - Herbicide Biochemistry, Herbicide Metabolism and the Residues in Glufosinate - Ammonium (Phosphinothricin) - Tolerant Transgenic Plants . (http://www.olis.oecd.org/olis/2002doc.nsf/LinkTo/NT00002CCE/$FILE/JT00125605.PDF) Owen, M.D.K. ( 2001 ) World maiz e/soybean and herbicide resistance. Pages 101 - 163 in S. B. Powles and D. L. Shaner, eds. Herbicide Resistance and World Grains . New York: CRC. Owen, M.D.K. ( 2008 ) Review: Weed species shifts in glyphosate -resistant crops. Pest Management Science 64:377 - 3 87. Powles, S.B., Lorraine - Colwill, D.F. , Dellow, J.J. and Preston , C. ( 1998 ) Evolved resistance to glyphosate in rigid ryegrass (Lolium rigidum) in Australia. Weed Science 46:604 - 607. Shaner, D.L. ( 2000 ) The impact of glyphosate - tolerant crops on the u se of other herbicides and on resistance management. Pest Management Science 56:320 - 326. Siehl, D.L. ( 1997 ) Inhibitors of EPSP synthase, glutamine synthase and histidine synthesis, in Herbicide Activity: Toxicology, Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, ed. by Roe R.M., Burton J.D. and Kuhr R.J. IOS Press, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, pp. 37 - 67. Thill, D.C. and Lemerle, D. ( 2001 ) World wheat and herbicide resistance. Pages 61 - 70 in S. B. Powles and D. L. Shaner, eds. Herbicide Resistance and World Grains . New York: CRC. Tu, M., Hurd, C. and Randall, J.M. ( 2001 ) Weed Control Methods Handbook, The Nature Conservancy. (http://www.invasive.org/gist/handbook.html ) US EPA ( 1993 ) Glyphosate Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED). EPA - 738 - F - 93 - 011 . (http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/REDs/old_reds/glyphosate.pdf ) US EPA ( 2006 ) Pesticides Reregistration , 2,4 - D RED Facts. 738 - R- 05 - 002 (http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/REDs/factsheets/24d_fs.htm . ) Van Eerd, L.L., Stephenson, G.R., Kwiatkowski, J., Grossmann, K., and Hall, C. ( 2005 ) Physiological and biochemical characterization of quinclorac resistance in a false cleavers (Galium spurium L.) biotype. Journal of Agriculture and Food Chemistry 53:1144 - 1151.USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 177 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### Vencill, W.K. (2002) Herbicide Handbook (8 th 

### edition) ed. Lawrence, KS: Weed Science Society of America. Walsh, T.A., Neal , R., Merlo, A.O., Honma, M., Hicks, G.R., Wolff, K., Matsumura, W. and Davies, J.P. ( 2006 ) Mutations in an auxin receptor homolog AFB5 and in SGT1b confer resistance to synthetic picolinate auxins and not to 2,4 - Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid or indole - 3 - acetic acid in Arabidopsis. Plant Physiology 142:542 - 552.USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 178 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information



### Appendix 8. Stewardship of Herbicide Tolerant DAS - 68416 - 4 Soybeans Dow AgroSciences (DAS) takes product stewardship seriously and recognizes the importance of ongoing stewardship regarding both our agricultural chemical and biotechnology trait products. Dow AgroSciences will effectively steward DAS - 68416 - 4 soybeans through both the agricultural chemical and seed business units using a variety of means with our sales force, commercial channels and grower customers . 8.1. Communication to Agricultural Chemical and Seed Customers Technical Bulletins Dow AgroSciences creates comprehensive technical bulletins on biotechnology and chemical products including elements on resistance management strategies, and ensures those are available to our channel and grower customers as well as available on our DAS customer websites. These bulletins help communicate key elements of the technology and how the products need be used effectively. The technical bulletins are also utilized with university cooperators, seed & chemical agronomists, crop consultants and other technical professionals. Direct Mail Dow AgroSciences uses direct mail newsletters sent on a monthly basis through both our chemical products business and seed brands. The M ycogen seed brand sends six “Let’s Talk Agronomy” newsletters per year. These newsletters go directly to our farmer customers highlighting agronomics and production practices, as well as information regarding traits and other new technologies. The DAS chemical products newsletters contain product usage guidelines, positioning and best use practices. DAS has highlighted weed resistant management strategies and proper stewardship, and in the future will highlight proper stewardship of herbicide program s compatible with DAS - 68416 - 4 soybeans through both chemical products and seed brands newsletters. Sales Literature Dow AgroSciences also uses sales literature to promote our products and position proper usage. DAS uses this sales literature to properly position both trait and herbicide technologies properly as well as highlight weed resistance management strategies for effective use of the technology. Information on Websites The Dow AgroSciences seed brands websites focus on agronomic and proper hybrid placement. The websites also contain a specific section devoted to trait stewardship and following specific guidelines in planting transgenic traits (see the Mycogen Seed website, http://www.mycogen.com ). In the future, websites can also provide information on DAS - 68416 - 4 soybeans that will feature trait and herbicide stewardship programs . The websites will also contain links to technical bulletin and herbicide resistance management strategies to provide a comprehensive resource.USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 179 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### Dow AgroSciences agricultural chemicals website (http://www.dowagro.com/usag/) features commercial and technical information and today contains information on pest resistance management such as rotating insecticides for effective stewardship. DAS can feature herbicide resistance management and effective stewardship of herbicide information labeled for DAS - 68416 - 4 soybeans upon commercial launch. Industry and university links will be included to expo se the reader to a wider range of technical information. Dow AgroSciences also has an internal Technology Transfer website where internal technical training and materials are posted. This information is made widely available to employees through links and kept up to date with regular information feeds. 8.2. Trait and Herbicide Field Testing Dow AgroSciences uses a wide variety of field trial collaborators including universities, consultants, other biotech commercial partners and internal resources in reviewing hundreds of field trials every year, including DAS - 68416 - 4 soybean trials. These field trials allow Dow AgroSciences to precisely characterize, position, and recommend the proper herbicide approach for best long term success and efficacy for the trait and herbicide usage. These also allow us to monitor a consistent set of field trial data over a long period of time to observe any efficacy trends and adjust our herbicide recommendations if necessary to mitigate resistance threats. 8.3. A g ricultural Chemical Labeling Key Dow AgroSciences herbicides carry a weed resistance management statement. Figure 59 is an example of the weed resistance management statement printed on DAS glyphosate brand labels. Dow AgroSciences can place a similar statement on all products labeled for use in conjunction with DAS - 68416 - 4 soybeans to help communicate proper weed resistant management strategies. Figure 59 . Example weed resistance management statement on DAS glyphosate brand labels . Weed Resistance Management Glyphosate, the active ingredient in this product, is a group 9 herbicide (inhibitor of EPSP synthase). Some naturally occurring weed biotypes that are tolerant (resistant) to glyphosate may exist due to genetic variability in a weed population. Where resistant biotypes exist, the repeated use of herbicides with the same mode of action can lead to the selection for resistant weeds. Certain agronomic practices reduce the likelihood that resistant weed populations will de velop, and can be utilized to manage weed resistance once it occurs. To delay the selection for glyphosate resistant weeds, use the following practices: Herbicide Selection:  Rotate the use of glyphosate with non - glyphosate herbicides.  Avoid using more than two applications of a glyphosate -based herbicide in a given field over a two year period. Utilize tank mixes or sequential applications of herbicides with alternative modes of action if this is not possible.  Use herbicides with alternative modes of actio n for burndown applications prior to planting Roundup Ready® crops that are likely to require more than one over -the -top application of glyphosate.USDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 180 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information  Apply full rates of glyphosate at the specified time (correct weed size) to minimize escapes of tolerant weeds. Crop Selection and Cultural Practices:  Rotate Roundup Ready crops with conventional crops and use non - glyphosate herbicides to manage resistant volunteers.  Use alternative weed control practices whenever possible, such as mechanical cultivation, delay ed planting and weed -free crop seeds.  Do not allow weed escapes to produce seeds, roots or tubers.  Thoroughly clean plant residues from equipment before leaving fields suspected to contain resistant weeds.  Scout fields after application to detect weed escapes or shifts in weed species.  Report any incidence of repeated non -performance of this product against a particular weed species to the local retailer, county extension agent, or Dow AgroSciences representative. Specific Directions:  In burndown programs, always tank mix glyphosate with 2,4 -D and/or other non - glyphosate herbicide. This product may be tank mixed with the products listed provided the product tank - mixed is registered for use on this site.  Use soil - applied herbicides at full or reduced rates on some or all of your Roundup Ready crop fields to provide early season weed control, allow for optimal post - emergence applications of glyphosate, and to interrupt or delay selection for glyphosate resistant weeds. 

### 8.4. Training and Education of Sales Representatives and Agronomists Dow AgroSciences provides significant agronomic and herbicide usage training. This training is conducted for new sales representatives with updates provided to all sales representatives regularly by DAS Technical staff. Particular focus is on new products prior to launch and ensuring proper recommendations are communicated to our customer base for long - term product efficacy. DAS also employs extensive on - line training and includes agronomic training as needed. The Dow AgroScienc es seed brand sales force and agronomists also engage in continual training including biotechnology trait technical training and positioning in addition to yearly product and agronomic training. The trait training includes specifics on stewardship and proper management of the traits. We produce product usage guides and technical use guides for current biotechnology traits and provide them to all growers planting biotechnology traits. 8.5. Tracking Customer Satisfaction and Managing Issues Dow AgroSciences is directly involved with farmer and distributor/retail customers on a daily basis throughout the U.S. Customer satisfaction is of ultimate importance to the continued success of DAS, so continual positioning and follow up on the usage of the DAS - 68416 - 4 so ybeans and associated herbicides will be important in our launch and subsequent sales. As a result of our continual follow up directly with customers, we are able to implement and monitor the proper usage and stewardship of this technology. DAS also electronically tracks any weed control non -performance issues and crop injury as serviced directly by our sales representatives. All new DAS sales representatives receiveUSDA Petition for Nonregulated Status of DAS - 68 416 - 4 Soybean Page 181 of 181

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Contains No Confidential Business Information 

### extensive in - field training on weed control issues and handling customer complaints. Thi s complaint handling and data entry helps us track any emerging issues specific to products, pests (including resistant weeds) or crops and address them on a broad scale. 8.6. Involvement in Industry Groups Dow AgroSciences is a participant in the Herbicide Res istance Action Committee (HRAC), an industry-based group supported by CropLife International. HRAC focuses on encouraging responsible attitudes towards herbicide usage, communicating herbicide resistance management strategies , and supporting their implementation through practical guidelines. HRAC engages in active collaboration with public and private researchers, especially in the areas of problem identification and devising and implementing herbicide management strategies. Dow AgroSciences personnel al so interact with academic weed scientists in tackling weed resistance management issues. DAS conducts joint trials at university sites as well as seeking input from universities regarding weed management. We also participate in a wide range of profession al organizations including agronomy societies, seed trade groups, weed science societies, the American Soybean Association and their Biotech Working Group and many other industry organizations.