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

Determination of Non-regulated Status of ArcticTM

Apple Events GD743 and GS784

OECD Unique Identifier: 

OKA-NBØØ1-8

OKA-NBØØ2-9

Draft Environmental Assessment 

August 2013

Agency Contact 

Cindy Eck

Biotechnology Regulatory Services

4700 River Road

USDA, APHIS 

Riverdale, MD 20737 

Fax: (301) 734-8669

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

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

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

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

at (202) 720–2600 (voice and TDD). 

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

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

opportunity provider and employer. 

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

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

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

information. 

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

and/or Federal agencies before they can be recommended. 

i
TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE

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

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

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

1.3 Coordinated Framework Review and Regulatory Review................................... 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2.8 Comparison of Alternatives ............................................................................... 12

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

i
TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4.4 Biological Resources.......................................................................................... 43

4.4.1 Animal Communities.................................................................................. 43

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

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

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

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

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

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

5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS...................................................................................... 52

5.1 Assumptions Used for Cumulative Impacts Analysis........................................ 52

5.2 Past and Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions..................................... 52

5.3 Cumulative Impacts Summary........................................................................... 54

6 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES.............................................. 55

6.1 Potential Effects of the Cultivation of Event GD743 and GS784 Apples on TES57

6.2 Potential Effects GD743 and GS784 Apples on TES ........................................ 57

7 CONSIDERATION OF EXECUTIVE ORDERS, STANDARDS, AND TREATIES 

RELATING TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ................................................. 61

7.1 Executive Orders with Domestic Implications................................................... 61

7.2 International Implications .................................................................................. 63

7.3 Compliance with Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act ...................................... 64

7.4 Impacts on Unique Characteristics of Geographic Areas .................................. 65

7.5 National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 as Amended.................... 65

8 LIST OF PREPARERS............................................................................................. 67

ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE

9 REFERENCES....................................................................................................... 68

LIST OF TABLES

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

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

Table 3. Apple production and value by use 2011........................................................................ 33

Table 4. Disease Ratings for the top five apple varieties produced in the United States. ........... 47

LIST OF FIGURES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

iii
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

AIA Advanced Informed Agreement

AOSCA American Organization of Seed Certifying Agencies

APHIS Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

BRS Biotechnology Regulatory Services (within USDA–APHIS)

CAA Clean Air Act

CBD Convention on Biological Diversity

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

CFIA Canadian Food Inspection Agency

CFR Code of Federal Regulations (United States)

CH4 methane

CO carbon monoxide

CO2 carbon dioxide

CWA Clean Water Act

DNA deoxyribonucleic acid

DRT Drift Reduction Technology

EA Environmental Assessment

EDTA Ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

EO Executive Order

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

ESA Endangered Species Act of 1973

EU European Union

FDA U.S. Food and Drug Administration 

FFDCA Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act

FFP Food, Feed, or Processing

FIFRA Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act

FQPA Food Quality Protection Act

FR Federal Register

GD Golden Delicious

GE Genetically Engineered

GHG Greenhouse Gas

GMO Genetically Modified Organism

iv
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

GS Granny Smith

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

IPM Integrated Pest Management

IPPC International Plant Protection Convention

ISPM International Standard for Phytosanitary Measure

LMO Living Modified Organisms

MOU Memorandum of Understanding

N2O nitrous oxide

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards

NABI North American Biotechnology Initiative

NAPPO North American Plant Protection Organization

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and subsequent amendments

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service

NO2 nitrogen dioxide

NPS Non-point Source

NRC National Research Council

O3 ozone

OECD Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development

OPP Office of Pesticide Programs

ORAC Oxygen Radical Absorbance Capacity

OSF Okanagan Specialty Fruits

Pb Lead

PIP Plant Incorporated Protectants

PM Particulate Matter

PPA Plant Protection Act

PPO polyphenol oxidase

PPRA Plant Pest Risk Assessment

PRA pest risk analysis

RSPM Regional Standards for Phytosanitary Measures

SIP State Implementation Plan

SO2 sulfur dioxide

v
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

SOC Soil Organic Carbon

SSA Sole Source Aquifer

TES Threatened and Endangered Species

TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act

U.S. United States

USC United States Code

USD United States Dollars

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture

USDA-AMS Agricultural Marketing Service

USDA-ARS Agricultural Research Service

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

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

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

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

USDA-NRCS Natural Resource Conservation Service

USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service

WPS Worker Protection Standard for Agricultural Pesticides

vi
1 PURPOSE AND NEED

1.1 Background

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

to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service (APHIS) in June 2010 seeking a determination of nonregulated status 

for ArcticTM apple events GD743 and GS784 that are resistant to enzymatic browning. 

The petition was deemed complete by APHIS in February 2012. GD743 and GS784 

apples are currently regulated under 7 CFR part 340. Interstate movements and field 

trials of GD743 and GS784 apples have been conducted under permits issued or 

notifications acknowledged by APHIS since 2003. These field trials were conducted in 

the top two growing regions within the U.S., including the states of Washington and New 

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

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

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

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

they do not present a plant pest risk. In the event of a determination of nonregulated 

status, the nonregulated status would include GD743 and GS784 apples, any progeny 

derived from crosses between GD743, GS784, and conventional apple, and crosses of 

GD743 and GS784 with other biotechnology-derived apples that are no longer subject to 

the regulatory requirements of 7 CFR part 340 or the plant pest provisions of the Plant 

Protection Act. 

1.2 Purpose of Product

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

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

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

containing the inserted gene are subjected to mechanical damage, such as slicing or 

bruising, the apple flesh does not brown as an untransformed apple does, but rather 

remains its original color. This nonbrowning trait reduces the need for antibrowning 

agents on cut fruit, and minimizes losses caused by harvest and postharvest damage 

(OSF, 2012).

Browning reduces apple quality by causing detrimental flavor and nutritional changes

that limit apple’s fresh-market, fresh-cut, and processing applications. Brown bruises are 

a significant cause of reduced grade for fresh-market apples for growers and of lost value 

for retailers (OSF, 2012). GD743 and GS784 apples will be used as direct replacements 

for their untransformed conventional counterparts in situations where the nonbrowning 

trait is considered desirable, such as in fresh-cut produce products, prepared apple slices, 

and the manufacturing of juice. They will also be used in conventional breeding efforts to 

produce new apple cultivars that are resistant to enzymatic browning (OSF, 2012).

1
1.3 Coordinated Framework Review and Regulatory Review

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

(GE) organisms pursuant to a regulatory framework known as the Coordinated 

Framework for the Regulation of Biotechnology (Coordinated Framework) (51 FR 

23302, 1986; 57 FR 22984, 1992). The Coordinated Framework, published by the Office 

of Science and Technology Policy, describes the comprehensive federal regulatory policy 

for ensuring the safety of biotechnology research and products and explains how federal 

agencies will use existing Federal statutes in a manner to ensure public health and 

environmental safety while maintaining regulatory flexibility to avoid impeding the 

growth of the biotechnology industry. The Coordinated Framework is based on several 

important guiding principles: (1) agencies should define those transgenic organisms 

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

agencies are required to focus on the characteristics and risks of the biotechnology 

product, not the process by which it is created; (3) agencies are mandated to exercise 

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

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

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

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

and Drug Administration (FDA).

USDA-APHIS

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

promulgated pursuant to authority granted by the Plant Protection Act (PPA), as amended 

(7 United States Code (U.S.C.) 7701–7772), regulate the introduction (importation, 

interstate movement, or release into the environment) of certain GE organisms and 

products. A GE organism is no longer subject to the plant pest provisions of the PPA or 

to the regulatory requirements of 7 CFR part 340 when APHIS determines that it is 

unlikely to pose a plant pest risk. A GE organism is considered a regulated article if the 

donor organism, recipient organism, vector, or vector agent used in engineering the 

organism belongs to one of the taxa listed in the regulation (7 CFR 340.2) and is also 

considered a plant pest. A GE organism is also regulated under Part 340 when APHIS has 

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

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

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

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

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

petitioner must provide information related to plant pest risk that the agency may use to 

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

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

requirements of 7 CFR part 340 or the plant pest provisions of the PPA when APHIS 

determines that it is unlikely to pose a plant pest risk.

Environmental Protection Agency

2
The EPA is responsible for regulating the sale, distribution, and use of pesticides, 

including pesticides that are produced by an organism through techniques of modern 

biotechnology. The EPA regulates plant incorporated protectants (PIPs) under the Federal 

Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) (7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.) and certain 

biological control organisms under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) (15 U.S.C. 

53 et seq.). Before planting a crop containing a PIP, a company must seek an 

experimental use permit from EPA. Commercial production of crops containing PIPs for 

purposes of seed increases and sale requires a FIFRA Section 3 registration with EPA. 

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

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

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

be used; the amount, frequency, and timing of its use; storage and disposal practices. 

Prior to registration for a new use for a new or previously registered pesticide, EPA must 

determine through testing that the pesticide does not cause unreasonable adverse effects 

on humans, the environment, and non-target species when used in accordance with label 

instructions. EPA must also approve the language used on the pesticide label in 

accordance with 40 CFR part 158. Once registered, a pesticide may only be legally used

in accordance with directions and restrictions on its label. The overall intent of the label 

is to provide clear directions for effective product performance, while minimizing risks to 

human health and the environment. The Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996 

amended FIFRA, enabling EPA to implement periodic registration review of pesticides to 

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

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

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

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

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

consumption or animal feed. Before establishing pesticide tolerance, EPA is required to 

reach a safety determination based on a finding of reasonable certainty of no harm under 

the FFDCA, as amended by the FQPA. FDA enforces the pesticide tolerances set by 

EPA.

Food and Drug Administration

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

The FDA published its policy statement concerning regulation of products derived from 

new plant varieties, including those derived from genetic engineering, in the Federal 

Register on May 29, 1992 (57 FR 22984, 1992). Under this policy, FDA implements a 

voluntary consultation process to ensure that human food and animal feed safety issues or 

other regulatory issues, such as labeling, are resolved before commercial distribution of 

bioengineered food. This voluntary consultation process provides a way for developers 

to receive assistance from FDA in complying with their obligations under Federal food 

safety laws prior to marketing.

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

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

3
Proteins Produced by New Plant Varieties Intended for Food Use” (US-FDA, 2006). 

This establishes voluntary food safety evaluations for new non-pesticidal proteins 

produced by new plant varieties intended to be used as food, including bioengineered 

plants. Early food safety evaluations help make sure that potential food safety issues 

related to a new protein in a new plant variety are addressed early in development. These 

evaluations are not intended as a replacement for a biotechnology consultation with FDA, 

but the information may be used later in the biotechnology consultation.

1.4 Purpose and Need for this APHIS Action

As noted in the previous section any party can petition APHIS to seek a determination of 

nonregulated status for a GE organism that is regulated under 7 CFR 340. As required by 

7 CFR 340.6, APHIS must respond to petitioners that request a determination of the 

regulated status of GE organisms, including GE plants such as GD743 and GS784 apples.

When a petition for nonregulated status is submitted, APHIS must determine if the GE 

organism is unlikely to pose a plant pest risk. The petitioner is required to provide 

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

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

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

requirements of 7 CFR part 340 or the plant pest provisions of the PPA when APHIS 

determines that it is unlikely to pose a plant pest risk.

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

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

this draft Environmental Assessment (EA) to consider the potential environmental effects 

of an agency determination of nonregulated status for GD743 and GS784 apples. This 

action is consistent regulations for the NEPA established by the Council of 

Environmental Quality’s (CEQ), and the USDA APHIS NEPA-implementing regulations

and procedures (40 CFR parts 1500-1508, 7 CFR part 1b, and 7 CFR part 372). This EA 

has been prepared in order to specifically evaluate the effects on the quality of the human 

environment1 that may result from a determination of nonregulated status for GD743 and 

GS784 apples.

1.5 Public Involvement

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

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

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

a notice2 in the Federal Register advising the public that APHIS is implementing changes 

to the way it solicits public comment when considering petitions for determinations of 

nonregulated status for GE organisms to allow for early public involvement in the 

process. As identified in this notice, APHIS will publish two separate notices in the 

Federal Register for petitions for which APHIS prepares an EA. The first notice will 

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

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

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

4

 
announce the availability of the petition, and the second notice will announce the 

availability of APHIS’ decision making documents. As part of the new process, with 

each of the two notices published in the Federal Register, there will be an opportunity for 

public involvement:

1.5.1 First Opportunity for Public Involvement.

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

comment for 60 days, providing the public an opportunity to raise issues regarding the 

petition itself and give input that will be considered by the Agency as it develops its EA 

and PPRA. APHIS publishes a notice in the Federal Register to inform the public that 

APHIS will accept written comments regarding a petition for a determination of 

nonregulated status for a period of 60 days from the date of the notice. This availability 

of the petition for public comment will be announced in a Federal Register notice.

1.5.2 Second Opportunity for Public Involvement. 

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

availability is published in a second Federal Register notice. This second notice follows

one of two approaches for public participation based on whether or not APHIS decides 

the petition for a determination of nonregulated status is for a GE organism that raises 

substantive new issues:

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

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

of the petition and our evaluation and analysis of comments received from the public 

during the 60-day comment period on the petition, that the petition involves a GE 

organism that does not raise new biological, cultural, or ecological issues because of the 

nature of the modification or APHIS' familiarity with the recipient organism. After 

developing its EA, finding of no significant impact (FONSI), and PPRA, APHIS 

publishes a notice in the Federal Register announcing its preliminary regulatory 

determination and the availability of the EA, FONSI, and PPRA for a 30-day public 

review period.

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

warrant APHIS altering its preliminary regulatory determination or FONSI, substantially 

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

of impacts in the EA, APHIS' preliminary regulatory determination becomes final and

effective upon public notification through an announcement on its website. No 

further Federal Register notice is published announcing the final regulatory 

determination.

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

by APHIS. 

5
A second approach for public participation is used when APHIS determines that the 

petition for a determination of nonregulated status is for a GE organism that raises 

substantive new issues. This could include petitions involving a recipient organism that 

has not previously been determined by APHIS to have nonregulated status or when 

APHIS determines that gene modifications raise substantive biological, cultural, or 

ecological issues not previously analyzed by APHIS. Substantive issues are identified by 

APHIS based on our review of the petition and our evaluation and analysis of comments 

received from the public during the 60-day comment period on the petition.

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

publication of a Federal Register notice. APHIS reviews and evaluates comments and 

other relevant information, then revises the PPRA as necessary and prepares a final EA. 

Following preparation of these documents, APHIS approves or denies the petition, 

announcing in the Federal Register the regulatory status of the GE organism and the 

availability of APHIS' final EA, PPRA, NEPA decision document (either a FONSI or 

NOI to prepare an EIS), and regulatory determination.

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

published on March 6, 2012.

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

EA were developed by considering the public concerns, including public comments 

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

availability of the petition (i.e., the first opportunity for public involvement previously 

described in this document), as well as issues noted in public comments submitted for 

other EAs of GE organisms, and concerns described in lawsuits and expressed by various 

stakeholders. These issues, including those regarding the agricultural production of apple

using various production methods and the environmental and food/feed safety of GE 

plants, were addressed to analyze the potential environmental impacts of GD743 and 

GS784.

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

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

the docket. The majority of the comments expressed a general dislike of the use of GE 

organisms or were form letters sent to all of the dockets which were open at the time that 

this docket was open. The form letter expressed a concern that there were too many 

dockets published on the same day. It also referenced other open dockets and potential 

effects from the use of the subjects of those petitions. These issues are outside the scope 

of this EA. The issues that were raised in the public comments which were related to the 

OSF GD743 and GS784 apple petition included: 

• Potential economic impacts on the US apple industry and market

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

markets

• Potential economic impacts on export markets. 

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

6

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

crops will affect sales for growers of these crops. 

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

crabapples 

• The effects of GD743 and GS784 on the physical environment

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

and Endangered Species

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

infection from PPO suppression

• Human health effects from consuming GE crops

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

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

apples

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

included a discussion of these issues in this EA.

1.6 Issues Considered

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

experience in considering public concerns and issues raised in public comments 

submitted for this petition and other EAs of GE organisms. The resource areas 

considered also address concerns raised in previous and unrelated lawsuits, as well as 

issues that have been raised by various stakeholders for this petition and in the past. The 

resource areas considered in this EA can be categorized as follows: 

Socioeconomic and Cultural Resource Considerations:

• Agricultural Production of Apples

• Domestic Commerce

• Organic Apple Production

• Foreign Trade

Environmental Considerations:

• Soil Quality

• Water Resources

• Air Quality 

• Climate Change

• Animal Communities

• Plant Communities

• Microorganisms

• Biological Diversity

Human Health Considerations:

• Public Health

• Worker Safety

Livestock Health Considerations:

7
• Animal Feed/Livestock Health

8
2 ALTERNATIVES

This document analyzes the potential environmental consequences of a determination of 

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

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

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

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

determine that GD743 and GS784 are no longer subject to 7 CFR part 340 or the plant 

pest provisions of the PPA. 

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

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

environmental impacts for each alternative in the Environmental Consequences section.

2.1 No Action Alternative: Continuation as a Regulated Article

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

apples and progeny derived from GD743 and GS784 apples would continue to be 

regulated articles under the regulations at 7 CFR part 340. Permits issued or notifications 

acknowledged by APHIS would still be required for introductions of GD743 and GS784 

apples and measures to ensure physical and reproductive confinement would continue to 

be implemented. APHIS might choose this alternative if there were insufficient evidence 

to demonstrate the lack of plant pest risk from the unconfined cultivation of GD743 and 

GS784 apples. 

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

PPRA that GD743 and GS784 apples are unlikely to pose a plant pest risk (USDAAPHIS, 2013). Choosing this alternative would not satisfy the purpose and need of 

making a determination of plant pest risk status and responding to the petition for 

nonregulated status. 

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

Longer Regulated Articles

Under this alternative, GD743 and GS784 apples and progeny derived from them would 

no longer be regulated articles under the regulations at 7 CFR part 340. GD743 and 

GS784 are unlikely to pose a plant pest risk (USDA-APHIS, 2013). Permits issued or 

notifications acknowledged by APHIS would no longer be required for introductions of 

GD743 and GS784 apples and progeny derived from these events. This alternative best 

meets the purpose and need to respond appropriately to a petition for nonregulated status 

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

pest provisions of the Plant Protection Act. Because the agency has concluded that 

GD743 and GS784 apples are unlikely to pose a plant pest risk, a determination of 

nonregulated status of GD743 and GS784 apples is a response that is consistent with the 

plant pest provisions of the PPA, the regulations codified in 7 CFR part 340, and the 

biotechnology regulatory policies in the Coordinated Framework.

9
Under this alternative, growers may have future access to GD743 and GS784 apples and 

progeny derived from these events if the developer decides to commercialize GD743 and 

GS784 apples. 

2.3 Alternatives Considered But Rejected from Further Consideration

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

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

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

considered environmental safety, efficacy, and practicality to identify which alternatives 

would be further considered for GD743 and GS784. Based on this evaluation, APHIS 

rejected several alternatives. These alternatives are discussed briefly below along with 

the specific reasons for rejecting each.

2.4 Prohibit Any GD743 and GS784 Apples from Being Released

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

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

including denying any permits associated with the field testing. APHIS determined that 

this alternative is not appropriate given that APHIS has concluded that GD743 and 

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

In enacting the PPA, Congress found that 

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

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

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

Agencies, the White House Emerging Technologies Interagency Policy Coordination 

Committee developed broad principles, consistent with Executive Order 13563, to guide 

agencies in the development and implementation of policies for oversight of emerging 

technologies such as GE that included the following guidance:

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

technical, economic, and other information, within the boundaries of the 

authorities and mandates of each agency” 

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

the PPRA (USDA-APHIS, 2013), APHIS concluded that GD743 and GS784 are

unlikely to pose a plant pest risk. Therefore, there is no basis in science for prohibiting 

the release of GD743 and GS784. 

2.5 Approve the Petition in Part

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

whole or in part." For example, a determination of nonregulated status in part may be 

appropriate if there is a plant pest risk associated with some, but not all lines described in 

a petition. Because APHIS has concluded that both GD743 and GS784 are unlikely to 

10
pose a plant pest risk, there is no regulatory basis under the plant pest provisions of the 

PPA for considering approval of the petition only in part. 

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

Production and Geographical Restrictions

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

APHIS considered requiring an isolation distance separating GD743 and GS784 apples 

from other apple production. However, because APHIS has concluded that GD743 and 

GS784 apples are unlikely to pose a plant pest risk (USDA-APHIS, 2013), an alternative 

based on requiring isolation distances would be inconsistent with the statutory authority 

under the plant pest provisions of the PPA and regulations in 7 CFR part 340. 

APHIS also considered geographically restricting the production of GD743 and GS784

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

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

possible gene movement between GE and non-GE plants. However, as presented in 

APHIS’ plant pest risk assessment for GD743 and GS784, there are no geographic 

differences associated with any identifiable plant pest risks for GD743 and GS784

(USDA-APHIS, 2013). This alternative was rejected and not analyzed in detail because 

APHIS has concluded that GD743 and GS784 do not pose a plant pest risk, and will not 

exhibit a greater plant pest risk in any geographically restricted area. Therefore, such an 

alternative would not be consistent with APHIS’ statutory authority under the plant pest 

provisions of the PPA and regulations in Part 340 and the biotechnology regulatory 

policies embodied in the Coordinated Framework.

Based on the foregoing, the imposition of isolation distances or geographic restrictions 

would not meet APHIS’ purpose and need to respond appropriately to a petition for 

nonregulated status based on the requirements in 7 CFR part 340 and the agency’s 

authority under the plant pest provisions of the PPA. Individuals might choose on their 

own to geographically isolate their non-GE apple production systems from GD743 and 

GS784 or to use isolation distances and other management practices to minimize gene 

movement between apple orchards. 

2.7 Requirement of Testing for GD743 and GS784

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

commenters requested USDA to require and provide testing for GE products in non-GE 

production systems. However, because GD743 and GS784 do not pose a plant pest risk

(USDA-APHIS, 2013), testing requirements are inconsistent with the plant pest 

provisions of the PPA, the regulations at 7 CFR part 340 and biotechnology regulatory 

policies embodied in the Coordinated Framework. Therefore, imposing such a 

requirement for GD743 and GS784 would be inconsistent with APHIS’ purpose and need 

to respond appropriately to the petition in accordance with its regulatory authorities. 

11
2.8 Comparison of Alternatives 

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

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

this EA.

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

Attribute/Measure Alternative A: No Action

Alternative B: Determination 

of Nonregulated Status

Meets Purpose and Need 

and Objectives No Yes

Unlikely to pose a plant 

pest risk

Satisfied through use of 

regulated field trials

Satisfied – risk assessment

(USDA-APHIS, 2013)

Socioeconomic and Cultural

Agricultural Production of 

Apple

Total commercial apple 

bearing acreage has declined 

since 2002 while total apple 

utilized production has been

relatively unchanged since 

2007. Based on apple 

production trends and 

projections, apples will 

continue to be a major fruit

crop in the U.S. for the 

foreseeable future.

Unchanged from No Action

Alternative

Domestic Commerce

The majority of commercial 

apple production is marketed 

as fresh fruit. Of the 

approximately 9.3 billion 

pounds of utilized apple 

production, fresh fruit 

production accounted for 2.38 

billion dollars and processed 

fruit production for 338 

million dollars. In 2011 about 

1% of the total apple crop was 

used for fresh sliced apples. 

The majority of processed 

apples are used for juice or 

cider.

Unchanged from No Action

Alternative

12
Attribute/Measure Alternative A: No Action

Alternative B: Determination 

of Nonregulated Status

Organic Apple Production

Specialty crop growers 

employ practices and 

standards for production, 

cultivation, and product 

handling and processing to 

ensure that their products are

not pollinated by or

commingled with 

conventional or GE crops. 

Organic apples are one of the 

top three organic fresh fruits 

purchased.

Unchanged from No Action

Alternative

Foreign Trade

The U.S. produces 

approximately 16% of the 

global apple export market. 

U.S. apples and apple 

products will continue to play 

a role in global apple

production, and the U.S. will 

continue to be a supplier in the 

international market.

The foreign trade impacts 

associated with a

determination of 

nonregulated status of

GD743 and GS784 apples

are anticipated to be similar

to the No Action alternative

however, import of each

specific trait requires separate

application and approval by 

the importing country.

Environment

Soil Quality

Agronomic practices such as 

crop type, tillage, and pest 

management can affect soil 

quality. Growers will adopt 

management practices to 

address their specific needs 

in producing apples.

Unchanged from No Action

Alternative

13
Attribute/Measure Alternative A: No Action

Alternative B: Determination 

of Nonregulated Status

Water Resources

The primary cause of

agricultural non-point source

pollution is increased 

sedimentation from soil 

erosion, which can introduce

sediments, fertilizers, and 

pesticides to nearby lakes 

and streams. Agronomic 

practices such as crop 

nutrient management, pest 

management, and

conservation buffers help 

protect water quality from 

agricultural runoff

Unchanged from No Action

Alternative

Air Quality

Agricultural activities such as

burning, tilling, harvesting,

spraying pesticides, and

fertilizing, including the

emissions from farm

equipment, can directly affect

air quality. Aerial application

of herbicides may impact air

quality from drift, diffusion,

and volatilization of the

chemicals, as well as motor 

vehicle emissions from

airplanes or helicopters.

Unchanged from No Action

Alternative

Climate Change

Agriculture-related activities 

are recognized as both direct 

sources of greenhouse gases 

(GHGs) (e.g., exhaust from 

motorized equipment) and 

indirect sources (e.g., 

agriculture-related soil 

disturbance, fertilizer

production)

Unchanged from No Action

Alternative

Animal Communities

Apple orchards may be host 

to many animal and insect 

species. Many of these 

animals are typically 

considered pests and may be 

controlled by the use of

integrated pest management 

strategies.

Unchanged from No Action

Alternative

14
Attribute/Measure Alternative A: No Action

Alternative B: Determination 

of Nonregulated Status

Plant Communities

Apple is a labor intensive, 

highly managed crop. 

Members of the plant 

community that adversely 

affect apple cultivation may 

be characterized as weeds. 

Weed control is an important 

aspect of apple cultivation.

Apple growers use production 

practices to manage weeds in 

and around orchards. Apples 

are an outcrossing species, 

requiring cross pollination 

from a different commercial 

variety or crab apple species.

Pollination efficiency 

decreases rapidly with 

distance between pollen 

sources so cross pollination 

with native crab apples would 

be unlikely.

Unchanged from No Action

Alternative

Microorganisms

The apple orchard is a highly 

managed environment which 

incorporates integrated pest 

management (IPM) 

strategies. IPM programs are 

tailored to specific areas of 

the country; however, nearly 

every IPM program 

specifically addresses the 

most common diseases of 

apple.

Unchanged from No Action

Alternative

Biological Diversity

The biological diversity in 

apple orchards is highly 

managed and may be lower 

than in the surrounding 

habitats. 

Unchanged from No Action

Alternative

Human and Animal Health

15
Attribute/Measure Alternative A: No Action

Alternative B: Determination 

of Nonregulated Status

Human Health/ Worker 

Safety

The average U.S. consumer 

ate an estimated 47.6 pounds 

of fresh apples and processed 

apple products in 2011. The 

apple orchard is a highly 

managed environment which 

incorporates the use of 

agricultural chemicals. 

Pesticides are used on most 

apple acreage in the US. The 

EPA’s Worker Protection

Standard (WPS) (EPA, 1992);

40 CFR Part 170.1, Scope and

Purpose) requires employers

to take actions to reduce the

risk of pesticide poisonings

and injuries among 

agricultural workers and 

pesticide handlers. The WPS

contains requirements for

pesticide safety training,

notification of pesticide 

applications, use of personal 

protective equipment,

restricted entry intervals

following pesticide 

application, decontamination 

supplies, and emergency

medical assistance.

OSF data demonstrates that 

the composition of GD743 

and GS784 apples does not 

substantially differ from 

conventional apple varieties. 

OSF submitted a safety and 

nutritional assessment of 

food and feed derived from 

GD 743 and GS 784 to the 

FDA on May 30, 2011. FDA 

is presently evaluating the 

submission.

OSF’s studies demonstrate 

no differences in 

morphological characteristics 

and agronomic requirements 

between GD743 and GS784 

apples and other apple 

varieties. OSF demonstrates 

in its petition that the 

agronomic inputs required to 

cultivate GD743 and GS784

apples are functionally 

equivalent to those required 

for conventional apple.

Accordingly, the health and 

safety protocols currently 

employed by farm workers in 

the cultivation of apple do

not require changes to 

accommodate the cultivation

of GD743 and GS784 apples.

Therefore, human health and 

worker safety issues associated 

with the agricultural

production of GD743 and 

GS784 apples would remain

the same as those under the No

Action Alternative.

16
Attribute/Measure Alternative A: No Action

Alternative B: Determination 

of Nonregulated Status

Animal Feed

Some whole apples or apple 

pieces may be fed to domestic 

animals, but the majority of 

apple feed products are 

derived from the byproducts 

of manufacturing.

OSF submitted a safety and 

nutritional assessment of 

food and feed derived from 

GD 743 and GS 784 to the 

FDA on May 30, 2011. 

FDA is presently evaluating 

the submission. A

compositional analysis 

concluded there were no 

biologically meaningful 

differences identified 

between GD743 and GS784 

apples and other varieties.

Therefore this is unchanged 

from the No Action 

Alternative.

Other Regulatory Approvals

U.S.

OSF submitted a safety and 

nutritional assessment of 

food and feed derived from 

GD 743 and GS 784 to the 

FDA on May 30, 2011. 

FDA is presently 

evaluating the submission.

OSF submitted a safety and 

nutritional assessment of 

food and feed derived from 

GD 743 and GS 784 to the 

FDA on May 30, 2011. 

FDA is presently 

evaluating the submission.

CFIA

Regulatory submissions for 

product approvals were 

made to Health Canada and 

the Canadian Food 

Inspection Agency (CFIA) 

on December 7, 2011. CFIA 

is presently evaluating the 

submission.

Regulatory submissions for 

product approvals were 

made to Health Canada and 

the CFIA on December 7, 

2011. CFIA is presently 

evaluating the submission.

Compliance with Other Laws

CWA, CAA, EOs Fully compliant Fully compliant

17
3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

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

those aspects of the human environment potentially impacted by a determination of 

nonregulated status of GD743 and GS784. For the purposes of this EA, those aspects of 

the human environment are: socioeconomic and cultural resources, apple production 

areas, the physical environment, biological resources, public health, and animal feed.

3.1 Socioeconomic and Cultural Resources

3.1.1 Agricultural Production of Apples

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

orchards or in larger production settings. In 2011, the U.S. total commercial apple 

bearing acreage was 330,600 acres (Table 2)(USDA-NASS, 2012b). Historically, 

Washington, New York, and Michigan are the largest producers of apples. 

Approximately 44% of the nation’s apples acres are in Washington. New York and 

Michigan together account for about one fourth of the U.S. apple acres (Figure 1)

(USDA-NASS, 2012b). 

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

State

Bearing 

Apple 

Acreage

State

Bearing 

Apple 

Acreage

State

Bearing 

Apple 

Acreage

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

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

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

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

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

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

North 

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

West Virginia 4,900 Connecticut 2,100 Tennessee 800

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

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

Source: (USDA-NASS, 2012b)

18
Figure 1. Acres of Apples Produced.

3.1.2 Domestic Commerce

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

approximately 9.3 million pounds at a value of 2.7 billion U.S. dollars(USDA-NASS, 

2012b). The majority of commercial apple production is marketed as fresh fruit valued at 

over $2.38 billion. Processed fruit production is valued at $338 million dollars (USDANASS, 2012b).

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

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

majority of processed apples are used for juice or cider (USDA-NASS, 2012b). Crunch 

Pak®, the largest sliced apple producer in the United States, produces more than a billion 

apple slices a year and has tripled their sales in just four years (Crunch Pak, 2012). 

According to a Reuter’s estimate, approximately 10 % of McDonald’s Corporation 2010 

sales were from Happy Meals. In 2012, McDonald’s Corporation announced that it 

would include a quarter cup of apples in every Happy Meal. Previously, apple slices with 

Happy Meals was an option. Currently, McDonald’s Corporation is the leading food 

service user of apple slices (Karst, 2012).

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

processing apples for apple sauce. As in apple sauce production, apples are dumped, 

washed, graded, peeled, and cored; however unlike apple sauce production, sliced apples 

packs generally consists of a single cultivar rather than a mix or blend of cultivars 

(Barrett et al., 2005). Surface discoloration is one of the most common quality defects of 

19
fresh cut fruit and significantly contributes to the decreased shelf life of fresh cut fruit. 

When apples are peeled and cut, apple cells are broken and enzymes called polyphenol 

oxidases (PPOs) are released and come in contact with other molecules in the apple cell. 

When this happens, apple flesh discoloration or enzymatic browning occurs. Both 

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

methods that can be used are reducing temperature and oxygen levels, utilizing modified 

atmosphere packaging, or applying edible coatings. The most common chemical control 

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

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

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

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

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

3.1.3 Organic Apple Production

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

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

definition of organic farming can be marketed and labeled as “organic” (USDA-AMS, 

2010a). Organic certification is a process-based certification, not a certification of the 

end product; the certification process specifies and audits the methods and procedures by 

which the product is produced.

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

Together, consumer purchases in these two regions made up 95 percent of estimated 

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

2009, world retail sales of organic products were estimated to be on the order of $54.9 

billion (USD), up from $50.9 billion in 2008 (Organic Monitor, 2006). 

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

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

estimated to be $26.7 billion USD in 2010. Sales in 2010 represented 7.7 percent growth 

over 2009 sales. Experiencing the highest growth in sales during 2010 were organic fruits 

and vegetables, up 11.8 percent over 2009 sales. Organic fruits and vegetables 

represented over 11 percent of all U.S. fruit and vegetable sales (Organic Trade 

Association, 2011). Organic food and beverage sales represented approximately 4 

percent of overall food and beverage sales in 2010 (Organic Trade Association, 2011).

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

produced a total of 300 million pounds of organic apples. The total gross value of sales 

was reported from 371 farms, for a total of 286million pounds of organic apples valued at 

122 million USD (USDA-NASS, 2012a). Organic apples are one of the top three organic 

fresh fruits purchased. The value of fresh organic apple sales in 2011 was 114 million

USD compared to organic apples for processing valued at just under 8 million USD

(USDA-NASS, 2012a). Washington State has the largest organic apple production in the 

United States followed by California and Arizona (USDA-NASS, 2012a). Climate is the 

primary reason the majority of organic apple production takes place in these states. The 

20
relatively dry climate of Washington reduces the levels of pest and disease incidence for 

both conventional and organic apples compared to the more humid East coast states.

3.1.4 Foreign Trade

The United States produces approximately 16 percent of the global apple export market 

(USDA-FAS, 2012). Major apple exports for the U.S. are fresh apples and apple juice. 

As of 2011, the largest importer of U.S. fresh apples was Mexico, followed by Canada 

and India (USDA-FAS, 2012). The largest importer of U.S. apple juice is Canada with 

Japan and Mexico following (USDA-FAS, 2012). In 2011, the U.S. exported 833,000 

metric tons of apples (USDA-FAS, 2012).

3.2 Physical Environment 

3.2.1 Soil Quality

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

inorganic and organic matter is home to a wide variety of fungi, bacteria, and arthropods, 

as well as the growth medium for terrestrial plant life (USDA-NRCS, 2004). Soil is 

characterized by its layers that can be distinguished from the initial parent material due to 

additions, losses, transfers, and transformations of energy and matter (USDA-NRCS, 

1999). It is further distinguished by its ability to support rooted plants in a natural 

environment. Soil plays a key role in determining the capacity of a site for biomass vigor 

and production in terms of physical support, air, water, temperature moderation, 

protection from toxins, and nutrient availability. Soils also determine a site’s 

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

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

matter, the carbon-nitrogen ratio, numbers of microorganisms and soil fauna all vary 

seasonally, as well as over extended periods of time (USDA-NRCS, 1999). Soil texture 

and organic matter levels directly influence its shear strength, nutrient holding capacity, 

and permeability. Soil taxonomy was established to classify soils according to the 

relationship between soils and the factors responsible for their character (USDA-NRCS, 

1999). Soils are organized into four levels of classification, the highest being the soil 

order. Soils are differentiated based on characteristics such as particle size, texture, and 

color, and classified taxonomically into soil orders based on observable properties such 

as organic matter content and degree of soil profile development (USDA-NRCS, 2010). 

The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) maintains soil maps on a county 

level for the entire U.S. and its territories.

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

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

encompass an enormous diversity of bacteria, algae, fungi, protozoa, viruses, and 

actinomycetes (filamentous bacteria) (Doran et al., 1996). The extent of the diversity of 

microorganisms in soil is seen to be critical to the maintenance of soil health and quality. 

Microorganisms in soil are critical to the maintenance of soil function in both natural and 

managed agricultural soils because of their involvement in such key processes as soil 

structure formation; decomposition of organic matter; toxin removal; and the cycling of

21
carbon, nitrogen, phosphorus, and sulfur (Garbeva et al., 2004; USDA-NRCS, 2004). In 

addition, certain microbial organisms may contribute to the protection of the root system 

against soil pathogens (Garbeva et al., 2004).

3.2.2 Water Resources

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

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

Act utilizes water quality standards, permitting requirements, and monitoring to protect 

water quality. The EPA sets the standards for water pollution abatement for all waters of 

the U.S. under the programs contained in the CWA, but, in most cases, gives qualified 

states the authority to issue and enforce permits. Drinking water is protected under the 

Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-523, 42 U.S.C. 300 et seq.). 

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

through the provision of water for drinking and other public uses, irrigation, and industry. 

Surface runoff from rain, snowmelt, or irrigation water can affect surface water quality 

by depositing sediment, minerals, or contaminants into surface water bodies. Surface 

runoff is influenced by meteorological factors such as rainfall intensity and duration, and 

physical factors such as vegetation, soil type, and topography.

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

formations called aquifers. It sustains ecosystems by releasing a constant supply of water 

into wetlands and contributes a sizeable amount of flow to permanent streams and rivers. 

Based on 2005 data, the largest use of groundwater in the U.S. is irrigation, representing 

approximately 67.2% of all the groundwater pumped each day (McCray, 2009). In the 

U.S., approximately 47% of the population depends on groundwater for its drinking 

water supply. The EPA defines a sole source aquifer (SSA) as an aquifer that supplies at 

least 50% of the drinking water consumed in the area overlying the aquifer. An SSA 

designation is one tool to protect drinking water supplies in areas where there are few or 

no alternative sources to the groundwater resource. There are 77 designated SSAs in the 

U.S. and its territories (US-EPA, 2011b).

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

nonpoint source (NPS) pollution comes from many diffuse sources. Rainfall or snowmelt 

moving over the ground, also known as runoff, picks up and carries away natural and 

human-made pollutants, creating NPS. The pollutants may eventually be transported by 

runoff into lakes, rivers, wetlands, coastal waters and ground waters. Agricultural NPS 

pollution includes animal wastes, fertilizers, and pesticides. Surface water may be 

contaminated by agricultural sediments transported by erosion that may also include 

pesticides, fertilizers, and sometimes fuel and pathogens. Agricultural practices that 

introduce contaminants into the groundwater include fertilizer and pesticide application, 

spilled oil and gasoline from farm equipment, nitrates, and pathogens from animal 

manure.

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

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

22
contamination (US-EPA, 2005). Management practices that contribute to NPS pollution 

include the type of crop cultivated, plowing and tillage, and the application of pesticides, 

herbicides, and fertilizers. The primary cause of NPS pollution is increased sedimentation 

in surface waters following soil erosion (US-EPA, 2005). The major contribution to 

groundwater contamination derives from agricultural areas (nitrogen inputs from 

fertilizer and manure) and is influenced by regional environmental factors such as 

precipitation and soil characteristics (US-EPA, 2003). Nutrients in excess are listed as 

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

the third most probable source of the impairment (US-EPA, 2012d).

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

pesticides that are introduced to area lakes and streams when they are carried off of fields 

by rain or irrigation waters (US-EPA, 2005). Increase in sediment loads to surface waters 

can directly affect fish, aquatic invertebrates, and other wildlife maintenance and 

survival. It also reduces the amount of light penetration in water which directly affects 

aquatic plants. Indirectly, soil erosion-mediated sedimentation can increase fertilizer 

runoff, thereby increasing nutrient loading and facilitating higher water turbidity, algal 

blooms, and oxygen depletion (US-EPA, 2005). Extension scientists suggest over

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

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

from nitrates and phosphates (Carroll and Robinson, 2006). Preservation and 

conservation of water and soil resources must be maximized and non-point-source 

pollution must be minimized (Carroll and Robinson, 2006).

3.2.3 Air Quality

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

Standards (NAAQS). The NAAQS, developed by the EPA to protect public health, 

establish limits for six criteria pollutants: ozone (O3), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), carbon 

monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SO2), lead (Pb), and inhalable particulates (coarse 

particulate matter [PM] greater than 2.5 micrometers and less than 10 micrometers in 

diameter [PM10] and fine particles less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter [PM2.5]). The 

CAA requires states to achieve and maintain the NAAQS within their jurisdiction. Each 

state may adopt requirements stricter than those of the national standard and each is also 

required by EPA to prepare a State Implementation Plan (SIP) containing strategies to 

achieve and maintain the national standard of air quality within the state. Areas that 

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

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

attainment areas. Emissions contributing to greenhouse gases (GHG) associated with 

global warming are discussed in Subsection 3.2.4, Climate Change.

3.2.4 Climate Change

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

shifts in the frequency of extreme weather. Agriculture is recognized as a direct (e.g., 

exhaust from equipment) and indirect (e.g., agricultural-related soil disturbance) source 

of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The EPA has identified carbon dioxide (CO2), 

23
methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O) as the most important GHGs contributing to 

climate change. While each of these gases occurs naturally in the atmosphere, human 

activity has significantly increased the concentration of these gases since the beginning of 

the industrial revolution. The level of human produced gases accelerated even more so 

after the end of the Second World War, when industrial and consumer consumption 

expanded greatly. With the advent of the industrial age, there has been a 36% increase in 

the concentration of CO2, 148 % in CH4, and 18 % in N2O (US-EPA, 2012b).

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

machinery, and N2

O emissions from the use of nitrogen fertilizer (Hoeft et al., 2000; 

Aneja et al., 2009; US-EPA, 2012b). The EPA report, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2010 (US-EPA, 2012b), examines the agricultural 

contribution to climate change and possible mitigation measures. APHIS refers to this 

report for further disscussion of the agricultural effects on climate change. 

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

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

of agriculture may increase (Field et al., 2007). Current agricultural practices will be 

required to change in response to these changes in the ranges of weeds and pests of 

agriculture (Field et al., 2007).

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

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

change in North America may result in an increase in crop yield by 5-20% for this 

century (Field et al., 2007). However, this positive impact will not be observed across all 

growing regions as certain areas of the US are expected to be negatively impacted 

because the available water resources may be reduced substantially (Field et al., 2007). 

Note that the extent of climate change effects on agriculture is highly speculative. 

Nevertheless, North American production is expected to adapt to climate change impacts 

with improved cultivars and responsive farm management (Field et al., 2007).

3.3 Biological Resources

3.3.1 Animal Communities

Vertebrate Animals

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

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

porcupines, rabbits, raccoons, voles, mice, deer, woodchucks, foxes, fishers, bobcats, 

coyotes, squirrels, black bears, and a variety of birds are known to feed on apple trees 

and apples and can cause damage to apple trees (Wilson, 2006; Cornell, 2012). Birds 

such as quail nest in the grassy understories of apple orchards, while songbirds and 

mourning doves nest in the fruit trees (Palmer and Bromley, 1992).

Invertebrate Animals

24
A wide variety of invertebrates inhabit apple orchards, including beneficial as well as 

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

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

European apple sawfly, European corn borer, green fruitworms, internal lepidopterans, 

Japanese beetles, lacanobia fruitworm, lesser appleworm, mullein plant bug, Oriental 

fruit moth, oystershell scale, plum curculio, potato leafhopper, San Jose scale, 

sparganothis fruitworm, spider mites, spotted tentiform leafminer, stink bugs, tarnished 

plant bug, variegated leafroller, western flower thrip, white apple leafhopper (McVay et 

al., 1996; Bessin, 2003; Carroll and Robinson, 2006; WSU, 2010).

3.3.2 Plant Communities

Surrounding Landscapes and Other Vegetation in Apple Orchards

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

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

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

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

orchard is located.

Apples as a Weed or Volunteer

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

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

1980) or as Federal noxious weeds (7 CFR part 3604

; (USDA-NRCS, 2012). GD743 and 

GS784 do not exhibit characteristics that would cause them to be weedier than other 

golden delicious and granny smith apples. 

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

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

alley between rows. Animals, such as bears, mice, and squirrels, can carry fruit 

containing seed or seeds away from cultivated areas. Apples are often discarded by

travelers on roadways, or in compost piles. Seeds distributed in this way can result in 

seedling trees. Such cultivated apple-tree seedlings can be persistent; the species has 

escaped cultivation and naturalized in southern Canada, in the eastern USA, and from 

British Columbia south to California (Little, 1979). However, M. domestica typically 

occurs in commercial orchard plantings, as fruit trees in gardens or pastures. It is not 

common to find wild seedling trees; therefore, weediness is not thought to be a 

widespread problem.

3.3.3 Soil Microorganisms

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

matter, toxin removal, nutrient cycling, and most biochemical soil processes (Garbeva et 

al., 2004). They also suppress soil-borne plant diseases and promote plant growth (Doran 

et al., 1996). The main factors affecting microbial population size and diversity include 

4 http://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/plant_pest_info/weeds/downloads/weedlist-2010doc.pdf

25

 
soil type (texture, structure, organic matter, aggregate stability, pH, and nutrient content), 

plant type (providers of specific carbon and energy sources into the soil), and agricultural 

management practices (crop rotation, tillage, herbicide and fertilizer application, and 

irrigation) (Garbeva et al., 2004). Plant roots, including those of apples, release a variety 

of compounds into the soil creating a unique environment for microorganisms in the 

rhizosphere. Microbial diversity in the rhizosphere5 may be extensive and differs from 

the microbial community in the bulk soil (Garbeva et al., 2004).

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

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

scab resistance varieties, many susceptible varieties such as McIntosh and Red Delicious 

are widely grown due to consumer preference (Wilcox, 2013). Apple scab is more likely 

to cause severe damage in climates that have cool, damp weather in the spring as opposed 

to areas with warm, drier climates. The fungus usually overwinters in fallen leaves. In 

the spring is airborne ascopsores are distributed by wind and wind driven rain

(Vaillancourt, 2000). Apple scab is difficult to control and requires as many as 12 

fungicide applications a growing seasons to limit the spread and damage of the disease. 

Management of apple scab in susceptible varieties is aimed at preventing a primary 

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

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

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

and curative fungicides are used to treat infections that have been identified. Fungicides 

to control apple scab are applied every 5 -10 days on average depending on whether it is 

early in the season or late in the season. In addition to fungicide applications, methods 

such as pruning, clearing leaf litter from the orchard floor and/or treating leaves prior to 

drop or fallen leaves with urea are also useful (Vaillancourt, 2000).

Fire blight is a devastating bacterial disease of apples and several other rosaceaous 

species. In the U.S., the yearly economic losses due to fire blight and control are 

estimated at 100 million USD (Norelli et al., 2009; Gardiner et al., 2012). The disease is 

caused by the infection of the apple tree with the bacteria Erwinia amylovora. The 

bacteria overwinter in cankers on the apple tree. When conditions are favorable, the 

bacteria will multiply. Occurrence and severity of the disease can vary from year to year 

depending on the level of bacteria present in the orchard, weather conditions, cultivar 

selection, and age of the trees. Fire blight disease can infect most parts of the apple tree. 

Insects, particularly pollinating insects, spread the bacteria throughout the orchard via 

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

cultivars, and chemical/ antibiotic applications are used to control fire blight disease in 

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

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

blight incidence to occur and facilitate the efficient and effective implementation of 

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

the invading root systems of neighboring plants for space, water, and mineral nutrients, and interact with 

soil-borne microorganisms, including bacteria, fungi, and insects feeding on the organic material in the soil 

T. S. Walker, H. P. Bais, E. Grotewold and J. M. Vivanco, "Root Exudation and Rhizosphere Biology," 

Plant physiology 132.1 (2003).. 

26

 
antibiotic application. Timely application of the antibiotic streptomycin or 

oxytetracycline is critical in controlling fire blight. Currently the organic apple growers 

are allowed to use streptomycin or oxytetracyclin for fire blight control. Use of these 

antibiotics in organic apple production is scheduled to be phased out in October 2014 

(WSUTFRE, 2013).

3.3.4 Biological Diversity

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

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

the crops through and including the natural biodiversity of the surrounding ecosystem

(see, e.g., (Carpenter, 2011). APHIS focuses its analysis of biological diversity at the 

ecosystem level, that aspect of the environment potentially impacted by the determination 

of nonregulated status of various GE crops. In this case, biodiversity refers to the ability 

of a highly managed ecosystem, such as an apple orchard, to support species that do not 

contribute directly to crop production but represent important components of the 

biological landscape. Such species include species affecting pollination (e.g., bees, 

butterflies) and control of insect pests; important avian (e.g., songbirds) and mammalian 

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

3.4 Public Health

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

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

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

the indirect effect on human health and worker safety from laborers’ exposure to 

agricultural chemicals.

3.4.1 Food and Feed

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

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

processed apple products (USDA-ERS, 2012). In 2011 more than 60% of apple 

production in the United States was marketed as fresh fruit (USDA-NASS, 2012b). The 

remaining apple production is marketed as processed fruit such as fruit juice, cider, sauce, 

canned, fresh apple slices, and dried fruit products (USDA-ERS, 2010b). In 2011, 138.4 

million pounds of apples were marketed as fresh apple slices valued at over 26 million 

USD (Karst, 2012; USDA-NASS, 2012b).

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

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

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

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

may reduce the risk of colon cancer, help prevent heart disease and promote weight loss. 

Apples are also cholesterol-free, and their high fiber content helps control high cholesterol 

levels by preventing cholesterol absorption, and are nutrient dense for their low calorie 

content like most fruits and vegetables (Sharma, 2005).

27
Some whole apples or apple pieces may be fed to domestic animals, but the majority of 

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

from apple processing, including pulp, peels, and cores, are suitable animal feeds (NRC, 

1983). Apple pomace has feeding values similar to grass silage for wintering beef cattle

(NRC, 1983). Between 25 to 35 percent of the fresh weight of the apple is retained in the 

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

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

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

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

organisms for food and feed may undergo a voluntary consultation process with the FDA 

prior to release onto the market. Although a voluntary process, applicants who wish to 

commercialize a GE variety that will be included in the food supply invariably complete 

a consultation with the FDA. In a consultation, a developer who intends to commercialize 

a bioengineered food meets with the agency to identify and discuss relevant safety, 

nutritional, or other regulatory issues regarding the bioengineered food and then submits 

to FDA a summary of its scientific and regulatory assessment of the food. This process 

includes: 1) an evaluation of the amino acid sequence introduced into the food crop to 

confirm whether the protein is related to known toxins and allergens; 2) an assessment of 

the protein’s potential for digestion; and 3) an evaluation of the history of safe use of the 

protein in food. FDA evaluates the submission and responds to the developer by letter. 

OSF indicated that they have submitted a safety and nutritional assessment of food and 

feed derived from GD 743 and GS 784 to the FDA on May 30, 2011 (OSF, 2012). FDA 

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

and GS784 was submitted to Health Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency 

(CFIA) on December 7, 2011 (OSF, 2012).

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

compositional changes arise with all forms of genetic modification, including both 

conventional hybridizing and genetic engineering (NRC, 2004). The NRC also noted that 

at the time, no adverse health effects attributed to genetic engineering had been 

documented in the human population. Reviews on the nutritional quality of GE foods 

have generally concluded that there are no significant nutritional differences in 

conventional versus GE plants for food or animal feed (Faust, 2002; Flachowsky et al., 

2005).

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

agricultural chemicals. Pesticide use is common on most apple acreage in the US. Most 

of the major apples producing states/regions have guidelines for commercial apple 

orchard production and management. Each orchard/ apple production plan typically 

includes guidelines that address integrated pest management practices (Carroll and 

Robinson, 2006; Moulton and King, 2008; Donohue et al., 2011; Walgenbach, 2012). 

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

residues) in or on apples and apple products. To ensure safety of the apple food supply, 

the EPA regulates the amount of each pesticide that may remain in or on foods. These 

limits, called tolerances, are established to ensure food safety and are the result of the 

28
EPA making a safety finding that “the pesticide can be used with reasonable certainty of 

no harm.” (US-EPA, 2013). This finding of reasonable certainty of no harm is obligated 

under the FFDCA, as amended by the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA). In 

addition, the FDA and the USDA monitor foods for pesticide residues and work with the 

EPA to enforce these tolerances (see (USDA-AMS, 2013). In setting pesticide tolerances, 

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

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

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

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

it marketed and prepared.

3.4.2 Worker Safety

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

include hazards of equipment and plant materials. Pesticide application represents the 

primary exposure route to pesticides for farm workers. Workers engaged in apple 

production may encounter insecticides, herbicides, fungicides or fertilizers that may pose 

a worker health or safety risk unless used in accordance with the EPA -established 

agriculture-specific requirements in the Worker Protection Standard (WPS) (40 CFR Part 

170) that protect workers from the hazards of chemical exposure. The WPS offers 

protections to more than two and a half million agricultural workers who work with 

pesticides at more than 560,000 workplaces on farms, forests, nurseries, and greenhouses. 

The WPS contains requirements for pesticide safety training, notification of pesticide 

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

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

Occupational Safety and Health Administration requires all employers to protect their 

employees from hazards associated with agricultural chemicals. The EPA pesticide 

registration process, however, involves the design of use restrictions that if followed have 

been determined to be protective of worker health.

29
4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

4.1 Assumption used in analysis

This analysis of potential environmental consequences addresses the potential impact to 

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

environmental impacts from the No Action Alternative and the Preferred Alternative for 

GD743 and GS784 apples are described in detail throughout this section. 

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

GD743 and GS784 are intended for commercial production for the fresh cut apple 

market. Based on APHIS’ PPRA, GD743 and GS784 are not more weedy or more 

susceptible to diseases of apple that other commercially available apple varieties. 

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

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

currently support apple production. To determine areas of apple production, APHIS 

used data from the USDA-NASS 2011 Noncitrus Fruits and Nuts Report (USDANASS, 2012b). 

4.2 Socioeconomic and Cultural Resources

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

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

issues within each of these topics.

4.2.1 Agricultural Production of Apple

No Action Alternative: Agricultural Production of Apple

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

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

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

practices consider choices to use certain varieties, irrigation practices, pesticides, fertilizer 

use and other growing practices to contain costs, increase production, ease maintenance 

requirements, and to meet market demand. Over the years, apple production has resulted in 

well-established management practices that are available through local Cooperative 

Extension Service offices and their respective websites. The National Information 

System for the Regional Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Centers publishes crop 

profiles for major crops on a state-by-state basis. These crop profiles provide production 

guidance for local growers, including recommended practices for specific pest control. 

Crop profiles for many of the apple production states can be reviewed 

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

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

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

portion of the tree that produces the desired fruit variety. Apples trees are outcrossing 

species that require cross pollination. Due to the nature of the outcrossing of apple fruit 

30
trees, the seeds produced by an apple will be a hybrid of the tree that produced the fruit 

and the tree that was used for pollination. The resulting characteristics of the fruit and 

even the vegetative portions of the plant may not resemble those of the parent trees 

(Crasweller, 2005). Therefore, apple trees are clonally propagated rather than grown 

from seed. Furthermore, popular apple varieties such as ‘Red Delicious’ have numerous 

varietal mutants or sports. These sports can arise through random genetic mutations. If 

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

mutation could be maintained and marketed through clonal propagation. Apple 

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

production nursery. Commercial nursery workers propagate new apple trees for planting. 

Production of an apple tree ready for planting takes several years.

Orchard establishment and management involve careful consideration of site 

characteristics and apple tree selection. Growers choose site locations in an environment 

that protects the tree from climactic conditions as well as has suitable soil quality. 

Commercial apple orchards are typically 10 or more acres. Deciding on which apple 

varieties to grow is an important aspect of orchard planning. Factors such as the cultivars 

and rootstocks selected will determine tree spacing, training, and pest and disease 

management; however the overarching decision is driven by marketing strategy and 

consumer preference (Roper and Frank, 2004). It is necessary to select a combination of 

rootstock/scion that can be effectively managed and provides long term fruit production. 

The rootstock controls trees size; therefore rootstock selection is most important when 

determining tree spacing. Selecting a rootstock that is resistant to diseases and pests is 

also an important consideration when selecting a rootstock. Dwarfing rootstocks make 

apple tree management easier because of the smaller size of the apple tree and facilitates 

pest and disease management, pruning, thinning, and harvesting from the ground level

(Moulton and King, 2008). 

Another important consideration is the choice of pollinizer trees. Bloom time is critical 

when choosing pollinizer trees. If the pollinizer tree’s bloom time does not overlap at the 

same time as the selected variety, then pollination will not occur. Ideally, pollinizers 

should not be placed more than 100 feet away and approximately 10% of the orchard 

trees should be pollinizers (Roper and Frank, 2004)). Various strategies are used to 

provide pollen sources. Interspersing pollinizer trees, grafting branches of pollinizer 

cultivars onto the tree that requires a pollen source, or planting rows of pollinizer trees 

systematically throughout the orchard are some common strategies used for providing 

pollen sources (Warmund, 1996; Schotzko and Granatstein, 2005). Pollinizer trees can be 

other compatible apple varieties or crabapples. Crabapples are often used as pollinizers 

as they are smaller and easier to manage, flower profusely, and reduce confusion about 

which fruit to pick at harvest time (Penn State, 2012) . It is important to note that 

because apple trees are an outcrossing species, any apple seeds that are produced will be 

hybrids and would have characteristics of both parents. In the case of GD743 and GS784

apples, a portion of the seeds would carry the transgene responsible for the non-browning 

trait. GD743 carries two copies of the transgene while GS784 carries four copies(OSF, 

2012). Therefore three quarters of the GD743 seeds would carry at least one copy of the 

transgene and 15/16 of the seeds of GS784 would carry at least one copy of the 

transgene. 

31
Apples are grown in all 50 states. In 2011, the United States total commercial apple 

bearing acreage was 330,600 acres (USDA-NASS, 2012b). Historically, Washington, 

New York, and Michigan have been the largest apple producing states in the country. 

These three states alone account for approximately 67% of the total commercial apple 

bearing acreage in the country (USDA-NASS, 2012b). Total commercial apple bearing 

acreage has declined since 2002 while total apple utilized production has been relatively 

unchanged since 2007 (Figures 2and 3).

Figure 2. Commercial Apple Bearing Acreage-United States: 2002-2011 (USDANASS, 2012b).

Figure 3. Commercial Apple Utilized Production- United States: 2002-2011 (USDANASS, 2012b).

The trend of an increase in apple production per acre can be accounted for by a number 

of factors such as, cultural practices to reduce biannual bearing, planting of high density 

orchards, and integrated pest management strategies (USITC, 2010). Apple production 

has remained relatively stable since 2005. The upward trend in apple production in 2004 

can be contributed to a bumper crop (USITC, 2010). While apple production for the fresh

32
market has seen a slight increase from 2004 – 2008, apples utilized for processing 

decreased from 2004 - 2008 mainly due to the increase in importation of apple juice 

concentrate from China (USITC, 2010).

Based on apple production trends and projections, apples will continue to be a major fruit

crop in the U.S. for the foreseeable future. The current agronomic practices utilized in 

apple production are likely to continue under the No Action Alternative. 

Preferred Alternative: Agricultural Production of Apple

Under the Preferred Alternative, a determination of a nonregulated status of GD743 and 

GS784 apples is unlikely to change the agricultural production of apples as described in 

the No Action alternative.

OSF’s studies demonstrate that agronomic characteristics and cultivation practices required 

for GD743 and GS784 apples are indistinguishable from practices used to grow other apple

varieties (OSF, 2012). None of the BMP currently employed for apple production are

expected to change if GD743 and GS784 apples are no longer subject to the regulatory 

requirements of 7 CFR Part 340 or the plant pest provisions of the PPA. A determination of 

a nonregulated status of GD743 and GS784 apples is unlikely to expand apple acreage. 

Accordingly, the potential impacts on agricultural production of GD743 and GS784 apples

resulting from management practices associated with the No Action and Preferred 

Alternative are the same.

4.2.2 Domestic Commerce

No Action Alternative: Domestic Commerce

The majority of commercial apple production is marketed as fresh fruit. Of the 

approximately 9.3 billion pounds of utilized apple production valued at over 2.72 billion 

USD, fresh fruit production accounted for 2.38 billion dollars and processed fruit 

production for 338 million dollars ( Table 3). Apples are processed into products such as 

juice, sauce, fresh slices, canned and frozen products. In 2011 about 1% of the total 

apple crop was used for fresh sliced apples. The majority of processed apples are used 

for juice or cider (USDA-NASS, 2012b).

Table 3. Apple production and value by use 2011.

USE

Quantity (million

pounds) Value (US dollars)

Fresh 6.2771 2,384,586,000

Canned 1138.7 129,242,450

Juice/ Cider 1278.4 125,283,200

Frozen 255.5 32,320,750

Dried 153.5 17,192,000

33
Fresh slices 138.4 26,434,400

Other 71.0 7,313,000

Source: (USDA-NASS, 2012b)

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

Preferred Alternative: Domestic Commerce

A determination of nonregulated status of GD743 and GS784 apples is not expected to 

adversely impact domestic commerce. The adoption of GD743 and GS784 apples would

add another apple variety to the market. OSF has estimated a total planted area of 4,000 

acres or about 1.2 percent of total U.S. apple plantings over the first 10 years (OSF, 

2012). OSF anticipates that apples, being a perennial crop of 20 or more years before 

replanting, will have a much slower adoption and introduction curve than annual crops 

(OSF, 2012).

OSF’s studies demonstrate that agronomic characteristics and cultivation practices required 

for GD743 and GS784 apples are indistinguishable from practices used to grow other apple

varieties (OSF, 2012). The apple fruit from a non-GE apple tree cannot be contaminated by 

transgenic pollen, since the flesh of the fruit develops from the receptacle, or base of the 

flower, which is not genetically modified, as opposed to the seed (OSF, 2012). The flesh of 

the apple fruit retains the genetic identity of the tree it grows on, and is in no way altered by 

the genetic identity of the pollen that fertilizes the flower. 

During pollination with transgenic pollen, the genetic modification will only be present in 

the seed. But the probability of such seeds occurring is low, since only a tiny quantity of 

the large amount of pollen arriving on the stigma will germinate and only one pollen grain 

will fertilize the ovum (Hanke, 2003). It is important to note that because apple trees are an 

outcrossing species, any apple seeds that are produce will be hybrids and would have 

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

2009 2010 2011

Fresh Sliced Apples, millions lbs

fresh sliced apples,

millions lbs

34
characteristics of both parents. In the case of GD743 and GS784, only a portion of the 

seeds would carry the transgene responsible for the non-browning trait.

GD743 and GS784 apples have the potential to improve fruit processing capabilities for 

maintaining the quality and shelf life of apples for processing and the snack food market. 

There also is an inherent reduction in food processing costs associated with a reduction in 

fruit browning and in providing alternatives to conventional technologies to prevent 

browning. If growers adopt GD743 and GS784 apple varieties and take advantage of the 

niche market, local farm economics may improve. 

All GD743 and GS784 apples will be sold under the ArcticTM brand name. This brand 

name will be utilized in a range of venues – including point-of-sale literature, price lookup code stickers on the apples and all forms of retail packaging – to identify ArcticTM fruit

(OSF, 2012). The apple industry has the advantage over the field crop industry in the fact 

that cultivars are already segregated and packed in lots. It is OSF’s intent that traceability 

will be maintained for all ArcticTM Apple cultivars from field to retail and foodservice 

outlets (OSF, 2012). Under the Preferred Alternative, trends related to domestic 

commerce are unlikely to be substantially different than what would occur in the No 

Action Alternative.

4.2.3 Organic Apple Production

No Action Alternative: Organic Apple Production 

In the U.S., only products produced using specific methods and certified under the 

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

definition of organic farming can be marketed and labeled as “organic” (USDA-AMS, 

2010a). Organic certification is a process-based certification, not a certification of the 

end product; the certification process specifies and audits the methods and procedures by 

which the product is produced.

In accordance with NOP, an accredited organic certifying agent conducts an annual 

review of the certified operation’s organic system plan and makes on-site inspections of 

the certified operation and its records. Organic growers must maintain records to show 

that production and handling procedures comply with USDA organic standards. 

The NOP regulations preclude the use of excluded methods. The NOP provides the 

following guidance under 7 CFR Section 205.105:

...to be sold or labeled as “100 percent organic”, “organic” or “made with organic 

(specified ingredients or group(s)),” the product must be produced and handled 

without the use of...

(a) Synthetic substances and ingredients,...

(e) Excluded methods...

Excluded methods are then defined at 7 CFR Section 205.2 as:

35
A variety of methods used to genetically modify organisms or influence 

their growth and development by means that are not possible under 

natural conditions or processes and are not considered compatible with 

organic production. Such methods include cell fusion, 

microencapsulation and macroencapsulation, and recombinant DNA 

technology (including gene deletion, gene doubling, introducing a foreign 

gene, and changing the positions of genes when achieved by recombinant 

DNA technology). Such methods do not include the use of traditional 

breeding, conjugation, fermentation, hybridization, in vitro fertilization, 

or tissue culture.

Organic farming operations, as described by the NOP, are required to have distinct, 

defined boundaries and buffer zones to prevent unintended contact with excluded 

methods from adjoining land that is not under organic management. Organic production 

operations must also develop and maintain an organic production system plan approved 

by their accredited certifying agent. This plan enables the production operation to 

achieve and document compliance with the National Organic Standards, including the 

prohibition on the use of excluded methods. (USDA-AMS, 2010a). 

Common practices organic growers may use to exclude GE products include planting 

only organic seed, planting earlier or later than neighboring farmers who may be using 

GE crops so that the crops will flower at different times, and employing adequate 

isolation distances between the organic fields and the fields of neighbors to minimize the 

chance that pollen will be carried between the fields (NCAT, 2003). Although the 

National Organic Standards prohibit the use of excluded methods, they do not require 

testing of inputs or products for the presence of excluded methods. The presence of a 

detectable residue of a product of excluded methods alone does not necessarily constitute 

a violation of the National Organic Standards (USDA-AMS, 2010a). The current NOP 

regulations do not specify an acceptable threshold level for the adventitious presence of 

GE materials in an organic-labeled product. The unintentional presence of the products 

of excluded methods will not affect the status of an organic product or operation when 

the operation has not used excluded methods and has taken reasonable steps to avoid 

contact with the products of excluded methods as detailed in their approved organic 

system plan (Ronald and Fouche, 2006; USDA-AMS, 2010a).

As of 2011, there were 377 certified organic farms (with over 13,000 harvested acres) 

that produced approximately 300 million pounds of organic apples. The total gross value 

of sales was reported from 371 farms, for a total of 286 million pounds of organic apples 

valued at just over 122 million USD (USDA-NASS, 2012a). Organic apples are one of 

the top three organic fresh fruits purchased. The value of fresh organic apple sales in 

2011 was 114 million USD compared to organic apples for processing valued at 8 million

USD (USDA-NASS, 2012a). Washington State has the largest organic apple production 

in the United States followed by California and Arizona (USDA-NASS, 2012a). Climate 

is the primary reason the majority of organic apple production takes place in these states. 

The relatively dry climate of Washington reduces the levels of pest and disease incidence 

for both conventional and organic apples compared the more humid East coast states.

36
Preferred Alternative: Organic Apple Production

Organic farmers will not be substantially affected by a determination of nonregulated 

status of GD743 and GS784 apple. Organic apple producers would not be able to adopt 

GD743 and GS784 varieties since these varieties would be considered excluded methods 

as defined at 7 CFR Section 205.2. It is important to note that the current NOP 

regulations do not specify an acceptable threshold level for the presence of GE materials 

in an product labeled organic (USDA-ERS, 2010a). The unintentional presence of the 

products of excluded methods will not affect the status of an organic product or operation 

when the operation has not used excluded methods and has taken reasonable steps to 

avoid contact with the products of excluded methods (Ronald and Fouche, 2006; USDAAMS, 2010b). Because these apples will be planted on limited acreage in commercial 

apple groves, cross-pollination from these trees to other apple orchards will be limited to 

those that are in adjoining areas. Therefore organic growers who wish to reduce the 

likelihood of pollination from GD 743 or GS784 may need to discuss their needs with 

neighboring orchards to incorporate pollination control strategies in their organic plans. 

4.2.4 Foreign Trade

No Action Alternative: Foreign Trade

The United States produces approximately 16 percent of the global apple export market 

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

approximately 826,000 metric tons of fresh apples and 35,000 kiloliters of apple juice 

valued at 941 million and 34 million USD respectively (USDA-FAS, 2012). As of 2011, 

the largest importer of U.S. fresh apples was Mexico, followed by Canada and India 

(USDA-FAS, 2012). The largest importer of US apple juice is Canada with Japan and 

Mexico following (USDA-FAS, 2012). Over the past 5 years fresh apple exports have 

seen a slight increase (see Figure 5). However, apple juice exports have seen a decline 

largely due to an increase in apple juice imported from China (USITC, 2010).

37
Figure 5. U.S. Fresh Apple Exports (2007-2011) (USDA-FAS, 2012).

Preferred Alternative: Foreign Trade

A determination of nonregulated status of GD743 and GS784 apples is not expected to 

adversely impact foreign trade. To the extent that adoption of GD743 and GS784 apples

add another apple variety to the market, its introduction may enhance US competitiveness 

in global markets. As noted above in section 4.2.2, Domestic Commerce, GD743 and 

GS784 apples will be labeled with the ArcticTM brand name (OSF, 2012). It is OSF’s 

intent that traceability will be maintained for all ArcticTM Apple cultivars from field to 

retail and foodservice outlets (OSF, 2012).

OSF anticipates that apples, being a perennial crop of 20 or more years before replanting, 

will have a much slower adoption and introduction curve than annual crops (OSF, 2012). The 

foreign trade impacts associated with a determination of nonregulated status of GD743 

and GS784 apples are not expected to change from the No Action Alternative.

4.3 Physical Environment

4.3.1 Soil Quality

No Action Alternative: Soil Quality

Apples are cultivated in a wide variety of soils across the United States (see, e.g., Apple 

Crop Profiles provided at http://www.ipmcenters.org/cropprofiles/GetCropProfiles.cfm). 

Apples are typically grown in highly managed orchard environments of 10 acres or more. 

It takes approximately 4 – 6 years for an apple tree to produce fruit. Site preparation for 

0

100,000,000

200,000,000

300,000,000

400,000,000

500,000,000

600,000,000

700,000,000

800,000,000

900,000,000

1,000,000,000

0

100000

200000

300000

400000

500000

600000

700000

800000

900000

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Metric Tons

U.S. Dollars

Year

United States Fresh Apple Exports (2007 -

2011)

Quantity (Metric Tons)

Value (U.S. Dollars)

38
orchard establishment should include a crop rotation out of apples for at least one year. 

Planting a cover crop in the year before orchard establishment and incorporating the 

cover crop into the soil will improve soil organic matter content, suppress replant disease, 

weeds, and, depending on cover crop species, reduce nematodes (Carroll and Robinson, 

2006). Organic matter is probably the most vital component in maintaining quality soil.

Improving organic matter content of the soil helps maintain soil moisture and nutrients, is 

instrumental in maintaining soil stability and structure, reduces the potential for erosion,

reduces non-point-source pollution from leached chemical fertilizers, provides energy for 

microorganisms, improves infiltration and water holding capacity, and is important in 

nutrient cycling, cation exchange capacity6, and the breakdown of pesticides (Doran et 

al., 1996; USDA-NRCS, 1996; Carroll and Robinson, 2006). Apples need a variety of 

nutrients, such as nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, sulfur, magnesium, calcium, boron, 

iron, zinc, manganese and copper, at various levels (Spectrum). These nutrients may be 

deficient in poor, weathered soils, sandy soils, alkaline soils, or soils excessively high in 

organic matter. As with proper nutrient levels, soil pH is critical for apple development. 

Apples grow best in soil that is slightly acidic (pH 5.0 to 7.5); soil with a pH that is too 

high negatively affects yield (USDA-NRCS, 2013). 

Land management practices for apple cultivation can affect soil quality. Living cover can

protect against erosion, provides habitat and substrate for soil organisms, and increases 

soil organic residue inputs (Doran et al., 1996). Permanent grass sod or other cover crops 

are typically planted between the tree rows to minimize soil erosion, increase soil 

aeration and permeability, and support equipment movement through the orchard during 

wet weather (Walgenbach, 2011).

Preferred Alternative: Soil Quality

OSF’s studies demonstrate that agronomic characteristics and cultivation practices required 

for GD743 and GS784 apples are indistinguishable from practices used to grow other apple

varieties (OSF, 2012). A determination of nonregulation for GD743 and GS784 apples is 

not expected to change the management practices currently employed for apple production.

Accordingly, the potential impacts on soil quality of GD743 and GS784 apples resulting 

from management practices associated with the No Action and Preferred Alternative are 

the same.

4.3.2 Water Resources

No Action Alternative: Water Resources

Apple trees must receive sufficient water to survive summer months (Roper and Frank, 

2004). This water demand is met by a combination of natural rainfall, stored soil 

moisture, and supplemental irrigation during the growing season. Irrigation can 

supplement natural rainfall to provide the optimum water needs of the tree. Trees must be 

supplied with adequate soil moisture to ensure balanced growth and high quality fruit 

6 Cation exchange capacity is the ability of soil anions (negatively charged clay, organic matter and 

inorganic minerals such as phosphate, sulfate, and nitrate) to adsorb and store soil cation nutrients 

(positively charged ions such as potassium, calcium, and ammonium).

39

 
(Carroll and Robinson, 2006). For orchards in full production it is very important for 

good fruit quality and size to be sure there is plenty of water available during the period 

(July–September) when the fruit is maturing (Moulton and King, 2008). Irrigation is most 

beneficial for young trees, which do not have extensive root systems and cannot explore 

large volumes of soil to get water. Each young tree requires about 5 gallons of water per 

week (Roper and Frank, 2004). Over-irrigation constitutes a leaching potential for 

nitrates or other easily leached products applied to the orchard (Smith, 2001).

In Michigan, very few orchards receive supplemental irrigation as the fruit growing areas 

receive an average of 27 inches of rainfall per year (Donohue et al., 2011). The soils are 

generally sandy loam to loam soils with good drainage (Donohue et al., 2011). By 

contrast, in an average growing season in the northeast, rainfall is usually less than 

required for optimal tree performance during critical periods of tree establishment and 

growth (Robinson et al., 2013). Washington apples are grown in a moderate, marineinfluenced, desert climate, where scant rainfall occurs in the winter months. The dry, 

sunny growing-season weather gives growers the advantage of low disease pressure, but 

requires them to irrigate regularly (Smith, 2001).

The EPA considers water resources, groundwater, surface water and drinking water, and 

potential contamination of water resources, when registering a pesticide under FIFRA. 

Precautions to protect water resources, including aquatic animals and plants, if required, 

are provided on the pesticide label.

Preferred Alternative: Water Resources 

Under the Preferred Alternative, no changes to water resources is anticipated from a 

determination of nonregulated status of GD743 and GS784 apples when compared to the 

no action alternative. OSF’s studies demonstrate no differences in morphological 

characteristics and agronomic requirements between GD743 and GS784 apples and other 

apple varieties (OSF, 2012). A determination of nonregulated status of GD743 and GS784

apples is not expected to change the management practices currently employed for apple

production. Accordingly, the potential impacts on water quality of GD743 and GS784

apples are expected to be the same under the Preferred Alternative as under the No Action

Alternative.

4.3.3 Air Quality

No Action: Air Quality 

All agricultural practices have the potential to cause negative impacts to air quality. 

Agricultural emission sources include smoke from agricultural burning, tillage, heavy 

equipment emissions, pesticide drift from spraying, and indirect emissions from carbon 

dioxide and nitrous oxide emissions from the use of nitrogen fertilizer and degradation of 

organic materials (USDA-NRCS, 2006b; Aneja et al., 2009; US-EPA, 2012b). 

Conservation practices, including the use of cover crops such as permanent grass sod or 

other cover crops planted between the tree rows, help to decrease dust generation and 

40
tractor emissions. Cover crops planted between tree rows physically serve to hold the soil 

in place, thereby decreasing airborne soils and pesticide drift in wind-eroded soils.

Preferred Alternative: Air Quality

Under the Preferred Alternative, a determination of nonregulated status of GD743 and 

GS784 apples would not change the impacts to air quality compared to the No Action 

Alternative.

OSF’s studies demonstrate no differences in morphological characteristics and agronomic 

requirements between GD743 and GS784 apples and other apple varieties (OSF, 2012) and 

is not likely to change land acreage or any cultivation practices for apple production. It is 

expected that similar agronomic practices commonly utilized in commercially available 

apple varieties would also be used by growers of GD743 and GS784 apples. Accordingly, 

a determination of a nonregulated status of GD743 and GS784 apples is unlikely to change 

the use of agricultural practices with the potential to affect air quality from what is 

currently practiced. Based on this information, the potential impacts on air quality are 

expected to be the same under the Preferred Alternative as under the No Action

Alternative.

4.3.4 Climate Change

No Action Alternative: Climate Change

Agriculture is recognized as a direct (e.g., exhaust from equipment) and indirect (e.g., 

agricultural-related soil disturbance) source of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. 

Agriculture, including land-use changes for farming, is responsible for an estimated 6.3% 

of total GHG emissions in the United States (US-EPA, 2012b). U.S. agriculture may 

influence climate change through various facets of the production process (Horowitz and 

Gottlieb, 2010). The major sources of GHG emissions associated with crop production 

are soil N2O emissions, soil CO2 and CH4 fluxes, and CO2 emissions associated with 

agricultural inputs and farm equipment operation (Adler et al., 2007; US-EPA, 2012b). 

Over the twenty-year period of 1990 to 2009, total emissions from the agricultural sector 

grew by 8.7%, with 7% of the total U.S. GHG emissions in 2009 generated from this 

sector (US-EPA, 2012b). 

As discussed in Subsection 2.3.4 – Climate Change, these common agronomic practices 

contribute to GHG emissions, including tillage, cultivation, irrigation, pesticide application, 

fertilizer applications, and use of agriculture equipment. In comparison to field crops, apple 

cultivation potentially has fewer impacts on climate change. Apples are grown on few acres 

(330,600 acres) when compared to all U.S. cropland (442 million acres) (USDA-ERS, 2006)

accounting for less than 0.1 percent of agricultural land use. Apple management does not 

require tillage and cultivation each year since apples are a perennial crop of 20 or more

years before replanting, as such apples will have a much lower impact on climate change

than annual crops.

While agricultural activities may affect climate change, the converse is also true; climate 

change may affect agriculture. Climate change potentially may provide a positive impact 

41
to agriculture in general. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 

predicts that potential climate change in North America may result in an increase in crop 

yield by 5-20% for this century (Field et al., 2007). However, this positive impact will 

not be observed across all growing regions as certain areas of the US are expected to be 

negatively impacted because the available water resources may be reduced substantially 

(Field et al., 2007). Note that the extent of climate change effects on agriculture is highly 

speculative.

Freshwater and groundwater resources will be affected by climate change across the U.S., 

but the nature of the vulnerabilities varies from region to region (Field et al., 2007). In 

certain regions including the Columbia River and Great Lakes, surface and/or 

groundwater resources are intensively used for often competing agricultural, municipal, 

industrial and ecological needs, increasing potential vulnerability to future changes in 

timing and availability of water.

Over-allocated water systems, such as the Columbia River, that rely on capturing 

snowmelt runoff, will be especially vulnerable. With climate change, projected annual 

Columbia River flow changes relatively little, but timing of runoff shifts markedly 

toward larger winter and early spring flows and smaller summer and autumn flows (Karl 

et al., 2009). Loss of water availability in summer would exacerbate conflicts, over water. 

The challenges of managing water in the Columbia River basin will likely expand with 

climate change due to changes in snowpack and seasonal flows (Field et al., 2007; Karl et 

al., 2009).

A changing climate has a high likelihood of lowering net basin supplies and water levels 

for the Great Lakes Basin (Mortsch and Alden, 2003; Karl et al., 2009). Higher 

temperatures will mean more evaporation and hence a likely reduction in the Great Lakes 

water levels between 1 and 2 feet (Mortsch and Alden, 2003; Karl et al., 2009). Lower 

water levels in the Great Lakes are likely to influence many sectors, with multidimensional, interacting impacts. 

Preferred Alternative: Climate Change

As described in Section 4.2.1, the range and area of U.S. apple production is not likely to 

expand under the Preferred Alternative. As described in the OSF petition (OSF, 2012)

and APHIS PPRA (USDA-APHIS, 2013), GD743 and GS784 apples requires 

management strategies identical to those for conventional apple production, thus 

precluding changes in agricultural activities that may affect climate change, such as 

machine usage and fertilizer application. Collectively, because the range, area, and 

agronomic practices of apple are unlikely to change following a determination of 

nonregulated status of GD743 and GS784 apples, the agricultural impacts of apple 

cultivation on climate change are also unlikely to change under the Preferred Alternative.

42
4.4 Biological Resources

4.4.1 Animal Communities

No Action Alternative: Animal Communities

Apple orchards may be host to many animal and insect species. Mammals and birds may 

use apple orchards and the surrounding vegetation for food and habitat throughout the 

year. Invertebrates can feed on apple trees or fruit or prey upon other insects living on 

apple trees as well as in the vegetation surrounding apple orchards. 

The types and numbers of birds that inhabit apple orchards may vary regionally and 

seasonally. Birds may cause problems for apple producers. On many farms or orchards 

bird damage is minimal, and growers can choose to ignore the problem or just take the 

loss into account as a cost of management. For other growers, problems from birds can be 

substantial, resulting in large portions of the fruit crop being consumed or damaged. Bird 

species commonly observed causing damage to apple orchards include (Tobin, 1989; 

Brittingham and Falker, 2010):

• American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos);

• American robin (Turdus migratorius);

• American goldfinch (Carduelis tristis);

• Blue jays (Cyanocitta cristata);

• Cedar waxwing (Bombycilla cedrorum);

• European starling (Sturnus vulgaris);

• House finch (Carpodacus mexicanus);

• Common grackle (Quiscalus quiscula);

• House sparrow (Passer domesticus);

Common methods of reducing or preventing bird damage to apple orchards include the 

use of exclusion methods (netting), repellants, and harassment or scare tactics (Carroll 

and Robinson, 2006; Brittingham and Falker, 2010; Cooley et al., 2012).

Depending on the region, a variety of mammals may also utilize apple orchards. For the 

most part, herbivorous and omnivorous mammals feed on the apples themselves, but may 

also consume other parts of the apple tree (Wilson, 2006). Porcupines, beavers, mice, 

rabbits, and deer will consume bark of apple trees; deer will also consume buds; beaver, 

deer, and rabbits will consume twigs and leaves; and deer, fox, fisher, porcupines, 

bobcats, coyotes, squirrels, black bears, and other mammals will consume the fruit 

(Wilson, 2006). 

Three species of voles cause significant economic damage by feeding on apple trees in 

commercial orchards. Meadow voles (Microtuspennsylvanicus), pine voles (M. 

pinetorum), and Montane voles (Af. montanus). Both meadow and pine voles are major 

pests in apple orchards throughout the eastern half of the country. Montane voles are of 

concern to orchardists in valleys of the Columbia River and its tributaries in eastern

43
Washington State (Tobin and Richmond, 1993). Voles damage trees by gnawing the 

trunks and roots of the tree.

Common methods of reducing or preventing damage to apple orchards from mammals 

include the use of exclusion or barrier methods, repellants, habitat modification, 

harassment or scare tactics, and population control (Tobin and Richmond, 1993; Carroll 

and Robinson, 2006; Cooley et al., 2012).

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

pest species. For apple production facilities, much effort is expended in trying to 

eradicate pest insects from their apples (McVay et al., 1996; Bessin, 2003; Carroll 

and Robinson, 2006; WSU, 2010). Numerous insects and related arthropods perform 

a wide range of valuable functions; they pollinate plants, contribute to the 

decomposition and processing of organic matter, control of pests and diseases, 

maintenance of soil structure, detoxification of contaminants, and cycle soil nutrients

(Gardner and Ascher, 2006; Ruiz et al., 2008; Shelton, 2012). Arthropods may also 

feed upon insects and mites that are considered to be pests. Some of these beneficial 

predatory species common in apple orchards include the lady beetles (family 

Coccinellidae), syrphid flies (Syrphinae), tachinid flies, lacewings (chrysopidae), true 

bugs (Hemiptera), parasitoids (hymenoptera and Diptera), and predatory mites

(UNH, 2004; Cornell, 2012; Shelton, 2012)). 

Numerous species of bees, flies, beetles, and wasps, feed on apple blossom pollen and 

nectar and serve as pollinators of apple trees (Ladurner et al., 2004; Gardner and Ascher, 

2006). Apple trees rely on cross-pollination for successful fruit set, making pollinating 

insects extremely valuable (Gardner and Ascher, 2006). The most widely used insect for 

fruit pollination is the European honey bee (Park et al., 2010). While honey bees are 

important, they are certainly not the only crop pollinators. Native bees play an important

role in crop pollination (Park et al., 2010). Relying on a single pollinator, such as the 

European honey bee, for pollination may pose increasing risk. Research suggests that 

wild bees are increasingly contributing to apple pollination (Park et al., 2012). Pollination 

studies have shown that wild bees can be more effective pollinators than honey bees on a 

per-visit basis, meaning they do not need to be as abundant as honey bees to provide the 

same level of pollination (Park et al., 2012).

Potential impacts to animal communities associated with apple cultivation are not 

expected to change in the No-Action Alternative.

Preferred Alternative: Animal Communities

Under the Preferred Alternative, potential impacts to animal communities are not 

anticipated to be different compared to the No Action Alternative. Potential impacts to 

animal communities arise from any changes in agronomic inputs associated with the crop 

modification and direct exposure to the GE crop and its products. 

OSF has presented the results of field trials which demonstrate that GD743 and GS784

apples do not require any changes to agronomic inputs when compared with conventional 

44
apples (OSF, 2012). Land use and agricultural production of apple under the Preferred 

Alternative is likely to continue as currently practiced. Consequently, any impact to animal 

communities as a result of apple production practices under the Preferred Alternative are 

expected to be the same as the No Action Alternative.

Consumption of GD743 and GS784 apples is unlikely to substantially affect non-target 

organisms, such as mammals, birds, or insects. OSF data demonstrates that the 

composition of GD743 and GS784 apples does not substantially differ from conventional 

apple varieties (OSF, 2012). OSF indicated that they have submitted a safety and 

nutritional assessment of food and feed derived from GD743 and GS784 to the FDA on 

May 30, 2011 (OSF, 2012). FDA is presently evaluating the submission. There is no 

evidence that animal exposure to GD743 and GS784 apples would have any effect or be 

any less attractive as food, refuge, cover and nesting sites as non GE varieties of apples.

Collectively, because the range, area, and agronomic practices of apple are unlikely to 

change following a determination of nonregulated status of GD743 and GS784 apples, 

the impacts of apple cultivation on animal communities are also unlikely to change under 

the Preferred Alternative.

4.4.2 Plant Communities

No Action Alternative: Plant Communities

Apple is a labor intensive, highly managed crop. Members of the plant community that 

adversely affect apple cultivation may be characterized as weeds. Weed control is an 

important aspect of apple cultivation. Failure to control weeds in new apple orchards is 

the single greatest limiting factor to orchard establishment (Kamas et al.). An effective 

weed control program is the result of successfully integrating sound management 

strategies that includes timely applications of herbicide, weed surveillance, weed 

monitoring throughout the life of the orchard, planting ground covers, and mechanical 

cultivation (Kamas et al.; Roper, 2005; Carroll and Robinson, 2006; Pfeiffer, 2011).

Ground cover, often including an under-tree herbicide strip, is the weed management 

system most commonly used in orchards (Cornell, 2012). The goal of ground cover is to 

reduce soil erosion and nutrient runoff that contaminates surface water sources and to 

minimize the use of herbicides (Carroll and Robinson, 2006). Plants commonly used as 

ground covers in orchards include slow growing grasses such as fescues and ryegrasses, 

herb mixtures, and legumes such as alfalfa, clover, and trefoil (Roper, 2005; Carroll and 

Robinson, 2006; Cornell, 2012; Granatstein et al., 2012). Herbicides are generally used to 

manage groundcover around tree trunks and in that portion of the under-tree area that is 

difficult to mow (Cornell, 2012).

Apples are self-incompatible, meaning a tree’s own pollen will not produce fertilized 

seeds or fruit, therefore nearly all apple cultivars require cross pollination for consistent 

fruit set and yield (Dennis, 2003; Schneider et al., 2005; Park et al., 2012). Because all 

trees within a variety are clones (i.e. genetically identical), pollen must move across 

varieties (Park et al., 2012). This can be achieved by either planting multiple varieties in 

an orchard or using native crab apples. Ornamental crab apples can be used as pollinizers 

45
in orchards, with trees planted in hedgerows. This avoids the need for having more than 

one commercial cultivar in an orchard and simplifies harvest (Dennis, 2003).

Preferred Alternative: Plant Communities

Under the Preferred Alternative, potential impacts to plant communities are not 

anticipated to be different compared to the No Action Alternative.

OSF has presented the results of field trials which demonstrate that GD743 and GS784

apples do not require any changes to agronomic inputs when compared with conventional 

apples (OSF, 2012). Growers are already managing orchards to control for competing 

plant life and surrounding areas that could provide pest and disease reservoirs using 

treatments and controls. There would be no change in herbicide use or patterns.

Apple is a highly domesticated fruit tree species, and cultivated varieties of apple in the 

U.S. are not listed as weeds (Muenscher, 1980) or as Federal noxious weeds (7 CFR part 

360; (USDA-NRCS, 2012). Volunteer plants originating from seed in apple orchards are 

very rare due to orchard management practices, such as herbicide treatment of the tree 

row and mowing of the alley between rows. GD743 and GS784 apples do not display or 

possess any weedy characteristics, and thus, are not expected to behave as a weed

(USDA-APHIS, 2013).

Land use and agricultural production of apple under the Preferred Alternative is likely to 

continue as currently practiced. Consequently, any impact to plant communities as a 

result of apple production practices under the Preferred Alternative is the same as the No 

Action Alternative.

4.4.3 Microorganisms

No Action Alternative: Microorganisms

The soil microbial community is an integral ecosystem component that may provide and 

sustain critical ecological processes. Nutrient cycling, establishing soil structure 

contributing to plant growth, metabolism of deleterious components are all dependent on 

the microbial constituents. The health and growth of these microbes may be influenced 

by many processes and conditions in agriculture, such as the crop cultivated, tillage, 

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

The apple orchard is a highly managed environment which incorporates integrated pest 

management (IPM) strategies. IPM programs are tailored to specific areas of the country; 

however, nearly every IPM program specifically addresses the most common diseases of 

apple: apple scab, fireblight, and powdery mildew as well as the most common insect 

pests of apple which include codling moth, apple maggot, plum cucurlio, aphids, mites, 

redbanded leaf roller, and tentiform leaf miners (MacHardy, 2000; Beckerman, 2006; 

McCamant, 2007). While viral diseases can infect apple, primarily through the use of 

infected grafting wood, the use of certified budwood programs has had a significant 

impact on reducing the spread of viral diseases of apple (WSU, 2010). Effective 

management of diseases and pests in commercial apple varieties is especially important 

46
since the majority of the top marketed apple varieties are susceptible to one or more of 

the major diseases of apple (Table 4).

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

States.

Apple 

varieties*

Apple Scab Fireblight Juniper rusts Powdery 

mildew

Red Delicious S R VS MR

Gala VS VS R—S MS

Golden 

delicious

S S S VS

Granny Smith S VS R VS

Fuji S VS R—VS R

*Top five conventional (USAA, 2011) and organic varieties (Slattery et al., 2011)

S-susceptible, R-resistant, VS-very susceptible, MR-moderately resistant

Source: (Beckerman, 2006; Slattery et al., 2011; USAA, 2011)

Preferred Alternative: Microorganisms

OSF has presented the results of field trials which demonstrate that GD743 and GS784

apples do not require any changes to agronomic inputs when compared with conventional 

apples (OSF, 2012). Growers are already managing orchards to control for fungal and 

insect borne diseases using treatments and controls. There would be no change in IPM

programs that specifically addresses the most common diseases.

Because the agronomic practices of apple are unlikely to change following a 

determination of nonregulated status of GD743 and GS784 apples, the impacts of apple 

cultivation on microorganisms are also unlikely to change under the Preferred 

Alternative.

4.4.4 Biodiversity

No Action Alternative: Biodiversity

All plants, animals and microorganisms interacting in an ecosystem contribute to 

biodiversity (Wilson, 1988). In agriculture, biodiversity contributes to critical functions 

such as pollination, genetic introgression, biological control, nutrient recycling, and other 

important processes. Significant impacts on any of these functions could require costly 

management (Altieri, 1999). Concerns regarding the potential impacts to biodiversity 

associated with the introduction of GE crops (and crops in general) include the loss of 

diversity, which can occur at the crop, farm, and/or landscape scale (Carpenter, 2011). 

Species diversity and abundance in apple agro-ecosystems may differ among 

conventional, GE, and organic production systems. Relative to any natural ecosystem, 

species abundance and richness will generally be less in intensively managed agroecosystems. The degree of biodiversity in an agro-ecosystem depends on four primary 

characteristics: 1) diversity of vegetation within and around the agro-ecosystem; 2) 

permanence of various crops within the system; 3) intensity of ecosystem management; 

47
and 4) extent of isolation of the agro-ecosystem from natural areas of native vegetation

(Altieri, 1999; USDA-NRCS, 2002). Agricultural land subject to intensive farming 

practices, such as that used in crop production, generally has low levels of biodiversity 

compared with adjacent natural areas. 

Orchard management practices, including a range of practices incorporated in integrated 

pest management plans can be adopted which increase habitat preservation and plant 

biodiversity as well as reducing the amount of pesticides used (Palmer and Bromley, 

1992; Carroll and Robinson, 2006; Cooley et al., 2012). Reduced pesticide use has a 

direct positive effect on wildlife by reducing the direct exposure of birds, mammals, and 

fish to pesticides. Indirect benefits include less alteration of suitable wildlife habitat and 

an available food supply of insects for insectivores (Palmer and Bromley, 1992).

Preferred Alternative: Biodiversity

Under the Preferred Alternative, cultivation, management, and land-use decisions related 

to GD743 and GS784 apples are not different from conventional apple varieties. 

Agronomic practices associated with apple production such as cultivation, irrigation, 

pesticide application, fertilizer applications and agriculture equipment would be 

unchanged. Animal and plant species that typically inhabit apple orchards will continue 

to be affected by currently used management plans and systems, which include the use of 

mechanical, cultural, and chemical control methods. The consequences of current 

agronomic practices associated with apple production on the biodiversity of plant and 

animal communities are unlikely to be altered.

Consequently, any impact to biodiversity as a result of apple production practices under 

the Preferred Alternative is likely to be identical to the No Action Alternative.

4.5 Public Health 

4.5.1 Food and Feed

No Action Alternative: Food and Feed

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

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

processed apple products (USDA-ERS, 2012). In 2011 more than 60% of apple 

production in the United States was marketed as fresh fruit (USDA-NASS, 2012b). The 

remaining apple production is marketed as processed fruit such as fruit juice, cider, sauce, 

canned, fresh apple slices, and dried fruit products (USDA-ERS, 2010b). In 2011, 138.4 

million pounds of apples were marketed as fresh apple slices valued at over 26 million 

USD (Karst, 2012; USDA-NASS, 2012b).

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

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

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

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

48
may reduce the risk of colon cancer, help prevent heart disease and promote weight loss. 

Apples are also cholesterol-free, and their high fiber content helps control high cholesterol 

levels by preventing cholesterol absorption, and are nutrient dense for their low calorie 

content like most fruits and vegetables (Sharma, 2005).

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

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

from apple processing, including pulp, peels, and cores, are suitable animal feeds (NRC, 

1983). Apple pomace has feeding values similar to grass silage for wintering beef cattle 

(NRC, 1983). Between 25 to 35 percent of the fresh weight of the apple is retained in the 

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

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

agricultural chemicals. Pesticide use is common on most apple acreage in the US. Most 

of the major apples producing states/regions have guidelines for commercial apple 

orchard production and management. Each orchard/ apple production plan typically 

includes guidelines that address integrated pest management practices (Carroll and 

Robinson, 2006; Moulton and King, 2008; Donohue et al., 2011; Walgenbach, 2012). 

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

residues) in or on apples and apple products. To ensure safety of the apple food supply, 

the EPA regulates the amount of each pesticide that may remain in or on foods. These 

limits, called tolerances, are established to ensure food safety and are the result of the 

EPA making a safety finding that “the pesticide can be used with reasonable certainty of 

no harm.” (US-EPA, 2013). This finding of reasonable certainty of no harm is obligated 

under the FFDCA, as amended by the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA). In 

addition, the FDA and the USDA monitor foods for pesticide residues and work with the 

EPA to enforce these tolerances (see (USDA-AMS, 2013). In setting pesticide tolerances, 

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

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

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

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

it marketed and prepared.

Preferred Alternative: Food and Feed

OSF’s studies demonstrate no differences in morphological characteristics and agronomic 

requirements between GD743 and GS784 apples and other apple varieties (OSF, 2012).

Agronomic practices associated with apple production such as cultivation, irrigation, 

pesticide application, fertilizer applications and agriculture equipment would continue 

unchanged.

Food and feed derived from GE apple must be in compliance with all applicable legal and 

regulatory requirements. Composition characteristics evaluated by OSF in these 

comparative tests include moisture, protein, fat, carbohydrates, ash, calories, dietary 

fiber, sugar profile, minerals, vitamins, antioxidant capacity, and phenolics (OSF, 2012). 

49
The main nutrients in apple are sugar, dietary fiber, potassium, phenolic antioxidants and, 

to a lesser extent, vitamin C. To establish that the new cultivars are nutritionally 

equivalent to their parent cultivars, apples from apple events GD743 and GS784 and the 

control Golden Delicious (GD) and Granny Smith (GS) were subjected to nutritional and 

proximate analysis, and measured for total phenolic and water-soluble oxygen radical 

absorbance capacity (ORAC) (OSF, 2012). Analysis found no significant changes in 

proximates, dietary fiber or potassium content. Variation between apple events GD743 or 

GS784 and their respective controls was not significant, and all values fell within the 

expected norms provided by USDA’s National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference 

for apple (USDA Nutrient Databank identifier 09003) (OSF, 2012). The apple events 

GD743 and GS784 demonstrated elevated vitamin C, likely due to the high phenolics that 

are characteristic of the nonbrowning apple. Apple events GD743 and GS784 are 

nutritionally equivalent to their parents and may even have improved phenolic compound 

content and stability (OSF, 2012).

GE organisms for food and feed may undergo a voluntary consultation process with the 

FDA prior to release onto the market. OSF indicated that they have submitted a safety 

and nutritional assessment of food and feed derived from GD743 and GS784 to the FDA 

on May 30, 2011 (OSF, 2012). FDA is presently evaluating the submission. The potential 

impacts to food and feed are expected to be the same under the Preferred Alternative as 

under the No Action Alternative.

4.5.2 Worker Health and Safety

No Action Alternative: Worker Health and Safety

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

agricultural chemicals. Pesticides are used on most apple acreage in the US, and changes 

in acreage, crops, or farming practices can affect the amounts and types of pesticides used 

and thus the risks to workers. Most of the major apples producing states/regions have 

guidelines for commercial apple orchard production and management. Each orchard/ 

apple production plan typically includes guidelines that address orchard establishment

and management, IPM, and postharvest production practices (Carroll and Robinson, 

2006; Moulton and King, 2008; Donohue et al., 2011; Walgenbach, 2012).

EPA’s WPS (40 CFR Part 170) was published in 1992 to require actions to reduce the 

risk of pesticide poisonings and injuries among agricultural workers and pesticide 

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

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

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

notification of pesticide applications, use of personal protective equipment, restricted 

entry intervals following pesticide application, decontamination supplies, and emergency 

medical assistance. Worker safety precautions and use restrictions are noted clearly on 

pesticide registration labels. Growers are required to use pesticides consistent with the 

application instructions provided on the EPA-approved pesticide labels. These 

restrictions provide instructions as to the appropriate levels of personal protection 

required for agricultural workers. These may include instructions on personal protective 

50
equipment, specific handling requirements, and field reentry procedures (see, e.g., 

(Carroll and Robinson, 2006; Cornell, 2012). 

Preferred Alternative: Worker Health and Safety

Under the Preferred Alternative, cultivation practices and corresponding worker 

exposures to agronomic inputs are unlikely to change. OSF demonstrates in its petition 

that the agronomic inputs required to cultivate GD743 and GS784 apples are functionally 

equivalent to those required for conventional apple (OSF, 2012). Accordingly, the health 

and safety protocols currently employed by farm workers in the cultivation of apple do

not require changes to accommodate the cultivation of GD743 and GS784 apples.

Based on these findings, APHIS has determined that approval of a petition for 

nonregulated status of GD743 and GS784 apples will not impact worker safety. 

51
5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

5.1 Assumptions Used for Cumulative Impacts Analysis

Cumulative effects have been analyzed for each environmental issue assessed in Section 

4, Environmental Consequences. The cumulative effects analysis is focused on the 

incremental impacts of the Preferred Alternative taken in consideration with related 

activities including past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. In this 

analysis, if there are no direct or indirect impacts identified for a resource area, then 

APHIS assumes there can be no cumulative impacts. Where it is not possible to quantify 

impacts, APHIS provides a qualitative assessment of potential cumulative impacts. 

APHIS considered the potential for GD743 and GS784 apples to extend the range of 

apple production and affect the conversion of land to agricultural purposes. OSF’s studies 

demonstrate that agronomic characteristics and cultivation practices required for GD743 

and GS784 apples are indistinguishable from practices used to grow other apple varieties

(OSF, 2012; USDA-APHIS, 2013). This implies that its cultural requirements would 

neither differ from those of other apples nor change the areas in which apple is currently 

cultivated. If the petition is approved, GD743 and GS784 apples could replace other 

commercially available apple varieties without requiring cultivation of new, natural 

lands. As such, land use changes associated with approving the petition for nonregulated 

status to GD743 and GS784 apples are not expected to be any different than those 

associated with the cultivation of other apple cultivars. Therefore, although the preferred 

alternative would allow for new plantings of GD743 and GS784 apples to occur 

anywhere in the U.S., APHIS focused the analysis of cumulative impacts on the areas in 

the U.S. that currently support apple production. 

Potential reasonably foreseeable cumulative effects are analyzed under the assumption 

that growers have used in the past and would continue to use reasonable, commonly 

accepted best management practices (BMPs) for their chosen system and varieties during 

apple production. APHIS recognizes, however, that not all growers will use such BMPs. 

Thus, the cumulative impact analysis will also make the assumption that not all growers

would do so. APHIS assumes growers of GD743 and GS784 apples will adhere to the 

EPA-registered uses and EPA-approved labels for all pesticides applied to apples. 

5.2 Past and Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions

In the preceding analysis, the potential impacts from approving the petition for 

nonregulated status to GD743 and GS784 apples were assessed. The potential impacts 

under the Preferred Alternative for all the resource areas analyzed were the same as those 

described for the No-action Alternative. 

The Preferred Alternative is not expected to directly cause a measurable change in 

agricultural acreage or area devoted to apple cultivation in the U.S. (see Subsection 4.2.1, 

Agricultural Production of Apple). Because GD743 and GS784 apples are another apple

variety that is agronomically and compositionally similar to other commercially available 

apple varieties, it is expected GD743 and GS784 apples would replace other similar 

52
varieties without expanding the acreage or area of apple production. OSF has estimated a 

total planted area of 4,000 acres or about 1.2 percent of total U.S. apple plantings over the 

first 10 years (OSF, 2012). There are also no anticipated changes to the availability of 

non-GE apple varieties on the market.

. As described above, organic growers use common practices to maintain the organic 

status of their apples including employing adequate isolation distances between the 

organic orchard and the orchards of neighbors to minimize the chance that pollen will be 

carried between the orchards. Given the importance of maintaining varietal traits and 

consumer recognition and preference for specific apple varieties, the separation of 

production and processing of apples by varieties have been utilized by growers, packers 

and retailers in the United States market to satisfy consumer preference and demand. 

Availability of another apple variety, such as GD743 and GS784 apples, under the 

Preferred Alternative, is not expected to impact the organic production of apple any 

differently than other apple varieties currently being grown.

Approving the petition for a determination of nonregulated status to GD743 and GS784 

apples is not expected to result in changes to current apple cropping practices. Studies 

conducted by OSF demonstrate that agronomic characteristics and cultivation practices 

required for GD743 and GS784 apples are indistinguishable from practices used to grow 

other apple varieties (OSF, 2012; USDA-APHIS, 2013). Consequently, no changes to 

current apple cropping practices associated with the adoption of GD743 and GS784

apples are expected (see Subsection 4.2.1, Agricultural Production of Apple). 

Based on the information described in Subsection 4.2.2 – Domestic Commerce, APHIS 

concludes that a determination of nonregulated status of GD743 and GS784 apples will 

have no foreseeable adverse cumulative effects on domestic commerce. Similar Golden 

Delicious and Granny Smith varieties are already on the market. GD743 and GS784 

apples have the potential to improve fruit processing capabilities for maintaining the 

quality and shelf life of apples for processing and the snack food market and also 

improve the economics of fruit processing and consumer nutrition. There also is an 

inherent reduction in food processing costs associated with a reduction in fruit browning 

and in providing alternatives to conventional technologies to prevent browning. Based on 

these factors, no net negative cumulative impacts on domestic economics have been 

identified associated with the cultivation of GD743 and GS784 apples. If growers adopt 

GD743 and GS784 apple varieties and take advantage of the niche market, local farm 

economics may improve.

Current and historic economic evidence indicates that apple production in the United 

States has decreased since 2004 as a result of greater international competition. This trend 

may continue and shift apple production acreage in the United States to alternative 

cropping or pasture, which may affect other markets and trade. As noted in Subsection 

4.2.4 – Foreign Trade, OSF’s commercial launch of the GD743 and GS784 apples, 

although limited, has the potential for the creation of a niche market and in a small way 

supporting the continuation of apple production in the United States. However, for these 

apples to be sold in export markets, approvals in the destination country must have been 

obtained. So these apples may have little influence on apple exports. Based on these 

53
factors, APHIS has determined that there are no past, present, or reasonably foreseeable 

actions that would aggregate with effects of the proposed action that would have a 

negative impact on foreign trade.

Approving the petition for a determination of nonregulated status to GD743 and GS784

apples would have the same impacts to water, soil, air quality, and climate change as that 

of apple varieties currently available. Agronomic practices that have the potential to 

impact soil, water and air quality, and climate change would not change because GD743 

and GS784 apples are agronomically similar to other apple varieties. Because of its 

similarity to other varieties of apple, adoption of GD743 and GS784 apples is expected to 

replace other similar cultivars without changing the acreage or area of apple production 

that could impact water, soil, air quality, and climate change.

The impacts of the Preferred Alternative to animal and plants communities, 

microorganisms, and biodiversity would be no different than that experienced under the 

No-action Alternative. GD743 and GS784 apples are both agronomically and 

compositionally similar to other apple varieties. Thus, it would not require any different 

agronomic practices to cultivate, and does not represent a safety or increased weediness 

risk that is any different from other currently available apples. 

There are no differences in the potential for gene flow and weediness under the Preferred 

Action Alternative. Outcrossing and weediness are addressed in the PPRA (USDAAPHIS, 2013) GD743 and GS784 apples are similar to other apple varieties. The risk of 

gene flow and weediness of GD743 and GS784 apples is no greater than that of other 

apple varieties. 

Food and feed derived from GE apple must be in compliance with all applicable legal and 

regulatory requirements and may undergo a voluntary consultation process with the FDA 

prior to release onto the market to identify and discuss relevant safety, nutritional, or 

other regulatory issues regarding the bioengineered food. GD743 and GS784 apples are

expected to have no toxic effect to human health or livestock. OSF submitted a safety and 

nutritional assessment of food and feed derived from GD743 and GS784 to the FDA on 

May 30, 2011 (OSF, 2012). FDA is presently evaluating the submission. No change in 

food and feed safety is expected to occur under the Preferred Alternative. 

In summary, the potential cumulative effects regarding past and present actions combined 

with the Preferred Alternative have been analyzed, and no changes from the current 

baseline under the No-action Alternative would occur.

5.3 Cumulative Impacts Summary

In summary, the potential for impacts of GD743 and GS784 apples would not result in any 

changes to the resources areas when compared to the No-action Alternative. No cumulative 

effects are expected from approving the petition for nonregulated status for GD743 and 

GS784 apples, when taken in consideration with related activities, including past, present, 

and reasonably foreseeable future actions. 

54
6 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended, is one of the most far-reaching 

wildlife conservation laws ever enacted by any nation. Congress, on behalf of the 

American people, passed the ESA to prevent extinctions facing many species of fish, 

wildlife and plants. The purpose of the ESA is to conserve endangered and threatened 

species and the ecosystems on which they depend as key components of America’s 

heritage. To implement the ESA, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) works in 

cooperation with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), other Federal, State, 

and local agencies, Tribes, non-governmental organizations, and private citizens. Before 

a plant or animal species can receive the protection provided by the ESA, it must first be 

added to the Federal list of threatened and endangered wildlife and plants.

A species is added to the list when it is determined by the USFWS/NMFS to be 

endangered or threatened because of any of the following factors:

• The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its 

habitat or range;

• Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes;

• Disease or predation;

• The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; and

• The natural or manmade factors affecting its survival.

Once an animal or plant is added to the list, in accordance with the ESA, protective 

measures apply to the species and its habitat. These measures include protection from 

adverse effects of Federal activities.

Section 7 (a)(2) of the ESA requires that Federal agencies, in consultation with USFWS 

and/or the NMFS, ensure that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or result in the destruction or 

adverse modification of designated critical habitat. It is the responsibility of the Federal 

agency taking the action to assess the effects of their action and to consult with the 

USFWS and NMFS if it is determined that the action “may affect” listed species or 

critical habitat. To facilitate APHIS’ ESA consultation process, APHIS met with the USFWS from 1999 to 2003 to discuss factors relevant to APHIS’ regulatory authority and 

effects analysis for petitions for nonregulated status, and developed a process for 

conducting an effects determination consistent with the Plant Protection Act of 2000 

(Title IV of Public Law 106-224). This process is used by APHIS to assist the program 

in fulfilling their obligations and responsibilities under Section 7 of the ESA for 

biotechnology regulatory actions. 

The APHIS regulatory authority over GE organisms under the PPA is limited to those 

that are actual or suspected plant pests, or those that cannot adequately be assessed for 

plant pest risk potential consistent with 7 CFR §340.1 because of insufficient 

information. After completing a PPRA, if APHIS determines that GD743 and GS784 

apples do not pose a plant pest risk, then the Agency would no longer have legal 

55
justification to regulate them under the plant pest provisions of the PPA described in 7 

CFR §340. Therefore, APHIS would have to make a determination that the article is no 

longer regulated. As part of its EA analysis, APHIS analyzed the potential impacts of 

GD743 and GS784 apples on the environment, including those that might affect TES and 

critical habitat. As part of this process, APHIS thoroughly reviews GE product 

information and data to inform the ESA effects analysis and, if necessary, the biological 

assessment. For each transgene(s)/transgenic plant the following information, data, and 

questions are considered by APHIS: 

• A review of the biology, taxonomy, and weediness potential of the crop plant 

and its sexually compatible relatives;

• Characterization of each transgene with respect to its structure and function 

and the nature of the organism from which it was obtained;

• A determination of where the new transgene and its products (if any) are 

produced in the plant and their quantity;

• A review of the agronomic performance of the plant including disease and 

pest susceptibilities, weediness potential, and agronomic and environmental 

impact;

• Determination of the concentrations of known plant toxicants (if any are 

known in the plant); 

• Analysis to determine if the transgenic plant is sexually compatible with any 

threatened or endangered plant species (TES) or a host of any TES; and

• Any other information that may inform the potential for an organism to pose a 

plant pest risk.

In following this review process, APHIS, has evaluated the potential effects that a 

determination of nonregulated status of GD743 and GS784 apples may have, if any, on 

Federally-listed TES and species proposed for listing, as well as designated critical 

habitat and habitat proposed for designation. Based upon the scope of the EA and 

production areas identified in the Affected Environment section of the EA, APHIS 

obtained and reviewed the USFWS list of TES species (listed and proposed) for all 50 

states where apple is produced from the USFWS Environmental Conservation Online 

System (USFWS, 2013). Prior to this review, APHIS considered the potential for GD743 

and GS784 apples to extend the range of apple production and also the potential to extend 

agricultural production into new natural areas. 

OSF’s studies demonstrate that agronomic characteristics and cultivation practices 

required for GD743 and GS784 apples are essentially indistinguishable from practices 

used to grow other apple varieties (OSF, 2012; USDA-APHIS, 2013). Although GD743 

and GS784 apples may be expected to replace other varieties of apple currently 

cultivated, APHIS does not expect the cultivation of GD743 and GS784 apples to result 

56
in new apple acres to be planted in areas that are not already devoted to apple production. 

Accordingly, the issues discussed herein focus on the potential environmental 

consequences of approval of the petition for nonregulated status of GD743 and GS784 

apples on TES species in the areas where apples are currently grown. 

APHIS focused its TES review on the interaction between TES and GD743 and GS784 

apples, including the potential for sexual compatibility and the ability to serve as a host 

for a TES. APHIS does not have authority to regulate the use of any pesticide, fungicide 

or herbicide that may be used in apple production. 

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

TES

Based on the information submitted by the applicant and reviewed by APHIS, GD743 

and GS784 apples are agronomically, phenotypically, and biochemically comparable to 

conventional apple (OSF, 2012). OSF has presented results of agronomic field trials 

for GD743 and GS784 apples. The results of these field trials demonstrate that there are 

no differences in agronomic practices between GD743 and GS784 and conventional 

apples(OSF, 2012). The common agricultural practices that would be carried out in the 

cultivation GD743 and GS784 apples are not expected to deviate from current practices, 

including the use of EPA-registered pesticides. OSF anticipates that apples, being a 

perennial crop of 20 or more years before replanting, will have a much slower adoption 

and introduction curve than annual crops (OSF, 2012). OSF has estimated a total planted 

area of 4,000 acres or about 1.2 percent of total U.S. apple plantings over the first 10 

years (OSF, 2012). The products are expected to be deployed on agricultural land 

currently suitable for production of apple, will be cultivated only as specialty apples, are 

not expected to substantially replace existing varieties, and are not expected to increase 

the acreage of apple production. 

Apples are cultivated in all 50 states, and are an important fruit crop for a number of 

States within the United States. Accordingly, the issues discussed herein focus on the 

potential environmental consequences of approval of the petition for nonregulated status 

of GD743 and GS784 apples on TES species and critical habitat in the areas where apples

are currently cultivated. As discussed in Subsection 4.2.1 – Agricultural Production of 

Apples, APHIS has determined that GD743 and GS784 apples are unlikely to extend the 

range of apple production. Moreover, new acreage is not expected to be developed to 

accommodate the cultivation of events GD743 and GS784. APHIS obtained and 

reviewed the USFWS list of TES species (listed and proposed) for all 50 states where 

apple is produced from the USFWS Environmental Conservation Online System

(USFWS, 2013). 

6.2 Potential Effects GD743 and GS784 Apples on TES

Threatened and Endangered Plant Species

The agronomic data provided by OSF were used in the APHIS analysis of the weediness 

potential for GD743 and GS784 apples and further evaluated for the potential to impact 

57
TES. Agronomic studies conducted by OSF tested the hypothesis that the weediness 

potential of GD743 and GS784 apples is unchanged with respect to conventional apple 

(OSF, 2012; USDA-APHIS, 2013). No differences were detected between GD743 and 

GS784 apples and conventional apple in growth, reproduction, or interactions with pests 

and diseases (USDA-APHIS, 2013). Apple is a highly domesticated fruit tree species, 

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

as Federal noxious weeds (7 CFR part 360; (USDA-NRCS, 2012), nor is it listed as an 

invasive species by major invasive plant data bases. GD743 and GS784 are not likely to 

become weedier than their non-GE apple counterparts (USDA-APHIS, 2013). The 

introduced genes are not likely to increase weediness or fitness in wild relatives of apple 

(USDA-APHIS, 2013). APHIS has concluded the approval of the petition for

nonregulated status of GD743 and GS784 apples does not present a plant pest risk, does 

not present a risk of weediness, and does not present an increased risk of gene flow when 

compared to other currently cultivated apple varieties. Based on the agronomic field data 

and literature survey on apple weediness potential, GD743 and GS784 apples are unlikely 

to affect TES as a troublesome or invasive weed (USDA-APHIS, 2013).

APHIS evaluated the potential of GD743 and GS784 soybean to cross with a listed 

species. As discussed in Sections 3.3.2 and 4.4.2 – Plant Communities, and in the 

analysis of Apple as a Weed or Volunteer, APHIS has determined that there is no risk to 

unrelated plant species from the cultivation of GD743 and GS784 apples. The cultivated 

apple is a member of Rosaceae, the rose family consisting of about 100 genera with 

more than 2,000 species. The genus Malus, which includes the cultivated apple and crab 

apple contains about 25 species with its center of diversity in central Asia, but native or 

naturalized species are found in Europe, Asia and western China (Way et al., 1990). The 

majority of apples are self-incompatible, meaning a tree’s own pollen will not produce

fertilized seeds or fruit, therefore nearly all apple cultivars require cross pollination using 

another cultivar or a specialized crab-apple for consistent fruit set and yield (Dennis, 

2003; Schneider et al., 2005; Park et al., 2012). As discussed in Section 4.2.1 –

Agricultural Production of Apple, cultivated apples are generally propagated by grafting

(Crasweller, 2005). A mature apple tree can produce numerous seeds during its annual 

cycle and survive for a number of years producing a multitude of seed. However for 

reasons discussed in Section 3.3.2 – Plant Communities,, the probability of an individual 

apple seed developing into a mature tree is very small and volunteer plants originating 

from seed in apple orchards are very rare in such a managed environment (Roper, 2005; 

Carroll and Robinson, 2006; Cornell, 2012). After reviewing the list of threatened and 

endangered plant species in the U.S., APHIS determined that GD743 and GS784 apples

would not be sexually compatible with any listed threatened or endangered plant species 

proposed for listing, as none of these listed plants are in the same genus nor are known 

to cross pollinate with species of the genus Malus.

A number of Malus species are native or naturalized in the United States (Little, 1979), 

and include: Malus angustifolia (southern crab apple); Malus coronaria (sweet crab 

apple; Malus fusca (Oregon crab apple); Malus ioensis (prairie crab apple); Malus 

platycarpa, thought to be a hybrid between cultivated apple and native species of crab 

apple (McVaugn, 1943); Malus x domestica (apple); Malus x soulardii (Soulard crab), a 

hybrid of ioensis x domestica; Malus baccata (Siberian crab apple); and Malus prunifolia

58
(pear leaf apple). Four species of crab apples are native to North America, the Pacific 

Crab (Malus fusca); and three species closely related to Malus fusca (Hosie, 1979). The 

introduced species Malus baccata and Malus prunifolia, have escaped from cultivation 

but are not naturalized. Research has found no introgression of cultivated apple genes to 

native Malus species of North America (Dickson et al., 1991). Cultivated apple can be 

artificially cross-pollinated to produce hybrids with many if not all crab apple species

(Warmund, 1996; Roper and Frank, 2004), but the fertility and ecological fitness of such 

possible hybrids hasn’t been well described.

After reviewing the list of threatened and endangered plant species in the U.S., APHIS 

determined, based on the agronomic field data, literature survey on apple weediness 

potential, and that there are no TES sexually compatible with apple, that GD743 and 

GS784 apples will have no effect on threatened or endangered plant species.

Threatened and Endangered Animal Species

Threatened and endangered animal species that may be exposed to the gene products in 

GD743 and GS784 apples would be those TES that inhabit apple orchards and feed on 

GD743 and GS784 apples. To identify potential effects on threatened and endangered 

animal species, APHIS evaluated the risks to threatened and endangered animals from 

consuming GD743 and GS784 apples or other parts of the apple tree. Some whole apples 

or apple pieces may be fed to domestic animals, but the majority of apple feed products 

are derived from the byproducts of manufacturing. Additionally, wildlife may use apple

orchards as a food source, consuming parts of the tree, the fruit, or insects that live on the 

trees. However, most animals including TES generally are found outside of highly 

managed orchards. 

OSF submitted a safety and nutritional assessment of food and feed derived from GD743 

and GS784 to the FDA on May 30, 2011 (OSF, 2012). FDA is presently evaluating the 

submission. 

GD743 and GS784 apples present minimal risk to TES consuming this crop. As 

discussed in Subsection 4.7, Animal Feed, there is no difference in the composition and 

nutritional quality of GD743 and GS784 apples compared with conventional apples 

(OSF, 2012); no expected hazards are associated with its consumption. OSF has 

presented data on the food and feed safety of GD 743 and GS 784 apples, evaluating the 

agronomic and morphological characteristics of GD 743 and GS 784 apples, including 

compositional and nutritional characteristics as compared to a conventional apple variety

(OSF, 2012). Composition characteristics evaluated in these comparative tests include 

moisture, protein, fat, carbohydrates, ash, calories, dietary fiber, sugar profile, minerals, 

vitamins, antioxidant capacity, and phenolics (OSF, 2012).As discussed in Sections 4.6 

and 4.7 analysis found no significant changes in proximates, dietary fiber or potassium 

content. Variation between apple events GD743 or GS784 and their respective controls 

was not significant, and all values fell within the expected norms provided by USDA’s 

National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference for apple (USDA Nutrient Databank 

(NDB) identifier 09003) (OSF, 2012). The apple events GD743 and GS784 demonstrated 

significantly higher levels of vitamin C as compared to the control cultivars. This 

59
elevated level of vitamin C was likely due to the fact that the fruit tested was cut, put in 

bags, and put on ice, leaving the fruit flesh exposed for as long as 24 hours prior to 

testing (OSF, 2012). This resulted in some PPO-driven fruit browning within the control 

fruit. Despite elevated levels of vitamin C in events GD743 and GS784, these levels fell 

within, or very close to, the published range for apple (OSF, 2012). Evidence provided 

here is consistent with the concept that ArcticTM Apple cultivars GS743 and GS784 are 

nutritionally equivalent with their parent cultivars, prior to slicing. While after slicing, 

GD743 and GS784 retain their original phenolic content, whereas GD and GS suffer the 

loss of phenolic compounds, and possibly vitamin C, through the action of PPO (OSF, 

2012).

Apple events GD743 and GS784 are nutritionally equivalent to their parents and may 

even have improved phenolic compound content and stability (OSF, 2012). The results 

presented by OSF show that there was no effect of the ArcticTM Apple trait on the 

composition of the apples, and no biologically-meaningful differences between GD743 or 

GS784 apples and their non-GE counterparts. Therefore, based on these analyses, APHIS 

concludes that consumption of GD743 and GS784 apples or plant parts (seeds, leaves, 

stems, pollen, or roots) would have no effect on any listed threatened or endangered 

animal species or animal species proposed for listing.

After reviewing the possible effects of allowing the nonregulated environmental release 

of GD743 and GS784 apples, APHIS has not identified any stressor that could affect the 

reproduction, numbers, or distribution of a listed TES or species proposed for listing. 

APHIS also considered the potential effect of a determination of nonregulated status of 

GD743 and GS784 apples on designated critical habitat or habitat proposed for 

designation, and could identify no differences from effects that would occur from the 

production of other apple varieties. Apple is not considered a particularly competitive 

plant species and is not listed in the U.S. as a noxious weed species by the Federal 

government (7 CFR part 360; (USDA-NRCS, 2012), nor is it listed as an invasive 

species by major invasive plant data bases. Apple does not serve as a host species for any 

listed species or species proposed for listing. Consumption of GD743 and GS784 apples

by any listed species or species proposed for listing will not result in a toxic or allergic 

reaction. Based on these factors, APHIS has concluded that approval of the petition for

nonregulated status of GD743 and GS784 apples, and the corresponding environmental 

release of this apple variety will have no effect on listed species or species proposed for 

listing, and would not affect designated habitat or habitat proposed for designation. 

Because of this no effect determination, consultation under Section 7(a)(2) of the Act or 

the concurrences of the USFWS or NMFS are not required.

60
7 Consideration of Executive Orders, Standards, and Treaties 

Relating to Environmental Impacts

7.1 Executive Orders with Domestic Implications

The following executive orders require consideration of the potential impacts of the 

Federal action to various segments of the population.

• Executive Order (EO) 12898 (US-NARA, 2010), "Federal Actions to 

Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations," requires Federal agencies to conduct their programs, policies, 

and activities that substantially affect human health or the environment in a 

manner so as not to exclude persons and populations from participation in or 

benefiting from such programs. It also enforces existing statutes to prevent 

minority and low-income communities from being subjected to 

disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects. 

• EO 13045, “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and 

Safety Risks,” acknowledges that children may suffer disproportionately from 

environmental health and safety risks because of their developmental stage, 

greater metabolic activity levels, and behavior patterns, as compared to adults. 

The EO (to the extent permitted by law and consistent with the agency’s 

mission) requires each Federal agency to identify, assess, and address 

environmental health risks and safety risks that may disproportionately affect 

children.

The No Action and Preferred Alternatives were analyzed with respect to EO 12898 and 

EO 13045. Neither alternative is expected to have a disproportionate adverse effect on 

minorities, low-income populations, or children. 

Based on the information submitted by the applicant and reviewed by APHIS, GD743 

and GS784 apples are agronomically, phenotypically, and biochemically comparable to 

conventional apple except for the nonbrowning trait expressed in GD743 and GS784 

apples. To establish that the new cultivars are nutritionally equivalent to their parent 

cultivars, apples from apple events GD743 and GS784 and the control Golden Delicious 

(GD) and Granny Smith (GS) were subjected to nutritional and proximate analysis, and 

measured for total phenolic and water-soluble oxygen radical absorbance capacity 

(ORAC) (OSF, 2012). Analysis found no significant changes in proximates, dietary fiber 

or potassium content. Variation between apple events GD743 or GS784 and their 

respective controls was not significant, and all values fell within the expected norms 

provided by USDA’s National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference for apple 

(USDA Nutrient Databank (NDB) identifier 09003) (OSF, 2012). The apple events 

GD743 and GS784 demonstrated elevated vitamin C, likely due to the high phenolics that 

are characteristic of the nonbrowning apple. Apple events GD743 and GS784 are 

nutritionally equivalent to their parents and may even have improved phenolic compound 

content and stability (OSF, 2012). This nutritional analysis establishes the safety of 

GD743 and GS784 apples and their products to humans, including minorities, low61
income populations, and children who might be exposed to them through agricultural 

production and/or processing. No additional safety precautions would need to be taken.

OSF initiated the consultation process with FDA for the commercial distribution of 

GD743 and GS784 apples and submitted a safety and nutritional assessment of food and 

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

FDA is presently evaluating the submission.

Based on these factors, a determination of nonregulated status of GD743 and GS784 

apple is not expected to have a disproportionate adverse effect on minorities, low-income 

populations, or children.

The following executive order addresses Federal responsibilities regarding the 

introduction and effects of invasive species:

EO 1311 (US-NARA, 2010), “Invasive Species,” states that Federal 

agencies take action to prevent the introduction of invasive species, to 

provide for their control, and to minimize the economic, ecological, and 

human health impacts that invasive species cause. 

Apple is not listed in the U.S. as a noxious weed species by the Federal government (7 

CFR part 360; (USDA-NRCS, 2012), nor is it listed as an invasive species by major 

invasive plant data bases. Volunteer plants originating from seed in apple orchards are 

very rare due to orchard management practices, such as herbicide treatment of the tree 

row and mowing of the alley between rows. Any volunteers that may become established 

are easily managed using standard weed control practices. Animals, such as bears, mice, 

and squirrels, can carry fruit containing seed or seeds away from cultivated areas. Apples 

are often discarded by travelers on roadways, or in compost piles. Seeds distributed in 

this way can result in seedling trees. Such cultivated apple-tree seedlings can be 

persistent; the species has escaped cultivation and naturalized in southern Canada, in the 

eastern USA, and from British Columbia south to California (Little, 1979). However, M. 

domestica typically occurs in commercial orchard plantings, as fruit trees in gardens or 

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

to be a widespread problem. Non-engineered apples are widely grown in the U.S. Based 

on historical experience with these varieties and the data submitted by the applicant and 

reviewed by APHIS, GD743 and GS784 apple trees are sufficiently similar in fitness 

characteristics to other apple varieties currently grown and are not expected to become 

weedy or invasive.

The following executive order requires the protection of migratory bird populations:

EO 13186 (US-NARA, 2010), “Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to 

Protect Migratory Birds,” states that federal agencies taking actions that 

have, or are likely to have, a measurable negative effect on migratory bird 

populations are directed to develop and implement, within two years, a 

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Fish and Wildlife 

Service that shall promote the conservation of migratory bird populations. 

62
Migratory birds may be found in apple orchards. A variety of birds are known to feed on 

apple trees and apples and can cause damage to apple trees (Wilson, 2006; Cornell, 

2012). Birds such as quail nest in the grassy understories of apple orchards, while 

songbirds and mourning doves nest in the fruit trees (Palmer and Bromley, 1992). Birds 

may also forage for insects and weed seeds found in and adjacent to apple orchards. As 

discussed in Sections 4.6.1 and 4.7, data submitted by the applicant has shown no 

difference in compositional and nutritional quality of GD743 and GS784 apples

compared with other conventional apple (OSF, 2012). GD743 and GS784 apples are not 

expected to be allergenic, toxic, or pathogenic in mammals since the transgene derived 

for PPO suppression is derived from apples so no new proteins are expressed in the 

apples(OSF, 2012). Based on APHIS’ assessment of GD743 and GS784 apples, it is 

unlikely that a determination of nonregulated status of GD743 and GS784 apples would 

have a negative effect on migratory bird populations.

7.2 International Implications

EO 12114 (US-NARA, 2010), “Environmental Effects Abroad of Major Federal 

Actions” requires federal officials to take into consideration any potential environmental 

effects outside the U.S., its territories, and possessions that result from actions being 

taken. 

APHIS has given this EO careful consideration and does not expect a significant 

environmental impact outside the U.S. in the event of a determination of nonregulated 

status of GD743 and GS784. All existing national and international regulatory 

authorities and phytosanitary regimes that currently apply to introductions of new apple

cultivars internationally apply equally to those covered by an APHIS determination of 

nonregulated status under 7 CFR part 340. 

Any international trade of GD743 and GS784 subsequent to a determination of 

nonregulated status of the product would be fully subject to national phytosanitary 

requirements and be in accordance with phytosanitary standards developed under the 

International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC, 2010). The purpose of the IPPC “is to 

secure a common and effective action to prevent the spread and introduction of pests of 

plants and plant products and to promote appropriate measures for their control” (IPPC, 

2010). The protection it affords extends to natural flora and plant products and includes 

both direct and indirect damage by pests, including weeds. 

The IPPC establishes a standard for the reciprocal acceptance of phytosanitary 

certification among the nations that have signed or acceded to the Convention (172 

countries as of March 2010). In April 2004, a standard for PRA of living modified 

organisms (LMOs) was adopted at a meeting of the governing body of the IPPC as a 

supplement to an existing standard, International Standard for Phytosanitary Measure No. 

11 (ISPM-11, Pest Risk Analysis for Quarantine Pests). The standard acknowledges that 

all LMOs will not present a pest risk and that a determination needs to be made early in 

the PRA for importation as to whether the LMO poses a potential pest risk resulting from 

the genetic modification. APHIS pest risk assessment procedures for genetically 

engineered organisms are consistent with the guidance developed under the IPPC. In 

63
addition, issues that may relate to commercialization and transboundary movement of 

particular agricultural commodities produced through biotechnology are being addressed 

in other international forums and through national regulations.

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

Biological Diversity (CBD) that established a framework for the safe transboundary 

movement, with respect to the environment and biodiversity, of LMOs, which include 

those modified through biotechnology. The Protocol came into force on September 11, 

2003, and 160 countries are Parties to it as of December 2010 (CBD, 2010). Although 

the U.S. is not a party to the CBD, and thus not a party to the Cartagena Protocol on 

Biosafety, U.S. exporters will still need to comply with those regulations that importing 

countries which are Parties to the Protocol have promulgated to comply with their 

obligations. The first intentional transboundary movement of LMOs intended for 

environmental release (field trials or commercial planting) will require consent from the 

importing country under an advanced informed agreement (AIA) provision, which 

includes a requirement for a risk assessment consistent with Annex III of the Protocol and 

the required documentation.

LMOs imported for food, feed, or processing (FFP) are exempt from the AIA procedure, 

and are covered under Article 11 and Annex II of the Protocol. Under Article 11, Parties 

must post decisions to the Biosafety Clearinghouse database on domestic use of LMOs 

for FFP that may be subject to transboundary movement. To facilitate compliance with 

obligations to this protocol, the U.S. Government has developed a website that provides 

the status of all regulatory reviews completed for different uses of bioengineered products

(NBII, 2010). These data will be available to the Biosafety Clearinghouse. 

APHIS continues to work toward harmonization of biosafety and biotechnology 

consensus documents, guidelines, and regulations, including within the North American 

Plant Protection Organization (NAPPO), which includes Mexico, Canada, and the U.S., 

and within the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). 

NAPPO has completed three modules of the Regional Standards for Phytosanitary 

Measures (RSPM) No. 14, Importation and Release into the Environment of Transgenic 

Plants in NAPPO Member Countries (NAPPO, 2009).

APHIS also participates in the North American Biotechnology Initiative (NABI), a forum 

for information exchange and cooperation on agricultural biotechnology issues for the 

U.S., Mexico, and Canada. In addition, bilateral discussions on biotechnology regulatory 

issues are held regularly with other countries including Argentina, Brazil, Japan, China, 

and Korea.

7.3 Compliance with Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act

This EA evaluated the potential changes in apple production associated with a 

determination of nonregulated status of GD743 and GS784 apples (Section 4.2) and 

determined that the cultivation of GD743 and GS784 apples would not lead to the 

increased production or acreage of apple in U.S. agriculture. The nonbrowning trait

conferred by the genetic modification to GD743 and GS784 apples would not result in 

64
any changes in water usage for cultivation. As discussed in Section 4.4.2 and 4.4.3, there 

are no expected negative impacts to water resources or air quality associated with GD743 

and GS784 apple production. Based on these analyses, APHIS concludes that a 

determination of nonregulated status of GD743 and GS784 apples would comply with the 

CWA and the CAA.

7.4 Impacts on Unique Characteristics of Geographic Areas

A determination of nonregulated status of GD743 and GS784 apples is not expected to 

impact unique characteristics of geographic areas such as park lands, prime farmlands, 

wetlands, wild and scenic areas, or ecologically critical areas.

OSF has presented results of agronomic field trials for GD743 and GS784 apples. The 

results of these field trials demonstrate that there are no differences in agronomic 

practices between GD743 and GS784 and conventional apples. The common agricultural 

practices that would be carried out in the cultivation GD743 and GS784 apples are not 

expected to deviate from current practices, including the use of EPA-registered 

pesticides. The product is expected to be deployed on agricultural land currently suitable 

for production of apple, will be cultivated only as a specialty apple, is not expected to

replace existing varieties, and is not expected to increase the acreage of apple production. 

There are no proposed major ground disturbances; no new physical destruction or 

damage to property; no alterations of property, wildlife habitat, or landscapes; and no 

prescribed sale, lease, or transfer of ownership of any property. This action is limited to a 

determination of nonregulated status of GD743 and GS784 apples. This action would not 

convert land use to nonagricultural use and, therefore, would have no adverse impact on 

prime farmland. Standard agricultural practices for land preparation, planting, irrigation, 

and harvesting of fruit would be used on orchard lands planted to GD743 and GS784

apples, including the use of EPA-registered pesticides. The Applicant’s adherence to 

EPA label use restrictions for all pesticides is expected to mitigate potential impacts to 

the human environment.

Based on these findings, including the assumption that EPA label use instructions are in 

place to protect unique geographic areas and that those label use instructions are adhered 

to, a determination of nonregulated status of GD743 and GS784 is not expected to impact 

unique characteristics of geographic areas such as park lands, prime farm lands, wetlands, 

wild and scenic areas, or ecologically critical areas.

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

The NHPA of 1966 and its implementing regulations (36 CFR 800) require Federal 

agencies to: 1) determine whether activities they propose constitute "undertakings" that 

have the potential to cause effects on historic properties and 2) if so, to evaluate the 

effects of such undertakings on such historic resources and consult with the Advisory 

Council on Historic Preservation (i.e., State Historic Preservation Office, Tribal Historic 

Preservation Officers), as appropriate. 

65
APHIS’ proposed action, a determination of nonregulated status of GD743 and GS784 is 

not expected to adversely impact cultural resources on tribal properties. Any farming 

activity that may be taken by farmers on tribal lands would only be conducted at the 

tribe’s request; thus, the tribes would have control over any potential conflict with 

cultural resources on tribal properties.

APHIS’ Preferred Alternative would have no impact on districts, sites, highways, 

structures, or objects listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic 

Places, nor would it likely cause any loss or destruction of significant scientific, cultural, 

or historical resources. This action is limited to a determination of non-regulated status 

of GD743 and GS784.

APHIS’ proposed action is not an undertaking that may directly or indirectly cause 

alteration in the character or use of historic properties protected under the NHPA. In 

general, common agricultural activities conducted under this action do not have the 

potential to introduce visual, atmospheric, or noise elements to areas in which they are 

used that could result in effects on the character or use of historic properties. For 

example, there is potential for increased noise on the use and enjoyment of a historic 

property during the operation of tractors and other mechanical equipment close to such 

sites. A built-in mitigating factor for this issue is that virtually all of the methods 

involved would only have temporary effects on the audible nature of a site and can be 

ended at any time to restore the audible qualities of such sites to their original condition 

with no further adverse effects. Additionally, these cultivation practices are already 

being conducted throughout the apple production regions. The cultivation of GD743 and 

GS784 is not expected to change any of these agronomic practices that would result in an 

adverse impact under the NHPA.

66
8 LIST OF PREPARERS

USDA APHIS Biotechnology Regulatory Service 

Donna Lalli, Ph.D., Biotechnologist

Joanne Serrels, Environmental Protection Specialist 

Rebecca Stankiewicz Gabel, Ph.D., Branch Chief, Biotechnology Environmental Analysis 

Branch Environmental Risk Analysis Program

67
9 References

Coordinated Framework for Regulation of Biotechnology 1986. Pub. L. Stat. June 26. 

Statement of Policy: Foods Derived from New Plant Varieties 1992. Pub. L. Stat. May 

29. 

Adler, P; Del Grosso, S; and Parton, W (2007) "Life-cycle assessment of net greenhousegas flux for bioenergy cropping systems." Ecological Applications. 17 (3): p 675-

91. 

Altieri, MA (1999) "The ecological role of biodiversity in agroecosystems." Agriculture, 

Ecosystems and Environment. (76): p 13. 

Altieri, MA (2000) "The Ecological Impacts of Transgenic Crops on Agroecosystem 

Health." Ecosystem Health. 6 (1): p 11. 

Aneja, VP; Schlesinger, WH; and Erisman, JW (2009) "Effects of agriculture upon the 

air quality and climate: Research, policy, and regulations." Environmental Science 

& Technology. 43 (12): p 4234–40. 

AOSCA (2010) "General IP Protocols Standards." The Association of Official Seed 

Certifying Agencies. http://www.identitypreserved.com/handbook/aoscageneral.htm >.

Aumaitre, A; Aulrich, K; Chesson, A; Flachowsky, G; and Piva, G (2002) "New feeds 

from genetically modified plants: substantial equivalence, nutritional equivalence, 

digestibility, and safety for

animals and the food chain." Livestock Production Science. 74 p 16. 

Baker, HG (1974) "The Evolution of Weeds." Annual Review of Ecological Systems. 5 p 

24. 

Baker, J; Southard, R; and Mitchell, J (2005) "Agricultural dust production in standard 

and conservation tillage systems in the San Joaquin Valley." Journal of 

Environmental Quality. 34 p 1260-

69. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15998847 >.

Barrett, DM; Somogyi, L; and Ramaswamy, H. (2005). ed.^eds. Processing Fruits. 2nd 

ed: CRC Press. Print.

Beckerman, J. "Disease Susceptibility of Common Apple Cultivars." Ed. University, 

Purdue: Purdue University Cooperative Extension Service, 2006. 4. Vol. BP-132-

W.

Bessin, R. "Controlling Apple Insect Pests." Ed. Service, University of Kentucky 

Cooperative Extension2003. Vol. ENTFACT-201.

Boyer, J and Liu, RH (2004) "Apple phytochemicals and their health benefits." Nutrition 

Journal. 3 (5): p 1-

15. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&

dopt=Citation&list_uids=15140261 >.

Brittingham, MC and Falker, ST. "Controlling Birds on Fruit Crops." Ed. Sciences, Penn 

State College of Agricultural2010.

Carpenter, JE (2011) "Impact of GM crops on biodiversity." GM Crops. 2 (1): p 7-23. 

Carroll, JE and Robinson, TL (2006) "New York Integrated Fruit Production Protocol for 

Apples." New York State Agricultural Experiment Station. 

68
CBD (2010) "The Cartegena Protocol on Biosafety " Convention on Biological 

Diversity. http://www.cbd.int/biosafety/ >.

Cooley, DR; Los, LM; Berkett, LP; Faubert, HH; Koehler, G; and Moran, R (2012) 

"Wildlife Damage Management." 2012 New England Tree Fruit Management 

Guide. p 109-11. 

Cornell (2012) "2012 Cornell Pest Management Guidelines for Commercial Tree Fruit 

Production." Agnello, A. . http://ipmguidelines.org/TreeFruits/Default.aspx >.

Crasweller, RM (2005) "Grafting and Propagating Fruit Trees." Penn State University. 

Crunch Pak (2012) "Crunch Pak Company History." Crunch 

Pak. http://www.crunchpak.com/aboutus/company-history/ >.

Dennis, F (2003) "Flowering, Pollination and Fruit Set and Development." Apples. 

Botany, Production and Uses. Cambridge, MA: CABI Publishing. p 153-66. 

Dickson, EE; Kresovich, S; and Weeden, NF (1991) "Isozymesin North America Malus

(Rosaceae): hybridization and species differentiation." Systematic Botany. 16 p 

13. 

Dimitri, C and Oberholtzer, L. "Market-Led Growth vs. Government-Facilitated Growth: 

Development of the US and EU Organic Agricultural Sectors." WRS-05-05. 

Washington, DC: USDA Economic Research Service, 2005.

Donohue, D; Gut, L; and Jess, L (2011) "Updates to 2008 Michigan Apple PMSP." 

Doran, JW; Sarrantonio, M; and Liebig, MA (1996) "Soil Health and Sustainability." 56 

p 1-54. 

FAO (2009) "Foods derived from modern biotechnology." Rome. 

Faust, MA (2002) "New feeds from genetically modified plants: the US approach to 

safety for animals and the food chain." Livestock Production Science. 74 p 16. 

Field, CB; Mortsch, LD; Brklacich, M; Forbes, DL; Kovacs, P; Patz, JA; Running, SW; 

and Scott, MJ (2007) "North America." Climate Change 2007: Impacts, 

Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth 

Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 

Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. p 617-52. Last Accessed: 

December 3, 2010 

< http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch14s14-4-4.html >.

Flachowsky, G; Chesson, A; and Aulrich, K (2005) "Animal nutrition with feeds from 

genetically modified plants." Archives of Animal Nutrition. 59 (1): p 1-40. 

FOCUS (2008) "Pesticides in Air: Considerations for Exposure Assessment." European 

Commission Forum for Coordination of Pesticide Fate Models and Their Use 

Working Group on Pesticides in 

Air. http://focus.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ai/docs/FOCUS_AIR_GROUP_REPORTFINAL.pdf >.

Garbeva, P; van Veen, JA; and van Elsas, JD (2004) "MICROBIAL DIVERSITY IN 

SOIL: Selection of Microbial Populations by Plant and Soil Type and 

Implications for Disease Suppressiveness." Annual Review of Phytopathology. 42 

(1): p 243-70. 

Gardiner, S; Norelli, J; N., dS; Fazio, G; Peil, A; Malnoy, M; Horner, M; Bowatte, D; 

Carlisle, C; Wiedow, C; Wan, Y; Bassett, C; Baldo, A; Celton, JM; Richter, K; 

H., A; and Bus, V (2012) "Putative resistance gene markers associated with 

69
quantitative trait loci for fire blight resistance in Malus ‘Robusta 5’ accessions." 

BMC Genetics 13 p 20. 

Gardner, KE and Ascher, JS (2006) "Notes on the Native Bee Pollinators in New York 

Apple Orchards." Journal of New York Entomological Society. 114 (1): p 7. 

Granatstein, D; Davenport, J; Kirby, E; Morgan, W; and Kukes, A. "Direct-seeding 

Legumes into Orchard Alleys for Nitrogen Production." Leavenworth, WA2012. 

1.

Hancock, JF (2003) "A Framework for Assessing the Risk of Transgenic Crops." 

BioScience. p 9. 

Hancock, JF and Hokanson, KE (2001) "Invasiveness of Transgenic vs. Exotic Plant 

Species: How Useful is the Analogy?" p 6. Oregon State University. 

Hanke, V (2003) "Genetically modified apple trees "...they don't spread unchecked"." 

GMO Safety. http://www.gmo-safety.eu/archive/326.spread-unchecked.html >.

Harlan, JR (1975) "Our Vanishing Genetic Resources." Science. 188 (4188): p 4. 

Hoeft, R; Nafziger, E; Johnson, R; and Aldrich, S (2000) Modern Corn and Soybean 

Production (1st Ed). Champaign: MCSP Publications. 

Horowitz, J and Gottlieb, J (2010) "The Role of Agriculture in Reducing Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions." U.S. Department of Agriculture–Economic Research 

Service. http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/eb15/ >.

Hosie, RC (1979) Native trees of Canada. Don Mills, Ontario: Fitzheury and Whiteside. 

IPPC (2010) "Official web site for the International Plant Protection Convention: 

International Phytosanitary Portal " International Plant Protection Convention. 

https://www.ippc.int/IPP/En/default.jsp >.

Johnsen, AR; Wick, LY; and Harms, H (2005) "Principles of microbial PAH-degradation 

in soil." Environmental Pollution. 133 (1): p 71-

84. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0269749104001587 >.

Kamas, J; Nesbitt, M; and Stein, L. "Apples." Ed. A&M, Texas. 7.

Karl, TR; Melillo, JM; and Peterson, TC (2009) "Global Climate Change Impacts in the 

United States." US Global Change Research 

Program. www.globalchange.gov/usimpacts >.

Karst, T (2012) "Short crop cuts into apple slices." The Packer. p 

3. http://www.thepacker.com/fruit-vegetable-news/From-Happy-Meals-to-retailpacks-short-crops-affect-apple-slices-162405906.html >.

Krapu, G; Brandt, D; and Cox, R (2004) "Less Waste Corn, More Land in Soybeans, and 

the Switch to Genetically Modified Crops: Trends with Important Implications for 

Wildlife Management." USGS Northern Prairie Wildlife Research 

Center. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1065&context

=usgsnpwrc >.

Ladurner, E; Recla, L; Wolf, M; Zelger, R; and Burgio, G (2004) "Osmia cornuta 

(Hymenoptera Megachilidae) densities required for apple pollination: a cage 

study." Journal of Apicultural Research. 43 (3): p 5. 

Little, ELJ (1979) "Malus." Check List of United States Trees (Native and Naturalized).

Washington, DC: Forest Service, USDA. p 167-70. 

Lovett, S; Price, P; and Lovett, J (2003) Managing riparian lands in the cotton industry. 

Narrabri, NSW: Cotton Research and Development Corporation. 

70
MacHardy, WE (2000) "Current status of IPM in apple orchards." Crop Protection. 19 p 

6. 

McCamant, T (2007) Integrated Pest Management Manual for Minnesota Apple 

Orchards. Minnesota Department of Agriculture. 

McCray, K (2009) "Ground Water: Out of Sight, But Not Out of 

Mind." http://www.ngwa.org/public/awarenessweek/awareeditorial.aspx >.

McVaugn, R (1943) "The status of some anomalous native crabapples in the eastern 

Ubited States." Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club. 70 p 12. 

McVay, JR; Walgenbach, JF; Sikora, EJ; and Sutton, T (1996) "A Grower's Guide To 

Apple Insects and Diseases In The Southeast " Alabama Cooperative 

Extension. http://ipm.ncsu.edu/apple/contents.html >.

Mortsch, LD and Alden, M (2003) "Climate Change and Water Quality in the Great 

Lakes Region." Great Lakes Water Quality 

Board. http://www.ijc.org/rel/pdf/climate_change_2003_part3.pdf >.

Moulton, GA and King, J (2008) "Fruit Handbook for Western Washington: Varieties 

and Culture." Washington State University Extension. 

MSU Extension Service (Undated) "Ecology and Management of the Louisiana Black 

Bear." http://icwdm.org/Publications/pdf/Bears/bearsMSU.pdf >.

Muenscher, WC (1980) Weeds. Cornell University Press. 

NAPPO (2009) "NAPPO approved standards " http://www.nappo.org/Standards/Stde.html >.

NBII (2010) "United States Regulatory Agencies Unified Biotechnology Website 

" http://usbiotechreg.nbii.gov/ >.

NCAT. "NCAT's Organic Crops Workbook: A Guide to Sustainable and Allowed 

Practices." National Center for Appropriate Technology, 

2003. http://www.attra.org/attra-pub/PDF/cropsworkbook.pdf.

Non-GMO-Project (2010) "Non-GMO Project Working 

Standard." http://www.nongmoproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/NGPStandard-v7.pdf >.

Norelli, J; Farrell Jr., RE; Bassett, CL; Baldo, AM; Lalli, DA; Aldwinckle, HS; and 

Wisniewski, ME (2009) "Rapid transcriptional response of apple to fire blight 

disease revealed by cDNA suppression subtractive hybridization analysis." Tree 

Genetics & Genomes. 5 p 27-40. 

NRC (1983) Underutilized Resources as Animal Feedstuffs. Washington DC: National 

Academies Press. 

NRC (2004) Safety of Genetically Engineered Foods: Approaches to Assessing 

Unintended Health Effects. Washington DC: The National Academy Press. 

Organic Monitor. "Research Publication #7002-40. The Global Market for Organic Food 

and Drink: Business Opportunities and Future Outlook." 

2006. http://www.organicmonitor.com/700240.htm.

Organic Trade Association (2011) "Industry Statistics and Projected 

Growth." http://www.ota.com/organic/mt/business.html?printable=1 >.

OSF (2012) "Petition for Determination of Nonregulated Status: ArcticTM Apple (Malus 

x domestica) Events GD743 and GS784." Okanagan Specialty Fruits Inc. 

Palmer, WE and Bromley, PT (1992) "Pesticides and Wildlife - Fruit 

Trees." http://ipm.ncsu.edu/wildlife/fruit_trees_wildlife.html >.

71
Park, M; Danforth, B; Losey, J; Biddinger, D; Vaughan, M; Dollar, J; Rajotte, E; and 

Angello, A (2012) Wild pollinators of eastern apple orchards and how to 

conserve them. Cornell University. 

Park, MG; Orr, MC; and Danforth, BN (2010) "The Role of Native Bees in Apple 

Pollination." New York Fruit Quarterly. 18 (1): p 5. 

Penn State (2012) "Pennsylvania 2012-2013 Tree Fruit Production Guide." The 

Pennsylvania State University. 

Pfeiffer, DG, et al. (2011) "2011 Spray Bulletin for Commercial Tree Fruit Growers." 

Virginia Tech

West Virginia University

Maryland Cooperative Extension

Virginia State University. 

Reichard, SH and Hamilton, CW (1997) "Predicting Invasions of Woody Plants 

Introduced into North America." Conservation Biology. 11 (1): p 11. 

Robinson, T; Lakso, A; and Dominguez, L (2013) "Precision Irrigation Management." 

New York Fruit Quarterly. 21 (2): p 17-20. http://www.nyshs.org/pdf/-

NYFQ%202013.CMC/NYFQ%20Summer%202013/Pages%2017-

20%20from%20NYFQ%20Summer%20Book%206-22-2013.PRESS-4.pdf >.

Ronald, P and Fouche, B (2006) "Genetic Engineering and Organic Production 

Systems." http://ucanr.org/freepubs/docs/8188.pdf >.

Roper, TR (2005) "Orchard-Floor Management for Fruit Trees." University of Wisconsin 

Extension. 

Roper, TR and Frank, GG (2004) "Planning and Establishing Commercial Apple 

Orchards in Wisconsin." University of Wisconsin Extension. 

Ruiz, N; Lavelle, P; and Jimenez, J (2008) "Soil Macrofauna Field Manual." Food and 

Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 

Schneider, D; Stern, RA; and Goldway, M (2005) "A Comparison between Semi-and 

Fully Compatible Apple Pollinators Grown under Suboptimal Pollination 

Conditions." HortScience. 40 (5): p 3. 

Schotzko, RT and Granatstein, D (2005) "A Brief Look at the Washington Apple 

Industry: Past and Present." Washington State University. 

Sharma, R (2005) Improve your Health with Apple, Guava, Mango. Diamond Pocket 

Books Ltd. 

Shelton, A (2012) "Biological Control: A Guide to Natural Enemies in North 

America." http://www.biocontrol.entomology.cornell.edu/#Top >.

Slattery, E; Livingston, M; Greene, C; and Klonsky, K (2011) "Characteristics of 

Conventional and Organic Apple Production in the United States." USDA-ERS. 

Smith, TJ (1999) "Report on the development and use of 98C - A situation-specific fire 

blight risk assessment model for apple and pear." Acta Horticulturae (ISHS). 489 

p 429-35. 

Smith, TJ (2001) "Crop Profile for Apples in Washington." Washington State University 

Extension. Last Accessed: August 1, 2013 

< http://www.ipmcenters.org/cropprofiles/docs/waapples.html >.

Spectrum "Fertilizing Apples." Spectrum Analytic Inc. 

Steiner, PW (2000) "Managing Fire Blight in Apples." Last Accessed: 02/26/2013 

< http://www.caf.wvu.edu/kearneysville/articles/FB-MANAGE00.html >.

72
Steiner, PW and Lightner, GW (1992) "MARYBLYTTM: A computer model for 

predicting of fire blight disease in apples and pears." Computers and Electronics 

in Agriculture. 7 p 249-60. 

Tobin, ME (1989) "Bird Damage to Apples in the Mid-Hudson Valley of New York." 

HortScience. 24 (5): p 1. 

Tobin, ME and Richmond, ME (1993) "Vole Management in Fruit Orchards." U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 

UNH (2004) "Beneficial Insects and Mites in NH Apple 

Trees." http://extension.unh.edu/Agric/AGPMP/Apples/BenefiIM.htm >.

US-EPA (2000) "Profile of the Agricultural Crop Production Industry." U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency-Office of Compliance Sector Notebook 

Profile. http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/publications/assistance/sectors/

notebooks/agcrop.pdf >.

US-EPA (2003) "National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution 

from 

Agriculture." http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/nps/agriculture/agmm_index.cfm >.

US-EPA. "Protecting Water Quality from Agricultural Runoff." Washington, DC: 

Nonpoint Source Control Branch (4503T), EPA 841-F-05-001, 2005.

US-EPA (2009) "Pesticide Spray and Dust Drift." U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency. http://www.epa.gov/opp00001/factsheets/spraydrift.htm >.

US-EPA (2010) "A Set of Scientific Issues Being Considered by the Environmental 

Protection Agency Regarding: Field Volatilization of Conventional Pesticides." 

U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency. http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-

0687-0037 >.

US-EPA (2011a) "Pesticides: Registration Review." U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency. http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/registration_review/ >.

US-EPA (2011b) "Sole Source Aquifer Protection Program." U.S. Environmental 

Protection 

Agency. http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/drinkingwater/sourcewater/protection/

solesourceaquifer.cfm >.

US-EPA (2012a) "Chapter 6: Agriculture." Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions 

and Sinks: 1990-2010. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

p 6-1 through 6-

41. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/usinventoryreport.html >.

US-EPA (2012b) "Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2010." 

US-EPA. 

US-EPA (2012c) "Pesticide Tolerances " Environmental Protection 

Agency. http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/regulating/tolerances.htm >.

US-EPA (2012d) "Watershed Assessment, Tracking & Environmental Report. National 

Summary. Causes of Impairment in Assessed Rivers and 

Streams." http://iaspub.epa.gov/waters10/attains_index.control >.

US-EPA (2013) "Setting Tolerances for Pesticide Residues in Food." Environmental 

Protection Agency. Last Accessed: January, 2013 

< http://www.epa.gov/opp00001/factsheets/stprf.htm >.

73
US-FDA. "Guidance for Industry: Recommendations for the Early Food Safety 

Evaluation of New Non-Pesticidal Proteins Produced by New Plant Varieties 

Intended for Food Use." Rockville, MD: FDA, 

2006. http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocumentsRegulat

oryInformation/Biotechnology/ucm096156.htm.

US-NARA (2010) "Executive Orders disposition tables index." United States National 

Archives and Records Administration. http://www.archives.gov/federalregister/executive-orders/disposition.html >.

USAA (2011) "Production and Utilization Analysis." US Apple Association. 

USDA-AMS (2010a) "National Organic Program." Agricultural Marketing Service 

United States Department of Agriculture. http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/nop

>.

USDA-AMS (2010b) "National Organic Program." United States Department of 

Agriculture - Agricultural Marketing 

Service. http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/nop >.

USDA-AMS (2013) "Pesticide Data Program Annual Summary, Calendar Year 2011." 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing 

Service. http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=stelprdc510269

2 >.

USDA-APHIS (2013) "Draft Plant Pest Risk Assessment for Okanagan Specialty Fruits 

Inc.’s Non-browning Apple Events GD743 and GS784. 

." http://www.aphis.usda.gov/biotechnology/not_reg.html >.

USDA-ARS (2011) "At ARS, the Atmosphere is Right for Air Emission Studies." U.S. 

Department of Agriculture–Agricultural Research 

Service. http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/AR/archive/jul11/emissions0711.htm?pf=1 >.

USDA-ERS (2006) "Major Uses of Land in the United States, 2002." USDAERS. http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/eib-economic-informationbulletin/eib14.aspx >.

USDA-ERS (2009) "Conservation Policy: Compliance Provisions for Soil and Wetland 

Conservation." U.S. Department of Agriculture–Economic Research 

Service. http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/ConservationPolicy/compliance.htm >.

USDA-ERS (2010a) "Organic Production." United States Department of Agriculture -

Economic Research Service. http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/Organic/ >.

USDA-ERS (2010b) "US Apple Statistics Table 2. ." Economics, Statistics and Market 

Information System, Albert R. Mann Library, Cornell 

University. http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/MannUsda/viewDocumentInfo.do?do

cumentID=1825, >.

USDA-ERS. "Copy of table15: U.S. per capita consumption of apples." 

2012. http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/MannUsda/viewDocumentInfo.do?docume

ntID=1825.

USDA-FAS (2012) "Fresh Deciduous Fruit (Apples, Grapes, & Pears): World Markets 

and Trade." 

USDA-NASS (2012a) "2011 Certified Organic Production Survey." USDA-NASS. 

USDA-NASS (2012b) "Noncitrus Fruits and Nuts: 2011 summary." USDA-NASS. 

74
USDA-NRCS (1996) "Effects of Residue Management and No-Till on Soil Quality." 

Natural Resources Conservation 

Service. http://soils.usda.gov/sqi/management/files/sq_atn_3.pdf >.

USDA-NRCS (1999) "Soil Taxonomy: A Basic System of Soil Classification for Making 

and Interpreting Soil Surveys." U.S. Department of Agriculture–Natural 

Resources Conservation 

Service. http://soils.usda.gov/technical/classification/taxonomy/ >.

USDA-NRCS (2001) "Soil Quality - Introduction." U.S. Department of Agriculture–

Natural Resources Conservation 

Service. http://soils.usda.gov/sqi/publications/publications.html#agy >.

USDA-NRCS. "Integrated Pest Management (IPM) and Wildlife." Ed. USDANRCS2002. Vol. 24.

USDA-NRCS (2004) "Soil Biology and Land Management." U.S. Department of 

Agriculture–Natural Resources Conservation 

Service. http://soils.usda.gov/sqi/publications/publications.html#atn >.

USDA-NRCS (2006) "Conservation Resource Brief: Soil Quality." U.S. Department of 

Agriculture–Natural Resources Conservation Service. 

https://prod.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs143_023219.pdf >.

USDA-NRCS (2006b) "Conservation Resource Brief: Air Quality, Number 0605." 

National Resources Conservation 

Service. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs143_023301

.pdf >.

USDA-NRCS (2010) "Keys to Soil Taxonomy." U.S. Department of Agriculture–Natural 

Resources Conservation 

Service. http://soils.usda.gov/technical/classification/tax_keys/ >.

USDA-NRCS "Federal Noxious 

Weeds." http://plants.usda.gov/java/noxious?rptType=Federal >.

USDA-NRCS (2013) "Plants Profile 

Apple." http://plants.usda.gov/java/profile?symbol=MALUS >.

USFWS (2011a) "Draft Environmental Assessment - Use of Genetically Modified, 

Glyphosate-Tolerant Soybeans and Corn on National Wildlife Refuge Lands in 

the Mountain–Prairie Region (Region 6)." http://www.fws.gov/mountainprairie/planning/resources/documents/resources_gmo_ea.pdf >.

USFWS (2011b) "Species Profile for Delmarva Peninsula Fox Squirrel (Sciurus niger 

cinereus)." United States Fish and Wildlife 

Service. http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=

A00B#lifeHistory >.

USFWS "Environmental Conservation System Online." United States Fish and Wildlife 

Services. Last Accessed: August 1, 2013 

< http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/pub/stateListingAndOccurrence.jsp >.

USITC (2010) "Apple: Industry and Trade Summary." United States International Trade 

Commission. 

Vaillancourt, LJaH, J.R. (2000) "Apple scab." 

APSnet. http://www.apsnet.org/edcenter/intropp/lessons/fungi/ascomycetes/Pages

/AppleScab.aspx >.

75
Walgenbach (2011) "2011 Integrated Orchard Management Guide for Commercial 

Apples in the Southeast." North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service. 

Walgenbach, J (2012) "2012 Integrated Orchard Management Guide for Commercial 

Apples in the Southeast." North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service

Walker, TS; Bais, HP; Grotewold, E; and Vivanco, JM (2003) "Root exudation and 

rhizosphere biology." Plant physiology. 132 (1): p 44-

51. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12746510 >.

Warmund, MR (1996) Pollinating Fruit Crops. University Extension, University of 

Missouri-Columbia. 

Way, RD; Aldwinckle, HS; Lamb, RC; Rejman, A; Sansavini, S; Shen, T; Watkins, R; 

Westwood, MN; and Yoshida, Y (1990) "Genetics resources of temperate fruit 

crops." Acta Horticulturae. p 1. 

Wilcox, WF (2013) "Apple Scab." Department of Plant Pathology, NYS Agricultural 

Experiment Station, Cornell 

University. http://nysipm.cornell.edu/factsheets/treefruit/diseases/as/as.asp >.

Wilson, EO (1988) Biodiversity. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. 

Wilson, JM (2006) "Managing Abandoned Orchards and Apple Trees." Managing 

Grasslands, Shrublands and Young Forests for Wildlife: A Guide for the 

Northeast. The Northeast Upland Habitat Technical Committee

Massachusetts Division of Fisheries & Wildlife. p 51-57. 

WSU (2010) "2010 Crop Protection Guide for Tree Fruits in Washington (EB0419)." 

Pullman, WA. http://pubs.wsu.edu >.

WSUTFRE (2013) "Organic & Integrated Tree Fruit Production: Fire Blight Control in 

Organic Apple and Pear. ." Washington State 

University. http://www.tfrec.wsu.edu/pages/organic/fireblight >.

76