NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT DECISION

AND

PRELIMINARY FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

Monsanto Company

MON-87427-1 Maize

United States Department of Agriculture

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

Biotechnology Regulatory Services

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

Service (APHIS) has developed this decision document to comply with the requirements of the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended, the Council of Environmental 

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

regulations and procedures. This NEPA decision document, a Finding of No Significant Impact 

(FONSI), sets forth APHIS’ NEPA decision and its rationale. Comments from the public 

involvement process were evaluated and considered in developing this NEPA decision.

In accordance with APHIS procedures implementing NEPA (7 CFR part 372), APHIS has 

prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) to evaluate and determine if there are any 

potentially significant impacts to the human environment from a determination on the regulated 

status of genetically engineered MON 87427 corn that expresses a tissue-selective cp4 epsps

gene, the subject of a petition request (APHIS Number 10-281-01) by Monsanto Company 

(hereafter referred to as Monsanto). This EA has been prepared in order to specifically evaluate 

the effects on the quality of the human environment that may result from approving the petition 

seeking nonregulated status for MON 87427 corn. The EA assesses alternatives to a 

determination of nonregulated status of MON 87427 corn and analyzes the potential 

environmental and social effects that result from the proposed action and the alternatives.

Regulatory Authority

“Protecting American agriculture” is the basic charge of APHIS. APHIS provides leadership in 

ensuring the health and care of plants and animals. The agency improves agricultural 

productivity and competitiveness, and contributes to the national economy and the public health. 

USDA asserts that all methods of agricultural production (conventional, organic, or the use of 

genetically engineered (GE) varieties can provide benefits to the environment, consumers, and 

farm income.

Since 1986, the United States 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, 57 FR 22984). 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 APHIS, the Food and Drug 

Administration (FDA), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

APHIS is responsible for regulating GE organisms and plants under the plant pest provision in 

the Plant Protection Act of 2000, as amended (7 USC §§ 7701 et seq.) to ensure that they do not 

pose a plant pest risk to the environment.

The FDA regulates GE organisms under the authority of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic 

Act (FFDCA). The FDA is responsible for ensuring the safety and proper labeling of all plantderived foods and feeds, including those that are genetically engineered. To help developers of 

food and feed derived from GE crops comply with their obligations under Federal food safety 

laws, FDA encourages them to participate in a voluntary consultation process. The FDA policy 

statement concerning regulation of products derived from new plant varieties, including those 

genetically engineered, was published in the Federal Register on May 29, 1992 (57 FR 22984-

23005). Under this policy, FDA uses what is termed a consultation process to ensure that human 

food and animal feed safety issues or other regulatory issues (e.g., labeling) are resolved prior to 

commercial distribution of bioengineered foods.

The EPA regulates plant-incorporated protectants under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and 

Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). EPA also sets tolerance limits for residues of pesticides on and in food 

and animal feed, or establishes an exemption from the requirement for a tolerance, under the 

Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act (FFDCA) and regulates certain biological control 

organisms under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). 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.

In 2010, Monsanto submitted information to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

requesting herbicide label changes to reflect the new use patterns of glyphosate that this product 

would require (Monsanto 2010), in order to increase tolerance levels for glyphosate. On May 11, 

2011, EPA published its approval of this request (76 FR pp. 27268-27271), increasing tolerance 

levels in or on field or forage corn, to 13 ppm, based on a scientific review of the data.
Monsanto initiated a nutritional and safety consultation on MON 87427 with the Food and Drug 

Administration (FDA) (Monsanto 2010). On April 12, 2012, FDA stated that they had no further 

questions regarding food and feed derived from MON 87427 corn (BNF No. 000126).

Regulated Organisms

The APHIS Biotechnology Regulatory Services’ (BRS) mission is to protect America’s 

agriculture and environment using a dynamic and science-based regulatory framework that 

allows for the safe development and use of GE organisms. APHIS regulations at 7 Code of 

Federal Regulations (CFR) part 340, which were promulgated pursuant to authority granted by 

the Plant Protection Act, 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 

Plant Protection Act 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 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 does not have 

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

A person may petition the agency that a particular regulated article is unlikely to pose a plant 

pest risk, and, therefore, is no longer regulated under the plant pest risk provisions of the Plant 

Protection Act or the regulations at 7 CFR 340. 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 risk provisions of the Plant Protection Act when APHIS determines that it is unlikely to pose 

a plant pest risk.

APHIS’ Response to Petition for Nonregulated Status

Under the authority of the plant pest provisions of the Plant Protection Act and 7 CFR Part 340, 

APHIS has issued regulations for the safe development and use of GE organisms. As required 

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

regulated status of GE organisms, including GE plants such as MON 87427 corn. When a 

petition for nonregulated status is submitted, APHIS must make a determination if the GE 

organism is unlikely to pose a plant pest risk. If APHIS determines based on its Plant Pest Risk 

Assessment (PPRA) that the genetically engineered organism is no longer subject to the plant 

pest provisions of the Plant Protection Act and 7 CFR part 340.

The Monsanto Company of St. Louis, MO submitted petition 10-281-01 to the United States 

Department of Agriculture (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) in 

October 2010 seeking a determination of nonregulated status of maize (hereafter the term ‘corn’ 
will be used) event MON 87427 that exhibits a tissue-selective glyphosate resistant phenotype. 

MON 87427 corn is currently regulated under 7 CFR part 340. 

MON 87427 Corn

MON 87427 corn is genetically engineered (GE) with tissue-selective glyphosate resistance in 

order to facilitate the production of hybrid seed. This technology results in more efficient corn 

hybrid seed production compared to mechanical and hand detasseling, or the use of cytoplasmic 

male sterility (CMS). Modern hybrid corn seed production is based on the use of two corn

inbred parents, one designated as a female parent and one as a male parent. Hybrid seed 

production is accomplished through the combining of genetic material from one inbred parent 

with that of the other inbred parent. Specifically, pollen from the tassel (male flower) of the male

parent is used to fertilize the ear (female flower) of the female parent. When used as a female 

inbred parent and sprayed with glyphosate during late vegetative development, MON 87427 corn

is unable to produce viable pollen and self-fertilize. This phenotype precludes the need for first 

mechanical then hand detasseling of MON 87427 corn, facilitating greater efficiency of 

production and eliminating yield penalties generally associated with mechanical detasseling. 

Glyphosate applications to MON 87427 that will result in the male sterile phenotype through 

tissue-selective glyphosate resistance will take place at approximate corn vegetative growth 

stages ranging from V8 to V13. The two glyphosate applications would take place during an 

approximate 14 day window within these growth stages, a much longer time period compared to 

an average 3 –4 day window between tassel emergence and pollen shed and silk emergence. 

This timing accounts for significantly improved flexibility in hybrid seed production.

If the petition is approved, the nonregulated status for MON 87427 corn would include MON 

87427 corn, any progeny derived from crosses between MON 87427 corn and conventional corn, 

and crosses of event MON 87427 corn with other biotechnology-derived corn that has been 

deregulated pursuant to Part 340 and the Plant Protection Act. Because many of the inbred lines 

that are employed in seed corn production do not have glyphosate resistance, glyphosate for 

weed control is not used. If MON 87427 corn is deregulated, developers and seed corn producers

would have a trait useful for both improvements in seed production and also glyphosate

resistance for weed management. Thus, these producers are expected to see economic benefits

from herbicide resistance similar to most other conventional corn growers, through increased 

crop yield, and increased efficiencies in seed corn production.

Event MON 87427 corn is currently regulated under 7 CFR part 340. Interstate movements and 

field trials of MON 87427 corn have been conducted under notifications and permits 

acknowledged by APHIS since 2005. These field trials were conducted in typical corn

production regions within the U.S., ranging from Arkansas to Wisconsin. Details regarding and 

data resulting from these field trials are described in the MON- 87427-1 petition for nonregulated 

status (Monsanto, 2010); field trial data was analyzed for plant pest risk potential in the APHIS 

Plant Pest Risk Assessment (PPRA) (USDA-APHIS, 2012). 
Coordinated Framework Review

Food and Drug Administration

MON 87427 corn is within the scope of the FDA policy statement concerning regulation of 

products derived from new plant varieties, including those produced by genetic engineering. In 

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

the Early Food Safety Evaluation of New Non-Pesticidal Proteins Produced by New Plant 

Varieties Intended for Food Use” (US-FDA, 2011) for establishing 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.

The information provided in the Monsanto petition indicates that the CP4 EPSPS protein is not 

expected to be allergenic, toxic, or pathogenic in mammals (Monsanto, 2010). Monsanto 

initiated a nutritional and safety consultation on MON 87427 with the Food and Drug 

Administration (FDA) (Monsanto, 2010). On April 12, 2012, FDA stated that they had no 

further questions regarding food and feed derived from MON 87427 corn (BNF No. 000126).

Environmental Protection Agency

As described in Subsection 2.4, Human Health, under FIFRA, all pesticides (including 

herbicides) sold or distributed in the U.S. must be registered by the EPA (US-EPA, 2011a). 

Registration decisions are based on scientific studies that assess the chemical’s potential toxicity 

and environmental impact. To be registered, a pesticide must be able to be used without posing 

unreasonable risks to people or the environment. All pesticides registered prior to November 1, 

1984, such as glyphosate, must also be reregistered to ensure that they meet the current, more 

stringent standards and should have a reregistration review every 15 years (US-EPA, 2011a). 

The latest reregistration decision for glyphosate was issued in 1993 and the reregistration review 

was started in July 2009 (US-EPA, 2009b); (US-EPA, 2009a). Before a pesticide can be used on 

a food or feed crop, the EPA must establish the tolerance value, which is the maximum amount 

of pesticide residue that can remain on the crop or in foods or feed processed from that crop (USEPA, 2011c). Glyphosate currently has established tolerances for residues, including established 

residue concentrations for glyphosate in field corn for forage, grain, and stover (US-EPA, 

2011b). Pesticide tolerance levels for glyphosate have been established for corn and are 

published in the Federal Register, CFR, and the Indexes to Part 180 Tolerance Information for 

Pesticide Chemicals in Food and Feed Commodities (US-EPA, 2011b). The glyphosate 

tolerance level established for field corn intended for forage was 6.0 ppm and for grain corn was

5.0 ppm (40 CFR §180.364). Monsanto petitioned EPA to increase the glyphosate tolerance level 

to 13.0 ppm, which was approved by EPA in May 2011 (76 FR pp.27268-27271).
Scope of the Environmental Analysis

Although the preferred alternative would allow for new plantings of MON 87427 corn anywhere 

in the U.S., APHIS primarily focused the environmental analysis to those geographic areas that 

currently support hybrid corn seed production. A determination of nonregulated status of MON 

87427 corn is not expected to increase hybrid corn seed production, either by its availability 

alone or accompanied by other factors, or cause an increase in overall GE corn acreage. The 

hybrid seed production sites are principally located in some of the major Corn Belt states of 

Nebraska, Iowa, Illinois, and Indiana where rainfall or irrigation is optimal for corn production, 

and the transport distance to purchasers is not distant (Monsanto, 2010). To determine the larger 

area of commodity corn production in the US, APHIS used data from the National Agricultural 

Statistics Service (USDA-NASS, 2010). The majority of commercial corn acres are found in

Iowa, Illinois, Nebraska, and Minnesota, and parts of Indiana, South Dakota, Kansas, Ohio, 

Wisconsin, and Missouri. These ten states comprised approximately 73 percent of the nation’s 

corn production in 2011 (USDA-NASS, 2012a; USDA-NASS, 2012b).

Public Involvement

On July 13, 2012, APHIS published a notice in the Federal Register (77 FR 41359-41361,

Docket no. APHIS-2012-0027) announcing the availability of the Monsanto petition for a 60-day 

public review and comment period. Comments were required to be received on or before 

September 11, 2012. All comments were carefully analyzed to identify potential environmental 

and interrelated economic issues and impacts that APHIS may determine should be considered in 

the evaluation of the petition. A total of 23,698 comments were received from individuals 

during the comment period1

, of which 23,604 were form letters. The issues that were raised in 

the public comments which were related to the MON 87427 corn petition included:

• As another glyphosate resistant corn, additional use of glyphosate will increase glyphosate 

resistant weeds, requiring use of other herbicides, and weeds will develop resistance to these as 

well.

• Should not deregulate MON 87427 until the provider has obtained authorizations from key 

foreign markets prior to deregulation. 

• More glyphosate use will increase herbicide levels in air and water sources and affect biological 

organisms. Herbicides such as glyphosate increase soil pathogens and lead to diseases including

Fusarium wilt. 

• Gene flow of the resistance trait from cultivated plants to wild/weedy/feral relatives may occur.

• Cultivation of this crop may reduce organic production of corn, because cross-pollination will 

affect sensitive markets for organic growers. 

• Concerns that GE plants cause adverse health effects on humans and animals

1 Comment documents may be viewed at:

http://www.regulations.gov/#!searchResults;rpp=50;so=ASC;sb=docId;po=0;s=APHIS-2012-0027

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

discussion of these issues in this EA

Major Issues Addressed in the EA

Issues discussed in the EA were developed by considering typical public concerns as well as 

issues raised in public comments submitted for other environmental assessments of genetically 

engineered organisms, concerns raised in lawsuits, as well as those issues that have been raised 

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

corn using various production methods, and the environmental food/feed safety of genetically 

engineered plants were addressed to analyze the potential environmental impacts of MON 87427

corn.

The resource areas considered were developed by APHIS through experience in considering 

public concerns and issues raised in public comments submitted for other EAs of GE organisms. 

Within each resource area, concerns raised in previous and unrelated lawsuits were considered, 

as well as issues that have been raised by various stakeholders in the past. The following issues 

were identified as important to the scope of the analysis (40 CFR 1508.25). These resource areas 

can be categorized as follows: 

Agricultural Production Considerations:

• Acreage and Range of Commercial Corn Production

• Agronomic Practices of Commercial Corn Production

• Hybrid Corn Seed Production: Pollen Control 

• Organic Corn Production

Physical Environment and Biological Resource Considerations:

• Soil Quality

• Water Resources

• Air Quality 

• Climate Change

• Animal Communities

• Plant Communities

• Gene Flow and Weediness

• Microorganisms

• Biodiversity

Human Health Considerations:

• Public Health

• Worker Safety
Animal Feed Considerations:

Socioeconomic Considerations:

• Domestic Economic Environment

• Trade Economic Environment

Alternatives that were fully analyzed

The EA analyzes the potential environmental consequences of a determination of nonregulated 

status of MON 87427 corn. To respond favorably to a petition for nonregulated status, APHIS 

must determine that MON 87427 corn is unlikely to pose a plant pest risk. Based on its Plant 

Pest Risk Assessment (USDA-APHIS, 2012), APHIS has concluded that MON 87427 corn is 

unlikely to pose a plant pest risk. Therefore, APHIS must determine that MON 87427 corn is no 

longer subject to 7 CFR part 340 or the plant pest provisions of the Plant Protection Act. Two 

alternatives were evaluated in the EA: (1) no action and (2) determination of nonregulated status 

of MON 87427 corn. APHIS has assessed the potential for environmental impacts for each 

alternative in the Environmental Consequences section of the EA.

No Action: Continuation as a Regulated Article

Under the No Action Alternative, APHIS would deny the petition. MON 87427 corn and 

progeny derived from MON 87427 corn would continue to be regulated articles under the 

regulations at 7 CFR part 340. Permits or notifications acknowledged by APHIS would still be 

required for introductions of MON 87427 corn 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 MON 87427 corn.

This alternative is not the preferred alternative because APHIS has concluded through a Plant 

Pest Risk Assessment that MON 87427 corn is unlikely to pose a plant pest risk (USDA-APHIS, 

2012). 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.

Preferred Alternative: Determination that MON 87427 Corn is No Longer a Regulated 

Article

Under this alternative, MON 87427 corn and progeny derived from them would no longer be 

regulated articles under the regulations at 7 CFR part 340. MON 87427 corn is unlikely to pose 

a plant pest risk (USDA-APHIS, 2012). Permits issued or notifications acknowledged by APHIS 

would no longer be required for introductions of MON 87427 corn and progeny derived from 

this event. The Preferred Alternative, i.e., a determination of nonregulated status of MON 87427

corn, is expected to provide increased efficiency in production of hybrid seed corn as it is 

integrated into corn inbred lines. The trait is not expected to increase corn or seed corn 

production, either by its availability alone or associated with other factors, or result in an 

increase in overall acreage of GE seed corn. Potential impacts would be similar to the No Action 
Alternative. 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 MON 87427 corn is unlikely to pose a plant pest risk, a determination of 

nonregulated status of MON 87427 corn 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.

Alternatives Considered but Rejected from Further Consideration

APHIS assembled a list of alternatives that might be considered for MON 87427 corn. The 

agency evaluated these alternatives, in light of the agency’s authority under the plant pest 

provisions of the Plant Protection Act, and the regulations at 7 CFR part 340, with respect to 

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

considered for MON 87427 corn. Based on this evaluation, APHIS rejected several alternatives. 

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

1. Prohibit any MON 87427 Corn 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 MON 87427 corn, including denying 

any permits associated with the field testing. APHIS determined that this alternative is not 

appropriate given that APHIS has concluded that MON 87427 corn is unlikely to pose a plant 

health risk

In enacting the Plant Protection Act, Congress found that 

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

under [the Plant Protection Act] 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 the development and 

implementation policies for oversight of emerging technologies (such as genetic engineering) at 

the agency level. In accordance with this memorandum, agencies should adhere to Executive 

Order 13563, and, consistent with that Executive Order, the following principle, among others to 

the extent permitted by law when regulating emerging technologies:

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

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

each agency”

Based on the PPRA (USDA-APHIS, 2012), and the scientific data evaluated therein, APHIS 

concluded that MON 87427 corn is unlikely to pose a plant pest risk. Accordingly, there is no 

basis in science for prohibiting the release of MON 87427 corn.

2. 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 MON 87427 corn is unlikely to pose a plant pest risk, (USDA-APHIS, 2012)

and it is the only event in the petition, there is no regulatory basis under the plant pest provisions 

of the Plant Protection Act for considering approval of the petition only in part.

3. Isolation Distance between MON 87427 Corn and Non-GE Corn 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 MON 87427 corn from conventional or 

specialty corn production. APHIS also considered geographically restricting the production of 

MON 87427 corn based on the location of production of non-GE corn 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. 

Establishing appropriate isolation distances is generally part of the hybrid corn seed production 

process. Hybrid corn seed producers typically isolate production plots physically from

neighboring corn seed or grain production fields to avoid cross-pollination during the flowering 

stage by wind-borne pollen. The isolation distance from other corn is regulated by seed 

certification standards, and is typically at least 660 feet from other corn (AOSCA, 2009). 

Isolation is often enhanced with male parent inbred border rows around the perimeter of the seed 

production plots, which increases desirable pollen shed from the male parent inbred during the 

silking period of the female parent inbred and reduces the potential for cross-pollination from 

external pollen sources. Official seed certification regulations often allow isolation distances 

between seed production fields to be reduced as the number of border rows increases (Agrawal et 

al., 1998)

As presented in APHIS’ plant pest risk assessment for MON 87427 corn, there are no geographic 

differences that might alter identifiable plant pest risks for MON 87427 corn (USDA-APHIS, 

2012). This alternative was rejected and not analyzed in detail because APHIS has concluded 

that MON 87427 corn does 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 Plant Protection Act 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 Plant Protection Act. However, individuals might choose on their own to 

geographically isolate their non-GE corn production systems from MON 87427 corn or to use 

isolation distances and other management practices to minimize gene movement between MON 

87427 corn and non-GE corn fields. Information to assist growers in making informed 
management decisions for MON 87427 corn is available from the Association of Official Seed 

Certifying Agencies (AOSCA, 2010).

Because APHIS has concluded that MON 87427 corn is unlikely to pose a plant pest risk

(USDA-APHIS, 2012), an alternative based on requiring isolation distances would be 

inconsistent with the statutory authority under the plant pest provisions of the Plant Protection 

Act and regulations in 7 CFR part 340. 

4. Requirement of Testing for MON 87427 Corn

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

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

APHIS notes that there are no nationally –established regulations involving testing, criteria, or 

limits of GE material in non-GE systems. Such a requirement would be extremely difficult to 

implement and maintain. Additionally, because MON 87427 corn does not pose a plant pest risk

(USDA-APHIS, 2012), the imposition of any type of testing requirements is inconsistent with 

the plant pest provisions of the Plant Protection Act, the regulations at 7 CFR part 340 and 

biotechnology regulatory policies embodied in the Coordinated Framework. Therefore, 

imposing such a requirement for MON 87427 corn would not meet APHIS’ purpose and need to 

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

Environmental Consequences of APHIS’ Selected Action

The EA contains a full analysis of the alternatives to which we refer the reader for specific 

details. The following table briefly summarizes the results for each of the issues fully analyzed 

in the Environmental Consequences section of the EA.
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 (USDAAPHIS, 2012)

Management Practices

Acreage and Areas 

of Corn Production

Yearly fluctuation but no or 

small net increase of acreage 

and no new regions of corn

planted

Unchanged from No Action 

Alternative

Agronomic Practices Seed production practices will 

continue to depend on 

mechanical and hand 

detasseling

Use of glyphosate to sterilize male 

tissue and prevent pollination. May 

see some reductions in use of 

mechanical and hand detasseling

Pesticide Use Herbicide use patterns on GE 

and non-GE corn will continue 

with present rates.

Glyphosate use in seed corn 

production may increase slightly

Corn Seed 

Production

Fluctuates yearly somewhat; 

foreign seed production used to 

respond to specific needs

Unchanged

Organic Corn

Production

Yearly production not affected 

by conventional corn production

Unchanged

Environment

Land Use Seed corn acreage may range 

from 0.5 to one million acres

MON 87427 corn is not expected to 

have any effect on land use 

Water Resources Herbicides in water fluctuate 

with weather, climate and usage

MON 87427 corn is not expected to 

have any effect on water 

Soil Glyphosate in soil has a short 

half-life. Conservation tillage 

MON 87427 corn is not expected to 

increase tillage or substantially change 
Summary of Issues of Potential Impacts and Consequences of Alternatives

may be increasing slightly glyphosate use

Air Quality Air quality (particulates) 

affected by tillage and weather

MON 87427 corn is not expected to 

have any effect on air quality 

Climate Change Climate changes affected by 

land use, tillage and greenhouse 

gases

MON 87427 corn is not expected to 

change land use, tillage practices or 

greenhouse gases. 

Animals and Plants

Animals Vertebrates interact infrequently

with corn agriculture; impacts 

on invertebrates from corn

production similar to impacts 

from any other agricultural

production

MON 87427 corn and glyphosate is

not expected to have any effect on 

vertebrate animals or most 

invertebrate animals Unchanged from 

the No Action Alternative

Plants Natural vegetation highly 

reduced near farms; herbicide 

resistant weeds increasing

Unchanged from No Action 

alternative

Gene Movement No gene flow to wild plants; 

gene flow to other corn 

controlled by grower needs. 

Horizontal gene flow not 

observed

MON 87427 corn used in seed 

production will allow pollination to be 

more directed but not expected to have 

any effect on vertical or horizontal 

gene flow 

Soil Microorganisms Microorganisms affected by 

tillage, agronomic activity and 

pesticides 

Unchanged from No Action 

alternative

Biological Diversity Contemporary agriculture 

already impacts diversity 

Unchanged from No Action 

alternative

Human and Animal Health

Risk to Human 

Health

EPA rates glyphosate impacts 

from glyphosate resistant corn 

as having no reasonable 

certainty of harm 

MON 87427 corn does not have any 

adverse human health effects.

Unchanged from No Action

Risk to Animal Feed Corn is a major feed protein for 

animal nutrition; quality is 

unchanging and adequate to 

MON 87427 will be used for seed, but 

no effects expected on animal 

nutrition
Summary of Issues of Potential Impacts and Consequences of Alternatives

animal needs

Socioeconomic

Domestic and 

Economic 

Environment

Corn seed with various traits 

has a competitive market in the 

US, with four major seed 

suppliers and over a hundred 

smaller ones

MON 87427 would be deployed in 

inbreds for hybrid corn production, 

replacing mechanical and cytoplasmic 

sterility in the domestic seed corn 

production business; some gradual 

decline expected in summer temporary 

worker hiring

Trade Economic 

Environment

Corn export levels decreased by 

23% from 2010 to 2012 in the 

US

MON 87427 corn not likely to change 

corn production

Other Regulatory 

Approvals

FDA completed consultations, 

EPA tolerance exemptions and 

conditional pesticide 

registrations granted

FDA completed consultations, EPA 

tolerance exemptions and conditional 

pesticide registrations granted

Compliance with Other Laws

CWA, CAA, Eos Fully compliant Fully compliant

Finding of No Significant Impact

The analysis in the EA indicates that there will not be a significant impact, individually or 

cumulatively, on the quality of the human environment as a result of this proposed action. I 

agree with this conclusion and therefore find that an EIS need not be prepared. This NEPA 

determination is based on the following context and intensity factors (40 CFR 1508.27).

Context - The term “context” recognizes potentially affected resources, as well as the location 

and setting in which the environmental impact would occur. This action has potential to affect 

conventional and organic corn production systems, including surrounding environments and 

agricultural workers; human food and animal feed production systems; and foreign and domestic 

commodity markets.

The glyphosate sensitive trait in MON 87427 corn would be used in hybrid seed production, and 

corn bearing the trait is expected to be planted on a small percentage of acres compared to corn 

destined for grain and feed production. Corn planted for purposes of hybrid seed production 

have historically been restricted to small amounts of land, about 0.5 million acres annually 

(Jugenheimer, 1976), an area that is not expected to change with the introduction of MON 
87427. Over the last 35 years, the volume of hybrid corn seed planted in the U.S. has changed 

very little, with 20.10 million bushels (MBu) harvested in 1975 and 22.9 MBu harvested in 2009 

(USDA-ERS, 2011g). Grain yields have increased significantly over this same period. The total 

retail value of corn seed sales in the US exceeds $7 billion (assuming $85/acre seed for160 

Bu/acre expected yield, corn following soybean, IA (Duffy, 2012) and considering recent

acreage). Corn seed suppliers in the US include a total of 173 independently owned companies 

(Monsanto, undated), and the petitioner is one of the four largest). Additional production of U.S. 

seed is contracted by U.S. seed companies among South American growers as needed for 

flexibility and speed (Leidy, 2009; Woodall, 2012) which also may reduce the need to expand 

acreage in the US for seed corn production. 

Currently, only a small part of the world corn seed for planting originates in the US, as 

US exports of seed are less than 0.04% of total US corn seed production and and less 

than 0.06% of world corn seed needs 2 (USDA-FAS, 2012) (USDA-FAS, 2013). Corn 

seed for planting in 2012 was purchased by Canada, several South American countries, 

Mexico and 40 other countries. Corn for commodity use is cultivated worldwide, including

Argentina, South Africa, Brazil, Canada, China, and the former Soviet Union States, including

the Ukraine (USDA-OCE, 2011b). Egypt, the EU, Japan, Mexico, Southeast Asia, and

South Korea are net importers of corn (USDA-OCE, 2011b). Approximately 15 to 20% of

the U.S. corn production is exported (USDA-OCE, 2011b). In 2009, the U.S. produced 40%

of the total world supply of corn (USDA-OCE, 2011b).

The gene incorporated into MON 87427 codes for the same gene as that in currently available

Monsanto glyphosate resistant corn, but with a different promoter and intron combination. 

Consequently, this promoter/gene combination would also be found in new hybrid seed when the 

MON 87427 trait is incorporated into inbred lines for seed production. Approximately 88% of 

corn fields were planted with transgenic corn in 2011 of which most was glyphosate-resistant 

(USDA-NASS, 2011a). Introduction of additional herbicide-resistant corn varieties has not 

significantly affected corn acreage. APHIS concludes that a determination of nonregulated status 

of this glyphosate resistant MON 87427 corn is not expected to directly cause an increase in 

agricultural acreage devoted to seed corn or commodity corn production. The availability of 

glyphosate tolerant MON 87427 corn will not change areas of cultivation for corn production in 

the U.S. and there are no anticipated changes to the availability of GE and non-GE corn varieties 

on the market.

Corn is the most widely cultivated feed grain, accounting for more than 95% of total value and 

production of feed grains (USDA-ERS, 2011). In the U.S. for the 2012 production year, corn

was cultivated on over 96 million acres, a 5% increase in corn acreage from 2011 (USDANASS, 2012b). Within the 2010 acreage, corn for silage was cultivated on approximately 5.6

2 Using 169.6 million world hectares corn planted annually, assuming 25# corn planted per acre, US corn seed 

exports are 42 million kgs, 

 
million acres, or approximately 6% of the total corn production area (USDA-NASS, 2012a). 

Corn production in 2010 was estimated at 12.4 billion bushels, valued at an estimated $5.18

per bushel in 2010 and $6.20 in 2011 (USDA-NASS, 2012b), (USDA-NASS, 2012c). GE 

herbicide-resistant corn comprised approximately 21% of the total corn acreage in the U.S., 

insect-resistant varieties comprised 15% of the acreage, and stacked varieties which include 

herbicide resistant traits comprised 52% of the total corn acreage (USDA-NASS, 2012b). The 

costs for GE corn seed are higher than that for conventional seed. Growers pay a premium for 

GE seed, with growers in 2008 paying as much as 50% more for GE corn seed than conventional 

seed (NRC, 2010). This seed premium includes a technology fee for the cultivation of the seed 

(NRC, 2010).

Results of the agronomic and morphologic assessments conducted by Monsanto indicate that the 

introduced herbicide resistance trait does not confer any competitive advantage in terms of 

weediness (USDA-APHIS, 2012). Monsanto asserts that MON 87427 corn will be incorporated 

into inbred lines used for hybrid seed production, and these inbreds will have the new trait that 

is useful for both efficient hybrid production and weed control. A need for new acreage for seed 

production is not expected to accompany the cultivation of MON 87427 corn and a more 

efficient hybridization system (Monsanto, 2010); hybrid corn seed needs will not increase. The 

glyphosate resistant trait, already in commercial use for fifteen years, is not expected to extend 

the typical areas of seed production for MON 87427 corn outside of the present areas of seed 

corn cultivation (Monsanto, 2010) nor will the ability to control pollination with non-mechanical 

technology alter that cultivation area.

Intensity – Intensity is a measure of the degree or severity of an impact based upon the ten 

factors. The following factors were used as a basis for this decision:

1. Impacts that may be both beneficial and adverse.

In the past 30 years, the public’s consumption of corn-based products has more than 

doubled. Per capita consumption of corn products rose from 12.9 pounds annually per 

capita in 1980 to 33 pounds in 2008; and corn sweeteners increased from 35.3 pounds 

annually per capita to 69.2 pounds during that period (USCB, 2011). As of 2012, 88% of 

the corn cultivated is GE (USDA-NASS, 2012b)). Public health concerns associated with 

the use of GE corn, such as MON 87427 corn, and GE corn products focus primarily on 

human and animal (livestock) consumption of GE food and feed commodities.

A determination of nonregulated status of MON 87427 corn will have no significant 

environmental impact in relation to the availability of GE, conventional, and organic corn

varieties. As discussed in Chapter 4 of the EA, a determination of nonregulated status of 

MON 87427 corn is not expected to directly cause an increase in agricultural acreage 

devoted to hybrid seed corn or commercial corn production, or those corn acres devoted 

to GE corn cultivation. The availability of MON 87427 corn will not change the 

cultivation areas for hybrid seed corn or commercial corn production in the U.S. and 
there are no anticipated changes in the availability of GE and non-GE corn seed or 

conventional corn varieties on the market or corn produced using organic methods. A 

determination of nonregulated status of MON 87427 corn will encourage replacement of 

non herbicide resistant inbred corn lines for hybrid seed production with the MON 87427 

glyphosate resistance trait so that glyphosate applications can be used both for 

sterilization of male tissues on female inbreds and also managing weeds. Properties of 

MON 87427 corn are otherwise comparable to properties and expressed genes of existing 

GE glyphosate resistant corn. Based on the data provided by Monsanto for MON 87427

corn (Monsanto, 2010), APHIS has concluded that the availability of MON 87427 corn

would not alter the agronomic practices, locations, and seed production and quality 

characteristics of conventional and GE corn seed production (USDA-APHIS, 2011). A 

determination of nonregulated status of MON 87427 corn will not result in an 

environmentally significant impact on agricultural production, although some increased 

efficiency in hybrid seed production practices is expected, and possibly fewer vehicular 

activities may be needed on seed production fields. Some decrease in summer 

employment may occur among in-school and part time employees who have been paid 

for hand detasseling, an activity which will be decreased by adoption of this trait, but any 

change is likely to occur gradually.

2. The degree to which the proposed action affects public health or safety. 

Non-GE corn varieties, both those developed for conventional use and for use in organic 

production systems, are not routinely required to be evaluated by any regulatory agency 

in the U.S. for human food or animal feed safety prior to release in the market. Under the 

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

they market are safe and labeled properly. As a GE product, however, food and feed 

derived from MON 87427 corn 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, thus far all applicants who have wished to commercialize a GE variety that 

would be included in the food supply have completed a consultation with the FDA. In 

such 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 in food (Hammond and Jez, 

2011). FDA evaluates the submission and responds to the developer by letter with any 

concerns it may have or additional information it may require. Several international 

agencies also review food safety associated with GE-derived food items, including the 

European Food Safety Agency (EFSA) and the Australia and New Zealand Food 
Standards Agency (ANZFS). Monsanto has provided the FDA with information on the 

identity, function, and characterization of the genes for MON 87427 corn, including 

expression of the gene products. The FDA has completed its early food safety 

evaluation, but has not yet completed its food and nutrition Biotechnology Consultation.

A determination of nonregulated status of MON 87427 corn would have no significant 

impacts on human or animal health. MON 87427 corn is compositionally similar to 

currently available corn on the market including others with the introduced trait for 

glyphosate resistance, having only a differing promoter and intron combination (which 

themselves result in no new protein production). Based on the FDA’s consultation, 

laboratory data and scientific literature provided by Monsanto (Monsanto, 2010), APHIS 

has concluded that MON 87427 corn would have no significant impacts on human or 

animal health.

3. Unique characteristics of the geographic area such as proximity to historic or cultural 

resources, park lands, prime farmlands, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers, or ecologically 

critical areas.

There are no unique characteristics of geographic areas such as park lands, prime farm 

lands, wetlands, wild and scenic areas, or ecologically critical areas that would adversely 

impacted by a determination of nonregulated status of MON 87427 corn. The common 

agricultural practices that would be carried out under the proposed action will not cause 

major ground disturbance; do not cause any physical destruction or damage to property, 

wildlife habitat, or landscapes; and do not involve the sale, lease, or transfer of ownership 

of any property. This action is limited to a determination of nonregulated status of MON 

87427 corn. MON 87427 will be deployed on agricultural land currently suitable for 

production of seed corn, will replace existing inbred varieties without the glyphosate 

resistant trait, and is not expected to increase the acreage of corn production. This action 

would not be likely to encourage land conversion to nonagricultural use and therefore 

would have no adverse impact on prime farm land. Standard agricultural practices for 

land preparation, planting, irrigation, and harvesting of plants would be used on 

agricultural lands planted to MON 87427 corn including the use of EPA registered 

pesticides. Applicant’s adherence to EPA label use restrictions for all pesticides will 

mitigate potential impacts to the human environment. In the event of a determination of 

nonregulated status of MON 87427 corn, the action is not likely to affect historic or 

cultural resources, park lands, prime farmlands, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers, or 

ecologically critical areas that may be in close proximity to corn production sites.

4. The degree to which the effects on the quality of the human environment are likely to be 

highly controversial.

The effects on the quality of the human environment from a determination of 

nonregulated status of MON 87427 corn are not highly controversial. Although APHIS 

received comments opposed to a determination of nonregulated status of MON 87427
corn, this action is not highly controversial in terms of size, nature or effect on the natural 

or physical environment. As discussed in Chapter 4 of the EA, a determination of 

nonregulated status is not expected to directly cause an increase in agricultural acreage 

devoted to corn production, or those acres devoted to GE corn cultivation. The 

availability of MON 87427 corn will not change cultivation areas for corn production in 

the U.S., and there are no anticipated changes to the availability of GE and non-GE corn

varieties on the market. A determination of nonregulated status of MON 87427 corn

would be another GE corn variety focused on the specialized seed corn market, and is not 

expected to change the market demands for GE corn seed or corn seed produced using 

organic methods. A determination of nonregulated status of MON 87427 corn will not 

result in changes in the current practices of planting, tillage, fertilizer application/use, 

cultivation, pesticide application use/volunteer control. However, greater efficiency in 

seed production would be facilitated by the availability of MON 87427. Management 

practices and seed standards for production of certified corn seed would not change. The 

effect of MON 87427 corn on wildlife or biodiversity is not different than that of other 

glyphosate-resistant crops currently used in agriculture, or other GE or non-GE corn

produced in conventional agriculture in the U.S. 

5. The degree to which the possible effects on the human environment are highly uncertain 

or involve unique or unknown risks.

Based on the analysis documented in the EA, the possible effects on the human 

environment are well understood. The effects of the proposed activities are not highly 

uncertain and do not involve unique or unknown risks on the natural or physical 

environment. As discussed in Chapter 4 of the EA, a determination of nonregulated 

status of MON 87427 corn is not expected to directly cause any considerable changes in 

seed corn production, other than the intended change of removing the need for 

mechanical and hand detasseling. No increase in agricultural acreage devoted to seed 

corn production, or those acres devoted to GE corn cultivation is expected. A 

determination of nonregulated status of MON 87427 corn will not result in large changes 

in the current practices of planting, tillage, fertilizer application/use, and volunteer 

control, but some seed corn acres will be managed using practices resembling the 

majority of conventional GE corn acres. These acres may see greater efficiencies in 

production of hybrid seed corn. Although cost of seed production could decline, the costs 

of seed to growers are not expected to decline. Management practices and seed standards 

for production of certified corn seed would not change. The effect of MON 87427 corn

on wildlife or biodiversity is no different than that of other glyphosate-resistant crops 

currently used in agriculture, or other GE or non-GE corn produced in conventional 

agriculture in the U.S. As described in Chapter 2 of the EA, well established 

management practices, production controls, and production practices (GE, conventional, 

and organic) are currently being used in seed corn production systems (commercial and 
seed production) in the U.S. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that farmers, who 

produce seed corn (GE and non-GE varieties), MON 87427 corn, or produce seed corn

using organic methods, will continue to use these reasonable, commonly accepted best 

management practices for their chosen systems and varieties during agricultural seed corn

production. Additionally, GE corn currently is planted on the majority of corn acres 

(88% of acreage in 2010) (USDA-NASS, 2012b). Based upon historic trends, 

conventional seed production practices for GE varieties will likely continue to dominate 

in terms of acreage with or without a determination of nonregulated status of MON 

87427 corn. Given the extensive experience that APHIS, stakeholders, and growers have 

in dealing with the use of GE corn products and glyphosate-resistant agricultural crops, 

the possible effects to the human environment from the release of an additional GE corn

product with one additional feature for the specialty seed production market are already 

well known and understood. While use of this technology would reduce the number of 

seasonal workers who mechanically detassel corn, the phase-in for the use of this 

technology would take place gradually, since replacement of inbreds could take between 

three to eight seasons, and adoption of the technology is not likely to be immediate for all 

sectors of this large and diverse industry. Efforts to successfully reduce hand labor have 

continued since the onset of the hybrid seed production industry (Leidy, 2009), .

Therefore, the impacts are not highly uncertain, and do not involve unique or unknown 

risks.

6. The degree to which the action may establish a precedent for future actions with 

significant effects or represents a decision in principle about a future consideration.

A determination of nonregulated status for MON 87427 corn would not establish a 

precedent for future actions with significant effects or represent a decision in principle 

about a future decision. Similar to past regulatory requests reviewed and approved by 

APHIS, a determination of nonregulated status will be based on whether an organism is 

unlikely to pose a plant pest risk pursuant to the regulatory requirements of 7 CFR part 

340. Each petition that APHIS receives is specific to a particular GE organism and 

undergoes this independent review to determine if the regulated article poses a plant pest 

risk. Under the authority of the plant pest provisions of the Plant Protection Act and 7 

CFR part 340, APHIS has issued regulations for the safe development and use of GE 

organisms. As required by 7 CFR 340.6, APHIS must respond to petitioners who request 

a determination of the regulated status of GE organisms, including GE plants such as 

MON 87427 corn. When a petition for nonregulated status is submitted, APHIS must 

make a determination if the GE organism is unlikely to pose a plant pest risk. If APHIS 

determines based on its Plant Pest Risk Assessment that the genetically engineered 

organism is unlikely to pose a plant pest risk, the genetically engineered organism is no 

longer subject to the plant pest provisions of the Plant Protection Act and 7 CFR part 340. 

APHIS regulations at 7 CFR part 340, which were promulgated pursuant to authority 
granted by the Plant Protection Act, 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 Plant Protection Act 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 enough information to determine if the GE 

organism is unlikely to pose a plant pest risk. A person may petition the agency 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 Plant Protection Act or the regulations at 

7 CFR part 340. 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 Plant Protection Act when APHIS determines that it is 

unlikely to pose a plant pest risk.

7. Whether the action is related to other actions with individually insignificant but 

cumulatively significant impacts.

No significant cumulative effects were identified through this assessment. The EA 

discussed cumulative effects on corn management practices, human and animal health, 

and the environment and concluded that such impacts were not significant. A cumulative 

effects analysis is provided in Chapter 5 of the EA. One issue examined was whether this 

action combined with a previous petition approval for another non-mechanical 

detasseling process, Seed Production Technology corn (DuPont-Pioneer), would have 

impact on employment of detasseling crews. APHIS concluded that the integration of the 

technologies into the respective companies’ hybrid seed processes would be a gradual 

one, likely each occurring in different locales, and the reduced hiring of temporary 

workers would not be significant. An impact to the considerably larger employment of 

permanent agricultural workers was also deemed unlikely. In the event APHIS reaches a 

determination of nonregulated status of MON 87427 corn, APHIS would no longer have 

regulatory authority over this corn. In the event of a determination of nonregulated status 

of MON 87427 corn, APHIS has not identified any significant impact on the environment 

which may result from the incremental impact of a determination of nonregulated status 

of MON 87427 corn when added to past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions.
8. The degree to which the action may adversely affect districts, sites, highways, structures, 

or objects listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places or 

may cause loss or destruction of significant scientific, cultural, or historic resources.

A determination of nonregulated status of MON 87427 corn will not adversely impact 

cultural resources on tribal properties. Any farming activities that may be taken by 

farmers on tribal lands are only conducted at the tribe’s request; thus, the tribes have 

control over any potential conflict with cultural resources on tribal properties. A 

determination of nonregulated status of MON 87427 corn 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 they likely cause any loss or destruction 

of significant scientific, cultural, or historic resources. This action is limited to a 

determination of nonregulated status of MON 87427 corn. Standard agricultural 

practices for land preparation, planting, irrigation, and harvesting of plants would be used 

on these agricultural lands including the use of EPA registered pesticides. Applicant’s 

adherence to EPA label use restrictions for all pesticides will mitigate impacts to the 

human environment. A determination of nonregulated status of MON 87427 corn is not 

an undertaking that may directly or indirectly cause alteration in the character or use of 

historic properties protected under the National Historic Preservation Act. In general, 

common agricultural activities conducted under this action do not have the potential to 

introduce visual, atmospheric, or audible elements to areas in which they are used. Such 

agricultural activities are not likely to result in effects on the use and enjoyment of a 

historic property when conducted under this action, and consequently do not have the 

potential to introduce visual, atmospheric, or audible elements to areas in which they are 

used that could results in effects on the character or use of historic properties. For 

example, there is potential for audible effects on the use and enjoyment of a historic 

property when common agricultural practices, such as the operation of tractors and other 

mechanical equipment, are conducted 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 corn production 

regions. The cultivation of MON 87427 corn does not inherently change any of these 

agronomic practices so as to give rise to an impact under the NHPA.

9. The degree to which the action may adversely affect the endangered or threatened 

species or its habitat that has been determined to be critical under the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973.

As described in Chapter 6 of the EA, APHIS has analyzed the potential for effects from a 

determination of nonregulated status of MON 87427 corn on federally listed threatened 

and endangered species (TES) and species proposed for listing, as well as designated 
critical habitat and habitat proposed for designation, as required under Section 7 of the 

Endangered Species Act. After reviewing possible effects of a determination of 

nonregulated status of MON 87427 corn, APHIS has determined that a determination of 

nonregulated status of MON 87427 corn would have no effect on Federally listed TES 

and species proposed for listing, or on designated critical habitat or habitat proposed for 

designation.

10. Whether the action threatens a violation of Federal, State, or local law or requirements 

imposed for the protection of the environment. 

The proposed action would be in compliance with all federal, state, and local laws. 

Because the agency has concluded that MON 87427 corn is unlikely to pose a plant pest 

risk, a determination of nonregulated status of MON 87427 corn 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. 

There are no other Federal, state, or local permits that are needed prior to the 

implementation of this action.

NEPA Decision and Rationale

I have carefully reviewed the EA prepared for this NEPA determination and the input from the 

public involvement process. I believe that the issues identified in the EA are best addressed by 

selecting Alternative 2 (Determination that MON 87427 corn is No Longer a Regulated Article). 

This alternative meets APHIS’ purpose and need to allow the safe development and use of 

genetically engineered organisms consistent with the plant pest provisions of the Plant Protection 

Act.

As stated in the CEQ regulations, “the agency’s preferred alternative is the alternative which the 

agency believes would fulfill its statutory mission and responsibilities, giving consideration to 

economic, environmental, technical and other factors.” The preferred alternative has been 

selected for implementation based on consideration of a number of environmental, regulatory, 

and social factors. Based upon our evaluation and analysis, Alternative 2 is selected because (1) 

it allows APHIS to fulfill its statutory mission to protect America’s agriculture and environment 

using a science-based regulatory framework that allows for the safe development and use of 

genetically engineered organisms; and (2) it allows APHIS to fulfill its regulatory obligations. 

As APHIS has not identified any plant pest risks associated with MON 87427 corn, the 

continued regulated status of MON 87427 corn would be inconsistent with the plant pest 

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

regulatory policies in the Coordinated Framework. For the reasons stated above, I have 

determined that a determination of nonregulated status of MON 87427 corn will not have any 

significant environmental effects.
_____________________________ ___________________

Michael C. Gregoire Date

Deputy Administrator

Biotechnology Regulatory Services
Bibliography

Agrawal, P.K. , B.D. Agrawal, P.V. Rao, and J. Singh. (1998). "Seed Multiplication, conditioning, and 

storage." Maize Seed Industries in Developing Countries. Boulder, Colorado: Lynne Riehner. 

AOSCA. (2009). Seed Certification Handbook: Including Genetic and Crop Standards, Procedures, and 

AOSCA Service Programs. Moline, Illinois: Association of Official Seed Certifying Agencies. 

AOSCA. (2010). "General IP Protocols Standards." The Association of Official Seed Certifying Agencies. 

http://www.identitypreserved.com/handbook/aosca-general.htm >.

Duffy, M. (2012). "Estimated Costs of Crop Production in Iowa - 2012." 

http://www2.econ.iastate.edu/faculty/duffy/documents/2012CostofProduction.pdf >.

Hammond, B. G., and J. M. Jez. (2011). "Impact of food processing on the safety assessment for proteins 

introduced into biotechnology-derived soybean and corn crops." Food and chemical toxicology : 

an international journal published for the British Industrial Biological Research Association 49 

(4): p 711-21. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21167896 >.

Jugenheimer, R. W. (1976). "Production of Hybrid Seed." Corn: Improvement, Seed Production, and Uses. 

New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons. p 441-55. 

Leidy, M. (2009). "New Technologies in the Heartland." 

http://www.monsanto.com/investors/documents/2009/corn_seed_manufacturing_process_ov

erview.pdf >.

Monsanto. (2010). "Petition for the Determination of Nonregulated Status for MON 87427 Maize with 

Tissue-Selective Glyphosate Tolerance Facilitating the Production of Hybrid Maize Seed." 

Submitted by Phillion, DP, Registration Manager. The Monsanto Company. St. Louis, MO. Last 

Accessed: July 2012 < See Table: http://www.aphis.usda.gov/biotechnology/not_reg.html >.

Monsanto. (undated). "Observations on Competition in the U.S. Seed Industry." Last Accessed: 3-25-

2013 < http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pages/monsanto-submission-doj.aspx >.

NRC. (2010). The Impact of Genetically Engineered Crops on Farm Sustainability in the United States. 

Washington, DC: National Academies Press. http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12804

>.

US-EPA. (2009a). "Glyphosate. Human Health Assessment Scoping Document in Support of Registration 

Review. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency." Agency, U.S. Environmental Protection. Last 

Accessed: January 20, 2012 < http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OPP2009-0361-0006 >.

US-EPA. (2009b). "Problem Formulation for the Ecological Risk and Drinking Water Exposure 

Assessments in Support Of the Registration Review of Glyphosate and Its Salts." U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, 

Environmental Fate and Effects Division, Environmental Risk Branch III. 

http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0361-0007. >.

US-EPA. (2011a). "Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)." 

http://www.epa.gov/agriculture/lfra.html >.

US-EPA. (2011b). "Pesticides: Regulating Pesticides, Pesticide Tolerances." U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency. http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/regulating/tolerances.htm >.
US-EPA. (2011c). "Summary of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA)." U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency. http://www.epa.gov/regulations/laws/ffdca.html >.

US-FDA. (2011). "Guidance for Industry: Recommendations for the Early Food Safety Evaluation of New 

Non-Pesticidal Proteins Produced by New Plant Varieties Intended for Food Use." Office of Food 

Additive Safety, Division of Biotechnology & GRAS Notice Review, Center for Food Safety and 

Applied Nutrition, Food and Drug Administration. Health and Human Services. 

http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/GuidanceDocuments/Bi

otechnology/ucm096156.htm >.

USCB. (2011). "Table 213. Per Capita Consumption of Major food Commodities: 1980 to 2008." 

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2011/tables/11s0213.pdf >.

USDA-APHIS. (2011). "Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Glyphosate-Tolerant H7-1 Sugar Beets: 

Request for Nonregulated Status." http://www.aphis.usda.gov/biotechnology/not_reg.html >.

USDA-APHIS. (2012). "Plant Pest Risk Assessment for MON 87427 Corn." Riverdale Park, MD. United 

States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Biotechnology 

Regulatory Services. Last Accessed: July 2012 < 

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/biotechnology/not_reg.html >.

USDA-ERS. (2011). "Feed Outlook, FDS-11a, January 14, 2011." Last Accessed: March 21, 2011 < 

http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/ers/FDS/2010s/2011/FDS-01-14-2011.pdf >.

USDA-ERS. (2011g). "USDA-ERS Feed Grain Data Tables4&31.pdf>." 

USDA-FAS. "Global Agricultural Trade System (GATS). Corn Seed. Partners. HS-10." Foreign Agricultural 

System. Last Accessed: 4-19-13 < http://www.fas.usda.gov/gats/default.aspx >.

USDA-FAS. "Current World Agricultural Production. Table 4." Foreign Agricultural Production. Last 

Accessed: 4-29-13 < http://www.fas.usda.gov/wap/current/ >.

USDA-NASS. (2010). "Acreage." http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/current/Acre/Acre-06-30-

2010.pdf >.

USDA-NASS. (2011a). "Agricultural Chemical Usage 2010 Corn, Upland Cotton, Fall Potatoes." 

http://www.nass.usda.gov/Surveys/Guide_to_NASS_Surveys/Chemical_Use/FieldCropChemical

UseFactSheet06.09.11.pdf >.

USDA-NASS. (2012a). "Crop Production 2011 Summary." 

http://usda01.library.cornell.edu/usda/current/CropProdSu/CropProdSu-01-12-2012.pdf >.

USDA-NASS. "Acreage." Washington, DC: National Agricultural Statistics Service, Agricultural Statistics 

Board, USDA, 2012b. 42. http://www.usda.gov/nass/PUBS/TODAYRPT/acrg0612.pdf.

USDA-NASS. (2012c). "Crop Values 2011 Summary." U.S. Department of Agriculture–National 

Agricultural Statistics Service. 

http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/MannUsda/viewDocumentInfo.do?documentID=1050 >.

USDA-OCE. (2011b). "World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates." 

http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/waob/wasde//2010s/2011/wasde-03-10-2011.pdf >.

Woodall, S. (2012). "Winter Production in South America." Corn Crop | Agriculture.com. 

http://www.agrigold.com/agronomic-news/entry/winter-production-in-south-america >.