Syngenta and Bayer Petition 12-215-01p for 

Determination of Non-regulated Status of 

Herbicide Tolerant Event SYHT0H2 

Soybean (Glycine max) 

OECD Unique Identifier: 

SYN-ØØØH2-5 

ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT

April 2013 

– i – 

Table of Contents 

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS.......... ...................................................................... vii

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

1.1 Regulatory Authority ..................................................................................................1 

1.1.1 Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service ..................................................1

1.1.2 Environmental Protection Agency ..................................................................2

1.1.3 Food and Drug Administration .......................................................................3

1.2 Petition for Determination of Nonregulated Status: Herbicide-Tolerant 

SYHT0H2 Soybean ....................................................................................................3

1.3 Purpose of and Need for Product ................................................................................4

1.4 Purpose and Need for APHIS Action .........................................................................5

1.5 Public Involvement .....................................................................................................5

1.6 Resources Considered .................................................................................................5

2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ........................................................................................7

2.1 Soybean Biology .........................................................................................................7

2.2 Agricultural Production of Soybean ...........................................................................9

2.2.1 Current and Projected Acreage and Range of Soybean Production ...............9

2.2.2 Agronomic Practices .....................................................................................11

2.2.3 Commercial Soybean Production and Uses ..................................................30

2.3 Physical Environment ...............................................................................................37

2.3.1 Soil ................................................................................................................37

2.3.2 Water Quality ................................................................................................39

2.3.3 Air Quality ....................................................................................................40

2.3.4 Climate ..........................................................................................................41

2.4 Biological Resources ................................................................................................42

2.4.1 Animal Communities ....................................................................................42

2.4.2 Plant Communities ........................................................................................43

2.4.3 Soil Microorganisms .....................................................................................44

2.4.4 Biodiversity ...................................................................................................44

2.4.5 Gene Movement in the Natural Environment ...............................................47

2.5 Public Health.............................................................................................................48

2.5.1 Human Health ...............................................................................................48

2.5.2 Worker Safety ...............................................................................................50

2.5.3 Animal (Livestock) Health ...........................................................................51

2.6 Socioeconomic Factors .............................................................................................51

2.6.1 Domestic Trade Environment .......................................................................52

2.6.2 Foreign Trade Environment ..........................................................................54

2.6.3 Social and Economic Environment ...............................................................56
– ii – 

3 ALTERNATIVES ............................................................................................................59

3.1 No Action: Continuation as a Regulated Article ......................................................59

3.2 Preferred Alternative: Determination that SYHT0H2 Soybean is No Longer a 

Regulated Article ......................................................................................................59

3.3 Comparison of Alternatives ......................................................................................60

4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES .....................................................................63

4.1 Introduction ...............................................................................................................63

4.1.1 Scope of the Environmental Analysis ...........................................................63

4.1.2 Methodology .................................................................................................64

4.1.3 Assumptions ..................................................................................................65

4.2 Soybean Production ..................................................................................................66

4.2.1 Acreage and Areas of Soybean Production ..................................................67

4.2.2 Agronomic Practices .....................................................................................68

4.2.3 Commercial Soybean Production and Uses ..................................................76

4.3 Physical Environment ...............................................................................................79

4.3.1 Soil ................................................................................................................79

4.3.2 Water Quality and Use ..................................................................................81

4.3.3 Air Quality ....................................................................................................82

4.3.4 Climate ..........................................................................................................83

4.4 Natural Biological Communities (Non-Target Organisms)......................................83

4.4.1 Animals .........................................................................................................84

4.4.2 Plants .............................................................................................................85

4.4.3 Soil Microorganisms .....................................................................................86

4.4.4 Biodiversity ...................................................................................................87

4.4.5 Gene Movement in the Natural Environment ...............................................90

4.5 Public Health.............................................................................................................91

4.5.1 Human Health ...............................................................................................91

4.5.2 Worker Safety ...............................................................................................94

4.5.3 Animal (Livestock) Health ...........................................................................95

4.6 Socioeconomic Factors .............................................................................................96

4.6.1 Domestic Trade Environment .......................................................................96

4.6.2 Foreign Trade Environment ..........................................................................98

4.6.3 Social and Economic Environment ...............................................................99

5 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ...........................................................................................101

5.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................101

5.2 Agronomic Practices ...............................................................................................102

5.3 Water Quality and Use ............................................................................................103

5.4 Soil ..........................................................................................................................104

5.5 Air Quality ..............................................................................................................104

5.6 Plants .......................................................................................................................104

5.7 Soil Microorganisms ...............................................................................................105
– iii – 

5.8 Biodiversity .............................................................................................................105

5.9 Domestic Trade Environment .................................................................................105

6 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES .....................................................107

6.1 Potential Effects of SYHT0H2 Soybean on Threatened or Endangered Species ...108

6.1.1 Threatened and Endangered Plant Species .................................................108

6.1.2 Threatened and Endangered Animal Species .............................................109

6.1.3 Conclusion ..................................................................................................110

6.2 Potential Effects of the Use of Mesotrione, Isoxaflutole, and Glufosinate ............111 

6.2.1 Ecological Risks of Mesotrione ..................................................................112

6.2.2 Ecological Risks of Isoxaflutole .................................................................113

6.2.3 Ecological Risks of Glufosinate ..................................................................113

7 CONSIDERATION OF EXECUTIVE ORDERS, STANDARDS, AND TREATIES 

RELATING TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS.....................................................115

7.1 Executive Orders with Domestic Implications .......................................................115

7.1.1 Executive Order 12898: Environmental Justice .........................................115

7.1.2 Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children .........................................116

7.1.3 Executive Order 13112: Invasive Species ..................................................116

7.1.4 Executive Order 13186: Migratory Birds ...................................................117

7.2 Executive Orders with International Implications ..................................................117

7.3 Other Federal Laws .................................................................................................118

7.3.1 Clean Water Act ..........................................................................................119

7.3.2 Clean Air Act ..............................................................................................119

7.3.3 National Historic Preservation Act .............................................................119

7.3.4 Federal Laws Regarding Unique Characteristics of Geographic Areas .....120

8 LIST OF PREPARERS .................................................................................................121

9 REFERENCES ...............................................................................................................125
– iv – 

APPENDICES 

A Mesotrione Description, Uses, and Potential Impacts 

B Isoxaflutole Description, Uses, and Potential Impacts 

C Glufosinate Description, Uses, and Potential Impacts
– v – 

LIST OF TABLES 

Table No. Description Page 

2-1 Deregulated Transgenic Soybean Cultivars with Herbicide 

Tolerance Traits ...........................................................................................9 

2-2 Soybean Acreage by State, 2011 and 2012 ................................................11 

2-3 Fertilizer Primary Nutrient Applications to Soybeans in 2006 ..................16 

2-4 Insecticide Applications to Soybeans in 20061 .........................................18 

2-5 Percent of US Soybean Acres Treated With Herbicides; 

1995, 2001, and 2006 .................................................................................23 

2-6 Total Applications of Herbicides to Soybeans, 2006 .................................25 

2-7 Common Troublesome Weeds in Treated Soybean Fields; 

2006-2008 ..................................................................................................26 

2-8 US Certified Soybean Acreage by State, 2011 ..........................................35 

2-9 World Soybean Production, 2011 ..............................................................54 

2-10 World Soybean Exports in 2011/12 ...........................................................55 

2-11 Top 10 US Soybean Export Markets in 2011/2012 

Compared to Previous Years .....................................................................55 

2-12 US Export Markets for Soybean and Soybean Products (2011) ................56 

3-1 Summary of Environmental Consequences and 

Regulatory Compliance .............................................................................61 

4-1 Examples of Crop Rotation Plant-Back Intervals ......................................71 

4-2 Maximum Herbicide Application Rates for Herbicide 

Tolerant Soybean .......................................................................................74 

4-3 EIQ Ecological and Overall Field Use Rating of 

Selected Herbicides ....................................................................................89 
– vi – 

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure No. Description Page 

2-1 Soybeans Planted Acres in 2010 by County for Selected States ...............12 

2-2 Irrigated Soybeans for Beans; Harvested Acres in 2007 ...........................16 

2-3 Percent of US Soybean Acres Treated with the 10 Most Used 

Herbicides; 1995, 2001, and 2006 .............................................................24 

2-4 Glyphosate-Resistant Weeds in US Soybean Fields ..................................29 

2-5 Return per Acre of Soybeans, 1948-2011 ..................................................53 
– vii – 

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 

μg/g Micrograms per gram

A Acre 

ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Properties

ai Active ingredient 

AIA Advanced Informed Agreement

AMS Agricultural Marketing Service (also USDA-AMS)

AOSCA Association of Official Seed Certifying Agencies

APHIS Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (also USDA-APHIS)

ARMS Agricultural Resource Management Survey

ARS Agricultural Research Services (also USDA-ARS)

ATTRA Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas

BRS Biotechnology Regulatory Service

C Centigrade 

CAA Clean Air Act (also, Clean Air Act Amendments)

CBD Convention on Biological Diversity

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CH4 Methane

CO Carbon monoxide

CO2 Carbon dioxide

CODEX Codex Alimentarius Commission

CRP Conservation Reserve Program

CWA Clean Water Act (formally, Federal Water Pollution Control Act)

DKN Diketonitrile 

DNA Deoxyribonucleic acid 

EA Environmental Assessment

EFSA European Food Safety Agency

EIQ Environmental Impact Quotient

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

EO Executive Order 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency (also USEPA)

ER Environmental Report

ERS Economic Research Service (also USDA-ERS)

ESA Endangered Species Act 

EPSP 5-enolpyruvylshikimate 3-phosphate

ESPS Early soybean production system

EU European Union 

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

FARRP Food Allergy Research and Resource Program

FATUS Foreign Agricultural Trade of the United States

FAS Foreign Agricultural Service (also USDA-FAS)

FDA Food and Drug Administration (also USDHHS-FDA)

FFDCA Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act

FFP Food, feed, or processing

FIFRA Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act

FIFRA-FESTF Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act - Endangered Species Task Force 

fl oz Fluid ounces 

FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact

FQPA Food Quality Protection Act

FR Federal Register 
– viii – 

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (CONTINUED) 

FWS Fish and Wildlife Service (also USFWS)

GHG Greenhouse gases 

IMS Information Management System

IDP Identity Preservation 

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

HPPD p-Hydroxyphenylpyruvate dioxygenase

lb Pound 

LMO Living modified organisms

LOC Level(s) of Concern 

Mg/kg bw Milligrams per kilogram of body weight

MG Maturity group

N2O Nitrous oxide 

NAPPO North American Plant Protection Organization

NASS National Agricultural Statistics Service (also USDA-NASS)

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service

NOAEL No observable adverse effect level

NOP National Organic Program

NPS Nonpoint source 

NRC National Research Council

NRCA Natural Resources Conservation Service (also USDA-NRCS)

OECD Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development

OTA Organic Trade Association

PAT Phosphinothricin acetyltransferase

PIPs Plant-incorporated protectants

PM Particulate matter 

PPA Plant Protection Act 

PPRA Plant Pest Risk Assessment

PRA Pest Risk Analysis 

pts pints 

SOX Sulfur oxides 

TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act

US United States 

USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers

USC United States Code 

USDA United States Department of Agriculture

USDHHS United States Department of Health and Human Services

USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency (also EPA)

USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service (also FWS)

WHO World Health Organization
– 1 – 

1 PURPOSE AND NEED 

This Chapter describes the purpose of and need for determining a nonregulated status for 

SYHT0H2 soybean, and includes an explanation of the regulatory context of the decision. 

1.1 Regulatory Authority 

"To protect the health and value of American agriculture" is the basic mission of the United States 

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

health. USDA policy states that all methods of agricultural production (resulting in conventional, 

genetically engineered [transgenic], and organic varieties) can provide benefits to the environment, 

consumers, and producers. 

Since 1986, the United States government has regulated genetically engineered organisms pursuant 

to a regulatory framework known as the Coordinated Framework for the Regulation of 

Biotechnology (OSTP 1986) (Coordinated Framework). The Coordinated Framework 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 that 

ensures 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; and 

3. Agencies are mandated to exercise oversight of genetically engineered organisms only when 

there is evidence of “unreasonable” risk. 

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

federal agencies involved in regulating genetically engineered organisms: APHIS, the 

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

Each agency’s role is described in the following sections. 

1.1.1 Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 

APHIS regulations at Code of Federal Regulations title 7 part 340 (7 CFR part 340) (USDA 1987), 

which were promulgated pursuant to authority granted by the Plant Protection Act (PPA), as 
– 2 – 

amended,1

 control the introduction (importation, interstate movement, or release into the 

environment) of certain genetically engineered organisms and products. A genetically engineered 

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 genetically engineered 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 (Section 340.2) and is also considered a plant pest. A genetically 

engineered organism is also regulated under 7 CFR part 340 when APHIS has reason to believe 

that the genetically engineered organism may be a plant pest or APHIS does not have information 

to determine if the genetically engineered 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 PPA or the 

regulations at 7 CFR part 340. The petitioner is required to provide information under 

Section 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 

genetically engineered 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. 

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

regulations for the safe development and use of genetically engineered organisms. As required by 

Section 340.6, APHIS must respond to petitioners that request a determination of the regulated 

status of genetically engineered organisms. When a petition for nonregulated status is submitted, 

APHIS must make a determination if the genetically engineered 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 unlikely to pose a plant pest risk, the genetically engineered 

organism is no longer subject to the plant pest provisions of the PPA and 7 CFR part 340. 

1.1.2 Environmental Protection Agency 

Under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act2 (FIFRA), EPA regulates the use of 

pesticides, including plant-incorporated protectants, requiring registration of a pesticide for a 

specific use prior to distribution or sale of the pesticide for a proposed use pattern. 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; and manufacturing, storage and disposal practices. Prior to 

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

through in-depth review of the comprehensive data set submitted by the registrant, that the 

pesticide will 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 pesticide label 

in accordance with 40 CFR part 156. Once registered, a pesticide may not legally be used unless 

the use is consistent with the approved directions for use on the pesticide's label or labeling. The 

overall intent of the label and labeling is to provide clear directions for effective product 

1 United States Code [USC.] title 7, sections 7701 through 7772 

2 7 USC 136 et seq.
– 3 – 

performance while setting strict and legal limits on use that are within the parameters of an 

acceptable risk assessment for human health and the environment. 

EPA also sets tolerances 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 Cosmetic Act3

(FFDCA) of 1938. EPA is required, before establishing a pesticide tolerance, to reach a safety 

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

amended by the Food Quality Protection Act4 (FQPA) of 1996. FDA enforces the pesticide 

tolerances set by EPA. 

1.1.3 Food and Drug Administration 

The FDA regulates genetically engineered organisms under the authority of the FFDCA. 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, 19925. 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. 

1.2 Petition for Determination of Nonregulated Status: 

Herbicide-Tolerant SYHT0H2 Soybean 

Syngenta Biotechnology, Inc. (Syngenta) and Bayer CropScience AG (Bayer) (collectively, the 

Petitioners) submitted an initial Petition (12-215-01p) to APHIS on July 31, 2012 (Syngenta 2012a), 

for determination of nonregulated status for SYHT0H2 herbicide tolerant soybean (hereafter referred 

to as SYHT0H2 soybean). The Petition was revised in response to APHIS’ request for additional 

information and resubmitted on September 17, 2012 (Syngenta 2012c). APHIS announced that the 

Petition was available for public comment on February 27, 2013; the public comment period ended 

on April 29, 2013 (USDA-APHIS 2013b). Nonregulated status would include SYHT0H2 soybean, 

progeny from crosses between SYHT0H2 soybean and conventional soybeans, and progeny from 

crosses of SYHT0H2 soybean with other transgenic soybean that has been deregulated. 

SYHT0H2 soybean is currently regulated under the PPA. Interstate movements and field trials of 

SYHT0H2 soybean have been conducted under permits issued or notifications acknowledged by 

APHIS since 2008. Data resulting from these field trials are described in the Petition. This 

Environmental Report (ER) has been prepared by the Petitioners to provide APHIS with data 

necessary to complete an environmental review of SYHT0H2 soybean pursuant to the National 

Environmental Policy Act6

 (NEPA). 

3 21 USC 301 et seq. 

4 7 USC 136 et seq. 

5 57 FR 22984 

6 42 USC Section 4321 et seq.
– 4 – 

1.3 Purpose of and Need for Product 

The Petitioners have co-developed SYHT0H2 soybean, a new cultivar that has been genetically 

modified to tolerate herbicides that inhibit p-hydroxyphenylpyruvate dioxygenase (HPPD) and 

glutamine synthetase. Most soybeans currently grown in the United States are glyphosate-tolerant 

transgenic varieties. SYHT0H2 soybean is a new cultivar that is tolerant of three herbicides: 

mesotrione, isoxaflutole, and glufosinate-ammonium (hereafter, glufosinate). SYHT0H2 soybean 

will offer growers much-needed flexibility to use herbicides with two alternative modes of action 

in their weed management programs and will help minimize or delay the evolution of herbicide 

resistance in weed populations. 

SYHT0H2 soybean contains the transgene avhppd-03 encoding an HPPD enzyme that is more than 

99.7 percent identical in amino acid sequence to the native HPPD in common oat (Avena sativa). 

In comparison with the native soybean HPPD, the HPPD isozyme from oat has lower binding 

affinity for HPPD-inhibiting herbicides, such as mesotrione and isoxaflutole, and confers tolerance 

to herbicide application rates that would otherwise injure soybean. SYHT0H2 soybean also 

contains the transgene pat derived from Streptomyces viridochromogenes, a ubiquitous soil 

microbe. The gene pat encodes phosphinothricin acetyltransferase (PAT), an enzyme that 

inactivates glufosinate herbicide, an inhibitor of glutamine synthetase. Expression of pat confers a 

glufosinate-tolerance phenotype. 

The extensive use of glyphosate-based weed-control programs in corn, cotton, and soybean over 

the past 15 years has resulted in selection for glyphosate-resistant weeds and a shift in weed 

populations to species that are inherently more resistant to glyphosate, thus making weed control 

with glyphosate more difficult (Owen 2008). Twenty-four glyphosate-resistant weed species have 

been identified globally, 14 of which are found in the US (Heap 2013d). Cultivation of SYHT0H2 

soybean will provide growers with an opportunity to use a glutamine synthetase-inhibitor herbicide 

(glufosinate) and two HPPD-inhibitor herbicides (mesotrione and isoxaflutole) for control of 

problematic weeds in soybean production systems. 

Mesotrione and isoxaflutole are systemic, translocated herbicides with soil residual activity that are 

used for pre-emergence and post-emergence control of predominantly dicot weed species in a 

number of crops, including corn, which has a natural tolerance of these herbicides. Glufosinate is a 

contact herbicide that is applied to crops post-emergence and has no soil residual activity. 

Glufosinate controls a broad spectrum of monocot and dicot weed species. Glufosinate and 

mesotrione/isoxaflutole have distinct herbicidal modes of action, both of which differ from that of 

glyphosate. Using herbicide mixtures and alternating herbicides with different modes of action are 

cornerstones of an integrated weed management program. As described in Section 3.2, Preferred 

Alternative: Determination that SYHT0H2 Soybean is No Longer a Regulated Article, the 

Petitioners have incorporated a stewardship program in their application that describes methods 

that growers will be required to implement when using SYHT0H2 soybean seed. 
– 5 – 

1.4 Purpose and Need for APHIS Action 

As required by 7 CFR §340.6, APHIS must respond to petitioners that request a determination of 

the regulated status of genetically engineered organisms, including transgenic plants such as 

SYHT0H2 soybean. When a petition for nonregulated status is submitted, APHIS must make a 

determination if the genetically engineered organism is unlikely to pose a plant pest risk. 

APHIS will prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA) that will consider the potential 

environmental effects as part of an agency determination of nonregulated status consistent with 

NEPA and implementing regulations from the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ 1978) and 

APHIS (USDA 2013a, 2013b). This ER has been prepared by the Petitioners in order to 

specifically evaluate the effects on the quality of the human environment7 that may result from a 

determination of deregulated status of SYHT0H2 soybean. 

1.5 Public Involvement 

APHIS routinely seeks public comment in connection with petitions to deregulate genetically 

engineered organisms through notices published in the Federal Register. The Petition for 

SYHT0H2 soybean was first made available on February 27, 2013 for a 60-day period of public 

review, ending April 29, 2013. After it has prepared an EA and a PPRA, APHIS will release both 

documents for public comment for a period to be specified by APHIS. Timely substantive comments 

received by the agency will be analyzed and used to inform APHIS’ determination decision of the 

regulated status of SYHT0H2 soybean (i.e., whether or not it presents a plant pest risk), and to assist 

APHIS in determining whether an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is required prior to the 

determination decision of the regulated status of this soybean line. This ER will be made available as 

a matter of public record but APHIS will not solicit public comment on it. 

1.6 Resources Considered 

The list of resources considered in this ER was developed in accordance with the requirements of 

NEPA and consistent with previous APHIS EAs regarding similar products. The evaluation 

considers potential environmental impacts to resources relevant to transgenic field crops like 

SYHT0H2 soybean, as well as concerns and issues raised in public comments submitted for other 

EAs of transgenic organisms. The evaluation also addresses concerns raised in previous and 

unrelated court decisions, as well as questions that have been raised by various stakeholders in the 

past. The resources considered in this ER are listed below. 

Soybean Production 

o Acreage and areas of soybean production 

o Agronomic practices 

o Commercial soybean production and uses 

o Seed production 

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

relationship of people with that environment” (40 CFR §1508.14). 
– 6 – 

o Raw and processed soybean commodities 

o Organic soybean production 

o Specialty soybean systems 

Physical Environment 

o Soil 

o Water quality and use 

o Air quality 

o Climate 

Natural Biological Communities (Non-target organisms) 

o Animals 

o Plants 

o Soil microorganisms 

o Biodiversity 

o Gene movement in the natural environment 

Public Health 

o Human health 

o Animal (livestock) health 

o Worker safety 

Socioeconomic Factors 

o Domestic trade environment 

o Foreign trade environment 

o Social and economic environment 

Cumulative Effects 

Threatened and Endangered Species 
– 7 – 

2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

This Chapter describes soybean biology, soybean production, and the environmental and human 

resources that could potentially be affected by a determination of nonregulated status for 

SYHT0H2 soybean. 

2.1 Soybean Biology 

Soybean is one of the oldest cultivated crops in the world (OECD 2000); it was domesticated in 

China sometime between the 17th and 11th centuries BC (Hymowitz 1970). Soybeans were first 

introduced into the US in 1765 (Hymowitz 1990). Soybeans yield oil for a variety of uses and meal 

for human food and livestock feed. They are the most extensively grown oilseed in the world, 

representing 56 percent of world oilseed seed production in 2011 (Soystats 2012a). 

Cultivated soybean, Glycine max (L.) Merr., is a diploidized tetraploid in the family Fabaceae, 

subfamily Papilionoideae, tribe Phaseoleae, genus Glycine Willd. and subgenus Soja (Moench) 

(OECD 2000). The subgenus consists of 12 wild perennial species which are indigenous to Australia; 

West, Central and South Pacific Islands; China; Russia; Japan; Indonesia; Korea; Papua New Guinea; 

the Philippines; and Taiwan (OECD 2000). G. max has never been found in the wild (Hymowitz 1970), 

and does not exist naturally anywhere. In addition to G. max, subgenus Soja subgenus also contains 

G. soja (OECD 2000). G. soja is the ancestor of G. max, and grows in fields, hedgerows, roadsides, and 

riverbanks in many Asian countries. Some taxonomists consider G. max and G. soja to be conspecific, 

as G. max ssp. soya and G. max ssp. max (Heatherly and Elmore 2004). G. max has a relatively large 

seed size that does not produce a persistent seedbank, does not have wild or weedy compatible relatives 

in the US, and does not have feral populations in the US (Mallory-Smith and Zapiola 2008), 

eliminating the potential for gene flow of transgenic traits to related species. 

Domesticated soybean is a self-pollinated annual species, propagated commercially by seed 

(OECD 2000). Artificial hybridization is used for cultivar breeding (OECD 2000). Flowers are 

typically cleistogamous but, in some cultivars and under some conditions, may be chasmogamous 

and insects may transfer pollen (Chiari et al. 2005; Ahrent and Caviness 1994; Ray et al. 2003; 

Erickson 1975). Cross pollination is usually less than 1 percent under typical agricultural 

conditions (Caviness 1966; Ray et al. 2003; Yoshimura, Matsuo, and Yasuda 2006) but may be 

higher in some cultivars, under some climatic conditions which favor chasmogamy. In 

experimental studies, outcrossing rates of 0.41 percent were found with a 90-cm row spacing and 

up to 6.3 percent with a 15-cm row spacing (Ray et al. 2003), and up to 2.5 percent outcrossing 

with a 102-cm row spacing (Ahrent and Caviness 1994). Several studies of soybeans in Japan and 

China, using various DNA analysis methods (chloroplast DNA, single-sequence repeats, singlenucleotide polymorphism) have detected low levels of the G. max genome in some wild G. soja

populations (Kuroda et al. 2009; Hasegawa et al. 1999; Li et al. 2010), attributed to postdomestication hybridization. A phenotypic analysis of G. soja populations in China suggested 

introgression with G. max (Wang et al. 2010). However, a study in Japan, under field conditions, 

did not detect any gene flow based on nuclear microsatellite data (Kuroda et al. 2009). 

Soybean grows in a symbiotic association with the bacterium Bradyrhizobium japonicum

(Kirchner) Jordan, which carries out nitrogen fixation within the plant roots (Farooq and Vessey 
– 8 – 

2009). Similar to other legumes, soybeans develop root nodules to house B. japonicum in a 

microaerobic environment to produce nitrogenase, the enzyme complex responsible for nitrogen 

reduction in plants (Gage 2004). Soybean can obtain up to 75 percent of its nitrogen requirements 

from the air via the nitrogen-fixing bacteria while providing the bacteria with carbohydrates 

(Pedersen 2007). Because the nitrogen-fixing bacteria are not native to US soils and would not 

normally be found in these soils, soybeans are frequently inoculated with these bacteria prior to 

planting, especially if soybean has not been grown in the field for 3 to 5 years (Pedersen 2007). 

Soybean seeds will germinate when the soil temperature reaches 10°C (OECD 2000). The soybean 

plant responds strongly to day length in its phasic development (Hodges and French 1985; Hymowitz 

1990). Soybeans are not frost tolerant, and they do not survive freezing winter conditions (OECD 

2000). This erect, bushy herbaceous summer annual can reach a height of 5 feet (OECD 2000). 

Under very dry conditions, water stress may affect development (Hodges and French 1985). 

In North America, soybeans are classified into 13 maturity groups (MGs) based upon the effects of 

day length on the time to the appearance of first flowers (Hymowitz 1990). The MGs for soybean 

cultivars are based on bands of adaptation that run east-west across the continent, determined by 

latitude and day length: MG 000 is in the north (at 45° latitude) and MG X is near the equator. In 

Canada and northern parts of the US, most cultivars are indeterminate8

 and have relatively short 

crop durations; they are classified as MG 000, MG 00, and MG 0 (Hymowitz 1990). Cultivars 

from MG II, MG III, MG IV, and MG V are grown in the central US states. The cultivars adapted 

to the subtropical and tropical zones are often determinate,9 have relatively long crop durations, 

and are classified in MG IX and MG X (Hodges and French 1985; Helsel and Minor 1993). 

Transgenic soybean products were introduced in the US market by seed companies beginning in 

1996, adding new genetic traits such as pest resistance and herbicide tolerance to modern soybean 

varieties.10 In 2012, approximately 93 percent of soybean acreage was planted with transgenic 

varieties, virtually all being herbicide tolerant (USDA-NASS 2012b). Transgenic soybean cultivars 

representing 17 different transformation events have been granted nonregulated status by APHIS 

(USDA-APHIS 2013a). Eleven of these cultivars are tolerant to herbicides, as listed in Table 2-1. 

Several of these products have transgenic traits in addition to herbicide tolerance: Monsanto’s 

MON 87705 soybean, for example, also has an improved fatty acid profile. Other soybean 

products with herbicide tolerance currently under review by APHIS are: 

 BASF Plant Science BPS-CV127-9, which is imidazolinone tolerant; 

 Bayer CropScience MST-FGØ72-2, which is glyphosate and isoxaflutole tolerant; 

 Dow AgroSciences DAS-444Ø6-6, which is 2,4-D, glyphosate, and glufosinate tolerant; 

 Dow AgroSciences DAS-68416-4, which is 2,4-D and glufosinate tolerant; and 



Monsanto MON 87708, which is dicamba tolerant. 

8 A growth characteristic by which a plant’s roots or meristem shoot can keep growing as long as it is alive. 

9 A growth characteristic by which the plant stops growing after it reaches a certain size. 

10 Some varieties of soybeans were developed through selection to display nontransgenic tolerance of certain herbicides. 
– 9 – 

Table 2-1 Deregulated Transgenic Soybean Cultivars with Herbicide Tolerance Traits 

Cultivar1

Filed By / 

Petition Number Herbicide Tolerance 

NEPA Status 

(by APHIS) 

40-3-2 Monsanto / 

petition 93-258-01p 

Glyphosate FONSI and EA issued 

May 18, 1994 

W62, W98, A2704-12, 

A2704-21, A5547-35 

AgrEvo2 / 

petition 96-068-01p 

Phosphinothricin3 FONSI and EA issued 

August 13, 1996 

A5547-127 AgrEvo / 

petition 98-014-01p 

Phosphinothricin FONSI and EA issued 

May 1,1998 

GU262 AgrEvo / 

petition 98-238-01p 

Phosphinothricin FONSI and EA issued 

October 16, 1998 

MON 89788 Monsanto / 

petition 06-178-01p 

Glyphosate FONSI and EA issued 

July 23, 2007 

DP-356043 Pioneer / 

petition 06-271-01p 

Glyphosate and acetolactate 

synthase-inhibiting 

FONSI and EA issued 

July 15, 2008 

MON 87705 Monsanto / 

petition 09-201-01p 

Glyphosate FONSI and EA issued 

October 7, 2011 

Source: (USDA-APHIS 2013a) 

1- Bold type denotes cultivars in commercial production in the US. 

2- AgrEvo is now Bayer CropScience. 

3- Phosphinothricin is also known as glufosinate or glufosinate-ammonium. 

2.2 Agricultural Production of Soybean 

This section describes areas and acreages of soybean production in the US, current agronomic 

practices, specialty production systems, raw and processed soybean commodities, and soybeans’ 

persistence in the environment and weediness potential. 

2.2.1 Current and Projected Acreage and Range of Soybean Production 

Historically, US soybean acreage reached 70 million acres in 1980 but declined to under 

60 million acres by 1989 (USDA-ERS 2011c). Acreage expanded through the 1990s as federal 

farm program changes increased planting flexibility and encouraged more farmers to incorporate 

the crop in their rotations (USDA-ERS 2011c). Planted soybean acreage in the US has been 

relatively stable recently (USDA-NASS 2012d). In 2012, 76.1 million acres of soybeans were 

planted in the US, up 1 percent from 2011 and the third highest on record (USDA-NASS 2012b). 

Total harvested acreage in 2012 was estimated to be 76.1 million acres (USDA-NASS 2013a), 

equivalent to the planted acreage, also the third highest on record, and up 3 percent from 2011. 

As of March, planted soybean acreage for the 2013 season was forecasted to be 77.1 million 

acres (USDA-NASS 2013b), down slightly from 2012 but the fourth highest on record. Planted 

area is projected to be down across the Great Plains with the exception of North Dakota. The 

largest declines are expected in Nebraska and Minnesota, while Illinois and North Dakota are 

expecting the largest increases. 
– 10 – 

Fluctuations in soybean acreage are due to environmental, agronomic, and economic factors, as 

well as programs such as the USDA Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) or ethanol mandates 

imposed by the US government, which drive acreage into source crops for ethanol. 

Growth in the US soybean industry could slow over the next 10 years as it faces stronger foreign 

competition and US farmers shift acreage into feed grains for economic reasons (USDA-ERS 

2011c). Soybean planted acreage is expected to stabilize around 76 million acres in 2014 and 

remain at that level through 2019 (USDA-ERS 2011c). 

Soybean is profitably grown on high quality agricultural land (USDOE-EIA 2007), much of 

which in the US is already committed to agricultural production (USEPA 2007). In the 2007 

Census of Agriculture,11 the USDA Economic Research Service estimated that only 4.1 percent 

of US cropland was idle (USDA-NASS 2009). To satisfy greater soybean demand, additional 

soybean acreage is generally planted at the expense of alternative crops, such as cotton or hay, 

with minor contributions from land exiting CRP agreements (O’Donoghue et al. 2011) resulting 

in a decrease in total US agricultural acreage (USDOE-EIA 2007). It is unlikely that previously 

uncultivated land will be managed for future soybean production; rather, increased soybean 

production will likely compete with other crops (USDA-ERS 2011c). 

Soybeans are cultivated in 31 states (USDA-NASS 2012b). Table 2-2 presents an overview of 

the 2011 and 2012 acreage of soybeans planted by state. The top two producing states in 2012 

were Iowa and Illinois, with 9.5 million and 8.6 million acres planted, respectively (USDANASS 2012b). More than 80 percent of the US soybean acreage is concentrated in the upper 

Midwest (USDA-ERS 2010a), between 35 and 45 degrees north latitude (Hymowitz 1970). 

Figure 2-1 depicts the soybean planted acreage by county in selected states based on 2010 data . 

Soybean yield varies by region and variety. Soybean yields range from 26 to 47 bushels per acre, 

with a trend towards higher yields in recent years (USDA-ARS 2006). The upward trend in yield 

is largely a result of new varieties that perform better under climate and pest pressures. The 

average yield per acre in 2012 was estimated at 39.6 bushels (USDA-NASS 2013a), 2.3 bushels below 

the previous year’s yield.

11 The USDA-ERS conducts the Census of Agriculture every 5 years. The 2012 Census was conducted from December 

2012 through February 2013, and will be published at some future date. It is therefore not available for this report. 
– 11 – 

Table 2-2 Soybean Acreage by State, 2011 and 2012 

State 

Acres Planted (thousands) 

2011 2012 

Alabama 300 330

Arkansas 3,330 3,250

Delaware 170 180

Florida 18 25

Georgia 155 190

Illinois 8,900 8,600

Indiana 5,300 5,000

Iowa 9,350 9,500

Kansas 4,000 3,600

Kentucky 1,490 1,400

Louisiana 1,020 1,140

Maryland 470 480

Michigan 1,950 2,000

Minnesota 7,100 7,000

Mississippi 1,820 2,130

Missouri 5,350 5,300

State 

Acres Planted (thousands) 

2011 2012 

Nebraska 4,900 5,100

New Jersey 88 95

New York 280 340

North Carolina 1,380 1,670

North Dakota 4,000 4,600

Ohio 4,550 4,600

Oklahoma 440 410

Pennsylvania 500 530

South Carolina 370 420

South Dakota 4,100 4,500

Tennessee 1,290 1,330

Texas 165 100

Virginia 560 550

West Virginia 20 20

Wisconsin 1,610 1,690

Total Acreage 74,976 76,080 

Source: (USDA-NASS 2012b) 

2.2.2 Agronomic Practices 

Soybean growers choose agronomic practices that have economic or environmental benefits. Cropping 

practices include planting cover crops, rotating crops, and using a variety of tillage techniques to 

maximize yield, control weeds or other pests, and minimize environmental impacts. Other agronomic 

practices include supplemental irrigation and pest (insect, disease, and weed) management. Proper 

seedbed preparation, appropriate variety selection, appropriate planting dates and plant population, and 

good integrated pest management practices are important for optimizing the yield potential and 

economic returns of soybean. While agronomic practices may be dependent on the soybean maturity 

group and variety cultivated, common management strategies are shared across regions. 

In this ER, conventional farming is defined as any farming system where synthetic pesticides or 

fertilizers may be used. Conventional farming covers a broad scope of farming practices, such as 

occasional use to regular inputs of synthetic pesticides and fertilizers. Given that most soybeans 

planted in the US are transgenic, conventional farming now also includes the use of genetically 

engineered varieties that are no longer subject to the regulatory requirements of 7 CFR part 340 or 

the plant pest provisions of the PPA. 
– 12 – 

Figure 2-1 Soybeans Planted Acres in 2010 by County for Selected States 

As described in Section 2.1, soybean varieties in specific maturity groups are developed and 

adapted to certain geographical zones (Helsel and Minor 1993). Additionally, genetically 

engineered herbicide-tolerant soybean varieties represent the most common soybeans cultivated in 

the US, accounting for 93 percent of soybean varieties planted in 2012 (USDA-NASS 2012b). The 

broad adoption of genetically engineered herbicide-tolerant soybean varieties is attributed to 

simplified herbicide application practices and positive contributions to productivity and yield 

(Carpenter and Gianessi 1999; Fernandez-Cornejo and McBride 2000). Among the various 

genetically engineered herbicide-tolerant soybean varieties commercially available, glyphosatetolerant varieties represent the vast majority that are planted in US soybean fields (NRC 2010).

2.2.2.1 Cropping Practices 

Although the US Midwest is referred to as the Corn Belt, soybeans are commonly planted in this 

region as well. Rotating corn with soybean supplies the biodiversity, nutrients, and ideal temporal 

sequence that make corn agriculture successful (Gardner and Payne 2003). Other soybean cropping 

practices that directly or indirectly benefit both soybeans and corn include cover crops and tillage 

and planting techniques. 
– 13 – 

Crop Rotation 

Soybean crop rotation can improve yield and profitability over time, control weeds, break disease 

cycles, limit insect and other pest infestations, provide an alternative source of nitrogen, reduce soil 

erosion, increase soil organic matter, improve soil tilth, limit the potential for weeds to develop 

tolerance to herbicides, and reduce runoff of nutrients and chemicals, as well as the potential for 

contamination of surface water (Al-Kaisi, Hanna, and Tidman 2003). Crop rotation also affects the 

densities of soilborne pathogens and antagonistic microorganisms (Garbeva, van Veen, and van 

Elsas 2004). 

The majority of the US soybean acreage (nearly 70 percent) is rotated with corn (Heatherly et al. 

2009) in a 2-year cycle. Other crops in rotation with soybean are wheat, cotton, rice, and sorghum. 

Minor rotational crops that follow soybean production include barley, oats, and dry beans. The crop 

rotation sequence can be modified to take advantage of a particular economic or market opportunity. 

Approximately 15 percent of the soybean acreage is in continuous (i.e., non-rotation) soybean 

production, a practice that is discouraged by most soybean specialists (Quinby et al. 2006). 

Planting soybeans after soybeans each year increases the incidence of diseases, nematodes, soil 

insects, and possibly herbicide residues (Al-Kaisi, Hanna, and Tidman 2003; Whitaker et al. 2010). 

The result is generally decreased yields or increased production costs. 

Cover Crops 

Using cover crops in a soybean system has environmental benefits in conserving and/or improving 

soil and water resources (Heatherly et al. 2009) by reducing erosion and sequestering nutrients 

(Mischler et al. 2010), but does not necessarily result in increased soybean yield. Cover crops may 

be grown in the soybean off-season or simultaneously for managing weeds (Mischler et al. 2010) 

by competing for limited resources such as sunlight and nutrients, and by suppressing weed 

emergence when mulched. In the Corn Belt, cover crops are used on approximately 10 percent of 

soybean fields; winter wheat, cereal rye, and oats are the species most used (Heatherly et al. 2009). 

Tillage and Planting Techniques 

Prior to planting, soil must be stripped of weeds that would otherwise compete with soybean for space, 

water, and light. As described in Section 2.2.2.5, Management of Weeds, tillage is an economical 

means of removing biennial and perennial weeds (Byrd, Blaine, and Poston 2003) and reincorporating 

crop residue into the soil. Crop residues are materials left in a field after the crop has been harvested, 

including stalks and stubble (stems), leaves and seed pods (USDA-NRCS 2005). These residues aid in 

conserving soil moisture and reduce wind- and water-induced soil erosion (Heatherly et al. 2009) 

(USDA-NRCS 2005). In conventional tillage, postharvest crop residue is integrated into the soil using 

moldboard plows, heavy disks, and chisel plows, leaving less than 15 percent of crop residue on the 

surface to prepare a clean bed for planting and to reduce the growth of weeds (Heatherly et al. 2009). 

Conservation tillage employs methods that disturb soil less and leave more crop residues on the 

surface (at least 30 percent), whereas no-till farming only disturbs the soil for planting seed (USDANRCS 2005). Conservation tillage (including no-till farming) results in decreased soil erosion, 

dust, and pesticide run-off and in increased soil moisture retention and improved air and water 
– 14 – 

quality. Conservation tillage also conserves fuel and water, but may rely heavily on chemical weed 

control (Loux et al. 2008). Above average management is required to attain good crop stands and 

weed control (Whitaker et al. 2010). 

Since the 1990s, no-till farming has increased more than any other reduced tillage system, with 

nearly all of the increase in adoption occurring in herbicide-tolerant crop production (i.e., soybean, 

cotton, canola) (Fawcett and Towery 2002). In a survey conducted in 1997, it was found that farmers 

already using no-till practices were more likely to adopt herbicide-tolerant soybeans as an effective 

weed control practice than farmers using conventional tillage techniques, although the study also 

found that the commercialization of herbicide-tolerant soybean did not itself encourage the adoption 

of no-till practices (Fernandez-Cornejo and McBride 2000). A subsequent survey conducted between 

1996 and 2001 found that growers using herbicide-tolerant seed varieties were more likely to use 

conservation tillage practices over conventional methods and to practice conservation tillage to a 

greater degree than growers that did not use herbicide-tolerant crops (Fawcett and Towery 2002). A 

survey of 1,195 producers undertaken between November 2005 and January 2006 revealed that 

25 percent of farmers that had been using conventional tillage switched to no-till and 31 percent 

switched to reduced-till after adopting glyphosate-tolerant genetically engineered crops (Givens et al. 

2009). According to the USDA Agricultural Resource Management Survey (ARMS), approximately 

35 percent of US cropland (88 million acres) planted to eight major crops used no-till practices in 

2009, and that percentage appears to be increasing over time (USDA-ERS 2012d). USDA data 

indicate that soybean fields, 93 percent of which are planted with herbicide tolerant transgenic 

varieties, exhibit the highest rate of no-till adoption of major crops, increasing from 35 to 45 percent 

between 2002 and 2006 (the latest data available) (USDA-ERS 2013a). 

In summary, the trend of increasing adoption of conservation tillage practices by US soybean 

growers continued following the introduction of glyphosate-tolerant soybean in 1996. Conservation 

tillage adoption facilitates broad-spectrum herbicide use, due to the capacity of these herbicides to 

control a variety of weed populations prior to planting a crop. Though the causality between 

herbicide-tolerant soybean adoption and conservation tillage may be debated (Fernandez-Cornejo, 

Klotz-Ingram, and Jans 2002), most evidence suggests a relationship between grower adoption of 

herbicide-tolerant crops and conservation tillage (NRC 2010). 

Soybean planting techniques commonly include row spacings of 36 inches (OECD 2000). 

Narrower row spacings (20 to 30 inches) help insure full canopy development, which can reduce 

soil moisture loss and suppress late emerging weeds (Whitaker et al. 2010). In new areas of 

soybean production, growers may inoculate with B. japonicum for optimum efficiency of the 

nodulated root system. Other considerations made by farmers regarding planting and tilling are 

seasonal or regional: 

 Adequate soil moisture and warm temperatures facilitate rapid seed germination and 

emergence. However, waiting for soils to reach the ideal soil temperature will delay planting 

beyond the optimum planting date that will maximize yield (Pedersen and Lauer 2004). 

 Planting date has the greatest impact on yield. In the upper Midwest states, highest yields are 

generally obtained when planting is done in early to mid-May (Pedersen and Lauer 2004). In 

the Southern US, yields are highest when soybean is sown in May or early June. 
– 15 – 

 The early soybean production system (ESPS) consists of planting an early-maturing soybean 

variety 4 to 6 weeks before common late-maturing varieties to reduce the risk of drought 

stress that often occurs during July through September in Southern US states (McPherson, 

Wells, and Bundy 2001; Whitaker et al. 2010). Early planting also helps avoid harvesting the 

crop during excessively wet conditions that can occur during the fall. 

2.2.2.2 Irrigation 

The general water requirement for a high-yielding soybean crop (40 to 50 bushels per acre) is 

approximately 20 to 25 inches of water during the growing season (UA 2006). Irrigation can 

alleviate the effects of drought stress, which is the most damaging abiotic stress to soybean in the US 

(Heatherly et al. 2009). Extended drought during the "critical fruiting period" in dryland farming can 

result in yield variation from about 5 to 50 bushels per acre (Whitaker et al. 2010). Timely irrigation 

can stabilize soybean yields at 45 to 50 bushels per acre or more, and improve average yields about 

20 bushels per acre (Whitaker et al. 2010). 

Irrigated soybean systems are the most productive in the US, providing consistent and sustainable 

soybean production in the long term (Heatherly et al. 2009). When irrigation is combined with crop 

rotation, net returns in soybean-corn or soybean-wheat sequences are greater than nonirrigated or 

irrigated continuous soybean systems (Heatherly et al. 2009). In 2006, an average of approximately 

8.4 inches of water per irrigated acre was used, producing an average of over 51 bushels of 

soybeans per irrigated acre (USDA-ERS 2012e). This yield was approximately 19 percent higher 

than the national average (42.9 bushels per acre) for that year (USDA-NASS 2011a). 

Over 9 percent of the soybean crop in the US is irrigated (USDA-NASS 2010). The majority of the 

irrigated soybean acreage is in the Midwestern and Midsouthern states, as depicted in Figure 2-2, 

where summer weather patterns may result in drought stress that makes dryland production risky 

(Heatherly et al. 2009). Approximately 73 percent of irrigated soybean farms occur in the Missouri 

and Lower Mississippi Water Resource Regions, with soybean farms in the states of Nebraska, 

Arkansas, Mississippi, Missouri, and Kansas accounting for 85 percent of all irrigated acres 

(USDA-NASS 2010). The soils and climate in the Eastern, Midwestern, and portions of the Great 

Plains region of the US provide sufficient water supplies under normal climatic conditions to 

produce a soybean crop. 
– 16 – 

Figure 2-2 Irrigated Soybeans for Beans; Harvested Acres in 2007 

2.2.2.3 Fertilization 

USDA-ERS estimates that less than 40 percent of soybean acres in the US receive nitrogen 

fertilizer (USDA-ERS 2012g). A 2006 survey of 19 states (USDA-NASS 2007) found that 

nitrogen, phosphate, potash, and sulfur were applied to soybeans as summarized in Table 2-3. 

Table 2-3 Fertilizer Primary Nutrient Applications to Soybeans in 2006 

Primary 

Nutrient 

Area Applied 

(percent) 

Applications 

(number) 

Rate per 

Application 

(lb/A) 

Rate per Crop 

Year (lb/A) 

Total Applied 

(millions of 

pounds) 

Nitrogen 18 1.1 15 16 212.4 

Phosphate 23 1.0 45 46 772.8 

Potash 25 1.0 79 80 1,454.7 

Sulfur 3 1.1 10 11 20.0 

Source: (USDA-NASS 2007) 

Note: States surveyed: Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, 

North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia, and Wisconsin; totaling 72.9 million acres. 
– 17 – 

Soybeans may remove up to 70 pounds of nitrogen from the soil when a 50-bushel yield of 

soybean is attained (Hoeft et al. 2000). The nitrogen requirement of soybean is often provided 

through fertilization of the previous rotation crop or through the symbiotic relationship with 

nodulating bacteria in root tissue (Ferguson et al. 2012). Given the important role of these bacteria 

for meeting nitrogen needs of soybean, nodulating bacteria inoculants are often applied to soybean 

seeds just before planting (Beuerlein 2005). 

2.2.2.4 Management of Insects 

US soybean fields generally face little economic pest pressure from insects, due in large part to the 

capacity of soybeans to experience limited insect herbivory without a reciprocal loss in grain yield 

(PSE 2011). This recalcitrance to insect damage is evident in the low use of insecticides on 

soybean fields. Historically, only about 2 percent of US soybean acres were treated with 

insecticides (Gianessi 2009). However, since the advent of the soybean aphid in 2000 in the 

Midwest, approximately 16 percent of US soybean acres have been treated with insecticides 

(USDA-ERS 2012e). 

Numerous kinds of insects occur in soybean fields; most are beneficial or harmless, but some can 

cause yield loss and even crop failure if not controlled. Insect pests are capable of severely 

damaging soybeans through defoliation and pod eating (Whitaker et al. 2010). The soybean aphid 

eats stems; heavy infestations of this pest have occurred since 2000 and caused economic yield 

losses up to 45 percent in some untreated fields (Gianessi 2009). The most damaging defoliators 

are velvetbean caterpillar, soybean looper, green cloverworm, Mexican bean beetle, and bean leaf 

beetle. Foliage-eating insects are present in practically all soybean fields throughout the growing 

season, but most fields suffer no yield loss since the number of foliage feeders usually remains at 

low to moderate levels (NCCES 2012). The most damaging pod feeders are southern green stink 

bug, green stink bug, corn earworm, and bean leaf beetle (Gianessi 2009). Insects which attack the 

pods are the major reason for treating soybeans with insecticides (NCCES 2012). 

Soybean growers have several tools available to manage insects; integrated pest management 

approaches incorporate two or more of these tools: 

 Soybean varieties with native resistance to some insect pests are available. 

 Natural enemies provide considerable control of insect pests in most regions (Gianessi 2009); 

beneficial pests that prey on targeted insects may be introduced by the grower; 

 Conventional chemical insecticides afford consistent, economical, and effective suppression 

of insect outbreaks on soybean (Gianessi 2009); and 

 Trap cropping has been proven to be a cost effective means of managing insects in soybeans 

(Whitaker et al. 2010). Soybean field borders are planted using a soybean variety at least two 

maturity groups earlier than the rest of the field. Treating only the trap area for pest insects 

controls the pest without disrupting beneficial insect populations in the rest of the field. 

Insect infestation thresholds have been established to indicate when insecticide applications are 

necessary (Higgins 1997). The thresholds are commonly based on number of insects found in field 
– 18 – 

sampling surveys and/or in established standard defoliation thresholds, such as those provided by the 

National Information System of the Regional Integrated Pest Management Centers in pest 

management strategic plans (USDA-NIFA 2012). 

Table 2-4 presents summary data of the latest available chemical insecticide usage statistics for US 

soybeans from a 2006 survey (USDA-NASS 2007). The survey found that insecticides were applied 

to 16 percent of the 72.9 million soybean acres planted in the surveyed states. No single insecticide 

exceeds 6 percent of chemically treated acreage (USDA-NASS 2007). Of the 12 reported 

insecticides, the three most common (lambda-cyhalothrin, chlorpyrifos, and esfenvalerate) were 

applied to 6 percent, 5 percent, and 3 percent of the planted acres, respectively (USDA-NASS 2007). 

Table 2-4 Insecticide Applications to Soybeans in 20061

Insecticide 

Area 

Applied 

(percent) 

Average 

Number of 

Applications 

Rate per 

Application 

(lb/A) 

Rate per Crop 

Year (lb/A) 

Total Applied 

(millions of 

pounds) 

Acephate 1 1.3 0.72 0.934 0.546 

Benzoic acid <0.5 1.1 0.051 0.056 0.009 

Carbaryl <0.5 1 0.633 0.633 0.091 

Chlorpyrifos 5 1.1 0.454 0.48 1.663 

Cyfluthrin <0.5 1.1 0.028 0.03 0.01 

Diflubenzuron <0.5 1.7 0.037 0.062 0.01 

Esfenvalerate 3 1.1 0.035 0.037 0.07 

Gamma-cyhalothrin <0.5 1 0.011 0.011 0.003 

Lambdacyhalothrin 6 1.1 0.02 0.021 0.097 

Methyl parathion <0.5 1.1 0.529 0.565 0.066 

Permethrin <0.5 1 0.065 0.065 0.012 

Thiodicarb <0.5 1 0.32 0.32 0.039 

Zeta-cypermethrin 1 1 0.022 0.022 0.014 

Source: (USDA-NASS 2007) 

1- States surveyed: Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, North 

Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia, and Wisconsin; totaling 72.9 million acres. 

2.2.2.5 Management of Disease and Other Non-Insect Pests 

Other economically important pest problems for soybeans include a wide range of fungi, bacteria, 

nematodes, and viruses (Carpenter et al. 2002; Whitaker et al. 2010). Soybean foliar diseases 

(ISUE 2010) include: 

 Alfalfa mosaic virus 

 Bacterial blight (Pseudomonas syringae) 

 Bacterial pustule (Xanthomonas axonopodis pv. glycines) 

 Bean pod mottle virus 

 Cercospora leaf blight and purple seed stain (Cercospora kikuchii) 
– 19 – 

 Downy mildew (Peronospora manshurica) 

 Frogeye leaf spot (Cercospora sojina) 

 Phylosticta leaf spot (Phylosticta sojicola) 

 Powdery mildew (Microsphaera diffusa) 

 Septoria brown spot (Septoria glycines) 

 Soybean mosaic virus 

 Soybean rust (Phakopsora pachyrhizi) 

Soybean stem and root diseases (ISUE 2010) include: 

 Anthracnose stem blight (Colletotrichum truncatum and several related species) 

 Brown stem rot (Phialophora [Cadophora] gregata) 

 Charcoal rot (Macrophomina phaseolina) 

 Fusarium wilt and root rot (Fusarium species) 

 Phytophthora root and stem rot (Phytophthora sojae) 

 Pod and stem blight and Phomopsis seed decay (Diaporthe phaseolorum var. sojae and 

Phomopsis longicolla)

 Pythium root rot (Pythium species) 

 Rhizoctonia root rot (Rhizoctonia solani) 

 Sclerotinia stem rot (white mold) (Sclerotinia sclerotiorum) 

 Soybean cyst nematode (Heterodera glycines) 

 Stem canker (Diaphorthe phaseolorum var. caulivora [northern stem canker] and D. 

phaseolorum var. meridionalis [southern stem canker]) 

 Sudden death syndrome (Fusarium virguliforme) 

Some plant diseases can be prevented or managed by planting disease resistant cultivars. Besides 

selecting cultivars with resistance to diseases prevalent in a grower’s particular region (Dorrance, 

Draper, and Hershman 2007), a healthy soybean crop starts with planting disease-free seed (Jardine 

1997), implementing best management practices such as crop rotation to reduce disease carryover 

from crop to crop, and providing adequate nutrients and water to grow healthy plants (Nelson 

2011). Tillage practices can also affect disease risk: no-till soils may have higher soil moisture and 

lower soil temperatures than could increase risk. Tilling may improve drainage to lower risk, but 

conservation tillage practices should be used to maintain soil quality (ISUE 2010). Conversely, 

some infestations, such as of soybean cyst nematode, may be managed by no-till methods. A 

grower may chose to plant seeds treated with fungicides to enhance soybean seed germination 

success (Jardine 1997). 

When diseases of fungal origin do occur despite taking such measures, fungicides are used (Jardine 

1997; Padgett, Schneider, and Hollier 2011). The most commonly applied fungicides on soybean 

(azoxystrobin, propiconazole, pyraclostrobin, tebuconazole, and trifloxystrobin) were applied to only 

4 percent of the planted soybean acreage in the 19 states surveyed in 2006 (USDA-NASS 2007). Of 

these fungicides, pyraclostrobin and azoxystrobin were the only two applied on more than 

0.5 percent of the planted acres. Pyraclostrobin was applied to 2 percent of the planted acres at an 

average rate of 0.112 lb/A per year, whereas azoxystrobin was applied to 1 percent of planted acres at 

an average rate of 0.106 lb/A per year (USDA-NASS 2007). 
– 20 – 

Some varieties of soybeans are more susceptible to certain bacterial or viral diseases than others, 

and resistant varieties are marketed as such (ISUE 2010). Bacterial and viral diseases may be 

transmitted by aphids (such as Aphis glycines) or bean leaf beetles (Cerotoma trifucata). 

Insecticides may be effective in controlling these insects, as described in Section 2.2.2.4, 

Management of Insects, and therefore minimize disease transmittal from these vectors. Some 

diseases may be transmitted in or on seeds; fungicide-treated seeds are available to growers. 

2.2.2.6 Management of Weeds 

Weed control is one of the biggest challenges for soybean growers; poorly controlled weeds 

drastically decrease crop yield and quality (Carpenter et al. 2002) since weeds compete with 

soybeans for light, nutrients, and soil moisture. Weeds can harbor insects and diseases, and can 

interfere with harvest, causing extra wear on harvest equipment (Loux et al. 2008). Soybean yield 

losses can range from 12 to 80 percent if weeds are uncontrolled for an entire season (Barrentine 

1989; Dalley, Renner, and Kells undated). 

If weeds are left uncontrolled, soybean cannot be grown economically (Buhler and Hartzler 2004). 

Growers make choices to use certain herbicides based on weed, insect and disease pressures, cost 

of seed and other inputs, technology fees, fuel costs, worker safety, potential for crop injury, and 

ease and flexibility of the system (Gianessi 2005). Glyphosate-tolerant soybeans have allowed 

growers to use a broad spectrum herbicide, glyphosate, in place of an array of over 70 selective 

herbicides targeted toward specific weeds. Recent trends suggest a decrease in glyphosate use and 

slight increase in selective herbicide use, as described in the Herbicide discussion below. 

The primary factors affecting soybean yield loss from weed competition are the species, density, 

and the duration and time period of the competition. The later the weeds emerge, the less impact 

the weeds will have on yield. Soybean plants withstand early-season weed competition longer than 

corn as the plant canopy closes earlier in soybean than in corn (Mallory-Smith and Zapiola 2008). 

The extent of canopy closure regulates the availability of light to weeds and other plants that grow 

below the soybean. Canopy closure occurs much sooner when soybean is drilled or planted in 

narrow rows as compared to the standard 36-inch row spacing. 

Problem weed species in US soybean fields include common cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium), 

jimsonweed (Datura stramonium), velvetleaf (Abutilon indica or A. theophrasti), morning glories 

(Ipomoea spp.), Johnsongrass (Sorghum halapense), and foxtails (Setaria spp.) (Carpenter et al. 2002). 

Growers in the Midwest consider giant ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia), lambsquarters 

(Chenopodium album), Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), common cocklebur, and velvetleaf to be the 

top five most problematic weeds in corn and soybean (Nice and Johnson 2011). The most frequently 

reported common weeds in the Southeast region are morning glory, prickly sida (Sida spinosa), 

Johnsongrass, sicklepod (Cassia obtusifolia), and broadleaf signalgrass (Brachiaria platyphylla) 

(Webster 2005). Soybean itself may be considered a weed when volunteers grow in crop rotation fields 

in subsequent years; herbicide-tolerant soybean does not have any characteristics that promote 

volunteerism. 

An important concept in weed control is the seed bank, which is the reservoir of seeds that are in 

the soil and have the potential to germinate. In one survey of agricultural soils, reservoirs of weed 
– 21 – 

seeds were found to range from 4,100 to 137,700 seeds per square meter of soil (May and Wilson 

2006). Climate, soil characteristics, cultivation, crop selection, and weed management practices 

affect the seed bank composition and size. 

Soybean growers can use a variety of weed control strategies, but the most effective weed 

management programs have used a combination of cultural (cropping practices), mechanical, and 

chemical control strategies (Whitaker et al. 2010) in an Integrated Weed Management approach. 

The effectiveness of any weed control program depends largely upon timeliness (Loux et al. 2008). 

Good weed control within the first 4 to 6 weeks after crops are planted is critical in order to avoid a 

yield reduction from weed competition. Weeds that emerge just prior to or at the same time as the 

soybeans cause greater yield losses than later emerging weeds (Whitaker et al. 2010). Volunteer 

soybeans, if herbicide-tolerant, would be controlled by cultural and mechanical means. 

With increased rates of conservation tillage, there has been a decrease in summer annual weeds and 

an increase in perennial, biennial, and winter annual weed species (Durgan and Gunsolus 2003; 

Green and Martin 1996) that are not controlled by limited-tillage practices. Winter perennial weeds 

are particularly competitive and difficult to control, as these weeds regrow every year from 

rhizomes or root systems. Recent surveys of US agronomic crop producers suggest that pigweed 

species (Amaranthus spp.), morning glory species, Johnsongrass, ragweed species (Ambrosia spp.), 

foxtail species, and velvetleaf are among the most problematic weeds (Heatherly et al. 2009). 

Cropping Practices for Weed Control 

Cropping practices, as described in Section 2.2.2.1, improve weed control by enhancing the 

competitive ability of the soybeans. Any practice that optimizes early and vigorous crop growth helps 

give crops a competitive edge over weeds (Loux et al. 2008). Crop rotation is one of the most effective 

practices for long-term weed control (Loux et al. 2008). Crop rotation aids in controlling weeds by 

allowing rotation of herbicides with alternative modes of action appropriate for the alternating crops, 

and providing the opportunity to plant highly competitive crops that prevent weed establishment. 

However, crop rotation is not effective against seedbanks for all weed species (Jordan et al. 1995). 

Soybeans planted in narrow rows, 15 inches or less wide, may have benefits such as higher yield 

potential and increased crop competitiveness with weeds (Dalley, Renner, and Kells undated). 

Planting crops in narrow rows increases the amount of shading by the crop canopy, suppressing weed 

growth. A cover crop grown simultaneously performs similarly and can help reduce herbicide inputs 

(Mischler et al. 2010). 

Herbicides 

Herbicides provide effective and economical control of weeds in soybean that cultivators cannot 

reach (Byrd, Blaine, and Poston 2003). Often the combination of shallow, flat cultivation with 

directed herbicide sprays is the least expensive and most effective weed treatment. Herbicides are 

applied at various points of the growing season (Carpenter et al. 2002): 

 Pre-plant (during field preparation); 

 Pre-emergence (during or immediately after planting); and 

 Post-emergence (during crop growth). 
– 22 – 

A traditional soybean weed control program includes a pre-emergence herbicide application 

followed by one or more post-emergence applications about 4 to 6 weeks after the crop has 

emerged (Byrd, Blaine, and Poston 2003). Yield losses from weed competition may occur when 

herbicide application is delayed (Dalley, Renner, and Kells undated). A timely application of a 

post-emergent herbicide in narrow row soybeans may be sufficient for season-long weed control. 

The efficacy of herbicides is influenced by environmental and soil conditions, specifically 

precipitation and soil composition (Stewart et al. 2010). In selecting an herbicide, a grower must 

also consider whether an herbicide can legally be used on the crop (herbicides are registered by the 

EPA for specific uses/crops; some states evaluate and authorize or prohibit the use of herbicides 

separately), the potential adverse effects on the crop, residual effects that can limit crops that can 

be grown in rotation, effectiveness on expected weeds, and cost. Herbicide use is not regulated by 

APHIS but is regulated by EPA under FIFRA and its amendments. 

Herbicides have different ways of acting on plant physiology (i.e., modes of action) to affect the 

health of a given plant and are active at one or more target sites within a plant (Prather, DiTomaso, 

and Holt 2000). Target sites are enzymes, proteins, or places in the plant where herbicides bind and 

thereby disrupt normal plant functions. Some common modes of herbicide action include auxin 

growth regulators, amino acid inhibitors, chlorophyll pigment inhibitors, lipid biosynthesis 

inhibitors, and glutamine synthase inhibitors (UW undated). 

By the early 1990s, there were over 70 individual herbicides or combination products registered for 

weed control in soybean (Byrd, Blaine, and Poston 2003). At that time, pre-emergence herbicides 

commonly used on soybean were 2,4-dichlorophenoxy acetic acid (2,4-D), chlorimuron, 

metolachlor, metribuzin, pendimethalin, and trifluralin. Commonly used soybean post-emergence 

herbicides included acifluorfen, basagran, bentazon, clethodim, cloransulam, fluazifop, fomesafen, 

glyphosate, imazethapyr, quizalofop, and sethoxydim. These herbicides typically control either 

broadleaf or grass species, but rarely both. Several species of weeds are usually present in any 

particular field and growers need to control both grassy and broadleaf weeds using different 

herbicides (Carpenter et al. 2002). A combination of herbicides may be necessary, but tank mixing 

some herbicides can result in antagonism between the compounds. Sequential spraying may be 

required, in some cases necessitating multiple passes to apply the different herbicides. 

Table 2-5 lists the most commonly applied herbicides to US soybeans and the corresponding 

percent of acres treated in 1995 (USDA-NASS 1996), in comparison to use of these herbicides in 

2001 (USDA-NASS 2002), and 2006 (USDA-NASS 2007)12. Figure 2-3 graphs the usage trends 

of the top 10 herbicides from 1995 in terms of percent planted acres treated in t`hose same 3 years. 

Glyphosate has become the most often-used herbicide on US soybean. The graph shows that from 

1995 to 2006 glyphosate-applied acres increased to 92 percent in 2006 but also that the number of 

acres to which other herbicides were applied significantly declined (NRC 2010). 

12 USDA-NASS no longer collects these data. 
– 23 – 

Table 2-5 Percent of US Soybean Acres1

 Treated With Herbicides; 1995, 2001, and 2006 

Herbicide 

Percent Soybean Acres 

Treated per Year 

Percent Soybean Acres 

Treated per Year 

1995 2001 2006 Herbicide 1995 2001 2006 

2,4-D2 10 4 3 Glyphosate 20 73 92 

2,4-DB3 1 <1 <1 Imazaquin 15 2 1 

Acifluorfen 12 3 <1 Imazethapyr 44 9 3 

Alachlor 4 <1 <1 Lactofen 5 1 <1 

Bentazon 12 1 <1 Linuron 2 -- -- 

Chlorimuron-ethyl 16 5 4 Metolachlor, 

(S)Metolachlor 7 <1 -- 

Clethodim 5 4 3 Metribuzin 11 2 2 

Clomazone 4 <1 -- Paraquat 2 -- 1 

Dimethenamid 1 -- -- Pendimethalin 26 10 3 

Ethalfluralin 1 -- -- Quizalofop-ethyl 6 <1 <1 

Fenoxaprop-ethyl 6 3 <1 Sethoxydim 7 1 <1 

Fluazifop-P-butyl 10 3 1 Thifensulfuron 12 2 1 

Flumetsulam 2 <1 <1 Trifluralin 20 7 2 

Fomesafen 4 7 2 

Sources: (USDA-NASS 1996, 2002, 2007) 

1- Survey states: 

1995: Arkansas, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, North Carolina, 

Ohio, and Tennessee. 

2001: Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, and Ohio. 

2006: Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, North 

Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia, and Wisconsin. 

2012: Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, 

Nebraska, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Wisconsin. 

2- Dimethylamine salt formulation of 2,4-dichlorophenoxy acetic acid 

3- 4-(2,4-dichlorophenoxy)butyric acid 

-- = no value. 

While total herbicide use trends are subject to debate, it is clear that an herbicide-substitution effect 

has occurred in US soybean production (Benbrook 2009; Fernandez-Cornejo et al. 2009). With the 

1996 commercial introduction of glyphosate-tolerant soybean, a major shift occurred with an 

increased use of glyphosate for soybeans concurrent with the increased planting of glyphosatetolerant soybean. Although other herbicide-tolerant soybeans are cultivated, glyphosate-tolerant 

varieties continue to dominate the market in the US. Glyphosate is the active ingredient in a broadspectrum Roundup® herbicide introduced by Monsanto in 1974 (Monsanto 2005). It works by 

disrupting the 5-enolpyruvylshikimate 3-phosphate (EPSP) synthase enzyme, which is involved in 

the production of amino acids that are essential to plant growth. Glyphosate products are among the 

world’s most widely used herbicides. 
– 24 – 

Figure 2-3 Percent of US Soybean Acres Treated with the 10 Most Used Herbicides; 

1995, 2001, and 20061 

Source: (USDA-NASS 2007) 

1- Survey states: 

 1995: Arkansas, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, North Carolina, Ohio, 

and Tennessee. 

 2001: Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, and Ohio. 

 2006: Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, North 

Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia, and Wisconsin. 

In 2006 (the latest year for which data are available), based on soybean farmers surveyed in 

selected states, it was estimated that 98 percent of the planted soybeans were treated with at least 

one type of herbicide, indicating the importance of weed control in maximizing soybean yield. As 

shown in Table 2-6, application rates ranged from 0.004 to 1.931 lbs/A per crop year (USDANASS 2007). Table 2-7 lists the most common troublesome weeds in herbicide-treated soybean 

fields in 2006, 2007, and 2008, and the number of acres treated with herbicides each year. 
– 25 – 

Table 2-6 Total Applications of Herbicides to Soybeans, 20061 

Herbicide 

Area 

Applied 

(percent) 

Applications 

(number) 

Rate per 

Applications 

(lb/A) 

Rate per 

Crop Year 

(lb/A) 

Total 

Applied 

(1,000 lb) 

2,4-D (2-EHE) 7 1.0 0.493 0.503 2,505

2,4-D (BEE) <0.5 1.1 0.426 0.459 68

2,4-D (DMA) 3 1.0 0.462 0.475 953

Acifluorfen, sodium <0.5 1.0 0.287 0.296 47

Alachlor <0.5 1.0 1.931 1.931 485

Bentazon <0.5 1.0 0.687 0.687 70

Carfentrazone-ethyl <0.5 1.2 0.038 0.046 10

Chlorimuron-ethyl 4 1.0 0.017 0.017 52

Clethodim 3 1.1 0.096 0.102 190

Cloransulam-methyl 1 1.0 0.019 0.019 17

Dicamba, digly salt <0.5 1.0 0.250 0.250 16

Fenoxaprop <0.5 1.0 0.031 0.031 9

Fluazifop-P-butyl 1 1.0 0.099 0.099 43

Flufenacet <0.5 1.0 0.265 0.265 80

Flumetsulam <0.5 1.0 0.048 0.048 8

Flumiclorac-pentyl 1 1.4 0.020 0.028 17

Flumioxazin 3 1.0 0.066 0.066 138

Fomesafen 2 1.2 0.190 0.233 330

Glyphosate 4 1.7 0.630 1.044 2,841

Glyphosate, ammonium salt <0.5 1.5 0.489 0.745 142

Glyphosate, isopropyl amine salt 92 1.7 0.802 1.330 88,903

Imazamox <0.5 1.0 0.030 0.030 9

Imazaquin 1 1.0 0.061 0.062 66

Imazethapyr 3 1.0 0.053 0.053 100

Imazethapyr, ammonium <0.5 1.0 0.048 0.048 5

Lactofen <0.5 1.0 0.110 0.110 23

(S)-Metolachlor 1 1.0 1.023 1.023 837

Metribuzin 2 1.0 0.255 0.260 437

Paraquat 1 1.0 0.492 0.511 335

Pendimethalin 3 1.0 0.920 0.926 1,894

Quizalofop-P-ethyl <0.5 1.1 0.038 0.041 14

Sethoxydim <0.5 1.0 0.153 0.153 10

Sulfentrazone 1 1.0 0.087 0.091 70

Sulfosate 1 1.8 0.967 1.701 970

Thifensulfuron 1 1.1 0.004 0.004 3

Tribenuron-methyl 1 1.0 0.008 0.008 5

Trifluralin 2 1.0 0.818 0.818 1,454

Source: (USDA-NASS 2007) 

1- Survey States: Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, North 

Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia, and Wisconsin; totaling 72.9 million planted acres. 
– 26 – 

Table 2-7 Common Troublesome Weeds in Treated Soybean Fields; 2006-2008 

Weed Species 

Total Soybean Acres Treated 

2006 2007 2008 

Annual Broadleaf Weeds 

Buckwheat, Wild 1,167,746 855,879 1,331,675 

Chickweed 1,652,712 1,259,096 1,823,638 

Cocklebur, Common 23,657,980 22,389,376 23,962,063 

Horseweed 2,188,359 3,159,712 3,470,274 

Kochia 4,859,759 3,671,795 5,317,528 

Lambsquarters, Common 21,859,614 24,459,895 28,242,972 

Marestail 4,044,060 5,382,190 11,257,267 

Morning glory spp. 10,711,087 11,432,904 11,011,185 

Mustard, Wild 2,019,346 1,975,291 2,688,590 

Nightshade, Black 1,766,649 1,277,416 1,385,751 

Pigweed, Redroot 21,093,224 21,788,121 26,715,150 

Pigweed, Smooth 188,160 801,569 1,322,732 

Ragweed, Common 9,417,252 9,438,871 9,518,051 

Ragweed, Giant 13,369,296 14,684,000 16,565,209 

Sicklepod 2,024,031 1,650,086 2,535,829 

Sida, Prickly 1,639,261 1,567,275 2,432,701 

Smartweed, Pennsylvania 2,366,851 1,835,825 3,529,114 

Sunflower, Volunteer 1,089,460 1,007,691 1,913,860 

Sunflower, Wild 5,558,526 5,759,216 5,709,292 

Velvetleaf 23,820,731 23,373,573 26,786,349 

Waterhemp, Common 18,399,609 15,970,794 21,364,980 

Waterhemp, Tall 2,301,380 2,926,358 3,826,647 

Annual Grass Weeds 

Barnyardgrass 4,189,156 3,967,425 3,805,391 

Corn, Volunteer 2,292,705 2,088,371 3,704,330 

Crabgrass 5,170,684 5,928,919 7,424,879 

Cupgrass, Woolly 1,765,244 2,470,437 2,108,135 

Foxtail spp. 24,409,043 18,489,746 18,446,420 

Foxtail, Giant 11,817,612 17,513,493 17,804,622 

Foxtail, Yellow 10,870,761 11,217,512 13,947,018 

Foxtail, Green 5,629,880 7,109,316 7,610,855 

Oat, Wild 1,792,389 1,478,890 2,886,300 

Panicum, Fall 2,251,014 2,241,088 1,852,417 

Shattercane 2,408,592 2,715,388 1,879,416 

Perennial/Biennial Weeds 

Dandelion 1,578,579 1,528,332 2,154,008 

Johnsongrass 10,152,393 11,057,825 10,368,155 

Quackgrass 2,628,187 2,570,688 2,786,633 

Thistle 1,479,038 647,315 1,513,566 

Thistle, Canada 4,123,437 3,584,676 4,840,383 

Source: (Dow 2010) 
– 27 – 

Herbicide use (as measured in terms of pounds of active ingredient applied per acre [lb. ai/A]) on 

soybeans has been relatively stable since transgenic varieties with herbicide tolerance were 

introduced in the mid-1990s, although there has been a slight increase in recent years (Brookes, 

Carpenter, and McHughen 2012). 

The diversity of herbicides available to US soybean growers has not decreased; rather, the diversity 

of herbicides used in US soybean production fields has gradually increased while applied 

quantities of those same herbicides (except glyphosate) have generally decreased, as indicated in 

Figure 2-3 and Table 2-5. However, total herbicide use may not be an effective metric to measure 

environmental impact, as this does not effectively permit a comparison of different herbicides, 

which may have different environmental effects, across time or across management strategies 

(Fernandez-Cornejo et al. 2009). 

Herbicide usage trends since the adoption of genetically engineered crops are the subject of much 

debate, with initial assessments indicating a decline in herbicide use in the early years of herbicidetolerant crop production (Carpenter et al. 2002) that some argue was then followed by an increase 

in the volume of herbicide usage as the technology spread (Benbrook 2009). Others report a 

continuing decline in herbicide use with the adoption of genetically engineered crops (FernandezCornejo and Caswell 2006), or relative stability in the amount of herbicide active ingredients 

applied to soybeans (Brookes and Barfoot 2010). The contradictory findings have been attributed 

to the different measurement approaches used by researchers, how different factors affecting 

pesticide use such as weather or cropping patterns were controlled for, and how the collected data 

were statistically analyzed (NRC 2010). 

Weed Resistance to Herbicides 

Herbicide resistance is generally defined by the Weed Science Society of America (WSSA)13 as 

“the inherited ability of a plant to survive and reproduce following exposure to a dose of herbicide 

normally lethal to the wild type. In a plant, resistance may be naturally occurring or induced by 

such techniques as genetic engineering or selection of variants produced by tissue culture or 

mutagenesis” (WSSA 2013). Increasing the intensity of herbicide use (frequency and number of 

acres treated) increases the probability of selecting an herbicide-resistant plant (Boerboom and 

Owen 2006) from a population of a weed species. WSSA defines herbicide tolerance as “the 

inherent ability of a species to survive and reproduce after herbicide treatment. This implies that 

there was no selection or genetic manipulation to make the plant tolerant; it is naturally tolerant” 

(WSSA 2013). A number of crops and weeds exhibit natural tolerance to some herbicides by 

preventing their absorption and/or translocation, or by rapidly metabolizing the herbicide to a nontoxic form (Loux et al. 2008). Natural herbicide tolerance has been observed in weed species such 

as waterhemp, common cocklebur, Powell amaranth, ragweed (common and giant), and kochia 

(Carpenter et al. 2002). 

Herbicides do not cause the mutations that result in weeds developing resistance. Rather, an 

extremely rare genetic trait that allows a weed to survive any given herbicide may exist in the natural 

population. That gene is more likely to be found and increase in occurrence when one herbicide is 

used frequently. Repeated use of that herbicide will expose the weed population to selection pressure 

that may lead to an increase in the number of surviving resistant individuals in the population 

13 www.wssa.net 
– 28 – 

(HRAC 2011). In other words, plants susceptible to the applied herbicide will die or have decreased 

reproduction; those few having some type of natural resistance will survive and reproduce. Resistant 

weeds that initially appear as isolated plants or patches in a field can quickly spread to dominate 

the population and the soil seed bank (Vencill et al. 2012). 

The reproductive biology of the particular weed species appears to be a factor contributing to the 

spread of resistant biotypes. For example, resistant biotypes of marestail (Conyza canadensis), 

which produces a large number of wind dispersed seeds contributing to a rapid distribution, have 

been found in many states in the Northeast, Midwest, and South. Other species such as common 

ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia) produce seeds that do not have features that allow for such easy 

distribution by the wind. As a consequence, biotypes of resistant ragweed have been found in only 

seven sites in the Midwest, North and South compared to 24 sites for C. canadensis (Heap, 2013) 

(D. Lingenfelter in, vogel, 2012) not 

http://magissues.farmprogress.com/AMA/AM02Feb12/ama020.pdf (Lingenfelter 2011).

The risk of weeds developing resistance to herbicides and the potential impact of resistance on the 

usefulness of an herbicide varies greatly across different modes of action and depends on a 

combination of factors including selection pressure, herbicide soil residual activity, herbicide 

chemistry, the rate of seed production, and the level of genetic variation in plants. Another major 

factor contributing to the development of herbicide-resistant weeds is poor weed control 

management practices by the growers. These include application of herbicides at rates below those 

indicated on the EPA-approved label for the weed species and reliance on a single herbicide for weed 

control without the use of other cultural control methods (i.e., pre-plant and in-crop tillage) (Peterson 

et al. 2007). Weed management programs that integrate the use of herbicides with different modes of 

action and short residual activity times in soil reduce selection pressure (Prather, DiTomaso, and Holt 

2000). Growers have been successfully managing herbicide-resistant weeds for decades by using 

alternative herbicides and/or cultural methods such as tillage or crop rotation (especially to 

incorporate herbicide mode of action rotation). The occurrence of an herbicide-resistant weed biotype 

generally does not end the useful lifespan or preclude the effective use of the herbicide in question as 

part of an overall weed management system. 

Globally, 397 weed biotypes have developed resistance to 21 herbicide modes of action (Heap 

2013a). In the US, 142 weed biotypes have developed resistance to herbicides. Some populations 

of certain weed species have developed resistance to multiple herbicide classes (Boerboom and 

Owen 2006). For example, some tall waterhemp plants are known to be resistant to up to four 

herbicide modes of action (McMullan and Green 2011; Tranel 2010). Most herbicides affect a 

single specific site of action, and that site is usually under the control of a single gene, or at most a 

few genes. Annual weeds are more likely to evolve resistance because they typically produce 

abundant seeds and have more genetic diversity than species that reproduce vegetatively. 

For many years, growers were able to effectively control or suppress virtually all weeds in soybean 

with glyphosate alone. However, a number of weed species have developed resistance to 

glyphosate, and the number of acres infested with resistant biotypes has been increasing. To date, 

24 weed species resistant to glyphosate have been identified globally, 14 of which are found in the 

US (Heap 2013c). Glyphosate-resistant weed biotypes in US soybean fields vary by state 

(Figure 2-4). Each of these species is generally controlled by mesotrione, isoxaflutole, or 

glufosinate except hairy fleabane, Italian ryegrass, and rigid ryegrass (Syngenta 2012c), which are 

not, however, typically problematic in soybean fields (see Table 2-7, Common Troublesome Weeds 
– 29 – 

in Treated Soybean Fields, 2006-2008). Other herbicides are available to control these species, and 

could be appropriately used in an integrated weed management program. 

Figure 2-4 Glyphosate-Resistant Weeds in US Soybean Fields 

Source: (Heap 2013d) 

Note that presence of a population is unrelated to prevalence. 

* indicates at least one population in that state possesses resistance to glyphosate and another herbicide. 

**indicates at least one population in that state possesses resistance to glyphosate and two other herbicides.

All of the weed species that are resistant to glyphosate are fully or partially controlled by one or 

more of the herbicides to which SYHT0H2 soybean is tolerant, as discussed in the appendices. 

However, certain biotypes of three weed species have developed resistance to HPPD-inhibiting 

herbicides (including mesotrione and/or isoxaflutole) or glufosinate when applied to the weed postemergence: 

 Certain common waterhemp (Amaranthus tuberculatus (syn. rudis)) populations have 

evolved resistance to post emergence applications of HPPD-inhibiting herbicides including 

mesotrione and isoxaflutole in US fields where full rates of an HPPD herbicide have been 

used in multiple years during seed corn production (Heap 2013b); 

 Two Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) populations have recently been reported to be 

resistant to HPPD inhibitors (Heap 2013b); and 

 Certain Italian ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum) populations in US fields have been shown to be 

resistant to glufosinate (Heap 2013c). 

The conditions leading to populations of these weeds evolving resistance to these herbicides occurred 

during a time of less diversity in herbicide usage and cultural practices. In an Illinois biotype of 

common waterhemp found to be resistant in 2009, for example, an absence of crop rotation and 

herbicide rotation, and failure to use mixed products containing multiple modes of herbicidal action 
– 30 – 

in a corn seed production field contributed to the development of HPPD-inhibitor resistance 

(Hauseman et al, 2011). Crop management practices in seed corn production fields are not 

representative of fields in which corn hybrids or soybean varieties are grown commercially. 

Modeling predicts that herbicide-resistant weeds can evolve after only 4 or 5 years of continuous 

herbicide use (Neve et al. 2011a; Neve et al. 2011b). This prediction is consistent with 

observations based on actual glyphosate use. Implementing additional weed management 

strategies, such as diversity of herbicide modes of action providing full, effective season-long weed 

control, could delay or mitigate herbicide resistance in Palmer amaranth, for example, for at least 

20 years (Neve et al. 2011b). 

Transgenic Crops for Herbicide Tolerance 

Herbicide-tolerant soybean was introduced in 1996 to provide growers with additional options to 

improve crop safety and/or improve weed control. Soybean’s natural tolerance to herbicides that 

would normally damage the crop has been developed through conventional and mutation breeding, 

with biotechnology adding transgenic traits (Carpenter et al. 2002). Variability in the natural 

tolerance of soybean to commercially available herbicides such as 2,4-DB, metribuzin, and 

glyphosate was recognized in the 1980s (Barrentine et al. 1982). At that time, efforts to screen 

soybean germplasm for commercial levels of tolerance to glyphosate had not been successful. The 

first transgenic traits put into soybean were herbicide tolerance, with glyphosate tolerance being 

the most prevalent (Sleper and Shannon 2003). 

The adoption of herbicide-tolerant soybeans has been particularly rapid in the US, increasing from 

less than 10 percent of soybean acreage in 1996 (Lin, Price, and Fernandez-Cornejo 2001) to 

93 percent of soybean acreage in 2012 (USDA-NASS 2012b). Farmers have widely adopted 

herbicide-tolerant soybean because of lowered production costs, reduced crop injury, simplicity 

and flexibility in weed management, and because farmers can use one herbicide to control a broad 

spectrum of weeds instead of using multiple herbicides (Carpenter et al. 2002). However, using a 

single broad-spectrum herbicide intensifies selection of weed populations against the herbicide’s 

mode of action because repeated use of a single, broad-spectrum mode of action replaces use of 

multiple modes of action and tillage (Vencill et al. 2012). 

2.2.3 Commercial Soybean Production and Uses 

This section describes the commercial production of soybean seeds, raw and processed soybean 

commodities, organic soybeans, and specialty products. 

2.2.3.1 Seed Production 

Seed quality (including genetic purity, vigor, and presence of weed seed, seed-borne diseases, and 

inert materials such as dirt) is a major factor in crop yields. If variability in seed production is not 

carefully controlled, the value of a new variety or cultivar may be lost (Hartmann, Kester, and 

Davies 2011). Genetic purity in commercial seed production is generally regulated through a 

system of seed certification that is intended to ensure that the desired traits in the seed are 

maintained throughout all stages of cultivation. 
– 31 – 

Seed laws and certification agencies ensure that purchasers who receive certified seed can be 

assured that the seed meets established seed quality standards (Bradford 2006). The US Federal 

Seed Act of 193914 recognizes seed certification and official certifying agencies. Implementing 

regulations further recognize land history, field isolation, and varietal purity standards. Soybean 

seed is commonly separated into three classes: Foundation, Registered, and Certified (MCIA 

2012). Each class of seed is identified to designate the seed generation from the original breeder 

source (Hartmann, Kester, and Davies 2011). 

Foundation, Registered, and Certified seed production is controlled by public or private 

certification programs (AOSCA 2003). Commercially certified soybean seed must meet state and 

Federal seed standards and labeling requirements. State seed certification standards vary slightly 

from state to state and can be more restrictive than the seed standards of the Association of Official 

Seed Certifying Agencies (AOSCA). All soybean seed sold may not be officially certified; 

however, commercial soybean seed sold and planted for normal soybean production is produced 

predominately to meet or exceed Certified seed standards. No program can ensure 100 percent 

purity of seeds, given the potential for accidents and human error. However, the existing standards 

provide a reasonable level of confidence in seed products based on the cost and feasibility of 

implementing the certification programs. 

2.2.3.2 Raw and Processed Soybean Commodities 

Soybean plants are grown for their seed, which is processed to yield oil for a variety of uses and 

meal for human dietary products and livestock feed. Soybean is the most extensively grown oilseed 

in the world, with approximately 210 million metric tons of harvested seed produced in 2009, 

representing 56 percent of world oilseed production (Soystats 2012a). Unprocessed soybeans have 

no human food and limited animal feed use since they contain anti-nutrient factors, such as trypsin 

inhibitors and lectins. Adequate heat processing inactivates these factors. 

Approximately 85 percent of the world soybean seed supply is crushed to produce soybean meal 

and oil (Soyatech 2012). The first modern US soybean production facility was established in 1922, 

and soybean production for oil and animal feed increased substantively during World War II 

(Hymowitz 1990). In the late 1940s and early 1950s, the US overtook China as the world leader in 

soybean production (Hymowitz 1970). Most of the seed is used to supply the feed industry for 

livestock use or the food industry for edible vegetable oil and soybean protein isolates. A large 

portion of the world soybean seed supply is traded to other geographies, with China, the European 

Union (EU), Japan, and Mexico being the top soybean seed importers (Soystats 2010). The 

remainder of the soybean seed produced is used as certified seed, feed, or stocks. 

A bushel (27.2 kilograms) of soybeans yields about 21.8 kilograms of protein-rich meal and 

5.0 kilograms of oil (OECD 2001). Soybean oil makes up 94 percent of the soybean food 

ingredients consumed by humans (OECD 2001). The essential amino acids required for the human 

diet are present in soybean proteins. Soy protein is added to a number of meat, dairy, bakery, and 

cereal products as a protein extender (OECD 2000). 

14 7 USC 1551. 
– 32 – 

A significant fraction of the soybean market is dedicated to production of purified oil for food use 

and industrial applications (Cahoon 2003). The domestic food use of soybean oil is mainly in 

frying oils, salad and cooking oils, and margarines (Soystats 2010). In 2009, these three categories 

represented approximately 85 percent of the soybean oil market in the US, with industrial uses 

consuming the remaining 15 percent (Soystats 2010; USSEC 2006). Soybean oil industrial uses 

include plastics, lubricants, coatings, printing inks and adhesives, emulsifiers, surfactants 

(industrial detergents and cleaners as well as solvents), resins, and biodiesel, among others. 

Soybean is also a carbon/nitrogen source in the production of yeasts via fermentation (Cahoon 

2003). Soy-based industrial oil products have many advantages compared to petroleum oils, 

including being inherently biodegradable, having low ecotoxicity, and being derived from 

renewable resources (USSEC 2006). 

Extracting oil from soybeans also creates a highly valued solid, soybean meal, which is used for 

animal feed in all livestock sectors (swine, beef, poultry, dairy, and fish) and human food protein 

(CAST 2009). Tofu, soy milk, soy sauce, miso, meat substitutes, protein powder, soynuts, soy 

sprouts, baked or roasted soybeans, and soy flour are the soy-based products present in the human 

diet. Processed soybeans are the largest source of protein for livestock in the world (USDA-ERS 

2010a), accounting for nearly 69 percent of world protein meal supplies (Soystats 2010). Globally, 

most soybean meal, 97 percent, is used in animal feed, with 46 percent going to poultry, 32 percent 

to swine, and 9 percent each going to dairy and beef cattle feed, respectively. About 2 percent is 

used in pet food (OECD 2001). 

Although honeybees have been reported to forage for nectar in soybean fields (Erickson 1975), 

soybeans are not reported to be commercial honey sources (Morse and Calderone 2000). 

2.2.3.3 Organic Soybean Production 

In the US, 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 2010). 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 NOP was 

established by the Organic Foods Production Act of 199015 and implementing USDA regulations 

(USDA 2012). 

Organic production operators must develop and maintain an organic system plan approved by an 

accredited certifying agent (USDA 2012).16 The plan describes how the operation will achieve and 

document compliance with the NOP’s National Organic Standards. Before an operation is certified 

to sell organic soybeans the cropland must be managed organically for a minimum of 36 months 

(USDA 2012)17. The NOP requires organic farming operations to have distinct, defined boundaries 

and buffer zones to prevent unintended contact with excluded methods from adjoining land that is 

15 Title 21 of Public Law 101-624, the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990, as amended. 

16 Section 201 

17 Section 205.202(b) 
– 33 – 

not under organic management (USDA 2012)18. The NOP regulations preclude the use of excluded 

methods in crop production. Excluded methods are defined at 7 CFR §205.2 as: 

“A variety of methods used to genetically modify organisms or influence their growth and 

development by means that are not possible under natural conditions or processes and are 

not considered compatible with organic production. Such methods include cell fusion, 

microencapsulation and macroencapsulation, and recombinant DNA technology (including 

gene deletion, gene doubling, introducing a foreign gene, and changing the positions of 

genes when achieved by recombinant DNA technology). Such methods do not include the 

use of traditional breeding, conjugation, fermentation, hybridization, in vitro fertilization, 

or tissue culture.” 

Use of synthetic insecticides, fertilizers, and transgenic crops is excluded from certified organic 

production systems. Natural products are allowed. Since organic certification is process-based, the 

presence of a detectable residue of a product of excluded methods (including genetically modified 

organism residues; e.g., transgenic soybean) does not by itself constitute a violation of the NOP 

regulations (USDA-AMS 2011). The NOP regulations do not specify an acceptable threshold level 

for the adventitious presence of genetically engineered 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 the 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 2010). 

To prevent gene flow between conventional crops and to produce genetically pure seed, different 

types of crops should be separated from each other by an adequate isolation distance (Carpenter et 

al. 2002). Common practices organic growers may use to prevent gene flow from genetically 

engineered organisms include planting only organic seed, planting earlier or later than neighboring 

farmers who may be using transgenic crops so that the two 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 (Sundstrom et al. 2002; NCAT 

2003; Bradford 2006; Baier 2008). Isolation distances vary between crops based on the type of 

pollination. Isolation distances for soybean are usually not required because the crop is 

predominantly self-pollinated; however, as described in Section 2.1, insect-mediated outcrossing 

may occur over short distances in some cultivars if the different cultivars have synchronized 

flowering. 

Organic soybean production practices include crop rotation, use of cover crops, green and animal 

manures, application of rock minerals such as lime, other soil additives, mechanical weed control, 

biological control of pests, and disease control primarily through management practices (Heatherly 

et al. 2009; Kuepper 2003; USDA-AMS 2011). Based on 2006 ARMS data, more than 90 percent 

of organic soybean producers planted in standard width rows, as compared to 60 percent of other 

soybean producers (McBride and Greene 2008). The standard row spacing may be utilized by 

organic farmers to facilitate mechanical weed control that would be hindered by narrow row 

spacing where weed control is accomplished by chemical means that are prohibited in organic 

18 Section 205.202(c) 
– 34 – 

systems. Further, organic soybean operations rotated crops more often, and 40 percent of the 

farmers incorporated a 1-year fallow into their organic soybean rotation. 

Weed control in organic systems is accomplished with delayed seeding to avoid spring weeds, 

applying fertilizer to growing plants to outcompete weeds, increasing seeding rates, sowing cover 

crops, rotating crops, intercropping, flame weeding, hand weeding, and tilling (Heatherly et al. 

2009; Kuepper 2003). Organic crop production historically employed mulch and ridge tillage 

practices (NCAT 2003); no-till practices may be unsustainable in some long-term organic systems 

because of increasingly poor weed control. Field evaluations of several tillage methods in organic 

systems conducted over 9 years found that factors contributing to poor weed control included 

uneven seeding beds produced by chisel-tilling in a cover crop and animal manure, variable ground 

cover occurring in mowed cover crop residue, insufficient disruption of weed roots by sweep-type 

cultivators, and the short grain crop rotation system used was unsuitable for maintaining a low 

weed seedbank (Teasdale, Coffman, and Mangum 2007). 

Pest control in organic systems is accomplished with application of natural pesticides, integrated 

pest management techniques such as introduction of beneficial organisms (predator and parasitic 

organisms), and some of the practices described for conventional weed control (crop rotation, 

intercropping, and use of cover crops) (NCAT 2003). Diseases are primarily controlled in organic 

systems by planting disease-resistant varieties, using management practices that promote healthy 

soil, rotating crops, diligently removing diseased plant material, and managing plant canopy. When 

physical, mechanical, or biological controls are not sufficient for controlling weeds, pests, or 

disease, only a biological, botanical, or synthetic substance approved on the national list may be 

used (USDA-AMS 2011). 

Organic soybeans represent between 0.17 and 0.22 percent of US soybean production (USDA-ERS 

2010c). In 2011, certified organic soybeans were harvested from 96,080 acres in 28 states, 

resulting in 2.9 million bushels of soybeans (USDA-NASS 2012a). Table 2-8 indicates the acreage 

of organic soybean produced in each state. 

Organic soybean field yields are lower or equal to conventional soybean yields (Cavigelli and 

Conklin undated). Organic soybean producers had an average yield in 2006 of 31 bushels per acre, 

as compared to 47 bushels per acre for conventional soybean yield (McBride and Greene 2008). 

Lower yields are generally attributed to competition with weeds in organic systems. 

In 2006, the total estimated additional costs for producing organic relative to conventional 

soybeans were $0.82 per bushel for operating costs alone, $2.61 per bushel for operating and 

capital costs together (including transition costs), and $6.20 per bushel for total economic costs 

(McBride and Greene 2008). 
– 35 – 

Table 2-8 US Certified Soybean Acreage by State, 2011 

State Acres State Acres 

Arkansas (D) Missouri 5,505 

Delaware (D) Nebraska 6,211

Georgia (D) New Jersey (D)

Idaho (D) New York 8,621

Illinois 6,633 North Carolina (D)

Indiana 945 North Dakota 3,288

Iowa 12,659 Ohio 5,634

Kansas 1,311 Pennsylvania 1,280

Kentucky (D) South Dakota 3,962

Louisiana (D) Tennessee (D)

Maine (D) Texas (D)

Maryland 1,090 Vermont 527

Michigan 11,699 Virginia 150

Minnesota 16,150 Wisconsin 7,622

Source: (USDA-NASS 2012a) 

(D) = Withheld to avoid disclosing data for individual operations. Total area in this table is therefore 84,666 acres, less than the US total of 96,080 acres.

2.2.3.4 Specialty Production Systems 

Specialty production refers to specialized agronomic practices as compared to those described in 

Section 2.2.2, Agronomic Practices, and unique soybean commodities as compared to those 

described in Section 2.2.3.2, Raw and Processed Soybean Commodities. Specialty soybean 

varieties are produced on approximately 12 percent of the US soybean acreage. 

The Identity Preservation (IDP) production and distribution systems accommodate differences 

between commodity and specialty soybean. Distinct identity-preserved specialty soybean with such 

traits as clear hilum or high protein have been grown and successfully marketed for specific food 

uses in domestic and export markets for many years (Cui et al. 2004). The specialty soybean 

market produces soybeans that have specific physical or chemical characteristics to meet specific 

buyer requirements. A separate specialty soybean production channel has developed for the 

specialty soybean product that involves much smaller volumes than commodity soybean. Specialty 

soybeans can be grouped into several broad, but overlapping, categories, as listed below. 

 Altered seed composition 

o Low saturated fat 

o High sucrose 

o High oleic fatty acid 

o Low linolenic fatty acid 

o High protein 
– 36 – 

 Unique physical characteristics or uses 

o Clear hilum 

o Tofu 

o Natto 

o Soy milk 

The categories are not exclusive. Soybeans of all specialty categories are often derived from 

varieties produced according to certified seed production practices, as described in Section 2.2.3.1, 

Seed Production. 

Specialty soybeans often earn premiums (Pritchett, Fulton, and Lawson 2002). The greatest 

premium received by producers is for tofu soybeans, but these have higher production costs related 

to seed cost, technology fees, and transportation costs. Seed soybeans have additional costs related 

to more intensive production/management requirements and herbicide costs, although the seed 

technology fees and additional transportation costs remain important factors. 

Product differentiation and market segmentation in the specialty soybean industry includes 

mechanisms to keep track of the grain (traceability) for IDP and quality assurance processes 

(e.g., ISO9001-2000 certification), as well as contracts between growers and buyers that specify 

delivery agreements (Sundstrom et al. 2002). Systems used by specialty soybean growers and end 

users to maintain identity of the production include: 

 Contracts – written agreements detailing responsibilities and duties of both parties including 

premiums for reaching goals and penalties for failing to attain specifications. 

 Tracking and Traceability Systems – correct labeling of all products (planting seeds and 

harvested material) and testing procedures for identifying and detecting acceptability of 

materials. 

 Quality Assurance Processes – oversight on handling procedures, testing planting seeds, 

and testing harvested materials to determine acceptability of use and product requirements, 

and assuring testing procedures are appropriate. 

 Closed-Loop Systems – the end-user supplies the planting seeds and guarantees to purchase 

final products. This may also require that the end-user conduct intermediate procedures such 

as planting, providing oversight during the growing season, harvesting, and transportation to 

processing plant. 

 Identity Preservation Systems – using systems of identity preservation that have been 

shown to be successful in the past such as the seed certification systems conducted by 

members of the AOSCA. To maintain the purity of the soybean product, this production 

system is based on controlling, tracking and documenting each step from seed production to 

end use (processing plants) (AOSCA 2003). 

The IDP practices used in specialty soybean production require that all equipment and storage 

facilities for specialty soybean must be clean of seed from other soybean varieties or plants, dirt, 

pathogens, and other foreign material. Some soybean contracts may require a special inspection of 

the handling and storage facilities. The specialty soybean for soybean foods may require special 
– 37 – 

harvesting equipment because some of these soybeans are harvested before full maturity 

(e.g., edamame or vegetable soybean) (Cui et al. 2004). Weed control is extremely important for 

specialty soybean to maintain a high yield potential. 

2.3 Physical Environment 

Soil, water, and air affect, and are affected by, soybean agriculture. This section describes water 

quality, soil characteristics, and air quality impacted by soybean agriculture. Climatic conditions, 

in the context of potential climate change, are also discussed. 

2.3.1 Soil 

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, and is 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 1999b). 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, and the 

numbers of microorganisms and soil fauna all vary seasonally, as well as over extended periods of 

time (USDA-NRCS 1999b). Soil texture and organic matter levels directly influence its shear 

strength, nutrient holding capacity, and permeability. 

Soil taxonomy was established by scientists to classify soils according to the relationship between 

soils and the factors responsible for their character (USDA-NRCS 1999b). 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). From an ecological perspective, organic matter is probably the 

most vital component in maintaining quality soil; it is instrumental in maintaining soil stability and 

structure, reduces the potential for erosion, provides energy for microorganisms, improves 

infiltration and water holding capacity, and is important in nutrient cycling, cation exchange 

capacity19, and the breakdown of pesticides (USDA-NRCS 1996). 

The interactions between the below-ground community of microorganisms and arthropods, plant root 

structure, and organic residues in the soil are central to soil ecological processes including 

decomposing organic material, subsequent nutrient cycling and release, and maintaining soil 

structure and composition. Cultivation directly impacts these biological attributes. Agronomic 

practices such as conventional tillage and mechanized harvesting machinery may disturb and expose 

the top soil surface layer, leaving the land prone to degradation or, conversely, improving soil health. 

19 Soil 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). 
– 38 – 

Soil degradation can lead to a decline in water quality and contribute to the greenhouse effect by 

releasing sequestered carbon dioxide (CO2) (Lal and Bruce 1999). A decline in soil quality and soil 

resilience enhances the greenhouse effect through emissions of radiatively active gases (CO2 and 

nitrous oxide, N2O). Land that is prone to degradation is also more likely to adversely impact water 

quality and communities of organisms dependent on those water resources. While practices such as 

tillage, fertilization, pesticide application, and other management tools can improve soil health, they 

can also cause substantial damage if not properly used. Inappropriate agricultural practices can lead 

to increased erosion, soil compaction, degradation of soil structure, nutrient loss, increased salinity, 

change in pH, and reduced biological activity (USDA-NRCS 2001). 

Soybeans are grown in managed agricultural fields and are best suited to fertile, well-drained 

medium-textured loam soils, yet can be produced in a wide range of soil types (Berglund and 

Helms 2003). Soybeans need a variety of macronutrients (such as nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, 

calcium, magnesium, and sulfur) at various levels (NSRL undated). They also require smaller 

amounts of micronutrients such as iron, zinc, copper, boron, manganese, molybdenum, cobalt, and 

chlorine. These micronutrients 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 soybean development. Soybeans grow best in soil that is slightly acidic (pH 5.8 to 7.0); more 

alkaline soils (pH 7.3 or greater) negatively affect yield (Cox et al. 2003). Similarly, soils that are 

high in clay and low in humus may impede plant emergence and development (NSRL undated). 

Soils with some clay content may retain moisture during periods of low precipitation than those 

with no clay content (Cox et al. 2003). 

Conservation tillage methods (as described in Section 2.2.2.1, Cropping Practices) leave a crop 

mulch on the ground to provide a protective cover to the soil between seasons and improve soil 

fertility by maintaining nutrient-rich organic matter on the field. As conservation practices are 

adopted, soil organic matter increases help bind soil nutrients and significantly reduce the loss of 

cropland soil from runoff, erosion, and leaching over time (USDA-NRCS 2006a, 2006b). Organic 

matter builds up in the soil, absorbing CO2 and helping to reduce a significant amount of 

greenhouse gas. 

One of the most effective soil conservation methods to reduce wind and water erosion is through 

management of crop residue, which also benefits air and water quality and wildlife (USDA-NRCS 

2006a). Residue management that uses intensive tillage and leaves low amounts of crop residue on 

the surface results in greater losses of soil organic matter as compared to conservation tillage 

methods. Intensive tillage turns the soil over and buries the majority of the residue, stimulating 

microbial activity and increasing the rate of residue breakdown (USDA-NRCS 1996). The residues 

left after conservation tillage increase organic matter and improve infiltration, soil stability and 

structure, and soil microorganism habitat (USDA-NRCS 2005; Fawcett and Caruana 2001). 

The residue left over from conservation tillage practices increases organic matter in the top 

3 inches of the soil and protects the surface from erosion while maintaining water-conducting 

pores. Soil aggregates in conservation tillage systems are more stable than those of conventional 

tillage due to the products of organic matter decomposition and the presence of soil bacteria and 

fungal hyphae (filamentous structures that composes the main growth) that bind aggregates and 

soil particles together (USDA-NRCS 1996). Although soil erosion rates are dependent on 
– 39 – 

numerous local conditions such as soil texture and crop, a comparison of 39 studies contrasting 

conventional and no-till practices concluded that, on average, no-till practices reduce erosion 

488 times over conventional tillage (Montgomery 2007). This reduction is enough to balance soil 

production with losses from erosion. From 1982 through 2003, erosion on US cropland dropped 

from 3.1 billion tons per year to 1.7 billion tons per year (USDA-NRCS 2006a). This can partially 

be attributed to the increased effectiveness of weed control through the use of herbicides and the 

corresponding reduction in the need for mechanical weed control (Carpenter et al. 2002). Another 

factor is the Conservation Reserve Program described in Section 2.2.2.1, which provides financial 

incentives to farmers to use conservation tillage techniques or set aside land from agricultural use 

(USDA-FSA 1999). Conservation tillage also minimizes soil compaction due to the reduced 

number of tillage trips. 

While conservation tillage does have several benefits for soil health, some management concerns 

are associated with its use in certain circumstances. Under no-till practices, soil compaction may 

become a problem as tillage is useful for breaking up compacted areas (USDA-NRCS 1996). 

Likewise, not all soils (such as wet and heavy clay soils) are suited for no-till. No-till practices may 

lead to increased pest occurrences that conventional tillage is better suited to managing (NRC 

2010) as described in Section 2.2.2.5, Management of Disease and Non-Insect Pests. 

Other methods to improve soil quality include: 

 Careful management of fertilizers and pesticides; 

 Use of cover crops to increase plant diversity and limit the time soil is exposed to wind and 

rain; and 

 Increase landscape diversity with buffer strips, contour strips, wind breaks, crop rotations, and 

varying tillage practices (USDA-NRCS 2006a). 

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

invertebrates such as worms and insects. The microorganisms that make up the soil community 

include bacteria, fungi, protozoa, and nematodes, as discussed in Section 2.4.3, Soil 

Microorganisms. These organisms are responsible for a wide range of activities that impact soil 

health and plant growth. Pesticide (including herbicide) use has the potential to affect soil quality 

due to potential impacts to the soil microbial community. The length of time that herbicides persist 

in soil is dependent on the concentration and rate of degradation by biotic and abiotic processes 

(Carpenter et al. 2002). Persistence is measured by the half-life or dissipation time, which equates 

to the length of time needed for the herbicide to degrade to half of its original concentration. 

Herbicide persistence in soil for mesotrione, isoxaflutole, and glufosinate (the three herbicides of 

which SYHT0H2 soybean is tolerant) is discussed in detail in the appendices. 

2.3.2 Water Quality 

The primary cause of agricultural nonpoint source (NPS) pollution is increased sedimentation from 

soil erosion, which can introduce sediments, manure, fertilizers, and pesticides to nearby lakes and 

streams (USEPA 2005). Water quality risks from herbicide use are assessed by the EPA during the 

herbicide registration (and re-registration review) process and are addressed, as warranted, through 
– 40 – 

EPA requirements such as application methodology and buffer zones between fields and water 

bodies, as well as monitoring for herbicide residues in surface and ground water. There are no federal 

water quality standards for the enzymes present in transgenic herbicide-tolerant plant varieties. 

Although meteorological (precipitation, temperature), morphological (land use, soil type), and 

environmental fate drivers affect water quality, anthropogenic practices (product use and 

management) are the most relevant, as these are generally under direct grower control on a soybean 

farm (Ramanarayanan, Narasimhan, and Srinivasan 2005). Certain agronomic practices, including 

conservation tillage and reduced fertilizer or pesticide application rates, may reduce adverse 

impacts. The EPA recommends several Best Management Practices for protecting water quality 

from agricultural NPS pollution (USEPA 2008a): 

 Conservation Tillage - leaving crop residue (plant materials from past harvests) on the soil 

surface reduces runoff and soil erosion, conserves soil moisture, helps keep nutrients and 

insecticides on the field, and improves soil, water, and air quality; 

 Crop Nutrient Management - fully managing and accounting for all nutrient inputs helps 

ensure that nutrients are available to meet crop needs while reducing nutrient movement off 

of fields. It also helps prevent excessive buildup in soils and helps protect air quality; 

 Pest Management - varied methods for keeping insects, weeds, disease, and other pests 

below economically harmful levels while protecting soil, water, and air quality; and 

 Conservation Buffers - from simple grassed waterways to riparian areas, buffers provide an 

additional barrier of protection by capturing potential pollutants that might otherwise move 

into surface waters. 

Conservation tillage (including no-till practices) has been shown to minimize surface water runoff 

and soil erosion. As discussed in Section 2.3.1, Soil, reduced tillage agricultural practices result in 

improved soil quality having high organic material that binds nutrients within the soil. An 

increased amount of plant residue on the soil surface reduces the effects of pesticide usage on 

water resources by forming a physical barrier to erosion and runoff, allowing more time for 

absorption into the soil, and slowing down soil moisture evaporation (Locke, Zablotowicz, and 

Reddy 2008). Improving soil quality increases soil organic matter that promotes nutrient, pesticide, 

and herbicide binding to soil and prevents their loss to surface waters and groundwater from 

runoff, erosion, and leaching. Farmers planting genetically engineered herbicide-tolerant soybean 

varieties are more likely to use conservation tillage over conventional agricultural practices 

(Givens et al. 2009). The shift to genetically engineered varieties has resulted in reduced surface 

water run-off and soil erosion (Locke, Zablotowicz, and Reddy 2008). 

2.3.3 Air Quality 

Agriculture is an important market sector impacting air quality. Agricultural air emission sources 

include: smoke from agricultural burning, vehicle exhaust from equipment used in tillage and 

harvest, soil particulates (dust) from tillage, pesticide drift from spraying, and N2O emissions from 

the use of nitrogen fertilizer (Aneja, Schlesinger, and Erisman 2009). Certain pesticides may 

volatilize after application to soil or plant surfaces and may also move as constituents of dust in 
– 41 – 

wind eroded soils (Vogel, Majewski, and Capel 2008). Agricultural air pollution also contributes to 

odor. After deposition of reactive nitrogen in waterways, eutrophication and acidification can result 

and affect biodiversity. Air quality can be improved by using conservation tillage methods in place 

of conventional (intensive) tillage as less dust is produced and fewer pollutants are emitted from 

farm equipment. 

2.3.4 Climate 

Agriculture is responsible for an estimated 6.3 percent of all human-induced greenhouse gas (GHG) 

emissions in the US (USEPA 2012d), the second-highest source. Agricultural soil management 

practices, including nitrogen-based fertilizer application and cropping practices, are the largest source 

of N2O emissions in the US, accounting for 67.9 percent of the total N2O emissions attributable to 

agricultural land uses (USEPA 2012d). Agriculture sources of methane (CH4) emissions are 

primarily associated with enteric emissions of gas from cattle and manure management, and are 

responsible for 29 percent of CH4 emissions from anthropogenic activities in the US (USEPA 

2012d). CO2 is also a significant GHG associated with particular classes of crops planted, geographic 

location and soil types, and energy consumption (Cole et al. 1997). 

GHGs may be affected by the class of crop planted and soil types; trees, grasses and field crops 

each play a slightly different role in the global cycle of GHGs (Cole et al. 1997). For example, 

emissions of N2O, produced naturally in soils through microbial nitrification and denitrification, 

can be dramatically influenced by fertilization, introduction of grazing animals, cultivation of 

nitrogen-fixing crops and forage, retention of crop residues (i.e., no-till conservation), irrigation, 

and fallowing of land (USDS 2010). These agricultural practices can influence the decomposition 

of carbon-containing organic matter sequestered in soil, resulting in CO2 loss to the atmosphere. 

In agricultural soils, mineral and organic soils sequester approximately six times as much carbon as 

is emitted from these soils through liming and urea fertilization (USEPA 2012d). The mineral soil 

carbon sequestration is largely due to the conversion of cropland to permanent pastures and hay 

production, a reduction in summer fallow areas in semi-arid areas, an increase in the adoption of 

conservation tillage practices, and an increase in the amounts of organic fertilizers (i.e., manure 

and sewage sludge) applied to agriculture lands. EPA has identified regional differences in GHG 

emissions associated with agricultural practices on different soil types (USEPA 2012d). Mineral soils 

contain from 1 to 6 percent organic carbon by weight; conversion of such soils from their native state 

to agricultural uses can cause as much as 50 percent of the natural organic carbon to decompose and 

be released to the atmosphere. In contrast to mineral soils, organic soils may contain as much as 

20 percent carbon by weight. When such soils are prepared for agricultural use, they are aerated, 

accelerating decomposition and release of CO2 to the atmosphere. 

Tillage contributes to the release of GHGs from soil because of the loss of CO2 to the atmosphere 

from the exposure and oxidation of soil organic matter (Baker, Southard, and Mitchell 2005). 

Reduced tillage can limit the loss of CO2 to the atmosphere by preventing exposure and oxidation 

of soil organic matter (Baker, Southard, and Mitchell 2005; CAST 2009). In general, conservation 

tillage strategies are associated with more stable and increased carbon sequestration due to a net 

reduction in CO2 emissions (Lal and Bruce 1999; West and Marland 2002). Recent literature, 

however, suggests that the relationship between conservation tillage and increased carbon 
– 42 – 

sequestration requires more study, as soil depth level and seasonal sampling bias may inadvertently 

affect measurements (Baker et al. 2007; Potter et al. 1998). Increased N2O emissions as a result of 

conservation tillage strategies may offset any gains achieved through increased carbon 

sequestration (Gregorich et al. 2005). A broad generalization regarding the impact of tillage 

strategy and N2O emissions is difficult to make, as numerous factors influence soil nitrification 

cycles, including geographic location, soil structure, moisture, and farm-level management 

practices (Grandy et al. 2006; Gregorich et al. 2006; Rochette et al. 2008). 

The impacts of genetically engineered crop varieties on climate change are dependent on many 

variables including cropping systems, production practices, geographic distribution of activities, 

and individual grower decisions. Agriculture influences emissions that may contribute to climate 

change, and climate change, in turn, potentially affects agriculture through shifts in precipitation 

patterns and temperature ranges. The production of genetically engineered soybeans is expected to 

result in lower GHG emissions because fuel use would be reduced due to less frequent herbicide 

applications and soil cultivation (Brookes and Barfoot 2010). Most studies of corn, rice, sorghum, 

soybean, wheat, common forages, cotton, some fruits, and irrigated grains project likely climaterelated yield increases of 5 to 20 percent (Field et al. 2007). However, this positive impact would 

not be observed evenly across all regions as certain areas of the US are expected to be negatively 

impacted by substantially reduced water resources (i.e., increased drought). In addition, the current 

range of weeds and pests of agriculture is expected to change in response to climate change 

(USGCRP 2009). 

2.4 Biological Resources 

The biological resources described in this section include animals, plants, soil microorganisms, 

biodiversity, and soybean gene movement. Threatened and endangered species are discussed in 

Chapter 5. 

2.4.1 Animal Communities 

Soybean fields are host to many animal species. During the spring and summer months, soybean 

fields provide browse for rabbits, deer, rodents, other mammals, and birds such as upland 

gamebirds. Fields also provide a forage base for insects (Palmer, Bromley, and Anderson undated). 

During the winter months, leftover and unharvested soybeans provide a food source for wildlife; 

however, soybeans are poorly suited for meeting nutrient needs of wildlife, such as waterfowl, that 

require a high-energy diet (Krapu, Brandt, and Cox 2004). 

As discussed in Section 2.2.2.1, Cropping Practices, farmers that have shifted from conventional 

agricultural practices to conservation tillage and no-till practices have also been more inclined to 

plant genetically engineered herbicide-tolerant soybean varieties than farmers retaining 

conventional practices (Givens et al. 2009). The increased use of conservation tillage practices has 

benefitted wildlife through improved water quality, availability of waste grain, retention of cover in 

fields, and increased populations of invertebrates (Sharpe 2010). Conservation tillage practices that 

leave greater amounts of crop residue serve to increase the diversity and density of birds and 

mammals (USDA-NRCS 1999a). Increased residue also provides habitat for insects and other 
– 43 – 

arthropods, increasing this food source for insect predators. Insects are important during the spring 

and summer brood rearing season for many upland game birds and other birds, as they provide a 

protein-rich diet to fast growing young, as well as a nutrient-rich diet for migratory birds (USDANRCS 2003). 

Insects and other invertebrates can be beneficial to soybean production, providing biological 

services such as nutrient cycling and preying on plant pests. Although soybean is typically 

cleistogamous and not insect-pollinated, some varieties may be chasmogamous and insectmediated pollination has been reported (Ahrent and Caviness 1994; Erickson 1975). Soybean 

cultivars vary in their rate of nectar secretion and some varieties have been reported to be attractive 

to honeybees (Ahrent and Caviness 1994). Conversely, there are many insects and invertebrates 

that are detrimental to soybean crops (Palmer, Bromley, and Anderson undated; Whitworth, 

Michaud, and Davis 2012), including: 

 Bean leaf beetle (Cerotoma trifurcata) 

 Beet armyworm (Spodoptera exigua) 

 Blister beetle (Epicauta spp.) 

 Corn earworm (Helicoverpa zea) 

 Grasshopper (Acrididae spp.) 

 Green cloverworm (Hypena scabra) 

 Seed corn beetle (Stenolophus lecontei) 

 Seed corn maggot (Delia platura) 

 Soybean aphid (Aphis glycines) 

 Soybean looper (Pseudoplusia includens) 

 Soybean stem borer (Dectes texanus) 

 Spider mites (Tetranychus urticae) 

 Stink bug (green [Acrosternum hiliare] and brown [Euschistus spp.]) 

 Velvetbean caterpillar (Anticarsia gemmatalis) 

As described in Section 2.2.2.4, Management of Insects, insects are considered less problematic 

than weeds in US soybean production; however, insect injury can impact yield, plant maturity, and 

seed quality. Consequently, insect pests are sometimes managed during the growth and 

development of soybean to enhance soybean yield (Aref and Pike 1998). 

2.4.2 Plant Communities 

Soybean fields are typically bordered by other agricultural fields, pastures, woodlands, or 

grasslands; natural plant communities adjacent to fields may be important to biodiversity. From an 

agronomic perspective, the most important members of a surrounding plant community are those 

that can behave as weeds when they have invaded fields, as discussed in Section 2.2.2.6, 

Management of Weeds. Soybean agronomic performance can be reduced by weed competition for 

water, nutrients, and light. Adjacent natural or native plant communities that do not behave as 

weeds are important from an ecological perspective but not agronomically. 

Plants are classified as annuals, biennials, or perennials. An annual is a plant that completes its 

lifecycle in 1 year or less and reproduces only by seed. Biennials are plants that complete their life 
– 44 – 

cycles in 2 years. Perennials are plants that live for more than 2 years. Plants are also classified as 

broadleaf (dicots) or grass (monocots). Plants can reproduce by seeds, rhizomes (underground 

creeping stems), or other underground parts. Many plant species occur as weeds in fields. 

Plant communities adjacent to agricultural fields may be affected by spray drift or volatilization of 

herbicides applied to the nearby crops. Spray drift and volatilization are managed by adherence to 

the application requirements stated on EPA-approved herbicide labels. 

2.4.3 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, van Veen, and van 

Elsas 2004). The main factors affecting microbial population size and diversity include soil type 

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

providers of specific carbon and energy sources into the soil), and agricultural management 

practices (crop rotation, tillage, herbicide and fertilizer application, and irrigation) (Garbeva, van 

Veen, and van Elsas 2004), as described in Section 2.3.1, Soil. Plant roots, including those of 

soybeans, release a variety of compounds into the soil creating a unique environment for 

microorganisms in the rhizosphere. Microbial diversity in the rhizosphere may be extensive and 

different from the microbial community in bulk soil (Garbeva, van Veen, and van Elsas 2004). 

Decomposers (such as bacteria, actinomycetes [filamentous bacteria], and saprophytic fungi) 

degrade plant and animal remains, organic materials, and some pesticides (USDA-NRCS 2004). 

Other organisms (such as protozoa, mites, and nematodes) consume the decomposer microbes and 

release macro- and micronutrients, making them available for plant usage. Mutualists (mycorrhizal 

fungi, nitrogen-fixing bacteria, and some free-living microbes) have co-evolved with plants and 

supply nutrients to and obtain food from their plant hosts (USDA-NRCS 2004). 

Members of the bacterial families Rhizobiaceae and Bradyrhizobiaceae form a highly complex and 

specific symbiotic relationship with leguminous plants, including soybean (Gage 2004). The 

nitrogen-fixing plant/microbe symbiosis results in the formation of root nodules, providing an 

environment in which differentiated bacteria (bacteroids) are capable of reducing (fixing) 

atmospheric nitrogen. The product of nitrogen fixation, ammonia, then can be used by the plant. In 

soybean, atmospheric nitrogen is fixed into ammonia through a symbiotic association with the 

bacterium B. japonicum (Farooq and Vessey 2009). Since neither soybean nor B. japonicum is 

native to North America, if a field has not been planted with soybean in the last 3 to 5 years, either 

the seed or seed zone must be inoculated with the bacteria prior to soybean planting (Pedersen 

2007; Berglund and Helms 2003). 

2.4.4 Biodiversity 

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

provides valuable genetic resources for crop improvement (Harlan 1975). With reference to 

agriculture, biodiversity supports pollination, biological control, and nutrient recycling. These 

processes support competition against pests by natural enemies, improve soil structure, facilitate 
– 45 – 

soil and water conservation, suppress disease, control the local microclimate and local hydrological 

processes, and detoxify noxious chemicals (Altieri 1999). 

Relative to any natural ecosystem, species abundance and richness will generally be less in 

intensively managed agroecosystems.20 However, biomass may be higher as a result of introduced 

fertilizers and additional water that would not be present naturally. The degree of biodiversity in an 

agroecosystem depends on four primary characteristics (Altieri 1999; Palmer, Bromley, and 

Anderson undated): 

 Diversity of vegetation within and around the agroecosystem; 

 Permanence of various crops within the system; 

 Intensity of management; and 

 Extent of isolation of the agroecosystem from natural vegetation. 

Tillage, seed bed preparation, monoculture crop planting, pesticide use, fertilizer use, and harvest may 

all limit the diversity of plants and animals in an agricultural field (Lovett, Price, and Lovett 2003). 

Herbicide use in agricultural fields may impact biodiversity by decreasing weed species and other nonweedy plants present in the field and the insects, birds, and mammals that utilize those weeds. 

Reducing biodiversity may result in a need for costly management practices in order to provide the 

biological functions of pollination, genetic introgression, biological control, and nutrient recycling 

(Altieri 1999). Woodlots, fencerows, hedgerows, wetlands, and the like have been used to 

introduce biodiversity into large scale monocultures. Other enhancement strategies in 

agroecosystems include intercropping (planting of two or more crops simultaneously to occupy the 

same field), agroforestry, crop rotations, cover crops, no-tillage, composting, green manuring 

(growing a crop specifically for the purpose of incorporating it into the soil in order to provide 

nutrients and organic matter), addition of organic matter (compost, green manure, animal manure, 

etc.), and windbreaks (Altieri 1999). 

Agriculture interacts with biodiversity at the crop, farm, and/or landscape level (Carpenter 2011). 

In this ER, crop diversity refers to the absence of genetic uniformity within crops, farm level 

diversity refers to the level of complexity of organisms within the boundaries of a farm, and 

landscape level diversity refers to land use patterns beyond the farm boundaries (Carpenter 2011). 

Each of these levels is described in further detail below. 

2.4.4.1 Crop Diversity 

Genetic diversity in crops is beneficial as it may improve yields, pest and disease resistance, and 

quality in agricultural systems. Greater varietal and intra-species diversity enables growers to 

maintain productivity over a wide range of conditions (Krishna, Zilberman, and Qaim 2009). The 

adoption of genetic engineering technology might reduce grower demand for crop genetic diversity 

because breeding programs could concentrate on a smaller number of high value cultivars, which 

could reduce the availability of, and demand for, non-genetically engineered varieties (Carpenter 

2011; Krishna, Zilberman, and Qaim 2009). However, several studies involving genetically 

engineered soybeans and cotton have found this not to be the case, indicating that the introduction of 

20 An agroecosystem is the organisms and environment of an agricultural area when considered as an ecosystem. 
– 46 – 

genetically engineered cultivars has not decreased crop species diversity (Carpenter 2011; Krishna, 

Zilberman, and Qaim 2009). 

Concern about the loss of genetic variability for crops has led to the establishment of a worldwide 

network of gene banks. The USDA Soybean Germplasm Collection, which is part of the National 

Plant Germplasm System, acquires, maintains, and evaluates soybean germplasm and distributes 

seed samples to scientists in 35 states (Peregrine 2003). Nationwide, there are over 21,850 soybean 

varieties (USDA-ARS 2012) that provide a vast reservoir of genetic diversity for crop 

development. 

2.4.4.2 Farm-Level Biodiversity 

As noted previously, agricultural practices have the potential to impact biodiversity at the farm 

level by affecting local biota, including birds, wildlife, invertebrates, soil microorganisms, and 

other plant populations. For example, increased adoption of conservation tillage practices is 

associated with the use of genetically engineered herbicide-tolerant crops (Givens et al. 2009). 

Less tillage provides more wildlife habitat by allowing other plants to establish between crop rows; 

this benefits biodiversity but may adversely affect crop productivity. Conservation tillage also 

leaves a higher rate of plant residue and increases soil organic matter, which benefit soil biota by 

providing additional food sources (energy) (USDA-NRCS 1996) and increasing the diversity of 

soil microorganisms, as discussed in Section 2.4.3, Soil Microorganisms. In addition, invertebrates 

that feed on plant detritus and the other animals (invertebrates, birds, reptiles, and mammals) that 

prey on them may benefit from conservation tillage practices (Carpenter 2011). 

Herbicide use in agricultural fields may impact biodiversity by decreasing weed or non-weed plant 

quantities or causing a shift in weed or non-weed plant species present in the field, which could 

affect the insects, birds, and mammals that utilize these species. The quantity and type of herbicide 

use associated with crops is dependent on many variables, including cropping systems (including 

non-genetically engineered and genetically engineered varieties), type and abundance of weeds, 

production practices, and individual grower decisions. 

2.4.4.3 Landscape-Level Biodiversity 

The greatest direct impact of agriculture on biodiversity at the landscape level results from the loss 

of natural habitats caused by the conversion of natural ecosystems into agricultural land. Increases 

in crop yields, as observed in the last 10 years in soybean production, have the potential to reduce 

impacts to biodiversity by allowing less land to be converted to agriculture than would otherwise 

be necessary (Carpenter 2011). However, substantial gains in yields have generally not been 

obtained by herbicide-tolerant cultivars unless the herbicide tolerance trait has been introduced into 

higher yielding cultivars (NRC 2010). 

The use of herbicides also has the potential to impact biodiversity at the landscape level. Increased 

conservation tillage practices associated with herbicide-tolerant crops at the farm scale but 

implemented over large areas may regionally increase certain populations of invertebrates and 

wildlife that benefit from conservation tillage, whereas the species dependent on the targeted 

weeds may be negatively impacted. For example, it has been suggested that reductions in monarch 
– 47 – 

butterfly (Danaus plexippus) populations overwintering in Mexico might be attributed in part to 

loss of host milkweed (Asclepias syriaca) plants in the Corn Belt from the extensive use of 

glyphosate on corn and soybean fields (Brower et al. 2011; Pleasants and Oberhauser 2012). Other 

factors implicated in the decline in overwintering populations include loss of wintering habitat in 

Mexico (Brower et al. 2011). However, monarch populations are very dynamic because of the high 

reproductive potential of this species and population shifts cannot be easily correlated with one 

factor (Davis 2011). Potential reductions in landscape-level biodiversity can also result from the 

effects of herbicides on non-target plant species. Such potential impacts on non-target plants are 

managed by adherence to the application requirements stated on EPA-approved herbicide labels. 

The crop protection industry has taken a proactive approach to helping farmers protect and enhance 

farm-level and landscape-level biodiversity through extensive outreach and education programs. 

For example, along several programs sponsored or supported by one or both companies, Syngenta 

and Bayer provide support to the Coalition for Urban/Rural Environmental Stewardship21 and the 

Center for Integrated Pest Management.22 These programs promote environmental stewardship and 

provide information and guidance on biodiversity issues such as conservation buffers, wildlife 

habitat, wildlife stewardship, and pollinator health and protection. 

2.4.5 Gene Movement in the Natural Environment 

Gene flow is the movement of genes from one population to another, conferring new traits – the 

biophysical characteristics of the source organism – to individuals of the recipient population (Quist 

2010). This happens by cross-pollination (also called hybridization): the pollination of members of one 

population or genetic pool with pollen from another. Vertical gene transfer is genetic information that is 

passed ‘down’ from parents to offspring or related species. Horizontal gene transfer is the passage of 

genes from one organism to an unrelated one by means other than inheritance. Vertical gene flow often 

results in introgression, the establishment of alleles (gene variants), or wholly new genes (as is the case 

with transgenes) in the recipient population. There is no evidence that horizontal gene transfer can 

naturally occur between unrelated plant species (Stewart, Halfhill, and Warwick 2003). 

Characteristics that favor natural hybridization between two populations of related species include 

(Mallory-Smith and Zapiola 2008): 

 Presence of feral populations and uncontrolled volunteers; 

 Presence of a high number of highly compatible relatives; 

 Self-incompatibility; 

 Large pollen source; 

 Large amounts of pollen produced per plant; 

 Lightweight pollen; 

 Strong winds (wind pollinated); 

 Large insect populations (insect pollinated); and 

 Long pollen viability. 

21 http://curesworks.org

22 http://pesticidestewardship.org
– 48 – 

None of these characteristics occur in soybeans. Soybean is not native to the US and there are no 

feral or weedy relatives. Soybean is a self-pollinated species, propagated by seed (OECD 2000), 

and does not require insects to pollinate flowers. Flowers are typically cleistogamous but, in some 

cultivars and under some conditions, may be chasmogamous and insects may transfer pollen 

(Chiari et al. 2005; Ahrent and Caviness 1994; Ray et al. 2003; Erickson 1975). Insect-mediated 

cross-pollination to adjacent plants may occur through pollinating insects such as honeybees. 

Incidental pollen transfer by nonpollinating insects occurs at very low frequency (typically less 

than 1 percent with narrow row spacing) (Caviness 1966; Ray et al. 2003; Yoshimura, Matsuo, and 

Yasuda 2006). There is little potential for gene flow from one plant to another. 

Gene movement can be enabled by dormancy or volunteer characteristics, which can allow the 

plant to survive outside of normal agriculture. Cultivated soybean seed rarely displays any 

dormancy characteristics and only under certain environmental conditions grows as a volunteer in 

the year following cultivation (OECD 2000). Volunteer soybean seed is typically not viable after 

the winter period in the northern US. In the southern US soybean seed may remain viable over the 

winter and germinate the following spring (Carpenter et al. 2002; OECD 2000). However, 

volunteers do not compete well with the succeeding crop and are easily controlled mechanically or 

chemically. There is a wide range of herbicides available to control volunteers of herbicide-tolerant 

soybean (York et al 2005). As described in Section 2.1, Soybean Biology, Glycine max is not 

weedy in character and is not found outside of cultivation in North America. 

2.5 Public Health 

Public health concerns related to soybeans stem from human consumption of soybean and soybean 

food products, animal (livestock) consumption of soybean feed products, and the indirect effect on 

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

2.5.1 Human Health 

Soybean oil makes up 94 percent of the soybean food ingredients consumed by humans (OECD 

2001). The essential amino acids required by humans are present in soybean proteins. Soy protein 

products are added to a number of meat, dairy, bakery, and cereal products as protein extenders. Soy 

sprouts, baked soybeans, roasted soybeans, soy flour, and traditional soy foods (miso, soy milk, soy 

sauce and tofu) round out the soy-based products present in the human diet. 

Soybeans also contain several antinutrients, with potential effects on humans, that are offset by 

heating or processing (OECD 2001): 

 Protease inhibitors are active against trypsin and chymotrypsin, and interfere with the 

digestion of proteins resulting in decreased animal growth. The activity of these inhibitors is 

destroyed when the bean or meal is toasted or heated during processing. 

 Lectins are proteins that bind to carbohydrate-containing molecules. Lectins in raw soybeans 

can inhibit growth and cause death in animals and, potentially, in humans. Lectins are rapidly 

degraded upon heating. 
– 49 – 

 Soybeans naturally contain a number of isoflavone compounds reported to possess 

biochemical activity, including estrogenic, anti-estrogenic, and hypocholesterolemic effects, 

in mammalian species. Processing significantly reduces isoflavone isomers in the final soy 

products. 

 The low molecular weight carbohydrates stachyose and raffinose are considered antinutrients due 

to the gas production and resulting flatulence caused by their consumption. Further processing of 

soybean meal into concentrate or isolate reduces or removes these oligosaccharides. 

 Phytic acid chelates mineral nutrients (including calcium, magnesium, potassium, iron, and 

zinc), rendering them unavailable to humans consuming the soybeans. 

 Saline extracts of soybeans have been reported to contain several antigenic proteins which 

can orally sensitize humans. The presence of these allergenic proteins in the diet of 

hypersensitive individuals can cause severe adverse reactions in the gastrointestinal tract. 

Nontransgenic soybean 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 US 

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 

properly labeled. Food and feed derived from genetically engineered soybean must be in 

compliance with all applicable legal and regulatory requirements. 

Genetically engineered organisms for food and feed may undergo a voluntary consultation process 

with the FDA prior to release onto the market (USDHHS-USFDA 1992). Although voluntary, thus 

far all applicants who have wished to commercialize a genetically engineered variety of a plant that 

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

consultation, a developer who intends to commercialize a bioengineered food consults 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 (USDHHS-USFDA 1997). This process includes the developer’s submission of the 

following information to the FDA: 

 The purpose or intended technical effect of the modification, and its expected effect on the 

composition or characteristic properties of the food or feed. 

 The identity and function of expression products encoded by the introduced genetic material, 

including an estimate of the concentration of any expression product in the bioengineered 

crop or food derived thereof. 

 Any known or suspected allergenicity or toxicity of expression products and the basis for 

concluding that foods containing the expression products can be safely consumed. 

 Comparison of the composition or characteristics of the bioengineered food to that of food 

derived from the parental variety or other commonly consumed varieties with special 

emphasis on important nutrients and toxicants that occur naturally in the food. 

 Discussion of the whether the potential for the bioengineered food to induce an allergic 

response has been altered by the genetic modification. 
– 50 – 

 Any other information relevant to the safety and nutritional assessment of the bioengineered 

food. 

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 safety 

associated with food and feed items derived from genetically engineered crops; these agencies 

include the European Food Safety Agency (EFSA) and the Australia and New Zealand Food 

Standards Agency (ANZFS). 

Foods derived through biotechnology also undergo a comprehensive safety evaluation before 

entering the world market, including reviews under standards set by the CODEX, the EFSA, and the 

World Health Organization (FAO and WHO 2009; Hammond and Jez 2011). Food safety reviews 

compare the compositional characteristics of the genetically engineered crop with nontransgenic, 

conventional varieties of that crop (FAO and WHO 2009). This comparison also evaluates the 

composition of the modified crop under actual agronomic conditions, including various agronomic 

inputs. Composition characteristics evaluated in these comparative tests include moisture, protein, 

fat, carbohydrates, ash, minerals, dietary fiber, essential and non-essential amino acids, fatty acids, 

vitamins, and antinutrients. 

There are multiple ways in which organisms can be genetically modified through human 

intervention. Traditional methods include breeding or crossing an organism to elicit the expression of 

a desired trait, while more contemporary approaches include the use of biotechnology such as genetic 

engineering to produce new organisms (NRC 2004). 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 of their study in 2004), no 

adverse health effects attributed to genetic engineering had been documented in the human 

population. Reviews on the nutritional quality of genetically engineered foods have generally 

concluded that there are no significant nutritional differences in conventional versus genetically 

engineered plants for food or animal feed (Faust 2002; Flachowsky, Chesson, and Aulrich 2005). 

2.5.2 Worker Safety 

Workers engaged in soybean production may encounter insecticides, herbicides, fungicides, or 

fertilizers that do not pose a worker health or safety risk when used in accordance with the 

agriculture-specific requirements established by EPA in the Worker Protection Standard (WPS) 

that protects field workers from the hazards of chemical exposure (USEPA 1992). The 

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

from hazards associated with chemicals. 

Most soybean acreage in the US is treated with pesticides; herbicides are the most commonly 

applied pesticides, but some acres are treated with insecticides and/or fungicides. Changes in 

acreage, crops, or farming practices can affect the amounts and types of pesticides used and thus 

change the risks to workers. Registered pesticides must have use restrictions that, if followed, have 

been determined to be protective of worker health. 
– 51 – 

EPA-approved measures to limit worker exposure to pesticides are listed on product labels. The WPS 

requires certain actions to reduce the risk of pesticide poisonings and injuries among agricultural 

workers and pesticide handlers. The WPS offers protection to more than 2.5 million agricultural 

workers who work with pesticides at more than 600,000 workplaces on farms, forests, nurseries, and 

greenhouses (USEPA 2012f). 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. 

2.5.3 Animal (Livestock) Health 

Animal agriculture consumes 98 percent of the soybean meal produced in the US (GINA 2011; 

Soyatech 2012). Poultry consume more than 48 percent of domestic soybean meal (13 million tons), 

with soy oil increasingly replacing animal fats and oils in broiler diets (Soystats 2010). Other animals 

fed domestic soybean (by crop volumes consumed) include swine (26 percent), beef cattle 

(12 percent), dairy cattle (9 percent), other (e.g., farm-raised fish; 3 percent), and household pets 

(2 percent) (Soystats 2010). Soybean can be the dominant component of livestock diets: for example, 

upwards of 66 percent of poultry protein intake is derived from soy (Waldroup and Smith undated). 

Because of the presence of anti-nutritional factors in raw soybean, there is very limited consumption 

of the unprocessed bean. Most livestock is fed the protein-enriched seed meal left after extraction of 

soybean oil. Treated whole beans, hulls and the vegetative parts of the plant in a fresh or conserved 

state are also used to a limited extent, primarily for cattle. Soybean has a long history in the US as a 

nutritious grazing forage, hay, and silage crop for livestock (Blount et al. 2009). Soybean may be 

harvested for hay or grazed from the flowering stage to near maturity; the best soybean for forage 

is in the beginning pod stage. For silage, it should be harvested at maturity before leaf loss, and 

mixed with a carbohydrate source, such as corn, for optimal fermentation characteristics. Varieties 

of soybean have been developed specifically for grazing and hay, but use of the standard grain 

varieties are recommended by some because of the whole plant feeding value (Weiderholt and 

Albrecht 2003). 

Similar to the regulatory control for direct human consumption of soybean under the FFDCA, it is 

the responsibility of livestock feed manufacturers to ensure that the products they market are safe 

and properly labeled. Feed derived from genetically engineered soybean must comply with all 

applicable legal and regulatory requirements, which are designed to protect human health. To help 

ensure compliance, a voluntary consultation process with FDA may be implemented before release 

of genetically engineered plants in animal feed into the market, following the process described 

above. Thus far all applicants who wish to commercialize a genetically engineered variety that will 

be included in the feed supply have completed a consultation with the FDA. 

2.6 Socioeconomic Factors 

Soybean agriculture can affect socioeconomic resources such as the domestic trade environment, 

foreign trade environment, and the socioeconomic environment. This section describes key current 

issues within each of these topics. 
– 52 – 

2.6.1 Domestic Trade Environment 

In 2010, 76 million acres of soybeans were cultivated in the US, yielding 3.3 billion bushels at a 

value of $38.9 billion (USDA-NASS 2011a). The top ten producing states (Iowa, Illinois, 

Minnesota, Indiana, Nebraska, Ohio, Missouri, South Dakota, Kansas, and North Dakota) 

accounted for more than 80 percent of this production. US inventory in 2010 (2009 remaining 

stocks plus 2010 production) totaled 3.5 billion bushels. Almost all of the US soybean supply 

(95.6 percent in 2009/10) comes from domestic production and almost all of this supply 

(96.8 percent) is either exported or crushed for meal and oil (USDA-ERS 2011c, 2011a; 

O’Donoghue et al. 2011). Approximately 43 percent of US soybean is destined for the export 

market (USDA-ERS 2010b) and the remaining 57 percent of US soybean is primarily utilized to 

produce soybean meal for feed, with lesser amounts processed for soybean oil for industrial or 

consumption purposes; seed and residuals; or ending stock for storage. Only a small proportion of 

the soybean crop is consumed directly by humans (GINA 2011). 

Managing production costs is a major component of the economics of producing a soybean crop. 

Key cost decisions include the choice of which soybean varieties to plant, the amount of fertilizer 

to apply, and which herbicide program to use. USDA-ERS conducts production cost surveys every 

4 to 8 years for each commodity as part of the annual Agricultural Research Management Survey 

(ARMS). Forecasted total 2012 operating costs were $144.21 per planted soybean acre and 

forecasted 2013 operating costs were $146.40. The projected 2013 total costs were comprised of 

purchased seed ($61.48), fertilizer and soil amendments ($22.91), other chemicals ($17.54), fuel, 

lubricant, and electricity ($22.18), repairs ($14.71), other variable expenses ($0.15), and interest on 

operating capital ($0.55) (USDA-ERS 2012c). The rise in crop production input prices is attributed 

to the increased use of more expensive seeds with complex genetic traits, increased use of fertilizer 

that has increased in price primarily in response to rising natural gas prices, and a rise in pesticide 

costs coupled with an increase in overall crop acreage (USDA-ERS 2012a). 

The USDA-ERS recognizes resource regions that vary in terms of land productivity and cost of 

production. The most productive of these regions are the Heartland and Northern Crescent; the least 

productive are the Eastern Uplands, Southern Seaboard, and Mississippi Portal (Fernandez-Cornejo 

and McBride 2000). While the Heartland and Northern Crescent regions have high production costs, 

their higher productivity results in greater profitability. In 2010, the US total gross average value of 

soybean production per planted acre was $449.32 and the average price of a bushel of soybeans at 

harvest was $9.56 (USDA-ERS 2011b). Economic returns since 1948 (when record-keeping began) 

have increased from $48 per acre to $486 per acre in 2011, as shown in Figure 2-5. 

The US soybean market represents approximately 8 percent of the total value of agricultural sector 

production (USDA-ERS 2012h) and 25 percent of the value of all field crops (USDA-NASS 2012c). 

Cash receipts from US soybean sales are expected to experience a decline in 2013 from 2012 

values, from $42.6 billion to $38.1 billion (USDA-ERS 2013d). However, the value of production 

is expected to increase from $39.4 billion to $40.5 billion, due in part to the higher forecast price 

described below. 
– 53 – 

Figure 2-5 Return per Acre of Soybeans, 1948-2011 

Source: (USDA-ERS 2011b) 

Note: Excluding government payments 

Prices paid to farmers ranged between $4 and $8 per bushel from 1986 until 2006, but in 

subsequent years were in the range of $12 per bushel (Soystats 2011a). As of early March 2013, 

soybeans prices were at $14.73 per bushel (RCG 2013) and the price range forecast by USDA-ERS 

for the 2012/2013 season was $13.55 to $15.05 per bushel (USDA-ERS 2013b). 

There is a niche market for nontransgenic food and feed in the US, as is evident from private labeling 

initiatives such as the Non-GMO Project.23 This initiative offers third-party product verification and 

labeling for nontransgenic products. There also is a niche market for organic products in the US. 

Sales of organic products have been growing quickly, from $1 billion in 1990 to $26.7 billion in 

2010, with a 7.7 percent increase between 2009 and 2010 alone (OTA 2011). To satisfy the demand 

for organic soybean, producers have adopted specific production practices to maintain and prevent 

the use of excluded methods as dictated by the NOP. To offset the increase in investment related to 

these more extensive practices, premiums are often paid for nontransgenic or organic soybean. For 

example, the price for non-organic soybean (the majority of which is used for livestock feed) in early 

March 2013 was nearly $14.75 per bushel, as mentioned above, whereas organic soybean for 

livestock feed ranged between $25.00 and $27.25 per bushel (USDA-AMS 2013). 

There is consistent evidence that farmers obtain substantial financial and non-financial benefits as a 

result of adoption of genetically engineered crops as opposed to nontransgenic (but not “organic”) 

crops (Duke and Powles 2009; Fernandez-Cornejo and McBride 2000; Fernandez-Cornejo, KlotzIngram, and Jans 2002). These benefits include: 

 An opportunity to increase income from off-farm labor; 

 Increased flexibility and simplicity in the application of pesticides; 

23 http://www.nongmoproject.org/. 
– 54 – 

 An ability to adopt more environmentally friendly farming practices; 

 Increased consistency of weed control; 

 Increased human safety; 

 Equipment savings; and 

 Labor savings. 

2.6.2 Foreign Trade Environment 

The US was the largest soybean seed producing country in 2011 (the latest year for which 

complete data are available), followed by Brazil and Argentina (Table 2-9). These three exporters 

account for approximately 81 percent of the global soybean exports in the form of harvested seed, 

meal, or oil (USDA-ERS 2011c). Currently, the US produces approximately 33 percent of the 

global soybean supply (Soystats 2012a). 

Table 2-9 World Soybean Production, 2011 

Country 

Production 

(millions of metric tons) Percent of Market 

United States 83.2 33% 

Brazil 72.0 29% 

Argentina 48.0 19% 

China 13.5 5% 

Canada 4.2 2% 

India 11.0 4% 

Paraguay 6.4 3% 

Other 13.1 5% 

Total 251.5 100% 

Source: (Soystats 2011b) 

Table 2-10 presents the leading exporters of bulk soybean, meal, and oil products in 2011/2012 

(the latest season for which complete data are available). Forecasts for the 2012/2013 season show 

Brazil exceeding US exports (USDA-ERS 2013b). The US, along with Brazil, Argentina, 

Paraguay, and Canada, accounted for 97 percent of the bulk soybean exported, while Argentina, 

Brazil, the US, India, and Paraguay accounted for 94.1 percent of the soybean meal exported. 

Argentina, the US, and Brazil are the dominant countries in terms of soybean oil exports, 

accounting for 80.2 percent in 2011/2012. 
– 55 – 

Table 2-10 World Soybean Exports in 2011/12 

Location 

Soybean Product 

Bulk Meal Oil 

Exports (thousand metric tons) 

Argentina 7.37 26.02 3.78 

Bolivia --1 -- 0.32 

Brazil 36.32 14.68 1.89 

Canada 2.93 -- -- 

EU-272

 -- -- 0.68 

India -- 4.60 -- 

Paraguay 3.10 0.90 0.18 

Russia -- -- 0.17 

United States 37.06 8.84 0.66 

Other 3.55 3.95 0.81 

Source: (USDA-FAS 2012) 

1 -- = no data 

2 European Union 27 member countries 

Table 2-11 presents the top 10 US export markets for soybean by volume for the 2011/2012 

marketing season in comparison to the previous three marketing seasons. China, Mexico, and the 

European Union 27 member countries (EU-27) were the top three importers in the last marketing 

season (USDA-FAS 2013). US soybean exports are projected to increase to approximately 

1.5 billion bushels (33.2 million metric tons) in 2020 (USDA-OCE 2011). 

Table 2-11 Top 10 US Soybean Export Markets in 2011/2012 Compared to Previous Years 

Location 

Marketing Season 

2011/2012 2010/2011 2009/2010 2008/2009 

Exports (metric tons) 

China 489,598 303,154 -388 105,832 

Germany 75,845 0 65,995 0 

Indonesia 20,489 64,059 70,992 80,200 

Israel 31,912 0 -22,432 8,000 

Japan 63,395 24,874 75,438 50,510 

Malaysia 3,057 223 26,160 0 

Mexico 113,057 29,816 13,510 33,819 

Saudi Arabia 72,575 0 0 0 

Thailand 34,105 603 6,240 0 

Turkey 27,705 38,235 3,847 18,000 

Source: (USDA-FAS 2013)
– 56 – 

US soybean and soy product exports exceeded $21.5 billion in 2011. China was the largest 

customer for US soybeans with purchases exceeding $10.4 billion. Mexico was the second largest 

market for US soybeans with purchases of nearly $1.6 billion. Other significant buyers included 

Japan with purchases of $954 million and Indonesia with purchases of $859 million. Soybeans 

produced in China and India are primarily for domestic use, but China’s imports of soybean are 

expected to account for more than 78 percent of the projected global gain in production by 

2019/2020. For the top ten US export customers, the value of soybean and soybean products (meal 

and oil) in 2011 (the most recent year for which detailed data are available) is shown in Table 2-12. 

Table 2-12 US Export Markets for Soybean and Soybean Products (2011) 

Soybean Exports Soybean Meal Exports Soybean Oil Exports 

Location 

Value 

($M) Location 

Value 

($M) Location 

Value 

($M) 

China 10,453 Canada 375 Morocco 336

Mexico 1,651 Mexico 369 Mexico 194

Japan 954 Venezuela 260 China 129

Indonesia 859 Philippines 229 Colombia 77

Taiwan 704 Morocco 221 Algeria 72

Egypt 301 Dominican Republic 145 Dominican Republic 71

Germany 286 Japan 119 Venezuela 57

South Korea 267 Guatemala 110 Guatemala 52

Spain 194 Ecuador 84 Canada 47

Thailand 176 South Korea 71 Peru 36

Other 1,720 Other 720 Other 196

Total 17,564 Total 2,702 Total 1,268

Source: (Soystats 2012b) 

2.6.3 Social and Economic Environment 

Social issues related to soybeans include farmer and consumer choice, as well as the sustainability 

of US soybean farms. Farmers can select from a range of options in agronomic practices, seed 

products (nontransgenic, transgenic, and organic), and markets for their products. Consumers have 

a range of soybean products to choose from in a free market system such as the US. 

The rotation of crops between soybean and corn drives much of the economic environment for US 

farmers. Soybean acreage planted in the last 3 years has hovered around 76 to 77 million acres, as 

described in Section 2.2.1, Current and Projected Acreage and Range of Soybean Production. 

Higher per-bushel prices, as described in Section 2.6.1, Domestic Trade Environment, may result in 

the forecasted rebound in soybean plantings for 2013. 
– 57 – 

As described in Section 2.2.2.6, Management of Weeds, millions of corn and soybean acres in the 

US are now infested with glyphosate-resistant weeds (Boerboom and Owen 2006). Nearly 

40 million acres are expected to be infested in the US in 2013. The economic impact of these 

resistant weed populations can be significant for growers. One economic analysis places this cost 

in the range of $12 to $18 per acre (Mueller et al. 2005). 

Genetically engineered traits such as herbicide tolerance, as described in Section 2.2, Agricultural 

Production of Soybean, offer opportunities for making agriculture more sustainable, as is evident 

by their rapid adoption. The introduction of glyphosate-tolerant soybeans in the US in 1996 

revolutionized the way that growers managed weeds in their soybean fields. Growers rapidly 

adopted the technology because of its effectiveness and ease of use, and by 2012 93 percent of 

soybean acres in the US were planted with genetically engineered varieties, virtually all with 

herbicide tolerance traits (USDA-NASS 2012b). 
– 58 – 

This page intentionally left blank. 
– 59 – 

3 ALTERNATIVES 

This Chapter describes the alternatives considered regarding deregulation of SYHT0H2 soybean. 

To approve the petition for nonregulated status, APHIS must first determine that 

SYHT0H2 soybean is unlikely to pose a plant pest risk. If the Plant Pest Risk Assessment (PPRA) 

determines that SYHT0H2 soybean is unlikely to pose a plant pest risk, APHIS must conclude that 

SYHT0H2 soybean is no longer subject to 7 CFR part 340 or the plant pest provisions of the PPA. 

3.1 No Action: Continuation as a Regulated Article 

Under the No Action Alternative, APHIS would deny the petition and the status quo would be 

maintained. SYHT0H2 soybean and progeny derived from SYHT0H2 soybean would continue to 

be regulated articles. SYHT0H2 soybean would be grown under USDA notification or permit and 

confined release conditions. It would have restricted availability to growers. Measures to ensure 

physical and reproductive confinement would continue to be implemented. Growers would 

continue to use other deregulated transgenic soybean varieties, currently comprising some 

93 percent of the US soybean market, or nontransgenic soybean cultivars (including organic 

soybeans) that are available without restrictions. APHIS could choose this alternative if there were 

insufficient evidence to demonstrate the lack of plant pest risk from the unconfined cultivation of 

SYHT0H2 soybean. 

As documented in Chapter 4, SYHT0H2 soybean is unlikely to pose a plant pest risk. 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. Additionally, this alternative would 

not satisfy the product purpose of and need for the product: providing growers with an additional 

product to control weeds, including herbicide resistant weeds. This product is expected to help 

prevent or delay the development of herbicide resistant weeds and extend the useful life of other 

commercially available soybean herbicides, provide more flexibility in herbicide applications and 

economic benefits for growers, and increase competition in the marketplace for herbicide tolerant 

seed products. 

3.2 Preferred Alternative: Determination that SYHT0H2 Soybean is No 

Longer a Regulated Article 

Under the Preferred Alternative, SYHT0H2 soybean and its progeny would no longer be regulated 

articles under the regulations at 7 CFR part 340. As documented in Chapter 4, SYHT0H2 soybean 

is unlikely to pose a plant pest risk. Permits issued or notifications acknowledged by APHIS would 

no longer be required for introductions of SYHT0H2 soybean and progeny derived from this event. 

This alternative best meets the purpose and need to respond appropriately to a petition seeking 

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

the plant pest provisions of the PPA. Because SYHT0H2 soybean is unlikely to pose a plant pest 

risk, a determination of nonregulated status of SYHT0H2 soybean is a response that is consistent 
– 60 – 

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

biotechnology regulatory policies in the Coordinated Framework. 

Under this alternative, growers may have future access to SYHT0H2 soybean and progeny derived 

from this event if the developer decides to commercialize SYHT0H2 soybean. SYHT0H2 soybean 

may be sold as a stand-alone product, or potentially “stacked” with other transgenes by 

conventional plant breeding to deliver other genetically engineered traits, such as: 

 Tolerance of other herbicidal modes of action; 

 Resistance to insects; or 

 Improvement of performance characteristics. 

As described in the Petition (Syngenta 2012c), SYHT0H2 soybean exhibits tolerance to 

mesotrione and isoxaflutole herbicides, inhibitors of HPPD, and to glufosinate-ammonium 

herbicide, an inhibitor of glutamine synthetase. The herbicide-tolerance traits in SYHT0H2 

soybean will provide growers with more tools and greater flexibility and diversity in weed 

management options, and contribute to more sustainable weed management when used in 

combination with other herbicides and weed management tactics. In order to promote the 

responsible use of SYHT0H2 soybean and advance weed management to minimize the potential 

for weeds to develop resistance to these herbicides, the Petitioners have developed a stewardship 

program that is detailed in Appendix F of the Petition. 

3.3 Comparison of Alternatives 

Table 3-1 summarizes the potential environmental consequences associated with selection of either 

the No Action Alternative or the Preferred Alternative. An objective evaluation of the No Action 

Alternative’s and Preferred Alternative’s potential impacts is provided in Chapter 4, Environmental 

Consequences. 
– 61 – 

Table 3-1: Summary of Environmental Consequences and Regulatory Compliance 

Attribute/Measure 

Alternative 

No Action Preferred 

Meets Purpose and Need, and Objectives No Yes

Unlikely to pose a plant pest risk Satisfied through use of 

regulated field trials

Satisfied through plant pest risk 

assessment 

Soybean Production

Acreage and areas of soybean production Unchanged Unchanged

Cropping practices Unchanged Unchanged

Pesticide use Unchanged Unchanged

Organic soybean production Unchanged Unchanged

Specialty soybean production Unchanged Unchanged

Physical Environment 

Water quality Unchanged Unchanged

Soil Unchanged Unchanged

Air quality Unchanged Unchanged

Climate Unchanged Unchanged

Biological Environment 

Animals Unchanged Unchanged

Plants Unchanged Unchanged

Soil Microorganisms Unchanged Unchanged

Biodiversity Unchanged Unchanged

Gene movement Unchanged Unchanged

Public Health 

Human health Unchanged Unchanged

Animal (livestock) health Unchanged Unchanged

Worker safety Unchanged Unchanged

Social and Economic Factors 

Domestic trade environment Unchanged Unchanged

Foreign trade environment Unchanged Unchanged

Social and economic environment Unchanged Unchanged

Cumulative Effects 

Agronomic practices Unchanged Unchanged

Physical environment Unchanged Unchanged

Biological environment Unchanged Unchanged

Social and economic factors Unchanged Unchanged

Threatened and Endangered Species Unchanged Unchanged

Other Regulatory Approvals

US FDA consultation FDA consultation 

Compliance with Other Laws

CWA, CAA, ESA, EOs Fully compliant Fully compliant
– 62 – 

This page intentionally left blank. 
– 63 – 

4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

This Chapter describes the potential environmental consequences of the two alternatives under 

consideration: the No Action Alternative and the Preferred Alternative. As described in Chapter 3, 

under the No Action Alternative SYHT0H2 soybean would continue to be a regulated article as 

defined by the PPA. Environmental releases of SYHT0H2 soybean would be regulated by APHIS, 

as they have been since 2008.24 Limited field tests would be allowed, but the product would not be 

marketed. Under the Preferred Alternative, APHIS would determine that SYHT0H2 soybean does 

not pose a plant pest risk. SYHT0H2 soybean would no longer be regulated under the PPA and the 

Petitioners would market this product as a stand-alone product or in breeding stacks with other 

transgenic soybean traits. 

This Chapter provides an evaluation of the direct and indirect effects of the No Action Alternative 

and the Preferred Alternative. A cumulative effects analysis is provided in Chapter 5 for selected 

resources, and an evaluation of the potential impacts to threatened or endangered species is 

provided in Chapter 6. 

4.1 Introduction 

This Section 4.1 describes the scope and methodology of the analysis, and assumptions adopted in 

Chapter 4. Sections 4.2 through 4.6 describe the potential direct and indirect impacts to 

environmental and human resources from the No Action Alternative and the Preferred Alternative 

for SYHT0H2 soybean. 

4.1.1 Scope of the Environmental Analysis 

The environmental consequences of selecting either alternative may directly, indirectly, or 

cumulatively affect certain resources in some areas. As required by regulations implementing the 

NEPA promulgated by CEQ (CEQ 1978), an analysis of the environmental consequences 

discusses the direct and indirect effects of a proposed action, and their significance. APHIS’s 

agency-specific NEPA regulations refer to CEQ guidance in defining environmental consequences 

(USDA 2013b)25. Direct effects26 are defined by the CEQ as those “which are caused by the action 

and occur at the same time and place.” Indirect effects27 are defined as those “which are caused by 

the action and are later in time or farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable. 

Indirect effects may include growth inducing effects and other effects related to induced changes in 

the pattern of land use, population density or growth rate, and related effects on air and water and 

other natural systems, including ecosystems.” 

24 Appendix A of the Petition lists permits/authorizations in chronological order. 

25 Section 372.4, Definitions

26 Section 1508.8, Effects, Paragraph (a) 

27 Section 1508.8, Effects, Paragraph (b) 
– 64 – 

The potential impacts to the resources described in Chapter 2 were analyzed, including soybean 

production practices as well as physical, biological, public health, and socioeconomic resources. 

The resources analyzed are of public interest or are potentially affected by the Preferred 

Alternative and are commonly addressed in APHIS’s NEPA evaluations of their plant pest risk 

decisions. Resources that have no potential to be affected by the Preferred Alternative, such as 

coastal zones or ambient noise, are not addressed in this report. The Preferred Alternative’s 

potential direct or indirect effects from SYHT0H2 soybean as a stand-alone product (i.e., not 

combined with other transgenic traits through breeding; potential impacts from stacked traits are 

addressed in Chapter 5, Cumulative Impacts) on the analyzed resources were compared to how 

those resources may be affected if the No Action Alternative is selected. Direct effects were 

considered to be the impacts that may result from SYHT0H2 soybean itself; indirect effects were 

considered to be the impacts that may result from other actions (such as changes in herbicide use) 

that could be induced by introducing SYHT0H2 soybean. Specific information about the three 

herbicides that SYHT0H2 is tolerant of is provided in the appendices. 

The geographic scope of this analysis included any US land currently producing soybean or 

producing crops that could incorporate a soybean rotation, land that could be converted from 

inactive cropland to active cropland, and land currently in the Conservation Reserve Program 

(CRP) that could be removed from the program and farmed for soybean. Geographic areas outside 

of the US were not considered in this report, except to address foreign trade impacts. 

4.1.2 Methodology 

The potential direct and indirect effects of the No Action Alternative were evaluated by a review 

and analysis of published literature (peer-reviewed technical articles, industry information, and 

agency data). The potential direct and indirect effects of the Preferred Alternative to physical and 

biological resources were determined by laboratory analyses and field studies, as described in the 

Petition (Syngenta 2012c), supported by literature review and analysis. Potential direct and indirect 

effects of the Proposed Action to public health and socioeconomic concerns were determined by 

literature review and analysis. All information sources are cited and full references are provided in 

Chapter 9. 

The analysis of direct effects from the Preferred Alternative is focused on potential changes to the 

environment that may occur as a direct result of the introduction of a new transgenic organism, 

SYHT0H2 soybean, into the market. The analysis of indirect effects from the Preferred Alternative 

is focused on the potential changes in the environment that may occur as a result of this 

introduction, such as changes in agronomic practices. The potential direct or indirect effects would 

be the incremental difference between the existing conditions and any new conditions that would 

be realized from those changes. This analysis does not consider the historical changes to the 

environment that have occurred in the past; the cumulative effects analysis in Chapter 6 addresses 

that perspective. 

A likely indirect effect of deregulating SYHT0H2 soybean is a change in herbicide use, since the 

product includes a unique trait of tolerance to HPPD-inhibiting herbicides (mesotrione and 

isoxaflutole) as well as tolerance to the glutamine synthetase-inhibiting glufosinate (also known as 
– 65 – 

glufosinate-ammonium or phosphinothricin). Mesotrione and isoxaflutole28 are not currently used 

on soybeans commercially29; glufosinate is currently used on certain deregulated herbicide-tolerant 

soybean varieties but not commonly. Descriptions of these three herbicides and their uses and 

potential impacts on human health and the environment are appended to this document. These 

appendices are based primarily on EPA studies and regulatory actions since herbicide usage is 

regulated by EPA, not APHIS. In this document, the indirect effects analyses summarize the 

impacts that may result from changes in herbicide use. 

4.1.3 Assumptions 

The analysis of the potential environmental consequences of the No Action Alternative was based 

on the assumption that regulated field trials of SYHT0H2 soybean on small plots of land, as 

described in the Petition, would continue. The analysis of the potential environmental 

consequences of the Preferred Alternative was based on the assumption that there would be full 

commercialization of SYHT0H2 soybean to US growers. As noted above, the analyses of direct or 

indirect effects of the Proposed Action are based on SYHT0H2 soybean in the absence of stacking 

with other transgenic traits. The cumulative effects analysis provided in Chapter 5 was based on an 

assumption of unlimited marketing of SYHT0H2 soybean as a product stacked with other 

transgenic traits. 

The consequences of both alternatives were evaluated using the SYHT0H2 soybean phenotype 

described in the Petition. Laboratory, greenhouse, growth chamber, and field investigations with 

SYHT0H2 soybean confirmed that there were no changes in seed, pollen, plant phenotype, or 

composition parameters suggestive of increased plant pest risk (Syngenta 2012c). The seed from 

SYHT0H2 soybean differs slightly from that of its nontransgenic, near-isogenic counterpart but the 

nutrient and antinutrient composition of SYHT0H2 soybean is not materially different from that of 

conventional soybean (Syngenta 2012c). 

The environmental consequences of the two alternatives were analyzed under the assumption that the 

majority of farmers who grow transgenic, nontransgenic, or organic soybean are using reasonable, 

commonly accepted best management practices for their chosen system and varieties during soybean 

production. These management practices include standard planting dates, seeding rates, harvest times, 

and pest management methods as well as preservation and coexistence measures. It is assumed that 

herbicides will be applied in accordance with EPA-approved label requirements. It is also assumed that 

the stewardship plan provided in Appendix F of the Petition will be implemented by the Petitioners and 

growers will comply with the plan in accordance with the Technology Use Grower Agreement 

provisions. 

The environmental consequences of both the No Action Alternative and the Preferred Alternative 

were evaluated in the context of conventional soybean and existing transgenic soybeans developed 

28 Bayer CropScience’s FG72 soybean (OECD Unique ID MST-FGØ72-2) is a transgenic variety with tolerance to 

isoxaflutole (and glyphosate); APHIS has been petitioned to deregulate this product and is currently conducting a 

review of the petition. 

29 Mesotrione is currently registered for pre-emergence use on certain soybean varieties that exhibit natural 

tolerance to mesotrione, however this use is currently not on any marketed label and is not being used 

commercially. 
– 66 – 

with traits conferring herbicide tolerance. No other transgenic soybean cultivars containing the oatderived transgene avhppd-03, which conveys tolerance of mesotrione and isoxaflutole, have been 

deregulated by APHIS.30 Table 2-1 lists deregulated transgenic soybean products and shows that 

seven are tolerant of phosphinothricin (also known as glufosinate or glufosinate-ammonium) and 

four are tolerant of glyphosate (USDA-APHIS 2011). Most of these crops are marketed as single 

trait products; one product contains both a glyphosate-tolerance trait and an acetolactate synthaseinhibiting trait. Some of these cultivars are currently on the market and some have been 

discontinued or were never commercialized. 

As described in Section 2.1, Soybean Biology, four additional petitions for deregulating herbicidetolerant soybean cultivars are currently pending an APHIS decision; the companies, traits, and 

products are: 

 Bayer CropScience: glyphosate and isoxaflutole tolerance; MST-FGØ72-2; 

 Dow AgroSciences: 2,4-D and glufosinate tolerance; DAS-68416-4; 

 Monsanto: dicamba tolerance; MON-877Ø8-9; and 

 Dow AgroSciences; 2,4-D, glyphosate, and glufosinate tolerance; DAS-444Ø6-6. 

Draft Environmental Assessments have been published by APHIS for two of these soybean 

products, MST-FGØ72-2 and DAS-68416-4 soybean. As described above, the environmental 

impacts of isoxaflutole (for use on MST-FGØ72-2 soybean) and glufosinate (for use on DAS68416-4 soybean) presented in these two EAs are taken into consideration, along with the impacts 

of mesotrione, in determining the indirect effects of deregulating SYHT0H2 soybean. The 

appended descriptions of these three herbicides provide information on their uses and potential 

impact to human health and the environment. 

It is also assumed that mesotrione, isoxaflutole, and glufosinate may replace some portion of the 

current glyphosate use on soybeans. As described in Section 2.2.2.6, Management of Weeds, 

herbicide-tolerant soybean varieties now comprise some 93 percent of US plantings, and 

phosphinic acid herbicides (e.g., glyphosate) were used on 77 percent of those fields in 2006 (the 

most recent year for which data are available) (USDA-ERS 2012f). It is not possible to accurately 

predict what portion of the glyphosate use may be replaced by mesotrione, isoxaflutole, and/or 

glufosinate. The indirect effects analysis of this Chapter therefore presents the impacts from 

changes in herbicide use in qualitative, rather than quantitative, terms. 

4.2 Soybean Production 

This section describes the potential impacts to areas and acreage of soybean production, agronomic 

practices, raw and processed soybean commodities, specialty soybean systems, and soybean’s 

persistence in the environment/weediness potential that may result from the No Action Alternative 

and the Preferred Alternative as compared to the existing conditions described in Chapter 2. 

30 APHIS has issued a Draft EA for deregulation of MST-FGØ72-2 soybean, which has an HPPD gene from 

another source. 
– 67 – 

4.2.1 Acreage and Areas of Soybean Production 

Substantive changes in soybean production acreage and areas are more likely to result from market 

conditions and changes in federal policies than any other source. Domestic and international 

demand for soybean products, coupled with relatively high soybean commodity prices, is 

increasing (USDA-ERS 2012g). In response, total US soybean acreage is anticipated to 

incrementally increase from 76.6 million acres in 2010 to 79.5 million acres in 2020, based on 

soybean production trends and projections (USDA-OCE 2011). Approximately 93 percent of the 

current acreage is planted with transgenic varieties, virtually all being herbicide tolerant (USDANASS 2011b). In order to accommodate the increase of US soybean acreage in spite of a net 

decrease in available US agricultural land (USDOE-EIA 2007), growers are likely to plant 

additional soybean acreage at the expense of other crops, such as cotton or hay (USDA-ERS 

2011c). The use of existing agricultural land in lieu of previously uncultivated land for additional 

soybean acreage is a land-use decision made by growers, as soybean is profitably grown on high 

quality arable land but not on land of lower productivity (USDOE-EIA 2007). 

Arable land for increased soybean planting acreage could also result from the return of CRP lands 

to agricultural production. Although CRP funding has been steady at approximately $1.9 billion 

per year through 2011 (USDA-ERS 2012b), the 2008 US Farm Bill31 reduced CRP lands from 

39.2 million acres to 32 million acres.32 Available acreage for soybean production could increase 

by this federal policy change. However, most soybeans are planted in fields that have been in crop 

production for years, rather than in converted CRP lands. A more likely scenario is that other crops 

displaced by soybean, such as hay or cotton, would be grown on converted CRP lands. 

No Action Alternative 

The acreage and areas of soybean production would not change as a direct or indirect result of the No 

Action Alternative. Conventional production practices that use transgenic varieties would continue to 

increase under the No Action Alternative, based on current acreage trends. Seed with transgenic traits 

and nontransgenic varieties would continue to be available under the No Action Alternative. Soybean 

is currently produced in 31 states (see Table 2-2) and under the No Action Alternative the range of 

production would be unchanged. CRP acreage converted to soybean production would not be 

affected by this alternative. Current trends in the acreage and areas of production are likely to 

continue to be driven by market conditions and federal policy even if SYHT0H2 soybean continues 

to remain a regulated article. Regulated field trials of SYHT0H2 soybean would only impact small 

plots of land with no effect on the acreage and areas of soybean production. 

Preferred Alternative 

The acreage and areas of soybean production would not change as a direct or indirect result of the 

Preferred Alternative. SYHT0H2 soybean is unlikely to disrupt the relationship between market 

forces and soybean acreage, which is affected by growing demand for soybean commodity 

products (USDA-ERS 2010b, 2011c). SYHT0H2 soybean would not expand soybean acreage 

beyond projected values because it requires similar management conditions as other soybean 

31 Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008. Public Law 110-234. 

32 Section 2103, Paragraph (3) 
– 68 – 

varieties, does not present any yield gains over other soybean varieties, and exhibits no phenotypic 

characteristics that would be indicative of an improved capacity to grow outside an agricultural 

environment (Syngenta 2012c). Similar to currently available soybean varieties, 

SYHT0H2 soybean will require cultivation on high quality arable land to produce a grower profit, 

precluding the use of lower quality, uncultivated land to supply additional soybean acreage. 

SYHT0H2 soybean is unlikely to be cultivated on land not previously used for agriculture, 

maintaining the trend to shift agricultural land away from other crops toward soybean production 

to satisfy market demand (USDA-ERS 2010e, 2011c). 

Growers are not expected to change the acreage or areas of soybean production as a result of 

deregulating SYHT0H2 soybean. CRP acreage converted to crop production would not be affected 

by this alternative. Current trends in the acreage and areas of soybean production are likely to 

continue to be driven by market conditions and federal policy if SYHT0H2 soybean is deregulated. 

4.2.2 Agronomic Practices 

Potential changes in agronomic practices, including cropping practices, irrigation, fertilization, and 

pesticide use, are described below for the No Action Alternative and the Preferred Alternative. 

4.2.2.1 Cropping Practices 

Various cropping practices are used by soybean growers to improve the performance of their 

operations; some of these practices directly or indirectly control weeds. Growers make choices to 

plant certain varieties and select cropping practices based on factors such as yield, weed and 

disease pressures, cost of seed and other inputs, technology fees, worker safety, potential for crop 

injury, and ease and flexibility of the production system (Gianessi 2005). Transgenic soybean 

varieties offer a range of herbicide tolerance traits to assist growers in weed management that 

complement cropping practices and other weed management methods, but do not replace those 

methods. Cropping practices are unlikely to change as a result of introducing a new herbicidetolerant transgenic soybean variety to the market. 

As described in Section 2.2.2.1, Cropping Practices, crop rotation can improve yield and profitability 

over time, control weeds, break disease cycles, limit insect and other pest infestations, provide an 

alternative source of nitrogen, reduce soil erosion, increase soil organic matter, improve soil tilth, 

limit the potential for weeds to develop tolerance to herbicides, and reduce runoff of nutrients and 

chemicals, as well as the potential for contamination of surface water (Al-Kaisi, Hanna, and Tidman 

2003). Approximately 85 percent of the soybean-planted acreage is in some form of a crop rotation 

system (Quinby et al. 2006); transgenic soybean (with herbicide tolerance traits) accounts for 

93 percent of all soybean fields in the US (USDA-NASS 2011b), and most of the US soybean 

acreage (approximately 70 percent) is rotated with corn (Heatherly et al. 2009). The economics of 

soybean production drive changes in crop rotation practices as farmers seek the most profitable crop 

and production method. Given the predominance of crop rotation practices and transgenic soybeans, 

any changes in rotation practices are more likely to result from economic and market conditions than 

other factors. Introducing a new transgenic soybean tolerant of a different class (or classes) of 

herbicides is unlikely to have any effect on crop rotation practices. 
– 69 – 

Other cropping practices that provide some weed control are cover crops and tillage. Both of these 

practices are used in conjunction with other weed control methods, including herbicide use, as part 

of integrated weed management programs. Cover crops are selected for a variety of reasons; 

compatibility with herbicides used on the fields is one factor. Introducing a new transgenic 

soybean tolerant of a different class of herbicides could indirectly affect decisions on which cover 

crops may be planted. 

Tilling prepares a field for planting and is used in large part for weed control. Farmers increased 

the use of conservation tillage before and contemporaneously with the adoption of glyphosatetolerant soybean varieties (Owen 2008; Bonny 2011a). Adoption of conservation tillage for 

soybeans grew (at a decreasing rate) from about 25 percent of the soybean acreage in 1990 to 

48 percent in 1995, the 5-year period previous to the introduction of herbicide-tolerant soybeans 

(Fernandez-Cornejo and McBride 2002). Conservation tillage continued to increase following the 

commercialization of glyphosate-tolerant soybean in 1996, and totaled 63 percent of soybean 

acreage by 2007 (Bonny 2011b). These trends are likely to be sustained by the continued use of 

broad-spectrum herbicides (Carpenter and Gianessi 1999). Using a broad-spectrum herbicide such 

as glyphosate allows less intensive tilling, replacing conventional tillage as an economic alternative 

for weed control (Givens et al. 2009; USDA-ERS 2010a). Farmers already using no-till find 

herbicide-tolerant seeds can be easily incorporated into their weed management program, but the 

commercialization of herbicide tolerant soybeans does not necessarily encourage adoption of notill practices (Fernandez-Cornejo and McBride 2002). Introducing a new transgenic soybean 

tolerant of a different class of herbicides could indirectly affect decisions on what types of tilling 

techniques may be used by facilitating conservation tillage. 

Some soybean growers may return to conventional tillage to manage glyphosate-resistant weed 

populations (NRC 2010) if use of that herbicide becomes less effective. However, in the absence 

of alternatives the majority of US growers are likely to continue using glyphosate at increased 

rates or frequencies rather than reincorporate conventional tillage into their weed management 

strategies because: 

 Conventional tillage is relatively high cost (USDA-NRCS 2012); 

 Growers are familiar with glyphosate (NRC 2010); and 

 Glyphosate-tolerance systems are simple and convenient to implement (Owen 2010). 

Alternative broad-spectrum herbicides with different modes of action than glyphosate may control 

glyphosate-resistant weeds, allowing reductions in glyphosate use and facilitating the continued or 

increased use of conservation tillage practices by controlling weeds through chemical, rather than 

mechanical means. 

No Action Alternative 

Cropping practices would not change as a direct or indirect result of the No Action Alternative. 

Cover crop use, crop rotations, and tillage practices are likely to continue to be driven by economic 

and market conditions, or convenience and environmental factors, even if SYHT0H2 soybean 

continues to remain a regulated article. Various cropping practices would be chosen to meet the 

economic and marketing strategies or the convenience and environmental considerations of the 
– 70 – 

particular farmer. Regulated field trials of SYHT0H2 soybean would only impact small plots of 

land with no effect on cropping practices. 

Preferred Alternative 

Cropping practices such as cover crops, crop and herbicide rotation, and tillage would not change 

as a direct result of the Preferred Alternative. SYHT0H2 soybean exhibits similar agronomic 

performance relative to its nontransgenic parent variety (“Jack”) and would benefit from currently 

practiced soybean crop rotation practices. No differences in disease susceptibility were observed 

between SYHT0H2 soybean and its nontransgenic parent variety in experimental plots (Syngenta 

2012c). 

Soybean growers may change their use of cropping practices as an indirect result of introducing 

SYHT0H2 soybean because it is tolerant of a different class of herbicides than the most commonly 

used product, glyphosate. Introduction of SYHT0H2 soybean with mesotrione, isoxaflutole, and 

glufosinate tolerance would have an indirect effect on cropping practices by allowing farmers to 

use a broader range of herbicides to minimize weed development of tolerance to any specific 

chemical. These herbicides are applied at different stages of the crops’ life cycles, and successive 

crops should not be planted when residual concentrations may be present in the fields. Each of the 

herbicides that contains mesotrione, isoxaflutole, or glufosinate as an active ingredient has time 

constraints on when crops may be planted in fields to which these herbicides have been applied. 

Rotation crop time limits33 of each of the three herbicides when applied to corn are provided in 

Table 4-1; soybean and the most common crops grown in rotation with soybean are indicated in 

bold type. The time constraints for applications of mesotrione and isoxaflutole to soybean fields 

are for nontransgenic soybean (i.e., cultivars that have not been genetically engineered to be 

tolerant of these herbicides) as no soybean varieties tolerant of these herbicides are currently 

marketed.34 The time constraints for applications of glufosinate take into consideration soybean 

varieties tolerant of this herbicide: these varieties may be planted immediately. Although these 

constraints limit herbicide choice by farmers, they also facilitate herbicide rotation, which is an 

integral component of herbicide resistance management. 

As noted above, approximately 70 percent of soybean fields are in a crop rotation program with 

corn, which can be planted immediately after an herbicide containing any of these three herbicides 

has been applied. Soybean is grown continuously on up to 15 percent of the fields, and the balance 

of soybean fields are in rotation with a range of crops (wheat, cotton, rice, sorghum, barley, oats, 

and dry beans). A basic tenet of integrated weed management is that herbicides should be rotated 

along with crops, to minimize the potential for development of herbicide-resistant weed biotypes. 

Depending upon which herbicide is used, an indirect effect of the Preferred Alternative is that crop 

and herbicide rotation practices should be altered to accommodate these planting restrictions and 

integrated weed management recommendations. Syngenta’s Resistance FighterTM program35 and 

Bayer’s Respect the RotationTM program36 describe the companies’ recommended strategies to 

33 There are slight variations in rotational crop information for different products with other concentrations or 

mixtures of herbicides. 

34 Some varieties of soybean display a natural tolerance of mesotrione, but are not actively marketed as such. 

35 http://www.resistancefighter.com/ 

36 http://www.bayercropscience.us/news/respect-the-rotation 
– 71 – 

manage herbicide resistance. These recommendations are encapsulated in the SYHT0H2-specific 

stewardship plan provided in Appendix F to the Petition (Syngenta 2012c). 

Deregulating SYHT0H2 soybean would not directly impact tillage. Crop and herbicide rotation 

practices may be altered as an indirect result of the Preferred Alternative, which would improve weed 

resistance management practices. Deregulating SYHT0H2 soybean would indirectly facilitate the 

shift toward conservation tillage in soybean: SYHT0H2 soybean is tolerant of other herbicide modes 

of action than the predominant herbicide, glyphosate, and therefore provides control of weeds 

resistant to glyphosate that would otherwise need to be controlled by other means. 

Table 4-1 Examples of Crop Rotation Plant-Back Intervals 

Planting 

allowed 

after: 

Herbicide 

(example product) 

Mesotrione (Callisto) Isoxaflutole (Balance Pro) Glufosinate (Liberty) 

Crop 

0 days Corn (all types), asparagus, 

cranberry, flax, millet (pearl), 

grasses grown for seed (Kentucky 

bluegrass, perennial ryegrass, and 

tall fescue), oats, rhubarb, 

sorghum (grain and sweet), and 

sugarcane 

Corn (field) Canola, corn, cotton, rice, soybeans, 

and sugar beets 

70 days Root and tuber vegetables, leafy 

vegetables, brassica leafy vegetables 

and small grains (barley, buckwheat, 

oats, rye, teosinte, triticale, and wheat) 

120 days 

(4 months) 

Small grains Wheat 

6 months Soybeans, barley, sweet corn, 

popcorn, potato, grain sorghum, 

and sunflower 

All other crops 

10 months Alfalfa, blueberry, canola, cotton, 

lingonberry, peanuts, potatoes, 

soybeans, sunflowers, and 

tobacco. If applied post-emergence 

following a mesotrione-containing 

pre-emergence herbicide, only 

corn (all types) or grain sorghum 

may be replanted the year 

following application. 

Cotton, peanuts, rice; dry beans

and sugar beets east of the 

Mississippi River, and alfalfa in 

all geographic areas 

18 months Sugar beets, peas, dry beans, 

snap beans, cucurbits, red clover, 

and all other rotational crops 

Dry beans and sugar beets west 

of the Mississippi River, and all 

other crops in all geographic areas 

Sources: (Syngenta 2011; Bayer 2013, 2012) 

Note: Bold type denotes soybean and the most common crops grown in rotation with soybean 
– 72 – 

4.2.2.2 Irrigation 

As described in Section 2.2.2.2, Irrigation, supplemental irrigation is used in some soybean 

production areas, such as the western and midsouthern states where summer weather patterns result 

in drought stress that makes dryland production risky. Irrigation rates are affected by local climate 

conditions (seasonal rainfall), and climate change could increase or decrease irrigation rates in 

some areas. 

Herbicide-tolerant soybeans, cultivated on 94 percent of soybean acreage, have facilitated 

increased adoption of conservation tillage practices (NRC 2010). Conservation tillage plays a 

major role in water conservation (USDA-NRCS 2006a) by reducing evaporation rates and 

irrigation requirements. As discussed previously, conservation tillage trends are not expected to 

change in US soybean production from what is currently practiced; the impacts of conservation 

tillage on irrigation rates are also not expected to change.

No Action Alternative 

Irrigation practices would not change as a direct or indirect result of the No Action Alternative. 

Even if SYHT0H2 soybean continues to remain a regulated article, irrigation rates are likely to 

continue to be driven by local weather and climate conditions, as well as increasing adoption of 

conservation tillage techniques. Regulated field trials of SYHT0H2 soybean would only impact 

small plots of land with no effect on irrigation rates. 

Preferred Alternative 

Irrigation rates are likely to continue to be driven by local weather and climate conditions, and 

continued adoption of conservation tillage techniques; these factors would not change as a direct or 

indirect result of the Preferred Alternative. 

4.2.2.3 Fertilization 

Compared to other crop plants, soybean cultivation requires less nitrogen fertilization because of 

the natural nitrogen-fixing aspect of legumes. USDA-ERS estimates that less than 40 percent of 

soybean acres in the US receive nitrogen fertilizer (USDA-ERS 2012g, 2012e). The percentage of 

soybean acreage treated with nitrogen fertilizer, along with application rates of nitrogen fertilizer, 

has remained relatively constant since 1992. Transgenic soybeans with herbicide tolerance traits do 

not affect fertilization rates. 

No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternative, current rates of fertilizer use in US soybean production would 

not change. Even if SYHT0H2 soybean continues to remain a regulated article, fertilization rates 

are likely to continue to be driven by agricultural production needs and the natural characteristics 

of soybean. Regulated field trials of SYHT0H2 soybean would only impact small plots of land 

with no effect on fertilization rates. 
– 73 – 

Preferred Alternative 

A determination of nonregulated status of SYHT0H2 soybean would not change fertilization 

patterns in US soybean production. SYHT0H2 soybean has agronomic performance similar to the 

nontransgenic parent soybean, and only standard agricultural practices are required for the 

cultivation of SYHT0H2 soybean (Syngenta 2012c). 

4.2.2.4 Pesticide Use 

Pests that adversely affect soybean production include insects, nematodes, diseases (which may be 

caused by fungi, bacteria or viruses), and weeds. Yield losses in all crops due to pests were 

substantial and widespread until the introduction and adoption of crop protection chemicals in the 

1960s. Growers may use pesticides to control many of these pests: insecticides, nematicides, 

fungicides, and herbicides, as described in Sections 2.2.2.3 through 2.2.2.6. Insect injury can 

impact yield, plant maturity, and seed quality; insect pests are therefore managed during the growth 

and development of soybean to enhance soybean yield (Aref and Pike 1998). Insect injury in 

soybean seldom reaches levels that cause significant economic loss, as indicated by the low 

percentage (16 percent) of soybean acreage that receives an insecticide treatment (USDA-NASS 

2007). 

No Action Alternative 

Trends in herbicide use would not change as a direct or indirect result of the No Action 

Alternative. Soybean production, and herbicide use in soybean, would remain as it is practiced 

today by the farming community. Herbicide types and use rates are likely to continue to follow 

their current trends even if SYHT0H2 soybean continues to remain a regulated article, as growers 

will continue to have access to existing deregulated or other new (pending deregulation) 

herbicide-tolerant soybean varieties and a wide range of herbicides. 

Any environmental effects due to herbicide use in the agricultural production of soybean would 

continue on the same trends under the No Action Alternative. As described above, because several 

weed species have developed tolerance of herbicides such as glyphosate, a continued increase in 

the number of weed biotypes that develop tolerance to glyphosate can be expected under the No 

Action Alternative if a greater variety of weed management tools are not available or implemented. 

Other herbicide-tolerant varieties of soybeans may continue to be developed, marketed, and 

planted regardless of whether or not SYHT0H2 soybean continues to remain a regulated article. 

Soybean growers are likely to continue to use the available herbicides and any of the other 

herbicide-tolerant cultivars that are currently available, as listed in Table 2-1, Deregulated 

Transgenic Soybean Cultivars with Herbicide Tolerance Traits, or any that may be developed and 

marketed in the future. Regulated field trials of SYHT0H2 soybean would only impact small plots 

of land with no effect on herbicide use. 

Preferred Alternative 

SYHT0H2 soybean is agronomically equivalent to nontransgenic parent soybean, with equal 

susceptibility to insects, nematodes and disease pathogens. Use of insecticides, nematicides and 

fungicides would not change as a result of deregulating SYHT0H2 soybean. Because 
– 74 – 

SYHT0H2 soybean incorporates herbicide tolerance traits, this section focuses on potential 

changes in herbicide use that would indirectly result from deregulation of this product. 

If SYHT0H2 soybean is deregulated, overall herbicide use trends are likely to continue even as 

mesotrione and isoxaflutole are added to the range of approved products for use on soybeans and 

glufosinate use is expanded. These three herbicides would continue to be used on crops grown in 

rotation with soybeans and potentially replace some use of glyphosate or other approved soybean 

herbicides. Soybean growers would have a new cultivar to use in addition to conventional varieties 

and the other herbicide-tolerant varieties that are currently available, as listed in Table 2-1, 

Deregulated Transgenic Soybean Cultivars with Herbicide Tolerance Traits, or any others that 

may be developed, deregulated, and marketed in the future. 

SYHT0H2 soybean would allow the use of other broad-spectrum herbicides, as another option 

available to include in an integrated weed management program. Glyphosate use may be reduced 

but mesotrione, isoxaflutole, and glufosinate use would likely increase. Unlike glyphosate, 

mesotrione and isoxaflutole have residual activity and may be applied pre-emergence for earlyseason weed control. This allows for greater flexibility in choice and timing of any post-emergence 

herbicide applications. They are also compatible with other herbicides in formulations and tank 

mixes. Mesotrione, isoxaflutole, and glufosinate are effective against a broad spectrum of weeds 

(dicots and grasses), including several weed biotypes that have developed resistance to glyphosate, 

acetolactate synthase (ALS) inhibitors, protoporphyrinogen oxidase (PPO) inhibitors, or triazine 

herbicides. Growers will make herbicide choices based on a broad range of factors that cannot be 

accurately predicted; it is not feasible to quantify future changes in herbicide use. 

Replacing glyphosate use with mesotrione, isoxaflutole, and/or glufosinate is likely to reduce the 

pounds of active ingredients of herbicides applied to soybean fields since each of the herbicides to 

which SYHT0H2 soybean is tolerant is applied at lower rates than glyphosate. Based on herbicide 

labels, a comparison of the application rates for glyphosate, mesotrione, isoxaflutole, and 

glufosinate is provided in Table 4-2. Because commercial labels for mesotrione and isoxaflutole 

herbicides do not currently specify rates for use on soybean fields, application rates for these 

herbicides are provided as the proposed rates for use on tolerant soybean. These proposed rates 

have been submitted by Bayer and Syngenta to EPA for approval. 

Table 4-2 Maximum Herbicide Application Rates for Herbicide Tolerant Soybean 

Herbicide (Formulation) 

Maximum Application Rate (lb. ai/acre) 

Single Annual Total 

Glyphosate (e.g., RoundUp1) 1.56 5.95 

Mesotrione (Callisto2) 0.20 0.31 

Isoxaflutole (Balance Pro3) 0.094 0.094 

Glufosinate (Liberty4

) 0.53 1.188 

NS: Not Specified. 

Sources: 1 (Monsanto 2012) Glyphosate is reported as pounds acid equivalent per acre 

 2 Syngenta proposed soybean use rate 

 3 Bayer proposed soybean use rate 

 4 (Bayer 2012) 
– 75 – 

As SYHT0H2 soybean is tolerant to a new mode of action (HPPD inhibition) not presently 

available in soybean (apart from MST-FGØ72-2 soybean, which is currently pending 

deregulation), two new broad-spectrum herbicides (mesotrione and isoxaflutole) would be 

available for soybean growers to incorporate into an integrated weed management program. Such 

programs are promoted by agricultural extension offices to prevent or delay the evolution of 

herbicide resistant weed biotypes and to prevent shifts in local weed populations to species that are 

naturally tolerant of certain herbicides. 

As noted in Section 3.2, Appendix F of the Petition (Syngenta 2012c) includes a stewardship 

program as an integral part of the Preferred Alternative. The stewardship program includes the 

following elements: 

 Technology use grower agreements; 

 Integrated weed management and herbicide resistance recommendations; 

 Customer education and training; 

 Product use information and support; and 

 Monitoring of grower use of herbicides. 

Specific management recommendations for weed control in soybean and corn to minimize the 

development of herbicide-resistant weed biotypes are: 

 Always use a full rate of a residual pre-emergence herbicide as specified on the product label. 

 Do not rely solely on post-emergence applications of HPPD-inhibiting herbicides for control 

of target weeds; integrate other herbicides that are active on the target weeds such as 

glufosinate-ammonium, metribuzin and fomesafen for soybeans or glufosinate-ammonium, 

glyphosate, atrazine, and/or dicamba for corn. 

 For post-emergence herbicide applications, use full labeled rates with recommended 

adjuvants on small weeds. 

 Use herbicide combinations with several modes of action with overlapping efficacy on target 

weeds (i.e., chose herbicide combinations in which each active ingredient is effective against 

the most difficult-to-control target weeds). 

 Strive for full and effective season-long weed control. Control weeds that have escaped 

herbicide treatment, and do not allow weeds to go to seed. 

When herbicides are used in accordance with the stewardship program, SYHT0H2 soybean is 

expected to indirectly minimize the potential development of weed resistance to any one herbicide. 

The availability of other herbicides as additional components of integrated weed management would 

reduce the selection pressure on weed species to develop resistance to other methods of control. 
– 76 – 

4.2.3 Commercial Soybean Production and Uses 

This section describes the potential impacts to commercial production of soybean seeds, raw and 

processed soybean commodities, organic soybeans, and specialty soybean products that may occur 

from the No Action and Preferred Alternatives. 

4.2.3.1 Seed Production 

As described in Section 2.2.3.1, Seed Production, seed purity is accomplished using contracts, 

tracking and traceability systems, quality assurance processes, closed loop systems, and identity 

preservation systems. Seed soybean production differs from commercial soybean production 

because seed companies impose strict requirements to maintain seed identity and high levels of 

genetic purity of the final product. These practices minimize to the extent practical the chance of 

commingling SYHT0H2 soybean seed with other seed. The practices used to maintain seed purity 

do not vary substantively between transgenic and nontransgenic varieties. 

No Action Alternative 

The availability of methods used to produce seed soybean under the No Action Alternative would 

be the same as in current seed soybean production systems. 

Preferred Alternative 

Seed soybean production methods would not change as a direct or indirect result of the Preferred 

Alternative. If SYHT0H2 soybean is deregulated, specialty soybean products would continue to be 

protected by the identity systems established in the industry. SYHT0H2 soybean would be 

produced in a manner similar to other seed soybean varieties, which are typically produced under 

identity preservation systems that include contracts with growers, traceability, product tracking, 

and process verification. These procedures minimize chances of commingling SYHT0H2 soybean 

seed with other seed to the same degree as existing seed production systems. 

4.2.3.2 Raw and Processed Soybean Commodities 

As described in Section 2.2.3.2, Raw and Processed Soybean Commodities, soybean seeds are 

processed into a variety of industrial (oil), human dietary, and livestock products. Raw soybeans 

have no human or livestock feed use as they contain anti-nutrient factors; these factors are removed 

by heat processing. There are no differences in handling requirements for processing transgenic 

and nontransgenic soybean. 

No Action Alternative 

Raw and processed soybean commodities would not change as a direct or indirect result of the No 

Action Alternative. Raw and processed soybean commodities would continue to be handled in 

accordance with regulatory standards and industry practices even if SYHT0H2 soybean continues 

to remain a regulated article. Regulated field trials of SYHT0H2 soybean would only impact small 

plots of land with no effect on raw or processed commodities. 
– 77 – 

Preferred Alternative 

Raw and processed soybean commodities would not change as a direct result of the Preferred 

Alternative. Based on data described in the Petition, SYHT0H2 soybean is not materially different 

from conventional soybean in composition or nutritional value (Syngenta 2012c). Apart from the 

expected weed control benefits associated with tolerance to mesotrione, isoxaflutole, and 

glufosinate herbicides, SYHT0H2 soybean varieties are agronomically equivalent to their 

nontransgenic counterparts (Syngenta 2012c). If SYHT0H2 soybean is deregulated, raw and 

processed soybean commodities would continue to be handled in accordance with regulatory 

standards and industry practices. 

Deregulating SYHT0H2 soybean would likely result in changes of herbicide use types and rates, as 

described above. Raw and processed soybean commodities may be indirectly impacted by 

deregulating SYHT0H2 soybean as a result of different herbicide applications. Depending upon the 

extent of adoption of the product and application of the herbicides, some portion of the 

commodities would have residual concentrations of mesotrione, isoxaflutole, or glufosinate instead 

of glyphosate. EPA registration of herbicides (including mesotrione, isoxaflutole, and glufosinate) 

includes establishing limits of residual concentrations of the herbicides on food and feed 

commodities to protect human health and the environment. Current and proposed residual 

concentration limits (tolerances) for registered and new uses of these herbicides are described in 

the appendices. 

4.2.3.3 Organic Soybean Production 

Organic farming operations coexist with farming operations using nontransgenic and transgenic 

varieties for herbicide tolerance. As described in Section 2.2.3.3, Organic Soybean Production, the 

National Organic Program (NOP) requires that organic farms have distinct, defined boundaries and 

buffer zones separating adjoining land not under organic management to prevent unintended 

contact with substances not used in organic fields. Organic production operations must also 

develop and maintain an organic production system plan. Excluded production methods include 

methods used to genetically modify organisms or otherwise influence their growth and 

development by means not possible under natural conditions or processes. 

In organic systems, the use of synthetic pesticides and fertilizers is strictly limited, and transgenic 

crops and inputs are prohibited. SYHT0H2 soybean would not be approved for use in organic 

systems because it is transgenic. 

Organic soybean acreage represents less than 0.2 percent of the US soybean acreage (USDANASS 2009). In contrast to other US organic crops, US organic soybean production has not kept 

pace with demand (USDA-ERS 2010c), which has generally been met by increasing imports 

from international organic soybean producers (USDA-NASS 2009). Organic farmers may benefit 

from proximate transgenic crops with herbicide tolerance traits: neighboring fields would not be 

seed banks for weeds that could infest the organic fields, easing their weed management needs. 
– 78 – 

No Action Alternative 

Organic farming practices, including field management to avoid excluded methods and gene 

movement, would not change as a direct or indirect result of the No Action Alternative. Organic 

soybean seed availability would be unaffected by the No Action Alternative. Organic production 

systems and non-organic production systems would continue to coexist in accordance with NOP 

requirements. Organic soybean production would continue to be driven by market conditions if 

SYHT0H2 soybean continues to remain a regulated article. 

The amount of transgenic soybean and organic soybean production in the US is increasing, and 

current trends suggest that both production practices will likely continue to increase. The use of 

coexistence measures is expected to continue. Organic farms would continue to benefit from the 

weed suppression provided by proximate farms with transgenic crops and low weed populations. 

The availability of seed for soybean varieties that are transgenic, nontransgenic, or used for organic 

production would remain the same. Regulated field trials of SYHT0H2 soybean would only impact 

small plots of land with no effect on organic farming. 

Preferred Alternative 

Organic farming practices, including field management to avoid excluded methods and gene 

movement, would not change as a direct or indirect result of the Preferred Alternative. Soybean is 

primarily a self-pollinated plant (OECD 2000), and there is no reason to suspect that the biology of 

SYHT0H2 soybean will increase its potential to outcross with soybean varieties utilized in organic 

soybean production (Syngenta 2012c). Studies of SYHT0H2 soybean reproductive biology 

revealed no substantial differences in factors influencing reproductive potential, including pollen 

viability, date of emergence, date of 50 percent flowering, and date of maturity (Syngenta 2012c). 

Organic soybean seed availability would be unaffected by deregulation of SYHT0H2 soybean; the 

seed certification programs described above would continue to operate at their current level of 

effectiveness. Consistent with NOP standards and practices, organic and non-organic soybean 

production systems would continue to coexist. Organic farms would continue to benefit from the 

weed suppression provided by proximate farms with transgenic crops of herbicide tolerant 

varieties, including SYHT0H2 soybean. Organic soybean production would continue to be 

regulated by the NOP and driven by market conditions if SYHT0H2 soybean is deregulated. Nonregulated status for SYHT0H2 soybean would not change current practices of organic soybean 

producers or the growth of organic soybean production. 

Currently, the production of organic and transgenic soybean varieties are both increasing due to 

market demands (although organic production is unable to keep up with demand), and these 

markets would likely continue to increase under the Preferred Alternative. Deregulating 

SYHT0H2 soybean would not increase risks of contamination, via either pollinators or postharvest processing, because the overall percentage of transgenic soybean is not expected to 

increase. SYHT0H2 soybean would not present new and different issues than existing herbicidetolerant soybean cultivars (see Table 2-1) with respect to impacts on organic farmers. APHIS has 

granted non-regulated status to the products listed in Table 2-1 based on a finding that these other 

products do not pose a plant pest risk. A determination of nonregulated status of 

SYHT0H2 soybean is unlikely to affect US organic soybean production. 
– 79 – 

4.2.3.4 Specialty Soybean Systems 

Potential changes in specialty soybean systems, such as identity preservation, are described for the 

No Action Alternative and the Preferred Alternative in this section. 

As with the purity processes described above for seed production, specialty soybean growers and 

end users maintain the identity of their products by contracts, tracking and traceability systems, 

quality assurance programs, closed loop systems, and identity preservation systems. 

No Action Alternative 

Other specialty soybean production systems would not change as a direct or indirect result of the 

No Action Alternative. Specialty products are likely to continue to be protected by the 

identity-preservation systems established in the industry even if SYHT0H2 soybean continues to 

remain a regulated article. Regulated field trials of SYHT0H2 soybean would only impact small 

plots of land with no effect on other specialty soybean production systems. 

Preferred Alternative 

Other specialty soybean production systems would not change as a direct or indirect result of the 

Preferred Alternative. If SYHT0H2 soybean is deregulated, specialty products would continue to 

be protected by the identity-preservation systems established in the industry. 

4.3 Physical Environment 

This section describes the potential impacts to soil, water quality, air quality, and climate that may 

result from the No Action Alternative and the Preferred Alternative as compared to the existing 

conditions described in Chapter 2. 

4.3.1 Soil 

As described in Section 2.3.1, Soil, agronomic practices such as crop type, tillage, and pest 

management regimes have greater effects on the biology of the soil than the type of soybean 

cultivated. In particular, tillage can adversely or beneficially impact soil quality (NRC 2010; 

Holland 2004). Degraded soil structure and composition may lead to decreased water retention, a 

decrease in soil carbon aggregation and net positive carbon sequestration, and increased 

greenhouse gas emissions. Conservation tillage methods can reduce these adverse effects and have 

been increasingly adopted by soybean growers, partially enabled by the capacity to apply a broadspectrum herbicide (glyphosate) over a tolerant soybean variety (glyphosate-tolerant soybean). As 

discussed in Section 4.2.2, Agronomic Practices, conservation tillage in US soybean is generally 

associated with 30 percent or greater remaining plant residue and reduced soil erosion and 

compaction. 

There may be a relationship between the introduction of herbicide-tolerant soybean varieties and 

an increase in the practice of no-till or conservation tillage by US growers. In 1995, before the 

introduction of glyphosate-tolerant soybeans, approximately 27 percent of the US soybean acres 
– 80 – 

used no-till production. Approximately 50 percent of soybean acres were planted in no-till systems 

by 2009 (Horowitz, Ebel, and Ueda 2010). 

Soil quality may be impacted by the application of herbicides on crops, as an indirect effect of 

transgenic soybean with herbicide tolerance traits, depending upon the chemicals’ persistence in soil. 

Pre-emergence herbicide application would be directly on the soil and post-emergence application 

may result in some portion of the herbicides reaching the ground surface. Plant material could 

transfer herbicide residues into soil via biological activity of the plant or decay after harvest. 

No Action Alternative 

Soil characteristics would not change as a direct or indirect result of the No Action Alternative. 

The adoption of herbicide-tolerant soybean varieties is expected to continue. The increasing use of 

conservation tillage in US soybean production, an effect attributed to the glyphosate-tolerant 

soybean system, is not expected to change under the No Action Alternative. Insecticide use will 

remain as it is currently practiced and limited to a small percentage of total US soybean acreage 

(USDA-NASS 2007). Glyphosate is anticipated to remain the most widely applied herbicide in 

US soybean production, continuing the current trend. 

Soybean growers would continue current agronomic practices, and further adoption of 

conservation tillage methods is expected even if SYHT0H2 soybean continues to remain a 

regulated article. Regulated field trials of SYHT0H2 soybean would only impact small plots of 

land with no effect on soil characteristics. 

Preferred Alternative 

Soil characteristics would not change as a direct result of the Preferred Alternative. The transgenic 

enzymes in SYHT0H2 soybean would not impact soil quality: compositional analysis of 

SYHT0H2 soybean tissue demonstrates that it is not substantially different from conventional 

soybean (Syngenta 2012c). 

SYHT0H2 soybean production would not change land acreage or cultivation practices for 

transgenic or nontransgenic soybean. Growers would continue current agronomic practices and 

continue to adopt conservation tillage methods regardless of whether SYHT0H2 soybean is 

deregulated or not. Continued adoption of conservation tillage would be facilitated by the addition 

of other broad-spectrum herbicides to the range of weed management tools used by growers. 

SYHT0H2 soybean is tolerant to mesotrione, isoxaflutole, and glufosinate. Thus, conservation 

tillage trends, and its direct beneficial effects on soil quality, are likely to continue as currently 

practiced. 

Soil characteristics would not change as an indirect result of the Preferred Alternative. Mesotrione 

and isoxaflutole would be applied to pre-emergence or to SYHT0H2 soybean fields post-emergence, 

but would not adversely affect soil quality. Glufosinate would be applied to SYHT0H2 soybean 

fields post-emergence. As described in the appendices, these herbicides degrade rapidly through 

biotic or abiotic processes. Although the DKN degradate of isoxaflutole is more persistent than the 

parent chemical, soil quality will not be impacted when isoxaflutole is used in accordance with 

EPA label requirements. As a prerequisite to its registration of herbicides (including their 
– 81 – 

degradates), EPA determines that there is no unreasonable environmental risk if the end user adheres 

to the label use restrictions during application. 

4.3.2 Water Quality and Use 

As described in Section 2.3.2, Water Quality, the primary cause of agricultural nonpoint source 

(NPS) pollution is increased sedimentation from soil erosion, which can introduce sediments, 

manure, fertilizers, and pesticides to nearby lakes and streams. Transgenic soybean is not a 

sediment, fertilizer, or pesticide and therefore is not a major component of agricultural NPS 

pollution. Soybean plant matter could be transferred to water bodies after field harvest, potentially 

accumulating in stream or lake sediments. 

Water quality may be indirectly impacted by herbicide-tolerant crops as a result of changes in 

herbicide type and usage rates, as discussed in Section 4.2.2, Agronomic Practices. As described in 

Section 2.3.2, Water Quality, risks to water quality from herbicide use are assessed by the EPA 

during the herbicide registration (and re-registration review) process and are addressed, as 

warranted, through EPA requirements such as application methodology and buffer zones between 

fields, riparian areas, and water bodies, as well as monitoring for herbicide residues in surface and 

ground water. 

No Action Alternative 

Water quality would not change as a direct or indirect result of the No Action Alternative. Water 

quality would continue to be regulated by federal programs (some of which have been delegated to 

certain states) and agronomic practices to protect water quality would continue to be implemented 

even if SYHT0H2 soybean continues to remain a regulated article. Herbicide use would continue 

to evolve as transgenic soybean products with herbicide tolerance traits are developed, approved, 

marketed, and adopted, as described in Section 4.2.2, Agronomic Practices. Overall herbicide 

concentrations in water may be reduced and water quality improved independent of the regulatory 

status of SYHT0H2 soybean. Regulated field trials of SYHT0H2 soybean would only impact small 

plots of land with no effect on water quality. 

Preferred Alternative 

Water quality would not change as a direct result of the Preferred Alternative. SYHT0H2 soybean 

does not contain any substances that have the potential to affect water quality. Water quality would 

continue to be regulated by federal programs (some of which have been delegated to certain states) 

and agronomic practices to protect water quality would continue to be implemented if 

SYHT0H2 soybean is deregulated. 

The appended information on the three herbicides of which SYHT0H2 soybean is tolerant includes 

summaries of each chemical’s persistence in water. The three herbicides degrade rapidly and are 

therefore not persistent in surface or groundwater but the degradates may persist under certain 

conditions (i.e., suboxic conditions such as groundwater). The longest persistence was noted for 

DKN: the aqueous degradation half-life of DKN was calculated to be 103 days. As described in the 

appendices, these herbicides and their degradates are unlikely to concentrate or bioaccumulate. 
– 82 – 

EPA evaluates risks to water quality when conducting ecological risk assessments as part of the 

herbicide registration review process, as described in the appendices for each of the herbicides that 

would be used on SYHT0H2 soybean. Identified risks are managed by EPA requirements for 

application methods and buffer zones, as specified in EPA-approved labels on each herbicide 

product. Labels for herbicides containing isoxaflutole, glufosinate, or mesotrione will be submitted 

by Bayer and Syngenta to EPA for approval of use on SYHT0H2 soybean fields. Based on these 

precautions, increased use of these products is unlikely to result in a substantive adverse impact to 

water quality. 

4.3.3 Air Quality 

As described in Section 2.3.3, Air Quality, agricultural activities such as burning, tilling, harvesting, 

applying pesticides, and fertilizing can directly affect air quality by emitting vehicle exhaust, dust, and 

herbicide sprays. With regard to transgenic soybean with herbicide tolerance traits, burning, harvesting, 

and fertilizing practices do not vary between transgenic and nontransgenic agricultural varieties. Air 

quality impacts from aerial application of herbicides may vary slightly between transgenic soybean 

varieties with herbicide tolerance traits and nontransgenic varieties because different herbicides would 

be used for transgenic varieties. Aerial application of herbicides has the potential to impact air quality 

from drift, diffusion, and volatilization of the chemicals, as well as motor vehicle emissions from 

airplanes or helicopters. Potential impacts are managed by adherence to the application 

requirements stated on EPA-approved herbicide labels, including consideration of wind speed 

when spraying. 

Section 4.2.2.5, Pesticide Use, explains that herbicide use can be changed by transgenic herbicide 

tolerant crops, potentially benefitting air quality if chemical use and motorized equipment use can be 

reduced. As discussed in Section 4.2.2.2, Cropping Practices, conservation tillage increases with 

the use of transgenic crops, resulting in lower dust emissions and farm equipment exhaust 

emissions. 

No Action Alternative 

Air quality would not change as a direct or indirect result of the No Action Alternative. Soybean 

growers would continue current trends in agricultural activities even if SYHT0H2 soybean 

continues to remain a regulated article. Application of herbicides and adoption of conservation 

tillage practices would continue on current trend lines as additional herbicide-tolerant products are 

adopted by growers, reducing impacts to air quality from agricultural activities. Regulated field 

trials of SYHT0H2 soybean would only impact small plots of land with no effect on air quality. 

Preferred Alternative 

Air quality would not change as a direct result of the Preferred Alternative because the SYHT0H2 

plant does not display any characteristics that would impact air quality. Agronomic practices that 

may affect air quality may be altered as a result of using a different suite of herbicides on 

SYHT0H2 soybean fields: additional passes across the fields may be required in certain instances 

to apply a range of herbicides at different times, as part of an integrated weed management 

program. Vehicle exhaust emissions and dust generation may increase, but it is not possible to 
– 83 – 

quantify the extent. The herbicides to which SYHT0H2 soybean is tolerant are not volatile and 

therefore would not impact air quality. 

4.3.4 Climate 

As described in Section 2.3.4, Climate, agriculture-related activities are recognized as both direct 

(e.g., exhaust from motorized equipment) and indirect (e.g., agriculture-related soil disturbance, 

fertilizer production) sources of greenhouse gases (GHGs). Transgenic crops in general have 

reduced the release of GHGs from agriculture, equivalent to removing 5 million cars from the 

roads each year (Brookes and Barfoot 2005), by reducing equipment use and allowing adoption of 

conservation tillage methods. The permanent CO2 savings arising from reduced fuel use in the US 

attributable to transgenic herbicide-tolerant soybeans in 2008 was 290 million kilograms of CO2

(Brookes and Barfoot 2010). 

The climate can also affect agricultural crop production, and climate change could affect soybean 

yields either positively or negatively. Transgenic soybeans with herbicide tolerance traits are not 

expected to differ from nontransgenic soybean in response to climate change. 

No Action Alternative 

The climate would not change as a direct or indirect result of the No Action Alternative. Soybean 

growers would continue current trends in agricultural activities even if SYHT0H2 soybean 

continues to remain a regulated article. GHG emission reductions would continue as other 

transgenic varieties are adopted by growers and they seek more energy-efficient methods of 

agriculture. Regulated field trials of SYHT0H2 soybean would only impact small plots of land 

with no effect on the climate. Increases or decreases in soybean yields resulting from climate 

change would not be affected by the No Action Alternative. 

Preferred Alternative 

The climate would not change as a direct or indirect result of the Preferred Alternative. 

SYHT0H2 soybean production would not change land acreage or cultivation practices for transgenic or 

nontransgenic soybean. As described in the Petition (Syngenta 2012c), SYHT0H2 soybean requires 

management strategies similar to those for conventional soybean production, and would not affect 

agricultural activities that may impact climate change. Growers would continue current trends in 

agricultural activities if SYHT0H2 soybean is deregulated. GHG emission reductions would continue 

as SYHT0H2 soybean and other transgenic varieties are adopted by growers and they seek more 

energy-efficient methods of agriculture. Increases or decreases in soybean yields resulting from climate 

change would not be affected by the Preferred Alternative. 

4.4 Natural Biological Communities (Non-Target Organisms) 

This section describes the potential impacts to animals, plants, soil microorganisms, biodiversity, 

and gene movement in the natural environment that may result from the No Action Alternative and 

the Preferred Alternative as compared to the existing conditions described in Chapter 2. Potential 

impacts to threatened and endangered species are separately described in Chapter 6. 
– 84 – 

4.4.1 Animals 

As described in Section 2.4.1, Animals, soybean fields may be temporarily or permanently 

occupied by many animals including invertebrates, birds, and mammals. Aquatic animals may 

reside in water bodies adjacent to soybean fields. Animals can have positive, negative, or no effect 

on soybean production; herbicide-tolerant soybean varieties do not affect animals but the 

herbicides applied to these crops may. 

Most herbicides used on soybeans are only slightly toxic to birds and mammals (Palmer, Bromley, 

and Anderson undated). Cultural practices that decrease the need for herbicides include rotating 

crops, selecting resistant varieties (when possible), planting and harvesting at the proper time, and 

using integrated pest management techniques. Potential impacts to wildlife are minimized by 

applying herbicides in accordance with EPA label requirements. 

No Action Alternative 

Animals would not be affected as a direct or indirect result of the No Action Alternative. Animal 

exposure to genetically modified crops containing enzymes tolerant of herbicides would be nearly 

identical to current conditions even if SYHT0H2 soybean continues to remain a regulated article. 

Approved transgenic soybean cultivars would continue to be used by growers and there would be 

no change in animal exposure rates outside of controlled environments (i.e., agriculture). Regulated 

field trials of SYHT0H2 soybean would only impact small plots of land with controlled animal 

incursions. 

Preferred Alternative 

Animals are not likely to be affected as a direct result of the Preferred Alternative. If 

SYHT0H2 soybean is deregulated, animal exposure to genetically modified crops with herbicide 

tolerance would be similar to current conditions. As described in Section 4.2.1, Agronomic 

Practices, land use and agricultural production of SYHT0H2 soybean under the Preferred 

Alternative is likely to continue as currently practiced. There would be no direct impact to animal 

communities as a result of soybean production practices under the Preferred Alternative. 

Consumption of SYHT0H2 soybean would also not affect animals. Toxicological assessments of 

the two enzymes conferring herbicide tolerance to mesotrione, isoxaflutole, and glufosinate are 

described in the Petition (Syngenta 2012c). As presented in Section VI.D.3, Conclusions of the 

Toxicological Assessment of AvHPPPD-03, of the Petition, 

“The source organism for avhppd-03, oat, is a safely consumed food crop, and the 

enzymatic mode of action of AvHPPD-03 is a native feature of A. sativa HPPD, with no 

toxicological significance to mammals. The bioinformatic analysis showed that 

AvHPPD-03 is most similar to other HPPD proteins in common food crops and does not 

have sequence similarity to any known or putative toxins. In mice, AvHPPD-03 was not 

acutely toxic when administered orally (NOAEL = 2000 mg/kg b.w.37). Therefore, 

AvHPPD-03 is considered to be nontoxic.” 

37 No Observable Adverse Effect Level equals 2,000 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) of body weight. 
– 85 – 

Similarly, as presented in Section VII.E.3, Conclusions of the Toxicological Assessment of PAT, 

of the Petition, 

“The PAT protein in SYHT0H2 soybean is from a source organism that is not known to be 

toxic. The PAT protein from S. viridochromogenes is a member of a well-characterized, safe 

class of enzymes with a high degree of substrate specificity, and shows significant homology 

with PAT proteins from other source organisms. Bioinformatic analysis revealed no amino 

acid sequence similarity to any known toxins or other proteins known to cause adverse 

effects, and PAT was not acutely toxic to mice. PAT is therefore considered to be nontoxic.” 

Increased use of mesotrione, isoxaflutole, and glufosinate may be an indirect result of introducing 

SYHT0H2 soybean that is tolerant of these other herbicides. The potential risks, as identified by 

EPA’s review of toxicological data, to animals and habitat presented by these herbicides are 

described in the appendices. These risks are managed by proper herbicide application, in accordance 

with the EPA-approved herbicide labels. 

Deregulating SYHT0H2 soybean would not directly or indirectly impact animals. An evaluation of 

ecosystem effects is provided in Section 4.4.4, Biodiversity. 

4.4.2 Plants 

As described in Section 2.4.2, Plants, soybean fields may be bordered by other agricultural fields 

(including other soybean varieties), woodlands, pasture and grasslands, or wetlands. These 

bordering areas may be occupied by non-target plants. Transgenic soybean cultivars with herbicide 

tolerance traits allow growers to change herbicide usage types and application rates to manage 

target plants (i.e., weeds) within fields. Both target and non-target plants may be affected by 

herbicides (target plants are addressed in Section 4.2.2). Impacts to non-target plants outside of 

soybean fields may result from herbicide spray drift and volatilization. Such potential impacts are 

managed by adherence to the application requirements stated on EPA-approved herbicide labels. 

No Action Alternative 

Non-target plants would not be affected as a direct or indirect result of the No Action Alternative. 

Weed management methods would continue following current trends even if SYHT0H2 soybean 

continues to remain a regulated article. Weed species that typically inhabit soybean production 

systems will continue to be managed through the use of mechanical, cultural, and chemical control 

methods, including the use of glyphosate and other registered herbicides. The majority of U.S. 

soybean acres will continue to be subject to herbicide application. No changes to cultivation 

practices are expected under the No Action Alternative. Isoxaflutole, glufosinate, mesotrione, and 

other approved herbicides would continue to be used on other crops in accordance with label 

requirements that protect non-target plants. Regulated field trials of SYHT0H2 soybean would only 

occur on small plots of land with controlled plant exposures. No impacts to non-target plant species are 

anticipated. 
– 86 – 

Preferred Alternative 

Non-target plants would not be affected as a direct result of the Preferred Alternative. 

SYHT0H2 soybean production would not change land acreage or cultivation practices for 

transgenic or nontransgenic soybean. Target plants (i.e., weeds) would be affected by the Preferred 

Alternative, as intended. This alternative, by allowing the use of herbicides with different modes of 

action than are currently available for use on soybean, will indirectly help prevent or delay the 

evolution of herbicide resistance among target weed species, and help avoid shifts in weed 

populations to those that are naturally tolerant to the predominant soybean herbicides. 

SYHT0H2 soybean would facilitate the new or increased use of some herbicides in US soybean 

production. Mesotrione, isoxaflutole, and/or glufosinate would likely be applied to fields planted 

with this herbicide-tolerant variety, possibly in combination with other herbicides registered for use 

on soybeans. These herbicides would also continue to be used on rotational crops in the same 

fields. Non-target plants may be potentially affected from herbicide volatilization or spray drift as 

an indirect result of the Preferred Alternative. 

As explained in the appendices for the herbicides that would be used on SYHT0H2 soybean, 

volatilization is not likely for these compounds due to their low vapor pressure. Spray drift has the 

potential to impact non-target plants or may affect the quality of stormwater or irrigation water runoff. The potential risks to non-target plants presented by these herbicides (as identified by EPA’s 

review of toxicological data) are described in the appendices. These risks are managed by proper 

herbicide application, in accordance with the EPA-approved herbicide labels. 

There would be no new off-target impacts associated with application of the three herbicides 

(mesotrione, isoxaflutole, and glufosinate) to SYHT0H2 soybean when they are used in 

accordance with label directions. EPA has determined that there is no unreasonable environmental 

risk if the end user adheres to the label use restrictions when applying herbicide formulations. 

Herbicide labels specify application equipment and methodology to minimize spray drift. For 

Restricted Use Pesticides (e.g., isoxaflutole), requirements specify that applications must be made 

by a certified applicator to minimize effects on nearby environments. 

4.4.3 Soil Microorganisms 

As described in Section 2.4.3, Soil Microorganisms, the main factors affecting microbial 

population size and diversity include soil type (texture, structure, organic matter, aggregate 

stability, pH, and nutrient content), plant type (as providers of specific carbon and energy sources 

into the soil), and agricultural management practices (crop rotation, tillage, herbicide and fertilizer 

application, and irrigation). Planting transgenic soybeans does not substantively change any of 

these factors except agricultural management practices. The changes in crop rotation, tillage 

practices, fertilizer application, and irrigation outlined in Section 4.2.1, Agronomic Practices, are 

not expected to substantively affect soil microorganisms. Herbicide types and application rates can 

be changed by growers when new herbicide-tolerant cultivars are available; herbicides that persist 

in soil and are toxic to microbes have the potential to affect soil microorganisms. 
– 87 – 

Glyphosate can alter the microbial ecology and biology of the rhizosphere environment. Increased 

fungal populations that develop under glyphosate treatment of glyphosate-resistant soybean may 

adversely affect plant growth and biological processes in the soil and rhizosphere (Kremer, Means, 

and Kim 2005). Field studies conducted in Missouri during the 1997 to 2007 period assessed 

effects of glyphosate applied to glyphosate-resistant soybean and maize on root colonization and 

soil populations of Fusarium and selected rhizosphere bacteria (Kremer and Means 2009). 

Frequency of root-colonizing Fusarium increased significantly after glyphosate application during 

growing seasons in each year at all sites. Roots of soybean and maize treated with glyphosate were 

heavily colonized by Fusarium compared to non-glyphosate-resistant or glyphosate-resistant 

cultivars not treated with glyphosate. These studies hypothesized that root-exuded glyphosate may 

serve as a nutrient source for fungi and stimulate propagule germination. 

No Action Alternative 

Soil microorganisms would not be affected as a direct or indirect result of the No Action 

Alternative. Soybean cultivation would continue as currently practiced. Microbes in the field 

would continue to be exposed to common agronomic practices, including herbicide applications to 

soybean fields. The use of transgenic soybean with herbicide tolerance traits would continue 

following current trends even if SYHT0H2 soybean continues to remain a regulated article. 

Regulated field trials of SYHT0H2 soybean would involve only small plots of land with controlled 

plant exposures. No impacts to soil microorganisms compared to any effects from current 

agronomic practices are anticipated. 

Preferred Alternative 

Soil microorganisms would not be affected as a direct result of the Preferred Alternative. As stated 

in the Petition (Syngenta 2012c), SYHT0H2 soybean phenotype characteristics do not differ 

substantively from its nontransgenic parent variety and the new enzymes are not toxic. Soil 

microbial interaction with plant tissue would not have any effect. 

Herbicides have the potential to impact soil microbes if the herbicides are toxic to them. As 

described in the appendices, studies of mesotrione, isoxaflutole, and glufosinate have found no to 

minimal impacts to soil microorganisms. The Preferred Alternative would not have an indirect 

adverse affect on soil microorganisms. 

4.4.4 Biodiversity 

Biological diversity, or the variation in species or life forms in an area, is highly managed in 

agricultural fields. Biodiversity in an agroecosystem (the organisms and environment of an 

agricultural area when considered as an ecosystem) depends (Altieri 1999) on the: 

 Diversity of vegetation within and around the agroecosystem; 

 Permanence of crops within the agroecosystem; 

 Intensity of management; and 

 Extent of isolation from natural vegetation. 
– 88 – 

Farmers typically plant crops that are genetically adapted to grow well in a specific area of 

cultivation and have been bred for a specific market. Farmers want to encourage high yields from 

their crop, and will intensively manage plant and animal communities through chemical and cultural 

controls to protect the crop from damage. The biological diversity in agricultural fields is therefore 

lower than in the surrounding habitats. Although soybean production fields are cultivated as plant 

monocultures to optimize yield, the adjacent landscape may harbor a wide variety of plants and 

animals. Most transgenic crops increase the productivity of cultivated lands, so biodiversity is 

protected because additional land is not needed for the same volume of crop production. 

A qualitative and relative comparison of the potential for ecological impacts of herbicides can be 

made by calculating an “environmental impact quotient” (EIQ) based on the application rate and 

percentage of active ingredient in marketed products. The EIQ method was developed by 

integrated pest management specialists at Cornell University to help fruit and vegetable growers of 

New York State to evaluate low impact pest-control options (Levitan 1997). A composite EIQ 

score is calculated for each pesticide active ingredient using an algebraic equation that combines 

the numerical ratings assigned to eight environmental parameters. The underlying premise of the 

EIQ method is to screen for potential impacts that might result from the interaction of toxicity and 

exposure. In conducting EAs of herbicide-tolerant transgenic plants, APHIS has utilized the EIQ 

method to compare the environmental effects of herbicide usage on a relative basis (e.g., Draft 

Environmental Assessment, Bayer Petition 09-328-01 for Determination of Nonregulated Status of 

Double Herbicide-tolerant Soybean (Glycine max) Event FG72 and Final Environmental Impact 

Statement, Glyphosate-Tolerant Alfalfa Events J101 and J163: Request for Nonregulated Status). 

In order to assess relative impacts to ecosystems, the calculation provides an “ecological” EIQ 

based on application rates of herbicide active ingredients, rather than toxicity of the pure 

compound to fish, birds, bees, and beneficial organisms (NYS-IPM 2012). Table 4-3 compares the 

ecological EIQ ratings of the top ten herbicides used on soybeans currently (see Figure 2-3) and the 

three herbicides of which SYHT0H2 soybean is tolerant (listed in bold type), using the maximum 

annual application rates for soybeans on the referenced product labels, or the proposed rates for the 

new use on transgenic SYHT0H2 soybean (see Table 4-2). Table 4-3 also provides an overall 

“field use” EIQ rating, which combines the ecological EIQ with worker and consumer ratings 

based on toxicity to humans. 

These ratings provide a qualitative comparison of the potential overall environmental effect of 

using these herbicides. Table 4-3 shows that the ecological EIQ can vary considerably from the 

overall field use EIQ, as the percentage of active ingredient and the application rate substantively 

affect the final score. The dominant herbicide used on soybeans, glyphosate, has a slightly higher 

ecological EIQ (indicating higher environmental impact) than the three herbicides of which 

SYHT0H2 soybean is tolerant. 
– 89 – 

Table 4-3 EIQ Ecological and Overall Field Use Rating of Selected Herbicides 

Herbicide 

Environmental Impact 

Quotient Rating1

Common Name 

Example 

Formulation 

Percent 

active 

ingredient 

Maximum Annual 

Application Rate 

(per acre) 

Overall 

Field Use Ecological 

2,4-D Dimethylamine 

salt 

2,4-D Amine 42a 46.8 2 pts 19.32b 29.0 

2,4-D 

Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid 

Weedone 

LV6EC3a

 87.3 1.5 pts 21.83b 44.5 

Chlorimuron Classic4a 25.0 1.5 oz 0.54b 1.0 

Clethodim Clethodim 

2EC5a

 26.4 32 fl oz 9.05b 16.4 

Fomesafen Flexstar6a 22.1 1.6 pts 8.66b 11.5 

Glyphosate Roundup7a 48.7 44 fl oz 20.57b 46.9 

Imazethapyr Pursuit8a 22.9 4 oz 1.18b 1.9 

Metribuzin Sencor DF9a 75.0 1.34 lb 28.59b 69.4 

Pendimethalin Prowl10a 38.7 4.0 pts 46.710b 113.0 

Trifuralin Treflan HFP11a 43.0 4.0 pts 32.411b 72.2 

Glufosinate Liberty12a 18.2 62 fl oz 14.212b 30.0 

Isoxaflutole Balance Pro13a 40.5 3 fl oz 1.813b 3.0 

Mesotrione Callisto14a 40.0 10 fl oz 4.714b 8.3 

Sources:1- (NYS-IPM 2012) 

 2a- (Albaugh Undated) 2b- (NYS-IPM 2013b) 

 3a- (Nufarm Undated) 3b- (NYS-IPM 2013a) 

 4a- (DuPont 2012) 4b- (NYS-IPM 2013c) Note: this herbicide is commonly tank-mixed with other herbicides such as glyphosate 

 5a- (Willowood 2011) 5b- (NYS-IPM 2013d) 

 6a- (Syngenta 2010) 6b- (NYS-IPM 2013e) 

 7a- (Monsanto 2012) 7b- (NYS-IPM 2013g) 

 8a- (BASF 2011) 8b- (NYS-IPM 2013h) 

 9a- (Bayer Undated) 9b- (NYS-IPM 2013k) Note: this herbicide is not currently marketed in the US; the application rates are for a Canadian 

formulation 

 10a- (BASF 2012) 10b- (NYS-IPM 2013l) 

 11a- (Dow 2008) 11b- (NYS-IPM 2013m) 

 12a- (Bayer 2012) 12b- (NYS-IPM 2013f) 

13a-(Bayer 2013) 13b- (NYS-IPM 2013i) 

14a- (Syngenta 2011) 14b- (NYS-IPM 2013j) 

No Action Alternative 

Biodiversity would not be affected as a direct or indirect result of the No Action Alternative. 

Biodiversity within agroecosystems would continue to be affected by agricultural practices 

following current trends. Growers would continue to have access to deregulated herbicide-tolerant 

soybean varieties, and adoption of new transgenic soybean varieties would be expected to continue 

even if SYHT0H2 soybean continues to remain a regulated article. Animal and plant species that 
– 90 – 

typically inhabit soybean production fields or adjacent land will continue to be affected by 

currently utilized management plans and systems, which include the use of mechanical, cultural, 

and chemical control methods. Regulated field trials of SYHT0H2 soybean would only involve 

small plots of land with controlled animal and plant incursions. No changes in biodiversity 

compared to effects from current agronomic practices are anticipated. 

Preferred Alternative 

Biodiversity would be unchanged as a result of the Preferred Alternative. SYHT0H2 soybean is not 

toxic and does not exhibit any different agronomic traits or require different agronomic practices 

(Syngenta 2012c). As described in Section 4.4.1, Animals, and Section 4.4.2, Plants, animal and 

plant species that typically inhabit soybean production areas would be managed the same as for 

other herbicide tolerant soybean products on the market. The four determinants of biodiversity in 

an agroecosystem listed above are likely to remain unchanged under the Preferred Alternative. 

As shown in Table 4-3, isoxaflutole, glufosinate, and mesotrione display relatively low EIQ ratings 

as compared to the top ten other herbicides used on soybean, and in particular glyphosate. Adding 

new transgenic soybean cultivars with tolerance of isoxaflutole, glufosinate, and mesotrione would 

be likely to increase the use of these herbicides but, as demonstrated by the lower EIQ scores than 

the most commonly used herbicide (glyphosate), would not adversely affect biodiversity. 

4.4.5 Gene Movement in the Natural Environment 

Soybean is principally a self-pollinated species, propagated by seed (OECD, 2010). As described 

in Section 2.4.5, Gene Movement in the Natural Environment, there is no evidence that horizontal 

gene transfer can naturally occur between unrelated plant species. Genetic engineering artificially 

accomplishes horizontal gene transfer, but does not impart natural gene transfer. 

Cross-pollination to adjacent plants of other soybean varieties occurs at a very low frequency (0 to 

6.3 percent as measured in experimental treatments) (Caviness 1966; Ray et al. 2003; Yoshimura, 

Matsuo, and Yasuda 2006). As described in Section 2.2.5, Persistence in the 

Environment/Weediness Potential, cultivated soybean seed rarely displays any dormancy 

characteristics and only under certain environmental conditions grows as a volunteer in the year 

following cultivation, minimizing the potential for vertical gene movement. The soybean plant is 

not weedy, and there are no wild relatives outside of Asia. 

No Action Alternative 

Soybean’s characteristic of limited gene movement in the natural environment would not be 

affected as a direct or indirect result of the No Action Alternative. Soybean breeding by traditional 

or transgenic means would continue even if SYHT0H2 soybean continues to remain a regulated 

article. Regulated field trials of SYHT0H2 soybean would only impact small plots of land with 

minimal potential for exposure to sexually compatible plants (i.e., other soybean plants) or 

unrelated plants. No changes in the natural gene movement characteristics of current soybean 

varieties are anticipated. 
– 91 – 

Soybean’s persistence in the environment and weediness potential would not be affected as a direct 

or indirect result of the No Action Alternative. Soybean breeding by traditional or transgenic 

means would continue even if SYHT0H2 soybean continues to remain a regulated article. 

Regulated field trials of SYHT0H2 soybean would only impact small plots of land with minimal 

potential for exposure to sexually compatible plants (i.e., other soybean plants). No changes in 

these characteristics of current soybean varieties are anticipated. 

Preferred Alternative 

Soybean’s characteristic of limited gene movement in the natural environment would not be 

affected as a direct or indirect result of the Preferred Alternative. As described in the Petition 

(Syngenta 2012c), it is theoretically possible that the transgenes avhppd-03 or pat could enter the 

soil. However, multiple reviews have concluded that there is minimal likelihood of horizontal gene 

transfer between transgenic plants and soil microorganisms (Keese 2008). Should avhppd-03 or pat 

from SYHT0H2 soybean be integrated into a plasmid or chromosome of a bacterium, it is highly 

unlikely that AvHPPD-03 or PAT proteins will be produced, because the codon use in avhppd-03 

and pat is optimized for expression in plants, not bacteria. It is highly unlikely that AvHPPD-03 or 

PAT will be produced in soil via transformation of bacteria with genes from SYHT0H2 soybean. 

Soybean’s persistence in the environment and weediness potential would not be affected as a direct 

or indirect result of the Preferred Alternative. Cultivation of SYHT0H2 soybean will not lead to the 

transfer of avhppd-03 and pat to wild relatives of soybean because they are not present in the US. 

The weediness potential of soybean has not been altered by SYHT0H2 soybean. Germination and 

dormancy characteristics of SYHT0H2 soybean seed are no different than those of conventional 

soybean seed (Syngenta 2012c). The introduced traits in SYHT0H2 soybean are not intended to 

affect the range or frequency of soybean outcrossing, and phenotypic data show no indication 

that the genetic modification resulted in enhancement of reproductive characteristics of 

SYHT0H2 soybean compared with conventional soybean (Syngenta 2012c). 

4.5 Public Health 

This section describes the potential impacts to human health, animal (livestock) health, and worker 

safety that may result from the No Action Alternative and the Preferred Alternative as compared to 

the existing conditions described in Chapter 2. 

4.5.1 Human Health 

In theory, transgenic products could impact human health because of possible toxic or nutritional 

effects of the products, or how the product might change the allergenicity of food products. As 

described in Section 1.1, Regulatory Authority, 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 transgenic products must be in compliance with all applicable legal and regulatory 

requirements. Transgenic products for food and feed also routinely undergo a voluntary 

consultation process with the FDA prior to release onto the market. To date, all transgenic crops 

marketed in the US have been the subject of pre-marketing consultations with the FDA. 
– 92 – 

No Action Alternative 

Human health would not be affected as a direct or indirect result of the No Action Alternative. 

Previously deregulated transgenic soybean would continue to be used as food for human 

consumption. Human exposure to SYHT0H2 soybean would be limited to those individuals 

involved in cultivation under regulated conditions even if SYHT0H2 soybean continues to remain 

a regulated article. Regulated field trials of SYHT0H2 soybean would only impact small plots of 

land with no potential for exposure to the general public. Exposure to existing transgenic and 

nontransgenic soybean would not change under this alternative. 

Preferred Alternative 

Human health would not be affected as a direct result of the Preferred Alternative. If 

SYHT0H2 soybean is deregulated, the general public would primarily come in contact with the 

introduced transgenic proteins (i.e., AvHPPD-03 or PAT) through dietary exposure to food and 

products derived from SYHT0H2 soybean, although most processed products would contain no 

detectable AvHPPD-03 or PAT residues. The lack of human health effects from the lack of 

changes in nutritional value, potential exposure to constituents of SYHT0H2 soybean, and 

potential exposure to herbicides are described below. 

The Petition (Syngenta 2012c) states that an analysis of key nutritional components of forage and 

seed from SYHT0H2 soybean identified no differences from conventional, nontransgenic soybean 

that would affect human or animal health. No unintended, adverse consequences of the 

transformation process or expression of the transgenes in SYHT0H2 soybean were evident in any 

test. Seed, forage, and soybean meal from SYHT0H2 soybean were found to be similar in 

composition to those same materials from conventional soybean. SYHT0H2 soybean exhibits a 

compositional profile similar to that of reference soybean varieties grown concurrently in several 

locations and other soybean varieties. 

Soybean is one of the most commonly implicated sources of food allergy. SYHT0H2 soybean seed 

was assessed to determine whether its endogenous allergen content differed from that of a 

nontransgenic, near-isogenic control soybean (variety ‘Jack’) or commercially available 

nontransgenic soybean reference varieties (Syngenta 2012c). SYHT0H2 soybean was determined 

to be comparable to and as safe as conventional soybean varieties and will not pose greater health 

risks to soybean-allergic consumers than nontransgenic soybean. 

The Petition also states that both AvHPPD-03 and PAT are homologous with proteins in many 

species to which humans and animals are exposed daily without concern (Syngenta 2012c). 

AvHPPD- 03 and PAT do not share significant amino acid similarity to known toxins and are not 

acutely toxic in mice. AvHPPD-03 and PAT are unlikely to be human allergens. 

AvHPPD-03 is derived from a safely consumed endogenous protein in a common food crop, oat 

(Syngenta 2012c). Oat contains no endogenous proteins that are listed in the Food Allergy Research 

and Resource Program (FARRP) Allergen Protein Database38 and therefore is not considered to be a 

known allergenic food. Oat has been implicated as a potential source of proteins that cause celiac 

38 http://www.allergenonline.org/databasebrowse.shtml 
– 93 – 

disease in humans; however, a recent review of the literature clarified that this risk has likely been 

confounded by the use of test materials that were not pure oats (HealthCanada 2007). Pure oats can 

be consumed by celiac disease patients who are otherwise sensitive to foods such as wheat and barley 

(which contain the proteins associated with celiac disease and are listed in the FARRP Allergen 

Protein Database). 

HPPD enzymes, as a group of biochemically and structurally related proteins, are ubiquitous in 

commonly consumed food plants and animals, and the level of AvHPPD-03 in SYHT0H2 soybean 

is low (Syngenta 2012c). AvHPPD-03 is not acutely toxic in mice and has no significant amino 

acid sequence similarity to known toxins or allergens. Bioinformatic analysis and assays for 

digestibility, heat inactivation, and glycosylation status provided in the Petition indicate that 

AvHPPD-03 is unlikely to be a food allergen. AvHPPD-03 is not likely to pose a risk to the health 

of humans or other mammals through consumption of SYHT0H2 soybean. 

PAT has been safely used and consumed in commercially available transgenic crops and has a 

permanent EPA tolerance exemption in all crops under 40 CFR § 174.522. It has a history of safe use 

in numerous transgenic crop varieties that have been deregulated by APHIS. The PAT protein 

produced in SYHT0H2 soybean has been characterized and tested to determine its potential for 

causing adverse effects in humans and livestock (Syngenta 2012c). The PAT protein in 

SYHT0H2 soybean is from S. viridochromogenes (a member of a well-characterized, nonpathogenic 

group of bacteria), shows a high degree of substrate specificity, and shows significant homology with 

PAT proteins from other source organisms. Bioinformatic analysis revealed no amino acid sequence 

similarity to any known toxins or other proteins known to cause adverse effects, and PAT was not 

acutely toxic to mice. PAT is therefore considered to be nontoxic. 

PAT is also unlikely to be a food allergen. It is derived from a source organism that contains no 

known allergens, it is not significantly similar in amino acid sequence to any known allergens, and, 

as expressed in SYHT0H2 soybean, it shows no glycosylation (Syngenta 2012c). Furthermore, 

PAT is produced at very low levels in soybean seed, its enzyme activity is completely inactivated 

at 55°C, and it is rapidly degraded in simulated mammalian gastric and intestinal fluids. PAT is not 

similar to known allergens, and little or no dietary exposure to intact PAT protein would occur in 

humans or other mammals via consumption of SYHT0H2 soybean. 

Human health assessments from potential exposure to herbicides are described in the appendices. 

Each of the three herbicides that would be applicable to SYHT0H2 soybean (mesotrione, 

isoxaflutole, and glufosinate) are registered with EPA. EPA’s review process has determined that 

these herbicides and their degradates present no unreasonable risk to human health when used in 

accordance with EPA-approved label requirements. 

The Petitioners have initiated a pre-market consultation process with FDA and submitted a Safety 

and Nutritional Assessment for SYHT0H2 soybean (Syngenta 2012c). The assessment documents 

a lack of toxicity of the introduced AvHPPD-03 and PAT proteins in SYHT0H2 soybean for 

human and animal consumption, and a lack of allergenicity concerns for humans. No adverse 

impacts to human health, either directly or indirectly, are expected from deregulating 

SYHT0H2 soybean. 
– 94 – 

4.5.2 Worker Safety 

As described in Section 2.5.3, Worker Safety, pesticides, including insecticides, fungicides and/or 

herbicides, are used on most soybean acreage in the US; herbicides are the most commonly used 

pesticides on soybean. The EPA’s Worker Protection Standard (USEPA 1992) requires employers 

to take actions to reduce the risk of pesticide poisonings and injuries among agricultural workers 

and pesticide handlers. The restrictions and precautions for worker safety associated with most 

herbicides include: 

 Personal Protective Equipment (chemical-resistant gloves and other skin protection, eye 

protection, respirators, etc.) or other measures (closed-system applications) to minimize 

applicator exposure; 

 Minimum worker reentry intervals post application; and 

 Minimum preharvest intervals post application. 

Large-scale cultivation of transgenic herbicide-tolerant soybean has increased since its introduction 

in 1996. As described in Section 2.2.2.6, Management of Weeds, the volume of herbicide active 

ingredients has been trending downward since the introduction of herbicide-tolerant soybeans in 

1996, but glyphosate use has been trending upward. The actual health risk that workers experience 

is based on the specific chemicals to which they may be exposed and the chemical handling 

procedures used, as described above. Prior to registering a pesticide, EPA conducts an in-depth 

worker safety evaluation, and imposes strict requirements for personal protective equipment, field 

reentry intervals, and specific handling instructions for mixing, loading and applying the product. 

No Action Alternative 

Agricultural workers and pesticide applicators would continue adhere to the restrictions required 

by the variety of registered herbicides such as those approved by EPA for use on soybeans under 

the No Action Alternative. Chemical herbicide use rates would likely continue to evolve as new 

varieties of herbicide-tolerant transgenic soybean are adopted, allowing a more diverse weed 

management program. Worker exposure to herbicides would be managed by following application 

requirements listed on product labels. Approved transgenic soybean cultivars would continue to be 

used even if SYHT0H2 soybean continues to remain a regulated article. Regulated field trials of 

SYHT0H2 soybean would only impact small plots of land with limited potential for exposure to 

agricultural workers. Under the No Action Alternative, agricultural workers and herbicide 

applicators would continue to be exposed to a variety of chemicals including mesotrione, 

isoxaflutole, and glufosinate on crops other than soybeans. 

Preferred Alternative 

The Preferred Alternative would not have a direct impact to worker safety, as the SYHT0H2 soybean 

does not display any characteristics that pose a risk to workers from exposure. The Preferred 

Alternative would likely result in the use of different herbicides on soybean fields than currently, 

potentially indirectly affecting workers. EPA-registered isoxaflutole, glufosinate, and mesotrione 

herbicides that are currently used on other crops would be available for use by soybean growers 

under the Preferred Alternative. As described in Section 4.2.2.3, Pesticide Use, trends in herbicide 
– 95 – 

use are likely to continue as a direct result of the Preferred Alternative. The addition of a new 

herbicide-tolerant soybean variety would allow the use of herbicides not currently applicable to 

soybeans, diversifying the tools available to growers as part of an integrated weed management 

program. Instead of increasing applications of glyphosate to manage weeds that are developing 

resistance to this herbicide, these other herbicides could be used. As described in the appendices, 

EPA’s review of toxicological studies has shown that these herbicides present no unreasonable risk 

to humans. EPA’s label requirements are intended to minimize or eliminate risks to workers from 

exposure during application. 

4.5.3 Animal (Livestock) Health 

As described in Section 2.5.2, Animal (Livestock) Health, livestock ingestion of feed from 

transgenic crops, with subsequent human ingestion of livestock food products, is a potential 

concern about transgenic crops. Several whole and processed fractions of soybeans contribute to 

the total animal diet (OECD 2001). The main soybean product fed to animals is defatted/toasted 

soybean meal, generally not exceeding 15 percent of the animals’ diet. Aspirated grain fractions, 

forage, hay, hulls, seed, silage, and bakery products containing soybean oil are also fed to cattle. 

Hay and hulls are also fed to poultry, and soybean aspirated grain fractions, hulls, and seeds have 

been fed to swine. 

Section 2.5.2, Animal (Livestock) Health, explains that approximately 27 million tons of soybean 

meal are used annually for animal feed, representing nearly 70 percent of the total annual soybean 

meal production. As approximately 93 percent of the soybean produced in the US is transgenic, it 

may be assumed that the majority of soybean livestock feed is also transgenic. As discussed in 

Section 4.5.1, Human Health, soybean has anti-nutrient qualities that can be removed by heat 

processing, and transgenic soybean does not vary in this regard from nontransgenic soybean. The 

proteins that convey herbicide tolerance are derived from natural sources, have been tested for 

safety, and are not expected to be toxic in mammals or poultry. Changes in herbicide use types or 

rates that could conceivably result from introducing herbicide-tolerant cultivars may indirectly 

impact livestock if safe exposure levels are exceeded. 

No Action Alternative 

Animal (livestock) health would not be affected as a direct or indirect result of the No Action 

Alternative. Livestock would not be exposed to SYHT0H2 soybean if it continues to remain a 

regulated article. Previously deregulated transgenic soybean will continue to be used as feed for 

animal consumption, and adoption of transgenic soybean varieties would be expected to continue. 

Exposure to existing transgenic and nontransgenic soybean would not change under this 

alternative. Regulated field trials of SYHT0H2 soybean would only impact small plots of land with 

no potential for exposure to livestock. 

Preferred Alternative 

Animal (livestock) health would not be affected as a direct or indirect result of the Preferred 

Alternative. Processing SYHT0H2 soybean for livestock feed would be unchanged from current 

practices. SYHT0H2 soybean and soybean meal processed from raw SYHT0H2 soybeans are 
– 96 – 

nutritionally and compositionally comparable to raw and processed soybean from conventional 

varieties (Syngenta 2012c). SYHT0H2 soybean is expected to provide adequate nutrition as part of 

formulated diets delivered to growing livestock. 

If SYHT0H2 soybean is deregulated, livestock would primarily come in contact with the 

introduced AvHPPD-03 and PAT proteins in SYHT0H2 soybean through feed products derived 

from SYHT0H2 soybean. As described in Section 4.5.1, Human Health, these proteins are not 

toxic. Livestock would not be adversely affected by consuming SYHT0H2 soybean containing 

these introduced proteins. 

The Petitioners have initiated a voluntary pre-market consultation process with FDA and submitted 

a Safety and Nutritional Assessment for SYHT0H2 soybean in August 2012 (Syngenta 2012b). 

The assessment documented a lack of toxicity of the introduced AvHPPD-03 and PAT proteins in 

SYHT0H2 soybean animal consumption. No adverse impacts to livestock, either directly or 

indirectly, are expected from deregulating SYHT0H2 soybean. 

Different herbicides may be used by soybean growers as a result of deregulating SYHT0H2 soybean, 

potentially changing livestock exposure to herbicides. Potential impacts to livestock health are 

minimized by adherence to EPA-approved label requirements. For example, the herbicide labels for 

Callisto® (containing mesotrione), Balance Pro® (containing isoxaflutole), and Liberty® (containing 

glufosinate) include precautions on time limits when certain crops may not be used as forage or feed 

after herbicide application. 

4.6 Socioeconomic Factors 

This section describes the potential impacts to the domestic trade environment, foreign trade 

environment, and social and economic environment that may result from the No Action Alternative 

and the Preferred Alternative as compared to the existing conditions described in Chapter 2. 

4.6.1 Domestic Trade Environment 

The majority of soybean production in the US is utilized domestically for animal feed, with lower 

amounts and byproducts used for oil or fresh consumption (GINA 2011; USDA-ERS 2010a). As 

described in Section 2.6.1, Domestic Trade Environment, the estimated value of the 2012 US 

soybean production to meet these demands as well as export requirements (described below) is 

$34.5 billion. In 2011, transgenic products comprised 93 percent of the planted soybean to satisfy this 

demand (USDA-ERS 2011c). The transgenic traits include herbicide tolerance and improved oil 

content, as described in Section 2.1, Soybean Biology. Overall, harvest security and quality are better 

with herbicide-tolerant soybean. Farm income is positively impacted by herbicide-tolerant soybean 

by reducing production costs (e.g., reduced tillage for weed management and, potentially, reduced 

herbicide use). Section 2.2.2.6, Management of Weeds, explains that soybean yield losses can range 

from 12 to 80 percent if weeds are uncontrolled for an entire season. 

Economic advantage is a key indicator and useful index for comparing glyphosate-tolerant soybean 

to conventional weed control programs, and is instructive for anticipating changes to the domestic 
– 97 – 

trade environment that may result from the introduction of other herbicide-tolerant soybean 

varieties. The unprecedented high rate of acceptance and adoption of glyphosate-tolerant soybean 

in industrial and developing countries demonstrates the economic advantage of glyphosate-tolerant 

soybean (Carpenter et al. 2002). A major impact of the introduction of glyphosate-tolerant soybean 

has been a reduction in weed control costs for soybean farmers. As early as 1997, weed control 

costs for glyphosate-tolerant soybean adopters were lower than those incurred by nonadopters (Lin, 

Price, and Fernandez-Cornejo 2001). Manufacturers of conventional herbicides soon reacted to 

their declining market share by decreasing the prices of conventional herbicides, such as 

imazethapyr and chlorimuron, by as much as 40 percent (Carpenter et al. 2002). The result has 

been a reduction in weed control costs for both adopters and nonadopters of glyphosate tolerant 

soybean. It was estimated that in 2000, US soybean farmers would spend $307 million less on 

weed control than in 1995 (Carpenter and Gianessi 1999). A recent economic impact for one weed 

control system (comprised of a combination of herbicides and herbicide-tolerant corn, cotton, and 

soybean) estimated that adoption of the system could add $1.9 billion in net farm revenue in 2011 

alone, with increasing benefits over time (Dow 2011); this money would be otherwise spent on 

alternative herbicide and tillage programs to control glyphosate-resistant weeds. 

Despite the rapid adoption of herbicide-tolerant soybeans, there was little impact on net farm returns 

in 1997 and 1998 (Fernandez-Cornejo and Caswell 2006). It may be that the adoption of herbicidetolerant soybeans is associated with increased off-farm household income, suggesting that farmers 

adopt this technology because the simplicity and flexibility of the technology permit them to save 

management time, allowing them to benefit from additional income from off-farm activities. 

Herbicide-tolerant soybean varieties offer growers greater flexibility in the timing and choice of 

herbicide applications. The benefits attributable to herbicide-tolerant soybeans and their distribution 

are very dependent on the soybean supply elasticity (Fernandez-Cornejo and Caswell 2006). 

No Action Alternative 

The domestic trade environment would not be affected as a direct or indirect result of the No Action 

Alternative. Growers would continue to make choices to plant certain soybean varieties and use 

certain crop rotation practices based on factors such as yield, weed, disease and other pest pressures, 

cost of seed and other inputs, technology fees, worker safety, potential for crop injury, and ease and 

flexibility of the production system (Gianessi 2005). The No Action Alternative would not affect 

available options for growers and therefore not affect the domestic trade environment. 

SYHT0H2 soybean would remain a regulated article and would require an APHIS permit or 

notification for release into the environment. Regulated field trials of SYHT0H2 soybean would only 

impact small plots of land with no impact on the domestic trade environment. 

Preferred Alternative 

The Preferred Alternative would not directly impact the domestic trade environment; 

SYHT0H2 soybean does not offer any agronomic or yield advantages over other soybean cultivars 

currently on the market. However, the domestic trade environment could be positively affected as 

an indirect result of deregulating SYHT0H2 soybean, although accurate projections are not 

possible. Growers would have an additional set of herbicides to use for weed control on soybean 

fields if SYHT0H2 soybean is deregulated, potentially reducing economic loss from weed 

competition and economic cost from weed control. More effective weed management offered by 
– 98 – 

expanding an integrated weed management program would minimize yield losses and help 

preserve the efficacy of weed management systems. 

The Preferred Alternative could also indirectly result in economic benefit from increased competition 

in the seed and herbicide markets. The availability of multiple herbicide-tolerant products would 

increase grower choice and price competition, potentially resulting in lower seed prices for growers. 

The option to use different herbicides may have a similar effect on herbicide prices. 

4.6.2 Foreign Trade Environment 

As described in Section 2.6.2, Foreign Trade Environment, the US produces approximately 33 percent 

of the global soybean supply and the primary US soybean export destinations include China, Mexico, 

Japan, and Indonesia. These countries do not have major barriers for importing food or feed 

commodities produced from transgenic crops, including those with herbicide tolerance traits. Soybean 

exports to European Union countries have generally declined since the Common Agricultural Policy 

limited grain imports and EU membership has expanded (USDA-ERS 2011a); exports to Europe may 

increase slightly in 2013 due to economic conditions, physical constraints, and climate issues elsewhere 

(USDA-ERS 2013c). 

No Action Alternative 

The foreign trade environment would not be affected as a direct or indirect result of the No Action 

Alternative. Additional genetically modified soybean varieties would continue to be developed and 

available in the foreign trade market. SYHT0H2 soybean would remain a regulated article and 

would require an APHIS permit or notification for release into the environment. Regulated field 

trials of SYHT0H2 soybean would only impact small plots of land with no impact on the foreign 

trade environment. There would be no change in imports to other countries, including the 

European Union, as a result of the No Action Alternative. 

Preferred Alternative 

The foreign trade environment would not be affected as a direct or indirect result of the Preferred 

Alternative. Worldwide market conditions and destination country approval of transgenic crop 

commodities would continue to be factors for international soybean prices, without regard to the 

presence or absence of SYHT0H2 soybean on the market. Deregulating SYHT0H2 soybean would 

not adversely impact the foreign trade economy and may potentially enhance it through more 

efficient production of soybean supplies worldwide. 

The Petitioners intend to apply to foreign agencies for approval of the unconfined environmental 

release and food and feed use of soybean commodities and processed goods containing 

SYHT0H2 soybean. Regulatory filings for SYHT0H2 soybean import approvals have been made 

in Canada, Argentina, Japan, Republic of China, South Korea, Republic of South Africa, Australia 

and New Zealand, and the European Union. Regulatory filings in additional countries, including 

the People’s Republic of China, are planned. The foreign trade economic impacts associated with 

the deregulation of SYHT0H2 soybean are anticipated to be very similar to the No Action 

Alternative. 
– 99 – 

4.6.3 Social and Economic Environment 

As described in Section 2.6.3, Social and Economic Environment, farmers have a range of options 

in agronomic practices, seed products to choose from, and opportunities for sale to customers. 

Consumers have a range of soy products to choose from. Section 4.2.3.3, Organic Soybean 

Production, explains that growers may choose to grow transgenic, nontransgenic, or organic 

soybeans, and obtain price premiums for growing varieties of soybean for particular markets. 

Regulatory agency requirements (under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and the 

National Organic Program, for example) and consumer advocacy groups promote food product 

safety and consumer choice. 

No Action Alternative 

The social and economic environment would not be affected as a direct or indirect result of the No 

Action Alternative. SYHT0H2 soybean would remain a regulated article and would require an 

APHIS permit or notification for release into the environment. Regulated field trials of 

SYHT0H2 soybean would only impact small plots of land with no impact on the social and 

economic environment. 

Preferred Alternative 

The social and economic environment would not be affected as a direct or indirect result of the 

Preferred Alternative. Regulatory programs and consumer choice would be unchanged by granting 

non-regulated status to SYHT0H2 soybean. 
– 100 – 

This page intentionally left blank. 
– 101 – 

5 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

This Chapter describes the potential cumulative effects that may result from the Preferred 

Alternative. In accordance with CEQ regulations, this evaluation considers the potential effects 

that, although individually minor, could have a collectively significant impact on the environment 

when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. 

5.1 Introduction 

The CEQ regulations (CEQ 1978) define a cumulative effect as “the impact on the environment which 

results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes 

such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant 

actions taking place over a period of time.” For example, for USDA-APHIS cumulative effects may 

include the impacts associated with a determination of nonregulated status of a genetically engineered 

crop in combination with the future production of crop seeds with multiple traits that are no longer 

subject to the regulatory requirements of 7 CFR part 340 or the plant pest provisions of the PPA. A 

cumulative impact may also result from the use of an herbicide with a similar mode of action to that of 

the intended herbicides described in the Petition for nonregulated status. 

Based on the information provided in Sections 4.2 through 4.6, which is summarized in Table 3-1, 

the Preferred Alternative would not have substantive direct or indirect adverse impacts to soybean 

production practices or the physical, natural, social, or economic environment. If SYHT0H2 soybean 

is deregulated, some resources may be beneficially impacted to a minor degree, as compared to the 

No Action Alternative. This cumulative effects evaluation reviews only those resources that may be 

directly or indirectly impacted by deregulating SYHT0H2 soybean, whether the impacts are adverse 

or beneficial. Resources that would not be impacted by the Preferred Alternative are not subject to 

the cumulative effects evaluation. 

In the event that APHIS reaches a determination of nonregulated status, SYHT0H2 soybean could 

be combined (“stacked”) with nontransgenic and transgenic soybean cultivars that are no longer 

subject to the regulatory requirements of 7 CFR part 340 or the plant pest provisions of the PPA. 

Such transgenic cultivars could include those listed in Table 2-1 as well as other varieties for which 

Environmental Assessments are in process or petitions for deregulation are in review. This could 

result in a plant variety that, for example, may be resistant to additional herbicides and contain 

other transgenic traits such as increased oil or fatty acid production. APHIS’s regulations at 7 CFR 

part 340 do not provide for agency oversight of previously deregulated transgenic soybean 

varieties, nor over stacked varieties combining deregulated transgenic cultivars, unless it can be 

positively shown that such stacked varieties are likely to pose a plant pest risk. All deregulated 

transgenic soybean cultivars have been subject to APHIS’s review and received a “finding of no 

significant impact.” Any herbicides that would be used on a stacked product have been subject to 

EPA’s registration process and review for impacts to human health and the environment; approved 

herbicides pose little risk when used in accordance with label requirements. This cumulative 

effects analysis therefore evaluates the combination of the transgenic traits that may occur from 
– 102 – 

SYHT0H2 soybean stacked with other traits, and the combination of additional herbicides that may 

be used on fields of the stacked product, rather than the individual impacts of other transgenic traits 

or other herbicides. 

The analyses provided in the following sections discuss the potential cumulative impacts to selected 

resources that may result from the direct and indirect effects of deregulating SYHT0H2 soybean 

when combined with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. There is no 

indication in the Petition (Syngenta 2012c) that SYHT0H2 soybean will be stacked with any 

particular deregulated transgenic variety, as company plans, third-party licensing negotiations, and 

market demands play a significant role in those business decisions. Predicting all potential 

combinations of stacked varieties that could be created using both deregulated transgenic soybean 

cultivars and nontransgenic soybean cultivars is hypothetical and speculative. Because it is not 

possible to identify specific varieties of stacked transgenic traits and further changes in herbicide use 

that may result from such stacks, these potential cumulative impacts are discussed in general terms. 

5.2 Agronomic Practices 

A determination of nonregulated status of SYHT0H2 soybean is not anticipated to have a 

cumulative effect on agronomic practices involving either cropping practices or weed 

management. As described in Section 4.2.2.1, Cropping Practices, deregulating 

SYHT0H2 soybean would not have a direct or indirect adverse impact on cropping practices, 

though some beneficial changes may result. Deregulated transgenic soybean varieties have not 

differed substantively from nontransgenic soybean in agronomic requirements and pest 

sensitivities, and SYHT0H2 soybean is similar as well (Syngenta 2012c). It is unlikely that there 

would be any cumulative effect on soybean cropping practices related to growing the plant as a 

result of stacking SYHT0H2 soybean with any other currently available soybean product. 

Herbicide use patterns and application rates may change beyond those anticipated in 

Section 4.2.2.3, Pesticide Use. If SYHT0H2 soybean is deregulated, farmers may apply any of the 

three herbicides of which SYHT0H2 soybean is tolerant: mesotrione, isoxaflutole, and glufosinate. 

These applications would occur in combination with, or possibly in place of, other herbicides 

registered for use on soybeans. Although HPPD-inhibitor herbicides other than mesotrione and 

isoxaflutole exist, SYHT0H2 soybean has not demonstrated tolerance to commercial application 

rates of other HPPD-inhibitor herbicides registered by EPA. It is therefore unlikely that any other 

currently registered HPPD-inhibiting herbicides would be substituted for mesotrione or 

isoxaflutole for use on SYHT0H2 soybean. Further, there are no other glutamine synthetaseinhibiting herbicides besides glufosinate (which is also known as glufosinate-ammonium and 

phosphinothricin) that could be used on SYHT0H2 soybean. 

It is possible that SYHT0H2 soybean could be stacked with other deregulated transgenic traits that 

confer tolerance to herbicides with other modes of action. As described in Section 4.2.2.3, 

Pesticide Use, overall herbicide application rates (as measured in pounds of active ingredient 

applied per acre of crops) have increased slightly in recent years, even as particular herbicide 

application rates have risen or fallen. Stacking SYHT0H2 soybean with other traits that confer 

tolerance to herbicides with different modes of action would offer growers greater choices in 
– 103 – 

herbicide programs and advance integrated weed management practices. Any herbicides that 

would be used in this scenario would have been registered with EPA and approved for use on 

soybeans; substantive changes in herbicide application practices are therefore unlikely. Agronomic 

practices would only be minimally altered by using previously approved herbicides on 

SYHT0H2 soybean fields. Deregulating SYHT0H2 soybean would not have a cumulative effect on 

agronomic practices. 

Weed populations can change in response to farm-level agronomic practices, including weed 

management decisions, as has been seen with the development of glyphosate-resistant weeds as a 

result of the predominant use of glyphosate. An integrated weed management system, incorporating a 

range of herbicides that use different modes of action, will minimize the development of weeds 

resistant to any one herbicide or herbicide class. Further, herbicide use (and indirectly, the use of 

herbicide-tolerant crops) should be a component of a broader integrated weed management system 

(Mortenson et al. 2012). Integrated weed management incorporates a number of practices, including 

the use of cover and rotational crops, tillage, and herbicide applications to reduce selection pressure 

and weed populations in an agricultural environment (Mortenson et al. 2012). Cultivating 

SYHT0H2 soybean and using a broader range of herbicides as a result of the Preferred Action 

Alternative will facilitate a more comprehensive approach to weed management than is currently 

possible. Preemptively incorporating integrated weed management measures (as described in the 

stewardship plan presented as Appendix F of the Petition (Syngenta 2012c)) may prevent or delay 

the development of resistant weed populations. 

Utilized within an integrated weed management system and within the context of best management 

practices, SYHT0H2 soybean would offer soybean growers new herbicide options and facilitate 

the control of glyphosate-resistant weed populations while also preventing or delaying the rate of 

development of other herbicide resistance. Herbicide rotation practices would be implemented as a 

requirement of the stewardship plan. The cumulative effect on weed management as a result of 

deregulating SYHT0H2 soybean could minimize the development of new populations of weed 

species with herbicide resistance and the preservation of herbicide efficacy. 

5.3 Water Quality and Use 

A determination of nonregulated status for SYHT0H2 soybean is not anticipated to result in an 

adverse cumulative effect on water quality. As described in Section 4.3.2, Water Quality and Use,

deregulating SYHT0H2 soybean would not have any direct effect or substantive adverse indirect 

effect on water resources. Stacking SYHT0H2 soybean with other herbicide tolerance traits would 

allow other herbicides to be used on SYHT0H2 soybean crops. Any herbicides that would be used in 

this scenario, such as glyphosate, would have already been registered with EPA and approved for use 

on soybeans. Glyphosate, currently the most extensively used herbicide, has relatively low impacts to 

soil and water quality compared to many other herbicides (Cerdeira and Duke 2010). 

As described in Section 4.3.2, Water Quality, EPA evaluates risks to water quality when 

conducting ecological risk assessments as part of the herbicide registration review process. 

Identified risks are managed by EPA requirements for application methods and buffer zones. 
– 104 – 

Based on these precautions, deregulating SYHT0H2 soybean would not have an adverse cumulative 

effect on water quality. 

5.4 Soil 

A determination of nonregulated status of SYHT0H2 soybean is not anticipated to result in an 

adverse cumulative impact on soil quality. As described in Section 4.3.1, Soil, SYHT0H2 soybean 

would not have a direct or indirect adverse effect on soil quality. SYHT0H2 soybean will 

contribute to the continued trend toward conservation tillage, an agricultural practice with strong 

direct and positive effects on soil quality (Holland 2004; NRC 2010). Stacking SYHT0H2 soybean 

with other transgenic traits that confer herbicide tolerance may have a positive effect on this trend. 

Increasing the range of herbicide products that may be used on SYHT0H2 soybean as part of an 

integrated weed management program could allow further use of conservation tillage. 

Stacking SYHT0H2 soybean with other herbicide tolerance traits would allow additional 

herbicides to be used on SYHT0H2 soybean crops. Any herbicides that would be used in this 

scenario would have already been registered with EPA and approved for use on soybeans. Soil 

quality would not expected to be altered by using previously approved herbicides on 

SYHT0H2 soybean fields. Deregulating SYHT0H2 soybean would not have a cumulative adverse 

effect on soil.

5.5 Air Quality 

A determination of nonregulated status for SYHT0H2 soybean is not anticipated to result in an 

adverse cumulative effect on air quality. As described in Section 4.3.3, Air Quality, deregulating 

SYHT0H2 soybean would not have any direct or indirect adverse effect on air quality. Stacking 

SYHT0H2 soybean with other herbicide tolerance traits would allow additional herbicides to be used 

on SYHT0H2 soybean crops. Any other herbicides that would be used in this scenario would have 

already been registered with EPA and approved for use on soybeans. Air quality would not be 

adversely affected by using other previously approved herbicides on SYHT0H2 soybean fields. Air 

quality could benefit from increased use of conservation tillage practices, decreasing dust emissions. 

Deregulating SYHT0H2 soybean would not have a cumulative adverse effect on air quality.

5.6 Plants 

A determination of nonregulated status of SYHT0H2 soybean is not anticipated to result in an 

adverse cumulative effect on non-target plants. As discussed in Section 4.4.2, Plants, 

SYHT0H2 soybean would not directly impact non-target plants but could indirectly affect them 

through changes in herbicide use. The herbicides that would be newly available for use on soybeans 

are toxic to target plants (weeds) and some non-target plants; these characteristics generally apply to 

all herbicides. Stacking SYHT0H2 soybean with other herbicide tolerance traits could allow other 

herbicides to be used on SYHT0H2 soybean crops at lower application rates than under the currently 

dominant glyphosate use. Any herbicides that would be used in this scenario would have already 

been registered with EPA and approved for use on soybeans. EPA conducts an in-depth analysis of 

the potential impacts of pesticides to non-target plants based upon an extensive data set, and sets 
– 105 – 

restrictions to ensure there is no unreasonable harm to non-target plants. When the herbicides are 

used in accordance with label requirements, non-target plants would therefore be unaffected by using 

previously approved herbicides, such as glyphosate, on SYHT0H2 soybean fields. Deregulating 

SYHT0H2 soybean would not have a cumulative adverse effect on non-target plants. 

5.7 Soil Microorganisms 

A determination of nonregulated status of SYHT0H2 soybean is not anticipated to result in an 

adverse cumulative effect on soil microorganisms. As described in Section 4.4.3, Soil 

Microorganisms, deregulating SYHT0H2 soybean would not have a direct or indirect adverse 

impact on soil microorganisms. Other APHIS-approved transgenic traits potentially stacked with 

SYHT0H2 soybean do not adversely impact soil microorganisms. Stacking SYHT0H2 soybean 

with other transgenic traits, including those conferring herbicide tolerance, would not adversely 

impact soil microorganisms. All herbicides that would be used on a stacked product would have 

been subject to EPA’s registration and review process for impacts to human health and the 

environment. No overall impact of the suite of potential herbicides is expected on soil 

microorganisms. Deregulating SYHT0H2 soybean would not have a cumulative adverse effect on 

soil microorganisms. 

5.8 Biodiversity 

A determination of nonregulated status of SYHT0H2 soybean is not anticipated to result in an 

adverse cumulative effect on biodiversity. Cultivating SYHT0H2 soybean is unlikely to directly or 

indirectly impact biodiversity, as described in Section 4.4.4, Biodiversity. Stacking 

SYHT0H2 soybean with other transgenic traits, including those conferring herbicide tolerance, 

could facilitate the use of alternative herbicides and more targeted choices for weed control in 

soybean fields. Deregulating SYHT0H2 soybean would not have a cumulative adverse effect on 

biodiversity. 

Using transgenic soybean varieties containing herbicide-tolerance traits may improve biological 

diversity by facilitating the use of conservation tillage practices (Bonny 2011a; NRC 2010), which, 

in turn, can improve soil porosity, enhance soil fauna and flora, increase the flexibility of crop 

rotation, and facilitate strip cropping (Fernandez-Cornejo, Klotz-Ingram, and Jans 2002). Each of 

these contributes to the health of the faunal and floral communities in and around soybean fields, 

thereby promoting biodiversity (Palmer, Bromley, and Anderson undated). 

5.9 Domestic Trade Environment 

A determination of nonregulated status of SYHT0H2 soybean is not anticipated to result in an 

adverse cumulative effect on the domestic trade environment. As described in Section 4.6.1, 

Domestic Trade Environment, deregulating SYHT0H2 soybean would not have a direct or indirect 

adverse impact on the domestic trade environment. Domestically produced soybean and soybean 

products, whether transgenic or not, are produced for a number of markets. Transgenic soybean 

products comprise 93 percent of the soybean market, and the addition of a stacked 

SYHT0H2 soybean product is unlikely to substantively affect the market of transgenic products. 
– 106 – 

Market use of soybean is often dependent on the soybean variety, and the resulting nutrient 

composition. There are compositional differences among some soybean varieties grown for animal 

feed and those for human consumption. These include the soybean varieties that are intentionally 

produced to yield a variety of fatty acid profiles (e.g., for food uses). They may include soybeans 

that have been produced through standard breeding or genetic engineering methods. Market use of 

SYHT0H2 soybean stacked with other transgenic traits would likely be similar to that of other 

soybean products currently on the market. This approach would likely have a minor beneficial 

impact on the domestic trade market as a result of increased competition. Deregulating 

SYHT0H2 soybean would not have an adverse cumulative effect on the domestic trade 

environment. 
– 107 – 

6 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES 

The Endangered Species Act (ESA)39 establishes the Federal program to protect threatened and 

endangered species. Once an animal or a plant is added to the list of threatened or endangered 

species, protective measures apply to the species and its designated critical habitat. These measures 

include protection from adverse effects of Federal activities, such as APHIS’s determination of 

non-regulated status for transgenic crops. Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA requires that Federal 

agencies, in consultation with the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and/or the National 

Marine Fisheries Service (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 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 PPA (USDA-APHIS undated). APHIS uses this process to help fulfill its obligations and 

responsibilities under Section 7 of the ESA for biotechnology regulatory actions. 

APHIS’ regulatory authority over genetically engineered organisms under the PPA is limited to 

those organisms that it has reason to believe might be plant pests or those for which APHIS lacks 

sufficient information to determine that the organism is unlikely to pose a plant pest risk (7 CFR 

part 340.1). APHIS does not have the authority to regulate the use of any herbicide, including 

mesotrione, isoxaflutole, or glufosinate. After completing a plant pest risk assessment (PPRA), if 

APHIS determines that SYHT0H2 soybean does not pose a plant pest risk, then 

SYHT0H2 soybean would no longer be subject to the plant pest provisions of the PPA or to the 

regulatory requirements of 7 CFR part 340, and therefore APHIS would reach a determination that 

the article is no longer regulated. As part of its EA process, and in compliance with the ESA, 

APHIS assesses the potential effects of SYHT0H2 soybean on the environment including any 

potential effects to threatened and endangered species and designated critical habitat. APHIS 

thoroughly reviews information about the genetically engineered product and data related to the 

organism. For each transgenic plant, APHIS considers the following information in its analysis: 

 The biology, taxonomy, and weediness potential of the crop plant and its sexually compatible 

relatives; 

 Characteristics of each transgene with respect to its structure and function and the nature of 

the organism from which it was obtained; 

 Where the new transgene and its products are produced in the plant and their quality; 

 The agronomic performance of the plant, including disease and pest susceptibilities, 

weediness potential, and agronomic and environmental impact; 

39 16 USC Section 1531 
– 108 – 

 Determination of the concentration of known plant toxicants; and 

 Determination whether the transgenic plant is sexually compatible with any threatened or 

endangered plant species. 

This Chapter provides an evaluation of the potential effects that a determination of nonregulated status 

of SYHT0H2 soybean may have, if any, on Federally listed threatened or endangered species, and 

species proposed for listing, as well as designated critical habitat and habitat proposed for designation. 

Based on the soybean production areas identified in Section 2.2.1, Current and Projected Acreage and 

Range of Soybean Production, the USFWS list of threatened or endangered species (listed and 

proposed) for each state where soybean is commercially produced (source) has been reviewed. 

Section 4.2.1, Acreage and Areas of Soybean Production, considers the potential for 

SYHT0H2 soybean to extend the range of soybean production and also the potential to extend 

agricultural production into new natural areas. The studies described in the Petition demonstrate that 

agronomic characteristics and cultivation practices required for SYHT0H2 soybean are essentially 

indistinguishable from practices used to grow other soybean varieties, including other herbicidetolerant varieties (Syngenta 2012c). Although SYHT0H2 soybean is expected to replace other varieties 

of soybean currently cultivated, the Petitioners do not expect that the cultivation of SYHT0H2 soybean 

would result in new soybean fields to be planted in areas that are not already devoted to soybean 

production. Accordingly, the issues discussed in this chapter focus on the potential environmental 

consequences of the determination of nonregulated status of SYHT0H2 soybean on threatened or 

endangered species in the areas where soybean is currently grown. 

This Chapter focuses on the implications of exposure to the AvHPPD-03 and PAT proteins in 

SYHT0H2 soybean, the interactions between threatened or endangered species and 

SYHT0H2 soybean (including the potential for sexual compatibility and the ability to serve as a 

host for a threatened or endangered species). In addition, this Chapter discusses potential impacts 

to threatened or endangered species from the use of mesotrione, isoxaflutole, and glufosinate 

herbicides as an indirect result of SYHT0H2 soybean cultivation. More information about each of 

these herbicides is provided in the appendices. 

6.1 Potential Effects of SYHT0H2 Soybean on Threatened or 

Endangered Species 

6.1.1 Threatened and Endangered Plant Species 

The agronomic data provided in the Petition were used in the analysis of weediness potential for 

SYHT0H2 soybean and further evaluated for the potential to impact threatened or endangered 

species. Agronomic studies tested the hypothesis that the weediness potential of 

SYHT0H2 soybean is unchanged with respect to conventional soybean. No differences were 

detected between SYHT0H2 soybean and conventional soybean in growth, reproduction or 

interactions with pests and disease, other than the intended effect of herbicide tolerance (Syngenta 

2012c). The weediness potential of soybean is low, due to domestication syndrome traits that 

generally lower overall fitness outside an agricultural environment. Mature soybean seeds have no 

innate dormancy, are sensitive to cold, and are not expected to survive in freezing winter 
– 109 – 

conditions (OECD 2000). Soybean has been cultivated around the globe without reports of 

weediness or persistent feral populations (Mallory-Smith and Zapiola 2008). Soybean cannot 

survive in the majority of the US without human intervention, and it is easily controlled if 

volunteers appear in subsequent crops. SYHT0H2 soybean does not present a risk of weediness 

and does not present an increased risk of gene flow when compared to other currently cultivated 

soybean varieties. Based on the agronomic field data and a literature survey on soybean weediness 

potential, SYHT0H2 soybean is unlikely to affect threatened or endangered species as a 

troublesome or invasive weed. 

As discussed in Section 4.4.5, Gene Movement in the Natural Environment, there is no risk to 

related plant species from the cultivation of SYHT0H2 soybean. Soybean is highly self-pollinating 

and can only cross with other members of Glycine subgenus Soja. Wild soybeans are native to 

China, Korea, Japan, Taiwan, and the former USSR. In the US, there are no wild Glycine species 

(i.e., Glycine species are not found outside of cultivation), and the potential for outcrossing is nil. 

Based on the list of threatened or endangered plant species in the US states where soybean is 

grown, there are no sexually compatible listed threatened or endangered plant species or species 

proposed for listing, as none of these listed plants are in the same genus nor are known to crosspollinate with species of the genus Glycine. 

Based on the agronomic field data, a literature survey on soybean weediness potential, and the 

absence of threatened or endangered plant species that are sexually compatible with soybean, the 

Petitioners have concluded that SYHT0H2 soybean will have no effect on threatened or 

endangered plant species. 

6.1.2 Threatened and Endangered Animal Species 

Threatened and endangered animal species that may be exposed to the transgene products in 

SYHT0H2 soybean would be those species that inhabit soybean fields and feed on soybean. To 

identify potential effects on threatened and endangered animal species, the Petitioners evaluated 

the risks from consuming SYHT0H2 soybean. Soybean is commonly used as a feed for many 

livestock. Additionally, wildlife may use soybean fields as a food source, consuming the plant, 

seeds, or insects that live on the plants. However, threatened or endangered animal species are 

generally found outside of agricultural fields. Few if any threatened or endangered animal species 

are likely to use soybean fields because they do not provide suitable habitat. As noted in previous 

studies by APHIS (USDA-APHIS 2012a, 2012b), whooping crane (Grus americana), sandhill 

crane (Grus canadensis), piping plover (Charadrius melodius) and interior least tern (Sternula 

antillarum) are the only threatened or endangered animal species that potentially visit soybean 

fields during migratory periods. These species would not be present during normal farming 

operations. In a study of soybean consumption by wildlife in Nebraska, results indicated that 

soybeans do not provide the high-energy food needed by cranes and that cranes primarily feed on 

cultivated grains (particularly corn) during migration (Tacha, Vohs, and Iverson 1987). Least terns 

feed over water, principally on small fish, but also eat aquatic insects (Thompson et al. 1997). 

Piping plover also feed entirely on invertebrates (Thompson et al. 1997). None of the listed species 

are likely to feed on soybean plants or seeds. 
– 110 – 

The Delmarva Penninsula40 fox squirrel (Sciurus niger cinerus) inhabits mature forests of mixed 

hardwoods and pines, which may be found adjacent to agricultural areas of the Delmarva Peninsula 

(USFWS 2013a). This species feeds primarily on acorns, nuts, and pine seeds and is not likely to 

utilize soybeans to any extent. The Louisiana black bear (Ursus americanus luteolus), which 

occurs in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas (USFWS 2013b), may occasionally forage on 

soybeans but prefers crops such as corn, sugarcane, and winter wheat (USFWS 2009). 

SYHT0H2 soybean is genetically engineered to produce the proteins AvHPPD-03 and PAT , and 

thereby displays tolerance to mesotrione, isoxaflutole, and glufosinate herbicides. Standard studies 

in mice exposed to high doses of AvHPPD-03 or PAT demonstrated no toxic effects. The 

AvHPPD-03 protein is 99.7 percent identical to the native HPPD enzyme from oat (Avena sativa) 

and there is no reason to suspect it would present a risk to non-target organisms. HPPD proteins are 

ubiquitous in plants, animals and microbes, and are not novel. PAT has been previously analyzed 

and approved by several international regulatory agencies, thus demonstrating that it is not likely to 

have any significant effect on animal health (USDA-APHIS 2012b). PAT has been assessed in 

multiple transgenic crops, as listed in Tables VII-2 and VII-3 of the Petition (Syngenta 2012c), and 

shown to present no food or feed safety risk. 

In addition to establishing that AvHPPD-03 and PAT are nontoxic, studies comparing 

SYHT0H2 soybean to its nontransgenic counterpart demonstrated no meaningful differences in 

agronomic or morphological characteristics (Syngenta 2012c). Compositional elements, including 

proximate and fiber components, vitamins, amino acid and fatty acid content, and antinutrients and 

isoflavone concentrations, revealed no substantive differences between SYHT0H2 soybean and 

conventional soybean varieties. These data indicate there is no substantial difference in the 

composition and nutritional quality of SYHT0H2 soybean compared with conventional soybean 

varieties, apart from the presence of the AvHPPD-03 and PAT proteins. These results show that 

the incorporation of the avhppd-03 and pat transgenes and the accompanying activity of the 

AvHPPD-03 and PAT proteins in SYHT0H2 soybean do not result in any biologically meaningful 

differences between SYHT0H2 soybean and non-genetically engineered varieties. 

6.1.3 Conclusion 

Because SYHT0H2 soybean does not produce new toxins or alter the nutritional value of soybean, 

there would be no direct or indirect impacts on wildlife species that feed on soybean or the 

associated biological food chain of organisms. Therefore, based on these analyses, it is concluded 

that consumption of SYHT0H2 soybean plant parts would have no effect on any listed threatened 

or endangered animal species or species proposed for listing. 

The studies described in the Petition and other information presented in this ER have not identified any 

stressor that could affect the reproduction, numbers or distribution of a listed threatened or endangered 

animal species or any proposed for listing. There are no effects on designated critical habitat or habitat 

proposed for designation that would differ from effects that would occur from the production of other 

soybean varieties. Soybean is not considered a particularly competitive plant species and has been 

selected for domestication and cultivation under conditions not normally found in natural settings 

40 The “Delmarva Penninsula” is comprised of all of Delaware and parts of Maryland and Virginia. 
– 111 – 

(Hymowitz 1970). Soybean is not sexually compatible with, nor serves as a host species for, any listed 

species or species proposed for listing. Consumption of SYHT0H2 soybean by any listed species or 

species proposed for listing will not result in increased toxicity or lower nutritional value as compared 

to conventional soybean varieties. Based on these factors, it is concluded that a determination of 

nonregulated status for SYHT0H2 soybean, and the corresponding environmental release of this 

soybean variety, will have no effect on listed species or species proposed for listing, and would not 

affect designated critical habitat or habitat proposed for designation. 

6.2 Potential Effects of the Use of Mesotrione, Isoxaflutole, and Glufosinate 

APHIS met with USFWS officials on June 15, 2011 to discuss whether APHIS has any obligations 

under the ESA regarding the potential effects on threatened or endangered species of herbicide use 

associated with genetically engineered crops. As a result of these joint discussions, USFWS and 

APHIS have agreed that it is not necessary for APHIS to perform an ESA effects analysis on 

herbicide use associated with genetically engineered crops because EPA has both regulatory 

authority over the labeling of pesticides and the necessary technical expertise to assess pesticide 

effects on the environment under FIFRA. 

APHIS has no statutory authority to authorize or regulate the use of mesotrione, isoxaflutole, or 

glufosinate, or any other herbicide, by soybean growers. Under APHIS’ current 7 CFR part 340 

regulations, APHIS has the authority to regulate SYHT0H2 soybean or any genetically engineered 

organism only as long as APHIS believes it may pose a plant pest risk. APHIS has no regulatory 

jurisdiction over any potential risks resulting from the use of herbicides or other pesticides on those 

organisms. However, consistent with the approach that APHIS has taken in other recent 

Environmental Assessments (USDA-APHIS 2012a) this section provides a synopsis of potential 

environmental effects on threatened or endangered species resulting from mesotrione, isoxaflutole, 

and glufosinate use on SYHT0H2 soybean, based on assessments performed by the EPA and other 

peer-reviewed scientific literature. 

EPA is required to review pesticide information and data to determine whether a pesticide product 

may be registered for a particular use. As part of that determination, the EPA assesses whether 

listed threatened or endangered species or their designated critical habitat may be affected by use 

of the pesticide product. All pesticide products that EPA determines “may affect” a listed species 

or its designated critical habitat may be subject to the EPA’s Endangered Species Protection 

Program. 

EPA intends to evaluate listed species and their critical habitat concerns within the context of the 

registration review program, a mandated 15-year rolling review of every pesticide. When a 

registration review final decision is made, it will address potential impacts to listed species. If a 

risk assessment determines that use limitations are necessary to ensure that legal use of a pesticide 

will not harm listed species or their critical habitat, EPA may either change the terms of the 

pesticide registration or establish geographically specific pesticide use limitations. 

EPA’s review of the pesticide and its registration decision are independent of APHIS’ review and 

regulatory decisions under 7 CFR part 340. EPA evaluates extensive data on toxicity, ecological 
– 112 – 

effects, environmental fate, transport and behavior data, use and usage data, and species biology to 

assess potential impacts to listed species and their designated critical habitats. Additionally, EPA 

intends to informally consult with USFWS and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), as 

needed, to incorporate more refined species biology and habitat information. EPA intends to 

consult formally with USFWS and NMFS where “may affect” determinations are made, and 

develop reasonable and prudent alternatives to avoid the likelihood of jeopardizing the listed 

species or destroying or modifying their critical habitats. Where needed, they develop reasonable 

and prudent measures to minimize the impact of anticipated “take” of listed species. 

In March 2013, EPA announced new guidance on the ESA consultation process (USEPA 2013c). 

The guidance, entitled Enhancing Stakeholder Input in the Pesticide Registration Review and ESA 

Consultation Processes and Development of Economically and Technologically Feasible 

Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives, was developed jointly by EPA, USDA, USFWS, and NMFS 

in the US Department of Interior. The guidance explains how the agencies will implement the ESA 

and FIFRA in the context of pesticide registration review decisions. Specifically, the process of 

assessing the potential effects of a pesticide to federally listed threatened and endangered species, 

determining whether risk reduction measures are necessary to ensure these species are not likely to 

be jeopardized and critical habitat is not destroyed or adversely modified, and implementing such 

measures requires close coordination across multiple agencies and impacts a variety of entities 

including state pesticide regulatory agencies, pesticide users and pesticide companies. The 

guidance explains how to enhance opportunities for soliciting and considering input from 

stakeholders, including state governments, universities, and growers/users to ensure that such 

measures are technologically and economically feasible. 

6.2.1 Ecological Risks of Mesotrione 

Mesotrione was first registered on June 4, 2001 (USEPA 2001a). The Food Quality and Protection 

Act of 1996 mandated that the EPA conduct registration reviews of all pesticides distributed or sold 

in the US every 15 years. EPA is expected to begin registration review for mesotrione in 2014 

(USEPA 2012e). 

The results of multiple ecological and human-health risk assessments are provided in the appended 

information about mesotrione. In regard to animals, EPA concluded that mesotrione is: 

 Considered practically nontoxic to avian species on a subacute dietary basis. 

 Considered practically nontoxic to the bobwhite on an acute oral basis. 

 Categorized as practically nontoxic to small mammals on an acute and chronic oral basis. 

 Practically nontoxic to bees on an acute contact basis. 

 Considered practically nontoxic to freshwater fish on an acute basis. 

 Considered practically nontoxic to aquatic invertebrates on an acute basis. 

 Categorized as practically nontoxic to estuarine/marine fish on an acute basis. 

 Considered moderately toxic to slightly toxic to estuarine/marine invertebrates on an acute basis. 

Mesotrione is considered by EPA to be a “reduced risk” pesticide for certain uses. The EPA risk 

assessment (USEPA 2001b) found that mesotrione posed an acute (to small birds, < 10 grams in 

weight) and chronic risk to endangered bird species feeding in short grass habitats. EPA also 
– 113 – 

concluded that mesotrione, at its registered application rates, is unlikely to present a risk to aquatic 

or terrestrial animals on an acute or chronic basis. EPA concluded that potential adverse 

environmental effects to aquatic plants are minimal from pre-emergence use on soybean (USEPA 

2008b). For terrestrial plants, there is a conclusion of risk to all categories except non-listed 

monocots in adjacent upland areas exposed to mesotrione in runoff.41 Such potential risks are 

managed by adherence to the application requirements stated on EPA-approved herbicide labels. 

6.2.2 Ecological Risks of Isoxaflutole 

Isoxaflutole is registered by the EPA for use in a variety of crops, including limited use in soybean 

(USEPA 2012a). Pursuant to FIFRA Section 3(g), EPA is currently conducting registration review 

for isoxaflutole to ensure continuing fulfillment of FIFRA registration standards. The EPA 

registration review for isoxaflutole is scheduled to be completed in 2017 (USEPA 2011a). 

Isoxaflutole was conditionally registered on September 15, 1998; the conditional registration was 

extended on April 11, 2002 and the product was unconditionally registered on October 4, 2004 

(USEPA 2011b). Isoxaflutole is currently registered as a Restricted Use Pesticide due to non-target 

phytotoxicity concerns. In contrast to General Use Pesticides, isoxaflutole must be applied by or 

under the supervision of a certified applicator. The results of multiple ecological and human-health 

risk assessments are provided in the appended information about isoxaflutole. In summary, risks to 

aquatic plants, birds, mammals, invertebrates and fish were below the EPA level of concern. 

EPA opened Docket Number EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0979 on June 29, 2011 (USEPA 2011c). Public 

comments on the Isoxaflutole Summary Document Registration Review: Initial Docket (USEPA 

2011b) were received through August 2011, closing Phase 1. The registration review for isoxaflutole 

is now in Phase 2. EPA issued the final Registration Review Work Plan on November 28, 2011 

(USEPA 2011a) and the generic data call-in on October 26, 2012 (USEPA 2012b). 

6.2.3 Ecological Risks of Glufosinate 

Glufosinate is currently registered by the EPA for use in a variety of crops, including soybean 

(USEPA 2012a). Pursuant to FIFRA Section 3(g), EPA is currently conducting registration review 

for glufosinate to ensure continuing fulfillment of FIFRA registration standards. An updated 

human health risk assessment was published on July 25, 2012 (USEPA 2012c) and preliminary 

human health and environmental fate and ecological risk assessments were dated January 26, 2013 

(USEPA 2013b); but released to the public on March 7, 2013. The results of these assessments are 

summarized in the glufosinate appendix. The public comment period on these documents will 

close on May 6, 2013 (USEPA 2013a). Submittals to this analysis can be found at 

www.Regulations.gov under docket designation EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0190. EPA has approved the 

continued use of this herbicide consistent with current label restrictions pending the outcome of the 

ecological risk assessments being conducted as part of the registration review of glufosinate. 

41 EPA notes that although the Section 3 New Use (proposed in 2009 for soybeans) application rate of 0.188 lb ai/A is 

the same as the lowest of currently registered uses, the environmental conditions under which soybeans are grown can 

lead to higher runoff and so to higher surface water EECs than other uses at this rate. The EECs from this application 

rate are still not high enough to lead to RQs that exceed the non-endangered level of concern for vascular plants. 
– 114 – 

This page intentionally left blank. 
– 115 – 

7 CONSIDERATION OF EXECUTIVE ORDERS, 

STANDARDS, AND TREATIES RELATING TO 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 

As required by the CEQ, this Chapter considers the Executive Orders (EOs), standards, and treaties 

related to the potential environmental impacts of the Preferred Alternative. 

7.1 Executive Orders with Domestic Implications 

Four EOs have domestic implications that are relevant to the environmental assessment of the 

petition to deregulate SYHT0H2 soybean. 

7.1.1 Executive Order 12898: Environmental Justice 

EO 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations42, 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 or low-income communities from being subjected to 

disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects. 

SYHT0H2 soybean is not significantly different from other transgenic or nontransgenic soybean. 

As described in Chapter 4, Section 4.4.1, Animals, the AvHPPD-03 and PAT enzymes do not pose 

a hazard to humans. A voluntary FDA consultation for food and feed use of SYHT0H2 soybean 

has been initiated by the Petitioners. Data and information provided by the Petitioners support the 

safe use of SYHT0H2 soybean and indicate that it will be as nutritious and wholesome as other 

soybean currently used as food and feed. Based on these analyses, SYHT0H2 soybean is not 

expected to have a disproportionate adverse effect on minorities or low-income populations. 

As described in Chapter 4, Section 4.2.2, Agronomic Practices, the cultivation of previously 

deregulated soybean varieties with other herbicide tolerance traits has changed herbicide 

application patterns and rates. If herbicide applications are reduced or less toxic herbicides are 

used, there may be a beneficial effect on minority populations. Any effect would be negligible, 

assuming that the herbicides are used in accordance with label precautions. These populations 

might include farm workers and their families, and other rural dwelling individuals who are 

potentially exposed to herbicides through aerial application, groundwater, or other routes of 

exposure. 

42 EO 12898 of February 11, 1994; 59 FR 7629. 
– 116 – 

7.1.2 Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children 

EO 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks43, 

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. This EO requires each federal agency (to the extent permitted by law and 

consistent with the agency’s mission) to identify, assess, and address environmental health risks 

and safety risks that may disproportionately affect children. 

SYHT0H2 soybean is not significantly different from other transgenic or nontransgenic soybean. 

As described in Chapter 4, Section 4.4.1, Animals, the AvHPPD-03 and PAT enzymes do not pose 

a hazard to humans. A voluntary FDA consultation for food and feed use of SYHT0H2 soybean 

has been initiated by the Petitioners. Data and information provided by the Petitioners support the 

safe use of SYHT0H2 soybean and indicate that it will be as nutritious and wholesome as other 

soybean currently used as food and feed. Based on these analyses, SYHT0H2 soybean is not 

expected to have a disproportionate adverse effect on children. 

As described in Chapter 4, Section 4.2.2, Agronomic Practices, the cultivation of previously 

deregulated soybean varieties with other herbicide tolerance traits has changed herbicide 

application patterns and rates. If herbicide applications are reduced or less toxic herbicides are 

used, there may be a beneficial effect on children that might be exposed to the chemicals. Any 

effect would be negligible, assuming that the herbicides are used in accordance with label 

precautions. Similar to minority populations, these children might include families of farm workers 

and other rural dwelling individuals who are exposed to herbicide through aerial application, 

groundwater contamination, or other routes. 

7.1.3 Executive Order 13112: Invasive Species 

EO 13112, Invasive Species 44, requires federal agencies to 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. 

Soybean is a highly domesticated plant and is not an invasive species. Both nontransgenic and 

transgenic soybean varieties that have been granted non-regulated status are widely grown in the 

US and have not developed weedy or invasive characteristics. As described in Section 4.4.5, Gene 

Movement in the Natural Environment, SYHT0H2 soybean plants are very similar in agronomic 

characteristics to other soybean varieties that are currently grown and are not expected to become 

weedy or invasive, and are not toxic to listed species. Accordingly, the Preferred Alternative would 

not raise concerns addressed by EO 13112, Invasive Species. 

43 EO 13045 of April 21, 1997; 62 FR 19885. 

44 EO 13112 of February 3, 1999; 64 FR 6183. 
– 117 – 

7.1.4 Executive Order 13186: Migratory Birds 

EO 13186, Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds45, requires each federal 

agency to avoid and minimize, to the extent practicable, adverse impacts on migratory bird 

populations when conducting agency actions. 

Although migratory birds forage in soybean fields, as described in Section 4.4.1, Animals, 

SYHT0H2 soybean is not expected to have any adverse impacts on migratory birds because the 

AvHPPD-03 and PAT enzymes do not present a toxicity hazard. Additionally, the Petitioners 

conducted a feeding study on broiler chickens, in which no harmful effects were observed. 

Granting non-regulated status to this soybean cultivar therefore is not expected to have a negative 

effect on migratory bird populations. The Preferred Alternative would be in compliance with EO 

13186, Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds. 

7.2 Executive Orders with International Implications 

EO 12114, Environmental Effects Abroad of Major Federal Actions 46, requires federal officials to 

take into consideration any potential environmental effects outside the US, its territories, and 

possessions that may result from actions being taken. 

All of the existing national and international regulatory authorities and phytosanitary regimes that 

currently apply to introduction of new soybean cultivars internationally apply equally to those 

covered by an APHIS determination of non-regulated status under 7 CFR part 340. International 

trade of SYHT0H2 soybean subsequent to a determination of non-regulated status for 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 1997). 

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.” The protection it affords extends to natural flora and plant products and includes both direct 

and indirect damage by pests, including weeds. The IPPC set a standard for the reciprocal acceptance 

of phytosanitary certification among the 177 nations that have signed or acceded to the convention47. In 

April 2004, a standard for pest risk analysis (PRA) of living modified organisms (LMOs) was adopted 

at a meeting of the governing body of the IPPC as a supplement to the existing International Standard 

for Phytosanitary Measure No. 11 (IPPC 2004). The standard acknowledges that LMOs will not 

present a pest risk and that a determination needs to be made early in the PRA for importation as to 

whether the LMO poses a potential pest risk resulting from the genetic modification. APHIS pest risk 

assessment procedures for genetically engineered organisms are consistent with the guidance 

developed under the IPPC. In addition, issues that may relate to commercialization and transboundary 

movement of particular agricultural commodities produced through biotechnology are being addressed 

in other international forums and through national regulations. 

45 EO 13186 of January 10, 2001; 66 FR 3853. 

46 EO 12114 of January 4, 1979; 44 FR 1957. 

47 https://www.ippc.int/ 
– 118 – 

The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (the Protocol) (SCBD 2000) 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 

includes those modified through biotechnology. The Protocol came into force on September 11, 

2003, and 193 countries are currently parties to it48. Although the US is not a party to the CBD and 

thus not a party to the Protocol, US exporters will still need to comply with domestic regulations that 

importing countries that are parties to the Protocol have put in place 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 US government has 

developed a website49 that provides the status of all regulatory reviews completed for different uses 

of bioengineered products. These data will be available to the Biosafety Clearinghouse. International 

trade of SYHT0H2 soybean would be conducted in compliance with the Protocol. 

Biosafety and biotechnology consensus documents, guidelines, and regulations, are managed by 

APHIS in accordance with the requirements of the North American Plant Protection Organization 

(NAPPO) and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). The 

Preferred Alternative is not expected to affect APHIS’s participation in NAPPO or the OECD. 

The North American Biotechnology Initiative is a forum for information exchange and cooperation 

on agricultural biotechnology issues for the US, Mexico, and Canada. Bilateral discussions on 

biotechnology regulatory issues are also held regularly with other countries including Argentina, 

Brazil, Japan, China, and South Korea. 

As described in Section 4.6.2, Foreign Trade Environment, the Preferred Alternative is not 

expected to affect the US soybean export market since the Petitioners are actively pursuing 

regulatory approvals for SYHT0H2 soybean in countries with functioning regulatory systems for 

genetically modified organisms and that import soybean from the US or Canada. Regulatory filings 

for SYHT0H2 soybean import approvals have been made in Canada, Argentina, Japan, Republic of 

China, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand, the Republic of South Africa and the European 

Union. Applications for import approvals in additional countries, including the People’s Republic 

of China, will also be made. 

7.3 Other Federal Laws 

In addition to the National Environmental Policy Act and the Plant Protection Act, three other 

federal environmental laws are potentially relevant to the environmental assessment of the petition 

48 http://www.cbd.int/convention/parties/list/ 

49 http://usbiotechreg.nbii.gov
– 119 – 

to deregulate SYHT0H2 soybean. Other federal land management laws and regulations address the 

unique characteristics of certain geographic areas, and are also potentially relevant to deregulation 

of SYHT0H2 soybean. 

7.3.1 Clean Water Act 

The Federal Water Pollution Control Act50 (commonly referred to as the Clean Water Act) and 

implementing regulations51 require entities that discharge regulated materials to certain surface 

water bodies (including wetlands) obtain authorization to do so from federal or state agencies 

under various permit programs. 

As described in Section 4.3.1, Water Quality and Use, water quality is not likely to change as a direct 

or indirect result of the Preferred Alternative. Deregulating SYHT0H2 soybean would not result in a 

change of agricultural practices or any new discharge of pollutants to surface water bodies. Water 

quality would continue to be regulated and agronomic practices to protect water quality would continue 

to be implemented if SYHT0H2 soybean is deregulated. Cultivating SYHT0H2 soybean would not 

require Clean Water Act permits different than those already required for agricultural activities. 

7.3.2 Clean Air Act 

The Clean Air Act Amendments of 199052 (commonly referred to as the Clean Air Act) and 

implementing regulations53 require entities that discharge regulated materials into the atmosphere 

obtain authorization to do so from federal or state agencies under various permit programs. 

As described in Section 4.3.3, Air Quality, the Preferred Alternative is not likely to directly change 

air quality. SYHT0H2 soybean production would not change land acreage or cultivation practices 

for transgenic or nontransgenic soybean. Air quality would be indirectly improved if conservation 

tillage is increased. Soybean growers would continue current trends in agricultural activities if 

SYHT0H2 soybean is deregulated. Cultivating SYHT0H2 soybean would not require Clean Air 

Act permits different than those already required for agricultural activities. 

7.3.3 National Historic Preservation Act 

The National Historic Preservation Act54 (NHPA) and its implementing regulations55 require 

federal agencies to: 

 Determine whether activities they propose constitute "undertakings" that have the potential to 

cause effects on historic properties, and 

50 33 USC Sections 1251-1376 

51 33 CFR parts 320-332 and 40 CFR parts 230-233 

52 40 USC 7401-7671 

53 40 CFR parts 50-99 

54 16 USC Section 470 et seq.

55 36 CFR parts 800-801 
– 120 – 

 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 Offices, 

Tribal Historic Preservation Officers), as appropriate. 

The Preferred Alternative is not expected to adversely impact cultural resources on tribal 

properties. Any farming activity that may be taken by farmers on tribal lands would be undertaken 

by the tribe or at the tribe’s request. The tribes would have control over any potential conflict with 

cultural resources on tribal properties. The Preferred Alternative would also 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 cause any loss or destruction of significant scientific, 

cultural, or historical resources. 

The Preferred Alternative 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 new visual, 

atmospheric, or noise elements to areas in which they are used that are different from current 

agricultural practices and could result in effects on the character or use of historic properties. The 

cultivation of SYHT0H2 soybean alone or in approved stacks is not expected to change any of 

these agronomic practices that would result in an adverse impact under the NHPA. 

7.3.4 Federal Laws Regarding Unique Characteristics of Geographic Areas 

Other federal land management laws and regulations protect park lands, prime farm lands, 

wetlands, wild and scenic areas, or ecologically critical areas. A determination of non-regulated 

status for SYHT0H2 soybean is not expected to affect unique characteristics of these geographic 

areas, and the common agricultural practices that would be carried out in the cultivation of 

SYHT0H2 soybean are not expected to deviate from current practices. As described in 

Section 4.2.2, Agronomic Practices, SYHT0H2 soybean is expected to be deployed on agricultural 

land currently suitable for soybean production and replace existing varieties, and is not expected to 

increase the acreage of soybean production. 

The Preferred Alternative would not include any major new ground disturbances; new physical 

destruction or damage to property; alterations of property, wildlife habitat, or landscapes; or 

prescribed sale, lease, or transfer of ownership of any property. The Preferred Alternative is limited 

to a determination of non-regulated status of SYHT0H2 soybean. This action would not convert 

agricultural land use to nonagricultural use and therefore would have no adverse impact on prime 

farm land. Standard agricultural practices for land preparation, planting, pest control, irrigation, 

and harvesting of plants would be used on agricultural lands planted to SYHT0H2 soybean, alone 

or when stacked with other deregulated soybean traits. 
– 121 – 

8 LIST OF PREPARERS 

Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. 

Jonathan Feinstein 

Senior Vice President 

Senior Technical Advisor 

M. Community Planning and Area Development, 

University of Rhode Island 

B.S., Natural Resources Development, 

University of Rhode Island 

Over 30 years of experience in environmental 

consulting and preparing NEPA documents 

Dr. Lisa A. Standley 

Chief Environmental Scientist 

Technical Document Lead 

Ph.D., Botany, University of Washington 

M.S., Botany, Cornell University 

B.S., Ecology and Systematics, Cornell University 

26 years of experience in environmental consulting 

and 21 years of experience in preparing NEPA 

documents 

Christopher Rife 

Senior Project Manager 

Lead Document Author 

M. Environmental Policy and Management, 

University of Denver 

B.A., Philosophy 

Humboldt State University 

21 years of experience in environmental consulting 

and 16 years of experience in preparing NEPA 

documents 

Rhodes Life Sciences, LLC 

Dr. Richard C. Rhodes III 

President and Associate Director 

Rhode Island Agricultural Experiment Station 

and Rhode Island Cooperative Extension 

Associate Dean, College of the Environment 

and Life Sciences 

Ph.D., Physiology, Texas A&M University 

M.S., Physiology, Texas A&M University 

B.S., Agriculture, University of Delaware 

Over 30 years of research experience in 

endocrinology, physiology and agriculture 

 
– 122 – 

Syngenta Biotechnology 

Demetra Vlachos 

Global Crop Lead - Soybean, 

Seeds Regulatory Affairs 

M.S., Genetics, Rutgers University 

B.A., Biological Sciences, Douglass College 

21 years of experience in agricultural biotechnology 

regulatory affairs and environmental safety 

assessment of transgenic crops 

Dr. Dennis Ward

US Lead, 

Seeds Regulatory 

Ph.D., Pharmacology and Toxicology, University 

of California 

B.S., Biochemistry, University of California

26 years of experience in toxicology, risk 

assessment and regulatory affairs within the 

agricultural technology industry 

Dr. Lawrence Zeph 

Head, 

North American Seeds Regulatory 

Ph.D., Molecular and Cell Biology, Pennsylvania 

State University 

B.A., Biology, Indiana University

 23 years of experience in regulatory policy for 

transgenic crops

Bayer CropScience AG 

Russell Essner 

Global Regulatory Affairs Manager 

B.S., Biology, University of Minnesota 

M.S., Environmental Science, Bemidji State 

University 

14 years of experience in agricultural 

biotechnology, regulatory affairs and safety 

assessment of transgenic crops 

Michael Weeks 

US Registration Manager 

B.S., Agronomy,. North Carolina State University 

M.S., Crop and Environmental Sciences, Virginia 

Tech (VPI and SU) 

5 years of experience in agronomic research and 

regulatory affairs in the agricultural biotechnology 

industry

Russell L. Jones 

Fellow, Environmental Safety 

Ph.D., Chemical Engineering, University of 

California, Berkley 

B.S. and M.S., Chemical Engineering, 

Massachusetts Institute of Technology 

37 years of experience in modeling, field research, 

and risk assessment
– 123 – 

Bayer CropScience AG (Continued) 

Dr. Tilghman Hall 

Research and Development Fellow 

Ph.D., Zoology, Miami University 

M.En., Environmental Science, Miami University 

B.S., Biology, Eckerd College 

19 years of experience in environmental 

toxicology and risk assessment 

Dr. Michael Dobbs 

Senior Principal Scientist 

Ph.D., Biology, Virginia Tech 

M.S., Environmental Health Science, University of 

Michigan, Ann Arbor 

B.S., Environmental Science, University of 

Massachusetts, Amherst 
– 124 – 

This page intentionally left blank. 
– 125 – 

9 REFERENCES 

Ahrent, D. K., and C. E. Caviness. 1994. "Natural Cross-Pollination of Twelve Soybean Cultivars in 

Arkansas." Crop Science no. 34:376-378. 

Al-Kaisi, Mahdi, Mark Hanna, and Michael Tidman. 2003. Crop rotation considerations for 2004 

management season rotation. Iowa State University Extension 12/14/2003 [cited October 24 

2011]. Available from 

http://www.ipm.iastate.edu/ipm/icm/2003/12‐15‐2003/croprotation.html. 

Albaugh. Undated. Agri-Star 2,4-D Amine 4 (label). Ankeny, Iowa: Albaugh, Inc. 

Altieri, Miguel A. 1999. "The ecological role of biodiversity in agroecosystems." Agriculture, 

Ecosystems and Environment no. 74:19-31. 

Aneja, Viney P., William H. Schlesinger, and Jan Willem Erisman. 2009. "Effects of Agriculture 

upon the Air Quality and Climate: Research, Policy, and Regulations." Environmental 

Science and Technology no. 43:4234-4240. 

AOSCA. 2003. General IP Protocol Standards. Internet: Association of Official Seed Certifying 

Agencies. 

Aref, Susanne, and David R. Pike. 1998. "Midwest Farmers’ Perceptions of Crop Pest Infestation." 

Agronomy Journal no. 90:819-825. 

Baier, Ann H. 2008. Organic Standards for Crop Production: Highlights of the USDA's National 

Organic Program Regulations. National Center for Appropriate Technology (NCAT), 

Appropriate Technology Transfer to Rural Areas (ATTRA), 10/24/2011. Available from 

https://attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/summaries/summary.php?pub=100. 

Baker, J. B., R. J. Southard, and J. P. Mitchell. 2005. " Agricultural dust production in standard and 

conservation tillage systems in the San Joaquin Valley." Journal of Environmental Quality

no. 34:1260-1269. doi: 10.2134/jeq2003.0348. 

Baker, John M., Tyson E. Ochsner, Rodney T. Venterea, and Timothy J. Griffis. 2007. "Tillage and 

soil carbon sequestration—What do we really know?" Agriculture, Ecosystems and 

Environment no. 118:1-5. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2006.05.014. 

Barrentine, W.L., E.E. Hartwig, C.J. Edwards, and Thomas C. Kilen. 1982. "Tolerance of three 

soybean (Glycine max) cultivars to metribuzin." Weed Science no. 30:344-348. 

Barrentine, William L. 1989. "Minimum Effective Rate of Chlorimuron and Imazaquin Applied to 

Common Cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium)." Weed Technology no. 3 (1):126-130. 

BASF. 2011. Pursuit Herbicide (label). Research Triangle Park, North Carolina: BASF Corporation. 

———. 2012. Prowl H20 Herbicide (label). Research Triangle Park, North Carolina: BASF 

Corporation. 

Bayer. 2012. Liberty Herbicide (label). Research Triangle Park, North Carolina: Bayer CropScience. 
– 126 – 

———. 2013. Balance Pro Herbicide (label). Research Triangle Park, North Carolina: Bayer 

CropScience LP. 

———. Undated. Sencor 75 DF Herbicide, Water Dispersible Granular (label). Calgary, Alberta, 

Canada: Bayer CropScience. 

Benbrook, Charles. 2009. Impacts of genetically engineered crops on pesticide use in the United 

States: the first thirteen years. Online: The Organic Center. 

Berglund, Duane R., and Ted C. Helms. 2003. Soybean Production. Fargo, North Dakota: North 

Dakota State University Extension Service. 

Beuerlein, Dr. Jim. 2005. 2005 Ohio Inoculation Study. Ohio State University. 

Blount, A. R. S., D. L. Wright, R. K. Sprenkel, T. D. Hewitt, and R. O. Myer. 2009. Forage 

Soybeans for Grazing, Hay and Silage. University of Florida Agronomy Department, Florida 

Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences. 

Boerboom, Chris, and Michael Owen. 2006. Facts About Glyphosate-Resistant Weeds. In The 

Glyphosate, Weeds, and Crops Series: Purdue Extension Education Store. 

Bonny, Sylvie. 2011a. "Herbicide-tolerant Transgenic Soybean over 15 Years of Cultivation: 

Pesticide Use, Weed Resistance, and Some Economic Issues. The Case of the USA." 

Sustainability (3):1302-1322. doi: 10.3390/su3091302. 

———. 2011b. "Herbicide-tolerant Transgenic Soybean over 15 Years of Cultivation: Pesticide Use, 

Weed Resistance, and Some Economic Issues. The Case of the USA." Sustainability no. 

3:21. doi: 10.3390/su3091302. 

Bradford, Kent J. 2006. Methods to Maintain Genetic Purity of Seed Stocks. Oakland, California: 

Regents of the University of California, Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources. 

Brookes, Graham, and Peter Barfoot. 2005. "GM Crops: The Global Economic and Environmental 

Impact-- The First Nine Years 1996-2004." AgBioForum-The Journal of Agrobiotechnology 

Management and Economics no. 8 (2):187-196. 

———. 2010. GM crops: global socio-economic and environmental impacts 1996-2008. 

Dorchester, UK: PG Economics Ltd, UK. 

Brookes, Graham, Janet Carpenter, and Alan McHughen. 2012. A review and assessment of ‘Impact 

of genetically engineered crops on pesticide use in the US – the first sixteen years: Benbrook 

C (2012)’ –Environmental Sciences Europe vol 24: 24 (September 2012). 

Brower, Lincoln P., Orley R. Taylor, Ernest H. Williams, Daniel A. Slayback, Raul R. Zubieta, and 

M. Isabel Ramirez. 2011. "Decline of monarch butterflies overwintering in Mexico: is the 

migratory phenomenon at risk?" Insect Conservation and Diversity. doi: 10.1111/j.1752-

4598.2011.00142.x. 

Byrd, John D., Alan Blaine, and Dan Poston. 2003. Soybean Postemergence Weed Control. 

Mississippi State University Extension Service. 

Cahoon, Edgar B. 2003. Genetic Enhancement of Soybean Oil for Industrial Uses: Prospects and 

Challenges. United States Department of Agriculture Agricultural Research Service. 
– 127 – 

Carpenter, Janet. 2011. "Impact of GM Crops on Biodiversity." GM Crops no. 2 (1):7-23. 

Carpenter, Janet, Allan Felsot, Timothy Goode, Michael Hammig, David Onstad, and Sujatha 

Sankula. 2002. "Comparative Environmental Impacts of Biotechnology-derived and 

Traditional Soybean, Corn, and Cotton Crops." In. Online: The Council for Agricultural 

Science and Technology (CAST) for the United Soybean Board (accessed 10/24/2011). 

Carpenter, Janet, and Leonard Gianessi. 1999. "Herbicide Tolerant Soybeans: Why Growers Are 

Adopting Roundup Ready Varities." AgBioForum-The Journal of Agrobiotechnology 

Management and Economics no. 2 (2):65-72. 

CAST. 2009. U.S. Soybean Production: A Comparison of Sustainable Production Systems for 

Conventional, Biotech, and Organic Soybeans. Ames, Iowa: Council for Agricultural Science 

and Technology. 

Cavigelli, Michel, and Anne Conklin. undated. Crop Yields During Ten Years of Organic and 

Conventional Cropping Systems. USDA-ARS. 

Caviness, C. E. 1966. "Estimates of natural cross-pollination in Jackson soybeans in Arkansas." Crop 

Science no. 6:212-213. 

CEQ. 1978. 40 CFR part 1500 et seq. Regulations for Implementing NEPA. Washington, DC: 

Council on Environmental Quality; United States Environmental Protection Agency. 

Cerdeira, Antonio L., and Stephen O. Duke. 2010. "Effects of glyphosate-resistant crop cultivation 

on soil and water quality." GM Crops no. 1 (1):16-24. 

Chiari, Wainer César, Vagner de Alencar Arnaut de Toledo, Maria Claudia Colla RuvoloTakasusuki, Arildo José Braz de Oliveira, Eduardo Shiguero Sakaguti, Valeria Maria 

Attencia, Fabiana Martins Costa, and Marina Hitomi Mitsui. 2005. "Pollination of Soybean 

(Glycine max L. Merril) by Honeybees (Apis mellifera L.)." Brazilian Archives of Biology 

and Technology no. 48 (1):31-36. 

Cole, C. V., J. Duxbury, J. Freney, O. Heinemeyer, K. Minami, A. Mosier, K. Paustian, N. 

Rosenberg, N. Sampson, D. Sauerbeck, and Q. Zhao. 1997. "Global estimates of potential 

mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions by agriculture." Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems 

no. 49:221-228. 

Cox, M.S., P.D. Gerard, M.C. Wardlaw, and M.J. Abshire. 2003. "Variability of selected soil 

properties and their relationships with soybean yield." Soil Science Society of America 

Journal no. 67:1296-1302. 

Cui, Z, A.T. James, S Miyazaki, R.F. Wilson, and T.E. Jr Carter. 2004. "Breeding Specialty 

Soybeans for Traditional and New Soyfoods." In Soybeans as Functional Foods and 

Ingredients, edited by K. Liu, 264-322. AOCS Press. 

Dalley, C. D., K. A. Renner, and J. J. Kells. undated. Weed Competition in Roundup Ready 

Soybeans and Corn. Department of Crop and Soil Sciences Michigan State University, Corn 

Marketing Program of Michigan, and Michigan Soybean Promotion Committee. 

Davis, Andrew K. 2011. "Are migratory monarchs really declining in eastern North America? 

Examining evidence from two fall census programs." Insect Conservation and Diversity:1-5. 

doi: 10.1111/j.1752-4598.2011.00158.x. 
– 128 – 

Dorrance, Anne E., Martin A. Draper, and Donald E. Hershman. 2007. Using Foliar Fungicides to 

Manage Soybean Rust. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University Extension. 

Dow. 2008. Treflan HFP Herbicide (label). Indianapolis, Indiana: Dow AgroSciences LLC. 

———. 2010. Petition for Determination of Nonregulated Status for Herbicide Tolerant DAS68419-4 Soybean; OECD Unique Identifier: DAS-68416-4. edited by Mark S. Kreiger. 

Indianapolis, Indiana: Dow AgroSciences LLC. 

———. 2011. An Economic Analysis of U.S. Agriculture and Herbicide-Tolerant Crops: The Value 

of New Technology. Dow AgroSciences LLC. 

Duke, Stephen O., and Stephen B. Powles. 2009. "Glyphosate-resistant crops and weeds: now and in 

the future." AgBioForum-The Journal of Agrobiotechnology Management and Economics

no. 12 (3 & 4):346-357. 

DuPont. 2012. DuPont Classic Herbicide (label). Wilmington, Delaware: E. I. du Pont de Nemours 

and Company. 

Durgan, Beverly R., and Jeffrey L. Gunsolus. 2003. Developing Weed Management Strategies That 

Address Weed Species Shifts and Herbicide Resistant Weeds. University of Minnesota, 

Department of Agronomy and Plant Genetics. 

Erickson, Eric H. 1975. "Effect of Honey Bees on Yield of Three Soybean Cultivars." Crop Science

no. 15 (January-February):84-86. 

FAO, and WHO. 2009. Codex Alimentarius, Foods Derived from Modern Biotechnology. Rome, 

Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, and World Health 

Organization. 

Farooq, Faisal T., and J. Kevin Vessey. 2009. "Genetic diversity of Bradyrhizobium japonicum 

within soybean growing regions of the north-eastern Great Plains of North America as 

determined by REP-PCR and ERIC-PCR profiling." Symbiosis no. 48:131-142. 

Faust, Marjorie A. 2002. "New feeds from genetically modified plants: the US approach to safety for 

animals and the food chain." Livestock Production Science no. 74:239-254. 

Fawcett, Richard, and Steve Caruana. 2001. Better Soil, Better Yields: A Guidebook to Improving 

Soil Organic Matter and Infiltration. West Lafayette, Indiana: Conservation Technology 

Information Center. 

Fawcett, Richard, and Dan Towery. 2002. Conservation Tillage and Plant Biotechnology: How New 

Technologies Can Improve the Environment by Reducing the Need to Plow. West Lafayette, 

Indiana: Conservation Technology Information Center. 

Ferguson, Richard B., Charles A. Shapiro, Achim R. Dobermann, and Charles S. Wortmann. 2012. 

Fertilizer Recommendations For Soybeans. University of Nebraska Lincoln. Available from 

http://www.ianrpubs.unl.edu/epublic/pages/publicationD.jsp?publicationId=146. 

Fernandez-Cornejo, Jorge, and Margriet Caswell. 2006. The First Decade of Genetically Engineered 

Crops in the United States. In Economic Information Bulletin. Washington, D.C.: United 

States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. 
– 129 – 

Fernandez-Cornejo, Jorge, Cassandra Klotz-Ingram, and Sharon Jans. 2002. "Farm-Level Effects of 

Adopting Herbicide-Tolerant Soybeans in the U.S.A." Journal of Agricultural and Applied 

Economics no. 34 (1):149-163. 

Fernandez-Cornejo, Jorge, and William D McBride. 2002. Adoption of Bioengineered Crops. 

Washington, D.C.: United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. 

Fernandez-Cornejo, Jorge, and William D. McBride. 2000. Genetically Engineered Crops for Pest 

Management in U.S. Agriculture: Farm-Level Effects. Washington, D.C.: United States 

Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Resource Economics Division. 

Fernandez-Cornejo, Jorge, Richard Nehring, Elizabeth Newcomb Sinha, Arthur Grube, and 

Alexandre Vialou. 2009. Assessing Recent Trends in Pesticide Use in U.S. Agriculture. 

Paper read at 2009 Meetings of the AAEA, at Milwaukee, Wisconsin. 

Field, Christopher B., Linda D. Mortsch, Michael Brklacich, Donald L. Forbes, Paul Kovacs, 

Jonathan A. Patz, Steve W. Running, and Michael J. Scott. 2007. North America, Climate 

Change Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability; Section 14.4.4 Agriculture, forestry and 

fisheries. In Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, edited by Michael MacCracken and Gordon 

McBean. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 

Flachowsky, Gerhard, Andrew Chesson, and Karen Aulrich. 2005. "Animal nutrition with feeds 

from genetically modified plants." Archives of Animal Nutrition no. 59 (1):1-40. doi: 

10.1080/17450390512331342368. 

Gage, Daniel J. 2004. "Infection and invasion of roots by symbiotic, nitrogen-fixing rhizobia during 

nodulation of temperate legumes." Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews no. 68 

(2):280-300. doi: 10.1128/MMBR.68.2.280–300.2004. 

Garbeva, P., J. A. van Veen, and J. D. van Elsas. 2004. "Microbial diversity in soil: selection of 

microbial populations by plant and soil type and implications for disease suppressiveness." 

Annual Review of Phytopathology no. 42:243-270. doi: 

10.1146/annurev.phyto.42.012604.135455. 

Gardner, John C., and Thomas L. Payne. 2003. "A Soybean Biotechnology Outlook." AgBioForumThe Journal of Agrobiotechnology Management and Economics no. 6 (1&2):1-3. 

Gianessi, Leonard. 2005. "Economic and herbicide use impacts of glyphosate-resistant crops." Pest 

Management Science no. 61:241-245. doi: 10.1002/ps.1013. 

———. 2009. The Benefits of Insecticide Use: Soybeans. Washington DC: CropLife Foundation, 

Crop Protection Research Institute. 

GINA. 2011. Livestock - #1 Customer for Soybean Meal. Growing IN Agriculture [cited January 2 

2013]. Available from http://www.growinginagriculture.com/. 

Givens, Wade A., David R. Shaw, Greg R. Kruger, William G. Johnson, Stephen C. Weller, Bryan 

G. Young, Robert G. Wilson, Micheal D. K. Owen, and David Jordan. 2009. "Survey of 

Tillage Trends Following The Adoption of Glyphosate-Resistant Crops." Weed Technology

no. 23 (1):150-155. doi: 10.1614/WT-08-038.1. 

Grandy, A. Stuart, Terrance D. Loecke, Sara Parr, and G. Philip Robertson. 2006. "Long-Term 

Trends in Nitrous Oxide Emissions, Soil Nitrogen, and Crop Yields of Till and No-Till 
– 130 – 

Cropping Systems." Journal of Environmental Quality no. 35:1487-1495. doi: 

10.2134/jeq2005.0166. 

Green, J. D., and J. R. Martin. 1996. Dealing with Perennial Broadleaf Weeds in Conservation 

Tillage Systems. University of Kentucky. 

Gregorich, E. G., P. Rochette, D. W. Hopkins, U. F. McKim, and P. St-Georges. 2006. "Tillageinduced environmental conditions in soil and substrate limitation determine biogenic gas 

production." Soil Biology & Biochemistry no. 38:2614-2628. doi: 

10.1016/j.soilbio.2006.03.017. 

Gregorich, E. G., P. Rochette, A. J. VandenBygaart, and D. A. Angers. 2005. "Greenhouse gas 

contributions of agricultural soils and potential mitigation practices in Eastern Canada." Soil 

& Tillage Research no. 83:53-72. 

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

proteins introducted into biotechnology-derived soybean and corn crops." Food and 

Chemical Toxicology no. 49 (4):711-721. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2010.12.009. 

Harlan, Jack R. 1975. "Our Vanishing Genetic Resources." Science no. 188 (4188):618-622. 

Hartmann, Hudson T., Dale E. Kester, and Fred T. Davies. 2011. Hartmann & Kester's Plant 

Propagation: Principles and Practice. 8th ed: Prentice Hall. 

Hasegawa, A., H. Fukushi, J. Abe, T. Mikami, M. Ohara, and Y. Shimamoto. 1999. "Introgression 

between wild and cultivated soybeans of Japan revealedby RFLP analysis for chloroplast 

DNAs." Economic Botany no. 53 (3). 

HealthCanada. 2007. "Celiac Disease and the Safety of Oats." In Food and Nutrition. Internet: 

Health Canada. http://hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/securit/allerg/cel-coe/oats_cd-avoine-eng.php. 

Heap, Ian. 2013a. International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds. WeedScience.org [cited April 

9, 2013 2013]. Available from http://weedscience.org/summary/home.aspx. 

———. 2013b. Weeds Resistant to 4-HPPD inhibitors (F2/27). Weedscience.org [cited April 18 

2013]. 

———. 2013c. Weeds Resistant to Glutamine synthase inhibitors (H/10). Weedscience.org [cited 

April 18 2013]. 

———. 2013d. Weeds Resistant to Glycines (G/9). WeedScience.org, April 24, 2013 [cited April 24 

2013]. Available from http://weedscience.org/summary/MOA.aspx?MOAID=12. 

Heatherly, Larry, Anne Dorrance, Robert Hoeft, David Onstad, James Orf, Paul Porter, Stan 

Spurlock, and Bryan Young. 2009. Sustainability of U.S. Soybean Production: Conventional, 

Transgenic, and Organic Production Systems. edited by Larry Heatherly. Ames, Iowa: 

Council for Agricultural Science and Technology. 

Heatherly, Larry G., and Roger W. Elmore. 2004. "Managing Inputs for Peak Production." In 

Soybeans: Improvement, Production, and Uses, edited by H. Roger Boerma and James E. 

Specht, 451-536. Madison, WI: American Society of Agronomy, Inc.; Crop Science Society 

of America, Inc.; Soil Science Society of America, Inc. 
– 131 – 

Helsel, Zane R., and Harry C. Minor. 1993. Soybean Production in Missouri. Online: University of 

Missouri Extension. 

Higgins, Randall A. 1997. Soybean Insects. In Soybean Production Handbook. Internet: Kansas 

State University Agricultural Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension Service. 

Hodges, Tom, and Vikki French. 1985. "Soyphen: Soybean Growth Stages Modeled from 

Temperature, Daylength, and Water Availability." Agronomy Journal no. 77:500-505. 

Hoeft, Robert, E. Nafziger, R. R. Johnson, and S. Aldrich. 2000. Modern Corn and Soybean 

Production. 1st ed. Champaign, Illinois: MCSP Publications. 

Holland, J. M. 2004. "The environmental consequences of adopting conservation tillage in Europe: 

reviewing the evidence." Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment no. 103:1-25. doi: 

10.1016/j.agee.2003.12.018. 

Horowitz, John, Robert Ebel, and Kohei Ueda. 2010. "No-Till" Farming Is a Growing Practice. 

Washington, D.C.: United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. 

HRAC. 2011. Classification of Herbicides According to Site of Action. Herbicide Resistance Action 

Committee 9/9/2011. Available from 

http://www.hracglobal.com/Publications/ClassificationofHerbicideSiteofAction/tabid/222/De

fault.aspx. 

Hymowitz, Theodore. 1970. "On the domestication of the soybean." Economic Botany no. 24 

(4):408-421. 

———. 1990. "Soybeans: The Success Story." In Advances in New Crops, edited by J. Janick and J. 

E. Simon, 159-163. Portland, OR: Timber Press. 

IPPC. 1997. International Plant Protection Convention. Food and Agriculture Organization of the 

United Nations. Available from 

https://www.ippc.int/file_uploaded//publications/13742.New_Revised_Text_of_the_Internati

onal_Plant_Protectio.pdf. 

———. 2004. International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures: Pest Risk Analysis for 

Quarantine Pests Including Analysis of Environmental Risks and Living Modified 

Organisms. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Available from 

https://www.ippc.int/file_uploaded/1323945243_ISPM_11_2004_En_2011-11-

29_Refor.pdf. 

ISUE. 2010. Soybean Diseases. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University of Science and Technology, 

University Extension. 

Jardine, Douglas L. 1997. "Soybean Diseases." In Soybean Production Handbook. Kansas State 

University Agricultural Experiment Station and Extension Service. 

Jordan, Nicholas, David A. Mortensen, Danielle M. Prenzlow, and K. Curtis Cox. 1995. "Simulation 

analysis of crop rotation effects on weed seedbanks." American Journal of Botany no. 82 

(3):390-398. 

Keese, Paul. 2008. "Risks from GMOs due to horizontal gene transfer." Environmental Biosafety 

Research no. 7:123-149. doi: 10.1051/ebr:2008014. 
– 132 – 

Krapu, Gary L., David A. Brandt, and Robert R. Cox. 2004. "Less Waste Corn, More Land in 

Soybeans, and the Switch to Genetically Modified Crops: Trends with Important 

Implications for Wildlife Management." Wildlife Society Bulletin no. 32 (1):127-136. 

Kremer, Robert J., and Nathan E. Means. 2009. "Glyphosate and glyphosate-resistant crop 

interactions with rhizosphere microorganisms." European Journal of Agronomy no. 31:153-

161. 

Kremer, Robert J., Nathan E. Means, and Sujung Kim. 2005. "Glyphosate Affects Soybean Root 

Exudation and Rhizosphere Microorganisms." International Journal of Analytical 

Environmental Chemistry:1-14. 

Krishna, Vijesh, David Zilberman, and Matin Qaim. 2009. Transgenic Technology Adoption and 

On-Farm Varietal Adoption. Paper read at International Association of Agricultural 

Economists (IAAE) Conference, August 16-22, 2009, at Beijing, China. 

Kuepper, George. 2003. Organic Soybean Production. Internet: National Center for Appropriate 

Technology (NCAT), Appropriate Technology Transfer to Rural Areas (ATTRA). 

Kuroda, Yosuke, Norihiko Tomooka, Akito Kaga, S. M. S. W. Wanigadeva, and Duncan A. 

Vaughan. 2009. "Genetic diversity of wild soybean (Glycine soja Sieb. et Zucc.) and 

Japanese cultivated soybeans [G. max (L.) Merr.] based on microsatellite (SSR) analysis and 

the selection of a core collection." Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution no. 56:1045-1055. 

doi: 10.1007/s10722-009-9425-3. 

Lal, R., and J. P. Bruce. 1999. "The potential of world cropland soils to sequester C and mitigate the 

greenhouse effect." Environmental Science and Policy no. 2:177-185. 

Levitan, Lois. 1997. An Overview of Pesticide Impact Assessment Systems (a.k.a. "Pesticide Risk 

Indicators") based on Indexing or Ranking Pesticides by Environmental Impact. In 

Background Paper Prepared for the Organisation of Economic Cooperation and 

Development (OECD) Workshop on Pesticide Risk Indicators. Ithaca, New York: Cornell 

University. 

Li, Ying-Hui, Wei Li, Chen Zhang, Liang Yang, Ru-Zhen Chang, Brandon S. Gaut, and Li-Juan 

Qiu. 2010. "Genetic diversity in domesticated soybean (Glycine max) and its wild progenitor 

(Glycine soja) for simple sequence repeat and single-nucleotide polymorphism loci." New 

Phytologist no. 188:242-253. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8137.2010.03344.x. 

Lin, William, Gregory K. Price, and Jorge Fernandez-Cornejo. 2001. Estimating Farm-Level Effects 

of Adopting Herbicide-Tolerant Soybeans. In Oil Crops Situation and Outlook. Internet: 

United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. 

Lingenfelter, Dwight. 2011. Herbicide Price Trends for 2011. Field Crop News 11 (6), 

http://extension.psu.edu/field-crop-news/news/2011/april-19. 

Locke, M. A., R. M. Zablotowicz, and K. N. Reddy. 2008. "Integrating soil conservation practicecs 

and glyphosate-resistant crops: Impacts on soil." Pest Management Science no. 64:457-469. 

Loux, Mark M., Doug Doohan, Anthony F. Dobbels, William G. Johnson, Glenn R. W. Nice, 

Thomas N. Jordan, and Thomas T. Bauman. 2008. Weed Control Guide for Ohio and 

Indiana: Weed Control Principles. In Weed Control Principles. Lafayette, Indiana and 

Columbus, Ohio: Purdue Extension Weed Science and the Ohio State University Extension. 
– 133 – 

Lovett, S., P. Price, and J. Lovett. 2003. Managing Riparian Lands in the Cotton Industry. Internet: 

Cotton Research and Development Corporation. 

Mallory-Smith, Carol, and Maria Zapiola. 2008. "Gene flow from glyphosate-resistant crops." Pest 

Management Science no. 64:428-440. doi: 10.1002/ps.1517. 

May, M. J., and R. G. Wilson. 2006. "Weeds and Weed Control." In Sugar Beet, edited by A. Philip 

Draycott, 359-386. Blackwell Publishing. 

McBride, William D., and Catherine Greene. 2008. The Profitability of Organic Soybean Production. 

In American Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meeting. Orlando, FL: American 

Agricultural Economics Association. 

MCIA. 2012. Seed Certification. Minnesota Crop Improvement Association [cited December 31 

2012]. Available from http://www.mncia.org/pages/SeedCertification/. 

McMullan, Patrick M., and Jerry M. Green. 2011. "Identification of a Tall Waterhemp (Amaranthus 

tuberculatus) Biotype Resistant to HPPD-Inhibiting Herbicides, Atrazine, and Thifensulfuron 

in Iowa." Weed Technology no. 25 (3):514-518. doi: 10.1614/WT-D-10-00150.1. 

McPherson, R. M., M. L. Wells, and C. S. Bundy. 2001. "Impact of the early soybean production 

system on arthropod pest populations in Georgia." Environmental Entomology no. 30 (1):76-

81. doi: 10.1603/0046-225X-30.1.76. 

Mischler, Ruth A., William S. Curran, Sjoerd W. Duiker, and Jeffrey A. Hyde. 2010. "Use of a 

Rolled-rye Cover Crop for Weed Suppression in No-Till Soybeans." Weed Technology no. 

24 (3):253-261. doi: 10.1614/WT-D-09-00004.1. 

Monsanto. 2005. Backgrounder: History of Monsanto's Glyphosate Herbicides. 

http://www.monsanto.com/products/Documents/glyphosate-backgroundmaterials/back_history.pdf: Monsanto Company. 

———. 2012. Roundup Power Max Herbicide Label. St. Louis, Missouri: Monsanto Company. 

Montgomery, D. R. 2007. "Soil Erosion and Agricultural Sustainability." Proceedings of the 

National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America no. 104 (33):13268-1322. 

Morse, Roger A., and Nicholas W. Calderone. 2000. The Value of Honey Bees As Pollinators of 

U.S. Crops in 2000. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University. 

Mortenson, David A., J. Franklin Egan, Bruce D. Maxwell, Matthew R. Ryan, and Richard G. Smith. 

2012. "Navigating a Critical Juncture for Sustainable Weed Management." BioScience no. 

62 (1):75-84. 

Mueller, T. C., P. D. Mitchell, B. G. Young, and A. S. Culpepper. 2005. "Proactive versus reactive 

management of glyphosate-resistant or -tolerant weeds." Weed Technology no. 19:924-930. 

NCAT. 2003. NCAT’s Organic Crops Workbook, A Guide to Sustainable and Allowed Practices. 

Fayetteville, AR: National Center for Appropriate Technology, USDA/National Organic 

Program (NOP), and the USDA/CSREES Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education 

(SARE) Program. 
– 134 – 

NCCES. 2012. Soybean Insect Pests. North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service [cited 

December 31 2012]. Available from 

http://ipm.ncsu.edu/soybeans/insects/insects_soybeans.html. 

Nelson, Berlin D. 2011. Soybean Diseases in North Dakota. North Dakota State University [cited 

December 31 2012]. Available from http://www.ndsu.edu/pubweb/~bernelso/soydiseases/. 

Neve, P., J. K. Norsworthy, K. L. Smith, and I. A. Zelaya. 2011a. "Modelling evolution and 

management of glyphosate resistance in Amaranthus palmeri." Weed Research (51):99-112. 

Neve, Paul, Jason K. Norsworthy, Kenneth L. Smith, and Ian A. Zelaya. 2011b. "Modeling 

Glyphosate Resistance Management Strategies for Palmer Amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) 

in Cotton." Weed Technology no. 25 (3):335-343. 

Nice, Glenn, and Bill Johnson. 2011. Mesotrione Carryover into Soybean. Lafayette, Indiana: Purdue 

University Extension Service, Weed Science. 

NRC. 2004. Safety of Genetically Engineered Foods: Approaches to Assessing Unintended Health 

Effects. Edited by National Research Council Committee on Identifying and Assessing 

Unintended Effects of Genetically Engineered Foods on Human Health. Washington, DC: 

National Academies Press. 

———. 2010. The Impact of Genetically Engineered Crops on Farm Sustainability in the United 

States. Edited by Committee on the Impact of Biotechnology on Farm-Level Economics and 

Sustainability National Research Council, Board on Agriculture and Natural Resources 

Division on Earth and Life Studies. Washington DC: National Academies Press. 

NSRL. undated. Soybean Production Basics. National Soybean Research Laboratory [cited 

December 31 2012]. Available from http://www.nsrl.illinois.edu/general/soyprod.html. 

Nufarm. Undated. Weedone LV6 EC Broadleaf Herbicide (label). Burr Ridge, Illinois: Nufarm, Inc. 

NYS-IPM. 2012. A Method to Measure the Environmental Impact of Pesticides The EIQ Equation. New York State Integrated Pest Management Program. Available from 

http://nysipm.cornell.edu/publications/eiq/default.asp. 

———. 2013a. EIQ Calculator Output for 2,4-D dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (annual). http://cceeiqlamp.cit.cornell.edu/EIQCalc/EIQoutput.php: New York State Integrated Pest Management 

Program. 

———. 2013b. EIQ Calculator Output for 2,4-D dimethylamine. http://cceeiqlamp.cit.cornell.edu/EIQCalc/EIQoutput.php: New York State Integrated Pest Management 

Program. 

———. 2013c. EIQ Calculator Output for chlorimuron-ethyl (annual). http://cceeiqlamp.cit.cornell.edu/EIQCalc/EIQoutput.php: New York State Integrated Pest Management 

Program. 

———. 2013d. EIQ Calculator Output for clethodim (annual). http://cceeiqlamp.cit.cornell.edu/EIQCalc/EIQoutput.php: New York State Integrated Pest Management 

Program. 
– 135 – 

———. 2013e. EIQ Calculator Output for fomesafen. http://cceeiqlamp.cit.cornell.edu/EIQCalc/EIQoutput.php: New York State Integrated Pest Management 

Program. 

———. 2013f. EIQ Calculator Output for glufosinate-ammonium. http://cceeiqlamp.cit.cornell.edu/EIQCalc/EIQoutput.php: New York State Integrated Pest Management 

Program. 

———. 2013g. EIQ Calculator Output for glyphosate (annual). http://cceeiqlamp.cit.cornell.edu/EIQCalc/EIQoutput.php: New York State Integrated Pest Management 

Program. 

———. 2013h. EIQ Calculator Output for imazethapyr. http://cceeiqlamp.cit.cornell.edu/EIQCalc/EIQoutput.php: New York State Integrated Pest Management 

Program. 

———. 2013i. EIQ Calculator Output for isoxaflutole (annual). http://cceeiqlamp.cit.cornell.edu/EIQCalc/EIQoutput.php: New York State Integrated Pest Management 

Program. 

———. 2013j. EIQ Calculator Output for Mesotrione Callisto. http://cceeiqlamp.cit.cornell.edu/EIQCalc/input.php?cat=9: New York State Integrated Pest Management. 

———. 2013k. EIQ Calculator Output for metribuzin (annual). http://cceeiqlamp.cit.cornell.edu/EIQCalc/EIQoutput.php: New York State Integrated Pest Management 

Program. 

———. 2013l. EIQ Calculator Output for pendimethalin. http://cceeiqlamp.cit.cornell.edu/EIQCalc/EIQoutput.php: New York State Integrated Pest Management 

Program. 

———. 2013m. EIQ Calculator Output for trifluralin (annual). http://cceeiqlamp.cit.cornell.edu/EIQCalc/input.php?cat=20: New York State Integrated Pest 

Management Program. 

O’Donoghue, Eric J., Robert A. Hoppe, David E. Banker, Robert Ebel, Keith Fuglie, Penni Korb, 

Michael Livingston, Cynthia Nickerson, and Carmen Sandretto. 2011. The Changing 

Organization of U.S. Farming. In Economic Information Bulletin. Washington, D.C.: United 

States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. 

OECD. 2000. Consensus Document on the Biology of Glycine Max (L.) Merr. (Soybean). In Series 

on Harmonization of Regulatory Oversight in Biotechnology. Paris, France: Organisation for 

Economic Co-operation and Development. 

———. 2001. Consensus Document on Compositional Considerations for New Varieties of 

Soybean: Key Food and Feed Nutrients and Anti-Nutrients. In Series on the Safety of Novel 

Foods and Feeds. Paris, France: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 

OSTP. 1986. Coordinated Framework for Regulation of Biotechnology; 51 FR 23302. Washington, 

DC: Executive Office of the President, Office of Science and Technology Policy. 

OTA. 2011. Industry Statistics and Projected Growth. Organic Trade Association [cited January 4 

2013]. Available from http://www.ota.com/organic/mt/business.html. 
– 136 – 

Owen, Michael D. K. 2008. "Weed species shifts in glyphosate-resistant crops." Pest Management 

Science no. 64:377-385. 

———. 2010. Herbicide-Resistant Weeds in Genetically Engineered Crops. In Subcommittee on 

Domestic Policy; Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Washington, D. C.: The 

Office of Congressional and Government Affairs; The Keck Center of the National 

Academies 

Padgett, Boyd, Ray Schneider, and Clayton A. Hollier. 2011. Soybean Disease Management. 

Louisiana Agriculture, http://www.lsuagcenter.com/en/communications/publications/agmag/Archive/2011/Spring/S

oybean-Disease-Management.htm. 

Palmer, William E., Peter T. Bromley, and John R. Anderson. undated. Pesticides and Wildlife – 

Soybeans. Online: North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service 

Pedersen, Palle. 2007. Soybean Production. Iowa State University Extension., 12/20/2007. Available 

from http://extension.agron.iastate.edu/soybean/production_seedinoc.html. 

Pedersen, Palle, and Joseph G. Lauer. 2004. "Soybean growth and development in various 

management systems and planting dates." Crop Science no. 44:508-515. 

Peregrine, Esther. 2003. USDA Soybean Germplasm Collection. University of Illinois [cited January 

3 2013]. Available from 

http://agronomyday.cropsci.illinois.edu/2003/exhibits/soybean_germplasm.html. 

Peterson, Dallas, Brian Olson, Kassim Al-Khatib, Randall Currie, J. Anita Dille, Jeanne Falk, Patrick 

Geier, David Regehr, Phillip Stahlman, and Curtis Thompson. 2007. Glyphosate 

Stewardship- Optimizing and Preserving Glyphosate Performance. Online: Kansas State 

University Agricultural Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension Service. 

Pleasants, John M., and Karen S. Oberhauser. 2012. "Milkweed loss in agricultural fields because of 

herbicide use: effect on the monarch butterfly population." Insect Conservation and 

Diversity:1-10. doi: 0.1111/j.1752-4598.2012.00196.x. 

Potter, K. N., H. A. Torbert, O. R. Jones, J. E Matocha, J. E. Morrison Jr., and P. W. Unger. 1998. 

"Distribution and amount of soil organic C in long-term management systems in Texas." Soil 

& Tillage Research no. 47:309-321. 

Prather, Timothy S., Joseph M. DiTomaso, and Jodie S. Holt. 2000. Herbicide Resistance: Definition 

and Management Strategies. Oakland, CA: University of California Division of Agriculture 

and Natural Resources, Regents of the University of California. 

Pritchett, James, Joan Fulton, and Linda Lawson. 2002. Specialty Corn and Soybeans: Production 

and Marketing in Indiana. In Agricultural Economics, Agribusiness Management. West 

Lafayette, Indiana: Purdue University Cooperative Extension Service. 

PSE. 2011. Soybean Insect Control: Part 2, Section 4: Soybean Pest Management. Penn State 

Extension. Available from http://extension.psu.edu/agronomy-guide/pm/sec4/sec43a. 

Quinby, William, Linda Foreman, Janet Livezey, and C. S. Kim. 2006. "Production Systems 

Management and Conservation Practices." In Agricultural Resources and Environmental 
– 137 – 

Indicators, 151-159. Washington, D. C.: United Stated Department of Agriculture, Economic 

Research Service. 

Quist, David. 2010. Vertical (Trans)gene Flow: Implications for Crop Diversity and Wild Relatives. 

In TWN Biotechnology and Biosafety Series. Penang, Malaysia. 

Ramanarayanan, Tharacad, Balaji Narasimhan, and Raghavan Srinivasan. 2005. "Characterization of 

Fate and Transport of Isoxaflutole, a Soil-Applied Corn Herbicide, in Surface Water Using a 

Watershed Model." Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry no. 53:8848-8858. doi: 

10.1021/jf0508596. 

Ray, Jeffrey D., Thomas C. Kilen, Craig A. Abel, and Robert L. Paris. 2003. "Soybean natural crosspollination rates under field conditions." Environmental Biosafety Research no. 2:133-138. 

doi: 10.1051/ebr:2003005. 

RCG. 2013. Price of Soybeans. http://www.quotesoybeans.com/: RCG Futures Trading. 

Rochette, Philippe, Denis A. Angers, Martin H. Chantigny, and Normand Bertrand. 2008. "Nitrous 

Oxide Emissions Respond Differently to No-Till in a Loam and a Heavy Clay Soil." Soil 

Science Society of America Journal no. 72 (5):1363-1369. doi: 10.2136/sssaj2007.0371. 

Ronald, Pamela, and Benny Fouche. 2006. Genetic Engineering and Organic Production Systems. In 

Agricultural Biotechnology in California Series. Davis, California: University of California 

Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Regents of the University of California. 

SCBD. 2000. Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity, Text and 

Annexes. Montreal, Canada: Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. 

Sharpe, Terry. 2010. Tarheel Wildlife: A Guide for Managing Wildlife on Private Lands in North 

Carolina. edited by Mark D. Jones and Jill S. Braden. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina Wildlife 

Resources Commission. 

Sleper, D. A., and J. G. Shannon. 2003. "Role of Public and Private Soybean Breeding Programs in 

the Development of Soybean Varieties Using Biotechnology." AgBioForum-The Journal of 

Agrobiotechnology Management and Economics no. 6 (1&2):27-32. 

Soyatech. 2012. Soy Facts. Soyatech LLC [cited December 17 2012]. Available from 

www.soyatech.com/soy_facts.htm. 

Soystats. 2010. Soybeans' Many Uses: Edible and Industrial. American Soybean Association [cited 

10/28 2011]. Available from http://www.soystats.com/2010/page_06.htm. 

———. 2011a. US Soybean Prices Paid to Farmers 1985-2010. American Soybean Association 

[cited 10/28 2011]. Available from http://www.soystats.com/2011/Default-frames.htm. 

———. 2011b. World Statistics. American Soybean Association [cited January 4 2013]. Available 

from http://www.soystats.com/2011/Default-frames.htm. 

———. 2012a. Introduction [web]. American Soybean Association, 2012 [cited 12/17/12 2012]. 

Available from http://soystats.com/2012/Default-frames.htm. 

———. 2012b. Top Ten U. S. Export Customers $ Million 2011. http://soystats.com/2012/Defaultframes.htm. 
– 138 – 

Stewart, C. Neal, Matthew D. Halfhill, and Suzanne I. Warwick. 2003. "Transgene introgression 

from genetically modified crops to their wild relatives." Nature Reviews Genetics no. 4 

(10):806-816. doi: 10.1038/nrg1179. 

Stewart, Christie L., Robert E. Nurse, Allan S. Hamill, and Peter H. Sikkema. 2010. "Environment 

and Soil Conditions Influence Pre- and Postemergence Herbicide Efficacy in Soybean." 

Weed Technology no. 24 (3):234-243. doi: 10.1614/WT-09-009.1. 

Sundstrom, F. J., Jack Williams, Allen Van Deynze, and Kent J. Bradford. 2002. Identity 

Preservation of Agricultural Commodities. In Agricultural Biotechnology in California 

Series. Davis, California: University of California Division of Agriculture and Natural 

Resources, Regents of the University of California. 

Syngenta. 2010. Flexstar Herbicide (label). Greensboro, North Carolina: Syngenta Crop Protection, 

Inc. 

———. 2011. Callisto Herbicide (label). Greensboro, North Carolina: Syngenta. 

———. 2012a. Petition for the Determination of Nonregulated Status for Herbicide-Tolerant Event 

SYHT0H2 Soybean. edited by Dennis Ward and Shanna M. Chriscoe. Research Triangle 

Park, NC. 

———. 2012b. Premarket Biotechnology Notice, Herbicide-tolerant Event SYHT0H2 Soybean. 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina: Syngenta Seeds, Inc. 

———. 2012c. Revised Petition for Determination of Nonregulated Status for Herbicide-Tolerant 

Event SYHT0H2 Soybean. edited by Dennis Ward and Shanna M. Chriscoe. Research 

Triangle Park, NC. 

Tacha, T. C., P. A. Vohs, and G. C. Iverson. 1987. "Time and energy budgets of Sandhill Cranes 

from mid-continental North America." Journal of Wildlife Management no. 51:440-448. 

Teasdale, John, Charles Coffman, and Ruth Mangum. 2007. "Potential long-term benefits of notillage and organic cropping systems for grain production and soil improvement." Agronomy 

Journal no. 99:1297-1305. 

Thompson, Bruce C., Jerome A. Jackson, Joanna Burger, Laura M. Hill, Eileen M. Kirsh, and 

Jonathan L. Atwood. 1997. "The Birds of North America (online)." In. 

http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species: National Science Digital Library. 

http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species (accessed 2013). 

Tranel, Patrick. 2010. Introducing Quadstack(tm) Waterhemp. University of Illinois Extension, 

College of Agriculture, Consumer and Environmental Sciences, Department of Crop 

Sciences [cited April 8 2013]. Available from 

http://agronomyday.cropsci.illinois.edu/2010/tours/a5intro/. 

UA. 2006. Soybeans - Crop Irrigation. Univeristy of Arkansas, Division of Agriculture, Research 

and Extension, 12/17/2012 [cited December 31, 2012 2012]. Available from 

http://www.aragriculture.org/soil_water/irrigation/crop/soybeans.htm. 

USDA-AMS. 2010. PDP Program Overview. 

http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/ams.fetchTemplateData.do?more=G.OptionalText2.:

United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service. 
– 139 – 

———. 2011. Organic Production and Handling Standards. Washington, D.C.: United States 

Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service. 

———. 2013. National Organic Grain and Feedstuffs, Wed, Mar 6, 2013. Ames, Iowa: United 

States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service. 

USDA-APHIS. 2011. Petitions for Nonregulated Status Pending or Granted as of October 12, 2011. 

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/biotechnology/not_reg.html: United States Department of 

Agriculture, Animal Plant Health Inspection Service. 

———. 2012a. Bayer Petition 09-328-01 for Determination of Non-regulated Status of Double 

Herbicide-tolerant Soybean (Glycine Max) Event FG72; Draft Environmental Assessment. 

Riverdale, Maryland: United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service. 

———. 2012b. Dow AgroSciences Petition (09-349-01p) for Determination of Nonregulated Status 

of Event DAS-68416-4; Draft Environmental Assessment. Riverdale, Maryland: United 

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

———. 2013a. Petitions for Determination of Nonregulated Status. 

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/biotechnology/petitions_table_pending.shtml: United States 

Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. 

———. 2013b. "Syngenta Seeds, Inc. and Bayer CropScienceAG; Availability of Petition for 

Determination of Nonregulated Status of Soybean Genetically Engineered for Herbicide 

Tolerance." Federal Register no. 78 (39):13305-13307. 

———. undated. Decision Tree on Whether Section 7 Consultation With FWS is Triggered for 

Petitions of Transgenic Plants. Washington, DC: United States Department of Agriculture, 

Animal Plant Health Inspection Service. 

USDA-ARS. 2006. Agricultural Resources and Environmental Indicators, 2006 Edition. In 

Economic Information Bulletin. Washington, D. C.: United States Department of Agriculture, 

Economic Research Service. 

———. 2012. Summary statistics of holdings as of 25 Nov 2012; Composition by site for Glycine. 

http://www.ars-grin.gov/cgi-bin/npgs/html/stats/genussite.pl?Glycine: United States 

Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service. 

USDA-ERS. 2010a. Soybeans and Oil Crops: Background. In Briefing Room. http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/SoybeansOilcrops/background.htm: United States 

Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. 

———. 2010b. Soybeans and Oil Crops: Trade. In Briefing Room. 

http://transcoder.usablenet.com/tt/http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/SoybeansOilcrops/trade:

United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. 

———. 2010c. Table 3- Certified organic and total U.S. acreage, selected crops and livestock, 1995-

2008. Washington, DC: United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research 

Service. 
– 140 – 

———. 2011a. Outlook for U.S. Agricultural Trade: FY 2011 Exports Expected to Ride to $137 

Billion; Imports to Rise to $93 Billion. Washington, D. C.: United States Department of 

Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Foreign Agricultural Service. 

———. 2011b. Soybean Production Coss and Returns Per Planted Acre, excluding Government 

payments, 2010-2011. Washington, D. C.: United States Department of Agriculture, 

Economic Research Service. 

———. 2011c. Soybeans and Oil Crops: Market Outlook, 2010-2019. In Briefing Room. 

http://transcoder.usablenet.com/tt/http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/SoybeansOilcrops/2010-

19: United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. 

———. 2012a. 2012 Farm Sector Income Forecast: Increases in Farm Expenditures Outpace 

Increases in Receipts in 2012. http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/farm-economy/farm-sectorincome-finances/2012-farm-sector-income-forecast.aspx: United States Department of 

Agriculture, Economic Research Service. 

———. 2012b. Conservation Programs, Background. http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/naturalresources-environment/conservation-programs/background.aspx: United States Department 

of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. 

———. 2012c. Cost-of-production forecasts for U.S. major field crops, 2012F and 2013F. 

Washington, D. C.: United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. 

———. 2012d. Crop & Livestock Practices- Overview. http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/farmpractices-management/crop-livestock-practices.aspx: United States Department of 

Agriculture, Economic Research Service. 

———. 2012e. Crop production practices for soybeans: All survey states Irrigation Technology and 

Water Use. Washington, D. C.: United States Department of Agriculture, Economic 

Research Service. 

———. 2012f. Genetically engineered (GE) soybean varieties by State and United States, 2000-

2012. Washington, D. C.: United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research 

Service. 

———. 2012g. Oil Crops Yearbook 2012. 

http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/MannUsda/viewDocumentInfo.do?documentID=1290:

United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. 

———. 2012h. Value-added to the U.S. economy by the agricultural sector via the production of 

goods and sevices, 2008-2012F. Washington, D. C.: United States Department of 

Agriculture, Economic Research Service. 

———. 2013a. Crop & Livestock Practices, Soil Tillage and Crop Rotation. 

http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/farm-practices-management/crop-livestock-practices/soiltillage-and-crop-rotation.aspx: United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research 

Service. 

———. 2013b. Oil Crops Outlook. Washington, D. C.: United States Department of Agriculture, 

Economic Research Service. 
– 141 – 

———. 2013c. Outlook for U.S. Agricultural Trade. Washington, D. C.: United States Department 

of Agriculture, Economic Research Service and Foreign Agricultural Service. 

———. 2013d. U.S. Farm Sector Crop Cash Receipts and Value of Production, 2009-2013F. edited 

by Economic Research Service United States Department of Agriculture. Washington, D.C.: 

United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. 

USDA-FAS. 2012. Oilseeds: World Markets and Trade. Washington, D. C.: United States 

Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service. 

———. 2013. Net Sales - Current Marketing Year - 5 Years by Commodity/Date (Soybeans). 

Washington, D. C.: United States Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agriculture Service. 

USDA-FSA. 1999. The Conservation Reserve Program. Washington, D. C.: United States 

Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency. 

USDA-NASS. 1996. Agricultural Chemical Usage; 1995 Field Crops Summary. Washington, D. C.: 

United States Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service. 

———. 2002. Agricultural Chemical Usage; 2001 Field Crops Summary. Washington, D. C.: 

United States Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service. 

———. 2007. Agricultural Chemical Usage; 2006 Field Crops Summary. Washington, D. C.: 

United States Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service. 

———. 2009. 2007 Census of Agriculture, United States Summary and State Data. Washington, 

DC: United States Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service. 

———. 2010. 2007 Census of Agriculture; Farm and Ranch Irrigation Survey (2008). Washington, 

D. C.: United States Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service. 

———. 2011a. 2011 Soybean Acres Cultivated Washington, D. C.: United States Department of 

Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service. 

———. 2011b. Acreage. Washington, D. C.: United States Department of Agriculture, National 

Agricultural Statistics Service. 

———. 2012a. 2011 Certified Organic Production Survey. Washington, D. C.: United States 

Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service. 

———. 2012b. Acreage. Washington, DC: United States Department of Agriculture, National 

Agricultural Statistics Service, Agricultural Statistics Board. 

———. 2012c. Crop Values; 2011 Summary. Washington, D. C.: United States Department of 

Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service. 

———. 2012d. Prospective Plantings. Washington, DC: United States Department of Agriculture, 

National Agricultural Statistics Service. Agricultural Statistics Board. 

———. 2013a. Crop Production, 2012 Summary. Washington, D. C.: United States Department of 

Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service. 

———. 2013b. Prospective Plantings. Washington, D. C.: United States Department of Agriculture, 

National Agricultural Statistics Service, Agricultural Statistics Board. 
– 142 – 

USDA-NIFA. 2012. Pest Management Strategic Plans. http://www.ipmcenters.org/pmsp/index.cfm:

United States Department of Agriculture, National Institute of Food and Agriculture. 

USDA-NRCS. 1996. Effects of Residue Management and No-Till on Soil Quality. In Soil QualityAgronomy Technical Note No. 3. Auburn, Alabama: United States Department of 

Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Soil Quality Institute. 

———. 1999a. Conservation Tillage Systems and Wildlife. In Fish and Wildlife Literature Review 

Summary. Washington, D. C.: United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources 

Conservation Service, Wildlife Habit Management Institue. 

———. 1999b. Soil Taxonomy: A Basic System of Soil Classification for Making and Interpreting 

Soil Surveys. Washington, D. C.: United States Department of Agriculture, Natural 

Resources Conservation Service. 

———. 2001. Soil Quality - Introduction. Auburn, Alabama: United States Department of 

Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Soil Quality Institute. 

———. 2003. Wildlife Plan for CRP. Des Moines, Iowa: United States Department of Agriculture, 

Natural Resources Conservation Service. 

———. 2004. Soil Biology and Land Management. In Soil Quality -- Soil Biology. Washington, D. 

C.: United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 

———. 2005. Conservation Practices that Save: Crop Residue Management. Washington, D. C.: 

United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 

———. 2006a. Conservation Resource Brief - Soil Erosion. Washington, D. C.: United States 

Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 

———. 2006b. Conservation Resource Brief - Soil Quality. Washington, D. C.: United States 

Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 

———. 2010. Keys to Soil Taxonomy. Washington, D. C.: United States Department of 

Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 

———. 2012. Welcome to Energy Estimator: Tillage. http://ecat.sc.egov.usda.gov/: United States 

Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 

USDA-OCE. 2011. USDA Agricultural Projections to 2020. In Long-term Projections Report, edited 

by Interagency Agricultural Projections Committee. Washington DC: United States 

Department of Agriculture, Office of the Chief Economist, World Agricultural Outlook 

Board. 

USDA. 1987. 7 CFR part 340: Introduction of Organisms and Products Altered or Produced Through 

Genetic Engineering Which Are Plant Pests or Which There Is Reason To Believe Are Plant 

Pests. http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/textidx?c=ecfr&SID=c093dfe0c1ab26ca8af7f6f2f14bc0e3&rgn=div5&view=text&node=7:5.1.1

.1.10&idno=7: United States Department of Agriculture. 

———. 2012. 7 CFR part 205: National Organic Program. http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/textidx?tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title07/7cfr205_main_02.tpl: United States Department of Agriculture. 
– 143 – 

———. 2013a. 7 CFR part 1b: National Environmental Policy Act Regulations. 

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?rgn=div5&node=7:1.1.1.1.3: United States Department 

of Agriculture. 

———. 2013b. 7 CFR part 372: National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures. 

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title07/7cfr372_main_02.tpl: United 

States Department of Agriculture. 

USDHHS-USFDA. 1992. "Food for human consumption and animal drugs, feeds, and related 

products: Foods derived from new plant varieties, policy statement, 22984." Federal Register

no. 53 (104):22984-23001. 

———. 1997. Consultation Procedures under FDA's 1992 Statement of Policy -- Foods Derived 

from New Plant Varieties. 

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

Biotechnology/ucm096126.htm: US Department of Health and Human Services, US Food 

and Drug Administration, Office of Premarket Approval, Center for Food Safety and Applied 

Nutrition, and Office of Surveillance and Compliance, Center for Veterinary Medicine. 

USDOE-EIA. 2007. Biofuels in the U.S. Transportation Sector. 

http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/analysispaper/biomass.html: United States Department of Energy, 

Energy Information Administration. 

USDS. 2010. U.S. Climate Action Report. Washington, DC: United States Department of State. 

USEPA. 1992. 40 CFR part 170: Worker Protection Standard. 

http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/safety/workers/PART170.htm: United States Environmental 

Protection Agency. 

———. 2001a. Decision Memorandum: Registration of Mesotrione. Washington, D. C.: United 

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

Substances. 

———. 2001b. Memorandum: Occupational and Residential Exposure and Risk 

Assessment/Characterization for the Propused Use of Mesotrione on Field Corn. 

Washington, D. C.: United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Prevention, 

Pesticides, and Toxic Substances. 

———. 2005. Protecting Water Quality from Agricultural Runoff. Washington, D. C.: United States 

Environmental Protection Agency, Nonpoint Source Control Branch. 

———. 2007. Regulatory Impact Analysis: Renewable Fuel Standard Program; Chapter 8: 

Agricultural Sector Impacts. Washington, D. C.: United States Environmental Protection 

Agency, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Assessment and Standards Division. 

———. 2008a. Agriculture Management Practices for Water Quality Protection. Washington, D. C.: 

United States Environmental Protection Agency. 

———. 2008b. Memorandum: Ecological Risk Assessment for Experimental Use Permit and 

Section 3 New Use registrations for use of mesotrione on soybeans. Washington, D. C.: 

United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic 

Substances. 
– 144 – 

———. 2011a. Isoxaflutole Final Work Plan; Registration Review. Washington, D. C.: United 

States Environmental Protection Agency, Pesticide Reregistration Division. 

———. 2011b. Isoxaflutole; Summary Document; Registration Review: Initial Docket Washington, 

D. C.: United States Environmental Protection Agency, Pesticide Reregistration Review 

Division. 

———. 2011c. "Registration Review; Pesticide Dockets Opened for Review and Comment and 

Other Docket Actions." Federal Register no. 76 (125):38166-38170. 

———. 2012a. 40 CFR part 180, Section 180.473 Tolerances and Exemptions for Pesticide 

Chemical Residues in Food. Washington, D. C.: United States Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

———. 2012b. Generic Data Call-In Notice (Isoxaflutole). Washington, D. C.: United States 

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. 

———. 2012c. Glufosinate Ammonium. Updated Human Health Risk Assessment for Proposed 

New Use of Glufosinate Ammonium in/on Citrus Fruit (Crop Group 10), Pome Fruit (Crop 

Group 11), Stone Fruit (Crop Group 12), Olives and Sweet Corn. Washington, D. C.: United 

States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution 

Prevention. 

———. 2012d. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks, 1990-2010. Washington, D. 

C.: United States Environmental Protection Agency. 

———. 2012e. Registration Review: Summary of Planned Schedule for Opening Registration 

Review Dockects by Fiscal Year 2012-2015. Washington, D. C.: United States 

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs. 

———. 2012f. Worker Protection Standard for Agricultural Pesticides. 

http://www.epa.gov/agriculture/twor.html: United States Environmental Protection Agency. 

———. 2013a. "Cyromazine, Silica Silicates (Silica Dioxide and Silica Gel), Glufosinate 

Ammonium, Dioctyl Sodium Sulfosuccinate (DSS) and Undecylenic Acid (UDA) 

Registration Review; Draft Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessments; Notice of 

Availability." Federal Register no. 78 (44):14540-14543. 

———. 2013b. Environmental Fate and Ecological Risk Assessment for the Registration Review of 

Glufosinate. Washington, D. C.: United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of 

Pesticide Programs, Environmental Fate and Effects Division. 

———. 2013c. Enhancing Stakeholder Input in the Pesticide Registration Review and ESA 

Consultation Processes and Development of Economically and Technologically Feasible 

Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives. Washington, D. C.: United States Environmental 

Protection Agency, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, Office of Pesticide 

Programs. 

USFWS. 2009. "Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for 

the Louisiana Black Bear (Ursus americanus luteolus); Final Rule." Federal Register no. 74 

(45):10350-10409. 
– 145 – 

———. 2013a. Species Profile: Delmarva Pennisula fox squirrel (Sciurus niger cinerus). 

http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=A00B: United States 

Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 

———. 2013b. Species Profile: Louisiana Black bear (Ursus americanus luteolus). 

http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=A08F: United States 

Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 

USGCRP. 2009. Global Climate Change in the United States. edited by Thomas R. Karl, Jerry M. 

Melillo and Thomas C. Peterson. New York, NY: United States Global Change Research 

Program. 

USSEC. 2006. "Biotechnology, IP Soybeans, Soyfoods, and Industrial Uses." In U.S. Soy: 

International Buyers' Guide, 4. St. Louis, Missouri: US Soybean Export Council. 

UW. undated. Corn and Soybean Herbicide Chart. University of Wisconson -- Extension, College of 

Agriculture and Life Sciences [cited December 31 2012]. Available from 

http://www.glyphosateweedscrops.org/Info/MOA_060807.pdf. 

Vencill, William K., Robert L. Nichols, Theodore M. Webster, John K. Soteres, Carol MallorySmith, Nilda R. Burgos, William G. Johnson, and Marilyn R. McClelland. 2012. "Herbicide 

Resistance: Toward an Understanding of Resistance Development and the Impact of 

Herbicide-Resistant Crops." Weed Science (Special Issue):2-30. 

Vogel, Jason R., Michael S. Majewski, and Paul D. Capel. 2008. "Pesticides in Rain in Four 

Agricultural Watersheds in the United States." Journal of Environmental Quality no. 37:15. 

doi: 10.2134/jeq2007.0079. 

Waldroup, Park W., and Keith Smith. undated. Soybean Use- Poultry. 

http://soymeal.org/FactSheets/PoultrySoybeanUse.pdf: United Soybean Board. 

Wang, Ke-Jing, Xiang-Hua Li, Ji-Jun Zhang, Hong Chen, Zhang . Zhi-Liang, and Guo-Dong Yu. 

2010. "Natural introgression from cultivated soybean (Glycine max) into wild soybean 

(Glycine soja) with the implications for origin of populations of semi-wild type and for 

biosafety of wild species in China." Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution no. 57:747-761. 

Webster, Theodore M. 2005. "Weed Survey - Southern States, 2005, Broadleaf Crops Subsection 

(Cotton, Peanut, Soybean, Tobacco, and Forestry)." Southern Weed Science Society 2005 

Proceedings no. 58:291-207. 

Weiderholt, Ron, and Ken Albrecht. 2003. Using Soybean as Forage. University of Wisconsin 

Extension [cited January 4 2013]. Available from 

http://www.uwex.edu/ces/crops/uwforage/SoybeanForage.htm. 

West, Tristram O., and Gregg Marland. 2002. "A synthesis of carbon sequestration, carbon 

emissions, and net carbon flux in agriculture: comparing tillage practices in the United 

States." Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment no. 91:217-232. 

Whitaker, Jared, Glen Harris, Robert Kemerait, Eric Prostko, Phillip Roberts, Nathan Smith, Amanda 

Smith, Paul Sumner, Kerry Harrison, and John Woodruff. 2010. 2011 Georgia Soybean 

Production Guide. Athens, GA: University of Georgia, College of Agricultural & 

Environmental Sciences. 
– 146 – 

Whitworth, R. Jeff, J. P. Michaud, and Holly M. Davis. 2012. Soybean Insect Management 2012. 

http://www.ksre.ksu.edu/bookstore/pubs/MF743.pdf: Kansas State University Agricultural 

Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension Service. 

Willowood. 2011. Clethodim 2EC (label). Roseburg, Oregon: Willowood, LLC. 

WSSA. 2013. Herbicide Resistance and Herbicide Tolerance Definitions. Weed Science Society of 

America [cited April 24 2013]. Available from http://wssa.net/weed/resistance/herbicideresistance-and-herbicide-tolerance-definitions/. 

Yoshimura, Yasuyuki, Kazuhito Matsuo, and Koji Yasuda. 2006. "Gene flow from GM glyphosatetolerant to conventional soybeans under field conditions in Japan." Environmental Biosafety 

Research no. 5:169-173. doi: 10.1051/ebr:2007003. 


Appendix A: Mesotrione 

Description, Uses, and 

Potential Impacts 



Appendix B: Isoxaflutole 

Description, Uses, and 

Potential Impacts 



Appendix C: Glufosinate 

Description, Uses, and 

Potential Impacts